The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

snerkler said:
Difficult to remember off the top of my head, I’ll come back to this when I’ve got me camera on me.

As for processing I use the color fidelity profile and then minimal changes, +5 on whites, +5 dehaze, -10 yellow saturation and change green hue slightly towards yellow. I think that’s it.
Click to expand...
Thank you Toby, I appreciate it
 
AdamSi said:
Thank you, appreciate the detailed reply, I had my Z9 so AF-ON was wide area small, joystick press was single point AF and a front button was 3D and was looking to do similar, I have started saving settings to 1-2-3 etc so looking to do same as I did with Z9, it was second nature to be able to use any 3 focus options without thinking or going into a menu, bird if flight lands in tree/bush could press joystick to get it to focus on single point
Click to expand...
I use it for that but also to get slower shutter speeds when there isn't action and for really slow shutter speeds if I fancy a panned shot. Really handy having the ability to change so much so quickly and Nikon is a wee bit behind as you can only have two on the Z9
 
On my a1 I have the front dial set for shutter and the back for aperture.
I always shoot in Manual with the Zebras activated and the rear dial set for ISO which makes it so easy to get a good exposure.
These settings I learned from Mark Smith on YT

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TBEnNGR0KY


As for LR
I downloaded the free Linear profile from Tony Kyper's website and start from there then into PS to finish off with Luminosity masks etc
This video will explain everything about Linear Profiles.
I found them to be game changers ;)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRn6rPt5gyk&t=822s
 
Last edited:
mstphoto said:
On my a1 I have the front dial set for shutter and the back for aperture.
I always shoot in Manual with the Zebras activated and the rear dial set for ISO which makes it so easy to get a good exposure.
These settings I learned from Mark Smith on YT

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TBEnNGR0KY


As for LR
I downloaded the free Linear profile from Tony Kyper's website and start from there then into PS to finish off with Luminosity masks etc
This video will explain everything about Linear Profiles.
I found them to be game changers ;)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRn6rPt5gyk&t=822s
Click to expand...
Thank you Mike, appreciate the reply
 
My new Pergear 35mm f1.4 arrived and my initial tests tell me that this is not a f1.4 lens.

Unless me or my A7 are doing something very wrong, and I can't see what, the first one was I think around f2.2 or so but this one is I think f2. So something is very much off here. Either me or my A7 are missing something, someone is telling massive porkies or there's a quality control issue with the aperture blades or with the lenses assembly somewhere but at the moment both the exposures settings I'm getting and the depth of field I'm seeing tell me that this is not a f1.4 lens. Not when compered to my Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 which gives identical exposure settings when compared to my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4. For example f1.4 with the Pergear gives a shutter speed of 1/320 and the Voigtlander f1.2 (er... obviously when set to f1.4) gives 1/640. That's quite a difference which doesn't seem to show up as one picture being brighter than the other on my screen, and then there's the depth of field which is another indicator that something is off here.

The light is going here now so I'll wait until another day to do some more testing and I'll include my Sony 35mm f1.8 too.

At the moment all I can say is that this Pergear 35mm f1.4 does not seem to give the exposure settings or depth of field I'd expect at f1.4. The last one was in sync with my two Voigtlanders at some aperture settings and out at others so I'll look for that too when I get the time and more light to try again.

As I previously said, I could expect some minor differences when looking at lenses from different manufacturers but the differences I'm seeing here seem to be too great to be down to transmission or different manufacturers interpretation of what f1.4 should be.

I'm most used to 35 and 50mm lenses and I wont count how many of each I've owned but I've never thought to myself "There's something off here" before, with any of them. The differences with this Pergear though do seem rather obvious to me and I've never seen anything like this before.

As I want to include all marked apertures up to and including f16 I'll do some more testing when I get time and the light and weather allow.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
My new Pergear 35mm f1.4 arrived and my initial tests tell me that this is not a f1.4 lens.

Unless me or my A7 are doing something very wrong, and I can't see what, the first one was I think around f2.2 or so but this one is I think f2. So something is very much off here. Either me or my A7 are missing something, someone is telling massive porkies or there's a quality control issue with the aperture blades or with the lenses assembly somewhere but at the moment both the exposures settings I'm getting and the depth of field I'm seeing tell me that this is not a f1.4 lens. Not when compered to my Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 which gives identical exposure settings when compared to my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4. For example f1.4 with the Pergear gives a shutter speed of 1/320 and the Voigtlander f1.2 (er... obviously when set to f1.4) gives 1/640. That's quite a difference which doesn't seem to show up as one picture being brighter than the other on my screen, and then there's the depth of field which is another indicator that something is off here.

The light is going here now so I'll wait until another day to do some more testing and I'll include my Sony 35mm f1.8 too.

At the moment all I can say is that this Pergear 35mm f1.4 does not seem to give the exposure settings or depth of field I'd expect at f1.4. The last one was in sync with my two Voigtlanders at some aperture settings and out at others so I'll look for that too when I get the time and more light to try again.

As I previously said, I could expect some minor differences when looking at lenses from different manufacturers but the differences I'm seeing here seem to be too great to be down to transmission or different manufacturers interpretation of what f1.4 should be.

I'm most used to 35 and 50mm lenses and I wont count how many of each I've owned but I've never thought to myself "There's something off here" before, with any of them. The differences with this Pergear though do seem rather obvious to me and I've never seen anything like this before.

As I want to include all marked apertures up to and including f16 I'll do some more testing when I get time and the light and weather allow.
Click to expand...
So shock and horror a cheap noname Chinese lens is underperforming and annoying and you have much better one(s) in the bag already. Why not just move the Chinese one on and forget about it because as sure as the sun rose today you aren't getting anything more from it.

When I bought samyang 14mm crap 10 years ago I ended up with paperweight failure within 3 years when sellotape (yes bloody sellotape) holding everything together inside separated off. The lesson is when you buy crap you have to expect crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mav
nandbytes said:
Laowa 10mm f2.8 - their first AF lens announced.
At this focal length that too on a FF, AF is of course not a massive highlight but it's nice that it will have EXIF and aperture control with the Sony bodies.
Also IBIS will work automatically.

Officially announced: new Laowa 10mm f/2.8 Full Frame AF E-mount lens – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com www.sonyalpharumors.com
Click to expand...

Oh I really want this, would be a brilliant lens for my upcoming trip to Hong Kong, would be great for being in amongst the buildings.....
 
AdamSi said:
Thank you, appreciate the detailed reply, I had my Z9 so AF-ON was wide area small, joystick press was single point AF and a front button was 3D and was looking to do similar, I have started saving settings to 1-2-3 etc so looking to do same as I did with Z9, it was second nature to be able to use any 3 focus options without thinking or going into a menu, bird if flight lands in tree/bush could press joystick to get it to focus on single point
Click to expand...
What made you swap from the z9 to Sony , just curious as i am thinking of swapping to the z8 for wildlife
 
LongLensPhotography said:
So shock and horror a cheap noname Chinese lens is underperforming and annoying and you have much better one(s) in the bag already. Why not just move the Chinese one on and forget about it because as sure as the sun rose today you aren't getting anything more from it.

When I bought samyang 14mm crap 10 years ago I ended up with paperweight failure within 3 years when sellotape (yes bloody sellotape) holding everything together inside separated off. The lesson is when you buy crap you have to expect crap.
Click to expand...

I think fundamental things such as the aperture are pretty significant and even in something shoddily built like your Samyang I'd expect the basics such as the aperture to be there or there abouts and not this far out. Even assuming I'm right and at f1.4 this lens is in reality at f2 and even with some of the other marked apertures being inaccurate the lens could still have its charms, including it being tiny and cheap. I've arguably had my moneys worth out of it already.

I've tried writing to Pergear and got nowhere, I assume they are aware of what the lens is in reality. I'll give it a more thorough looking at and then decide what to do with it, keep it or send it back. Shame really.... if it was rubbish at f1.4 but really f1.4 I'd probably be happy.
 
NewBeetle said:
Oh I really want this, would be a brilliant lens for my upcoming trip to Hong Kong, would be great for being in amongst the buildings.....
Click to expand...
It’s a very niche lens, not sure it’d work as a walkabout lens but it could be good to have in the kit bag if you’re happy to swap lenses whilst sight seeing.
 
woof woof said:
My new Pergear 35mm f1.4 arrived and my initial tests tell me that this is not a f1.4 lens.

Unless me or my A7 are doing something very wrong, and I can't see what, the first one was I think around f2.2 or so but this one is I think f2. So something is very much off here. Either me or my A7 are missing something, someone is telling massive porkies or there's a quality control issue with the aperture blades or with the lenses assembly somewhere but at the moment both the exposures settings I'm getting and the depth of field I'm seeing tell me that this is not a f1.4 lens. Not when compered to my Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 which gives identical exposure settings when compared to my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4. For example f1.4 with the Pergear gives a shutter speed of 1/320 and the Voigtlander f1.2 (er... obviously when set to f1.4) gives 1/640. That's quite a difference which doesn't seem to show up as one picture being brighter than the other on my screen, and then there's the depth of field which is another indicator that something is off here.

The light is going here now so I'll wait until another day to do some more testing and I'll include my Sony 35mm f1.8 too.

At the moment all I can say is that this Pergear 35mm f1.4 does not seem to give the exposure settings or depth of field I'd expect at f1.4. The last one was in sync with my two Voigtlanders at some aperture settings and out at others so I'll look for that too when I get the time and more light to try again.

As I previously said, I could expect some minor differences when looking at lenses from different manufacturers but the differences I'm seeing here seem to be too great to be down to transmission or different manufacturers interpretation of what f1.4 should be.

I'm most used to 35 and 50mm lenses and I wont count how many of each I've owned but I've never thought to myself "There's something off here" before, with any of them. The differences with this Pergear though do seem rather obvious to me and I've never seen anything like this before.

As I want to include all marked apertures up to and including f16 I'll do some more testing when I get time and the light and weather allow.
Click to expand...
Do you have any examples of the dof compared to others? You might accept 1/3 stop on a cheaper lens but over one stop is nowhere near acceptable.
 
snerkler said:
It’s a very niche lens, not sure it’d work as a walkabout lens but it could be good to have in the kit bag if you’re happy to swap lenses whilst sight seeing.
Click to expand...
Yeah I would probably enjoy it tbh, but then once home it would no doubt sit in my bag for ages.
 
NewBeetle said:
Oh I really want this, would be a brilliant lens for my upcoming trip to Hong Kong, would be great for being in amongst the buildings.....
Click to expand...

Just ordered 16mm f1.8 today
I'm interested by this 10mm also

Planning a trip for Northern lights and Norway next year.
I guess 16mm should be plenty wide and f1.8 is 1.3 stops more light. So perhaps it's better for my needs
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
Just ordered 16mm f1.8 today
I'm interested by this 10mm also

Planning a trip for Northern lights and Norway next year.
I guess 16mm should be plenty wide and f1.8 is 1.3 stops more light. So perhaps it's better for my needs
Click to expand...

Nice, not heard anything bad about that lens from anyone. Viltrox are smashing it lately.
 
woof woof said:
I think fundamental things such as the aperture are pretty significant and even in something shoddily built like your Samyang I'd expect the basics such as the aperture to be there or there abouts and not this far out. Even assuming I'm right and at f1.4 this lens is in reality at f2 and even with some of the other marked apertures being inaccurate the lens could still have its charms, including it being tiny and cheap. I've arguably had my moneys worth out of it already.

I've tried writing to Pergear and got nowhere, I assume they are aware of what the lens is in reality. I'll give it a more thorough looking at and then decide what to do with it, keep it or send it back. Shame really.... if it was rubbish at f1.4 but really f1.4 I'd probably be happy.
Click to expand...
Aperture and T-stop are a little different. Sometimes very different. Losing 1T stop is not unheard of, and you will see the best case scenario only dead in the centre with periphery up to 2-4 stops behind, and even more if you buy some fancy new Canon RF glass :headbang: .
Lens corrections, which I guess are not available for PEARgear, can make a big difference too; so you want to compare with everything off. In worst case sony drops a wrong profile on in camera. You really don't want that at all.

It is a cheap lens and aside from complex measurements it still allows you to do reasonable work, as you said it yourself. I expect I would have more to say about it, but you never know. I am not keen on MF only lenses for my work, unless they are so wide that it no longer matters (i.e. 17mm or wider).

However I absolutely don't see a single reasonable reason not to use your 1.2 lens or AF 1.8 lens instead. None whatsoever, other than making some statement.

Now in the case of that samyang 14/2.8 it worked one year, and next year I picked it from the shelf it no longer did and I could not reassemble it, comprising a 100% loss of function. I could only hope their recent AF lenses got their act together. As long as I can get a reasonable end result I didn't care much about T stop; it was clearly very bad but came in at a fraction of cost of a rather shoddy and very expensive EF 14mm f2.8 prime (i.e. ~20% cost). It sort of ticked that box while it worked. I took maybe 30-50 shots that I kept (usually the numbers are in tens of thousands for my average mainstay lens). It was just way too wide for anything other than tiny toilets, and these just didn't deserve a lens swap. Distortion and vignette was CANON-RF level crazy :LOL: and focus scale was completely off. It was a really mega shoddy lens, but it was acceptably sharp on 20MP sensor until it just decomposed to complete trash

By the way anyone looking at 10mm FF lens you better realise how INSANELY wide it will be with all fisheye-like geometric and perspective distortions that will never ever correct to anything reasonable. 14mm is beyond usable for most work, and that comes from someone who uses 16mm lens for most of my commissioned work.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
65mm 1.4 sounds very nice and useful. There is a big gap between 50 and 85mm.

Hopefully it will have new linear motor and none of that crazy unforgivable 85mm DN distortion.
Click to expand...
I’ve never personally wanted a prime between 50mm and 85mm, and I have no problem with the Sigma 85mm distortion. I can certainly forgive it if it means smaller, lighter and better edge to edge sharpness. As long as a lens delivers the true focal length after correction I’m not overly bothered what the uncorrected lens is like. Most of us will never see the uncorrected image anyway due to in camera/processing software corrections.
 
snerkler said:
I’ve never personally wanted a prime between 50mm and 85mm, and I have no problem with the Sigma 85mm distortion. I can certainly forgive it if it means smaller, lighter and better edge to edge sharpness. As long as a lens delivers the true focal length after correction I’m not overly bothered what the uncorrected lens is like. Most of us will never see the uncorrected image anyway due to in camera/processing software corrections.
Click to expand...
I find this to be a very useful FL for landscape work. Very.

Unless I f-up in my composition I will always disable distortion correction in Lightroom for prime lenses. It really improves sharpness to the next level. Give it a go. Stretching and pulling pixels can't be very good, just think about it. So yes, I do mind that distortion. it is not some 0.5% where you can just ignore it most of the time. A lot of reviews say the same thing so I'm not alone here. Vignetting correction only increases the noise so within under 2 stops wide open is tolerable; 4+ is really not.
ART primes stood for both speed and optical perfection in all measures with the pinnacle of this reached with 40mm and 135mm, so hopefully they get back to it or we jump the ship to all the new China options :LOL: as they start to come out in droves, and we haven't yet seen much from DJI / HassleBlad

Re weight, when I decide to shoot primes on a shoot, I know I will probably need a full bag of them. It means my bag will never ever be compact and lightweight. So at that point I couldn't care less if my 85mm is 300g or 1300g, only the final IQ matters.
If I wanted a light option I would just get two GM2 f/2.8 zooms and be done with it.
 
nandbytes said:
Distortion in 85DN isn't crazy at all
I think you really have some rather unrealistic expectations
Click to expand...
  1. Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM: This lens has a distortion of about 0.4%
  2. Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G: This lens has a very small amount of distortion, measured at 0.1%
  3. Nikon Nikkor Z 85mm F1.2 S: This lens has a pincushion distortion of about -0.3%
  4. Sony FE 85mm F1.8: This lens has a distortion of about 0.3%
  5. Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN Art: This lens has a pincushion distortion of about 5%
I asked bing ai to throw this together. Yes, it seem sigma DN has absolutely crazy distortion. I don't care that it corrects to 0%. I can correct absolute crap and invent fake pixels with TOPAZ or even midjourney right from scratch
 
Here is a zoom lens:

The distortion of the Sony 70-200mm GM II lens varies depending on the focal length:

www.the-digital-picture.com

Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens Distortion

Review distortion test results for the Sony FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II Lens and compare the performance of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com

with that zoom I can pretty much avoid correction at all settings unless shooting some vertical and horizontal lines right near the edge at 200mm. 85mm DN needs it even for portraits unless you like squashed heads.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
  1. Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM: This lens has a distortion of about 0.4%
  2. Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G: This lens has a very small amount of distortion, measured at 0.1%
  3. Nikon Nikkor Z 85mm F1.2 S: This lens has a pincushion distortion of about -0.3%
  4. Sony FE 85mm F1.8: This lens has a distortion of about 0.3%
  5. Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN Art: This lens has a pincushion distortion of about 5%
I asked bing ai to throw this together. Yes, it seem sigma DN has absolutely crazy distortion. I don't care that it corrects to 0%. I can correct absolute crap and invent fake pixels with TOPAZ or even midjourney right from scratch
Click to expand...
F1.8 lenses are smaller, easier to design
The z85/1.2 is behemoth

Not everyone wants large 10kg lenses to carry around that cost £3k each
The sigma is incredibly sharp and corrects with no noticeable issues. It's also a fraction of the price. For a f1.4 lens it's also pretty small.
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
I find this to be a very useful FL for landscape work. Very.

Unless I f-up in my composition I will always disable distortion correction in Lightroom for prime lenses. It really improves sharpness to the next level. Give it a go. Stretching and pulling pixels can't be very good, just think about it. So yes, I do mind that distortion. it is not some 0.5% where you can just ignore it most of the time. A lot of reviews say the same thing so I'm not alone here. Vignetting correction only increases the noise so within under 2 stops wide open is tolerable; 4+ is really not.
ART primes stood for both speed and optical perfection in all measures with the pinnacle of this reached with 40mm and 135mm, so hopefully they get back to it or we jump the ship to all the new China options :LOL: as they start to come out in droves, and we haven't yet seen much from DJI / HassleBlad

Re weight, when I decide to shoot primes on a shoot, I know I will probably need a full bag of them. It means my bag will never ever be compact and lightweight. So at that point I couldn't care less if my 85mm is 300g or 1300g, only the final IQ matters.
If I wanted a light option I would just get two GM2 f/2.8 zooms and be done with it.
Click to expand...
I can’t say I’ve ever looked at any of my images from the Sigma and thought “wow look how bad that IQ is, I wish the pixels weren’t being pushed and pulled all over the place” ;)

The lens is in fact incredibly sharp, even besting the Sony GM in a number of situations. Bokeh is lovely too.

Your photos clearly show that you are an excellent photographer but I doubt very much that it’d make any difference 99% of the time whether you’d shot them with a lens needing 0 corrections or one needing 5% correction. It’s all about your composition, understanding of light etc etc. I’d be very surprised if any customers would reject shots because they weren’t taken with a Sony lens rather than a Sigma one etc ;)

I think the issue is you are very dismissive of lenses that aren’t 99.999999% perfect, when in reality such lenses are absolutely stellar. I’d rather have a lens with flaws that give pleasing to the eye images rather than a perfect lab tested lens that gives clinical images.
 
nandbytes said:
F1.8 lenses are smaller, easier to design
The z85/1.2 is behemoth

Not everyone wants large 10kg lenses to carry around that cost £3k each
The sigma is incredibly sharp and corrects with no noticeable issues. It's also a fraction of the price. For a f1.4 lens it's also pretty small.
Click to expand...
That's all not the point. The point is everyone CAN make zero distortion 85mm and I am not at ease that sigma decided to downgrade their version with an outstandingly high distortion.

It makes me very hesitant about swapping out my DG ART version for this lens, with you guessed it ZERO distortion. It looks like trading one drawback for another and paying a lot more in the process. DG one is definitely on the large size but nothing I can't live with. If anything it should leave a better impression on the client.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
I can’t say I’ve ever looked at any of my images from the Sigma and thought “wow look how bad that IQ is, I wish the pixels weren’t being pushed and pulled all over the place” ;)
Click to expand...
All I am saying is disable the profile and see the difference. It can help you print a bit larger for sure.

Higher resolution sensors make it more forgiving to do pixel transformations as it approaches (somewhat loosely) an analogous transformation.

snerkler said:
The lens is in fact incredibly sharp, even besting the Sony GM in a number of situations. Bokeh is lovely too.
Click to expand...
That may well be, but is it better than non-DN one that I own? Introducing a [correctable] distortion won't help to convince me to part with considerably more money.
This is not some 16-35mm where I likely need to perspective correct almost every shot negating the benefits of zero distortion frame.

You see this lens will have zero adaptability because of this issue. It's not going on Z mount even if it could do otherwise. The is no Sigma's own CINE version of this lens either, and there will likely not be one as a result. I take this as a very serious drawback.

snerkler said:
I think the issue is you are very dismissive of lenses that aren’t 99.999999% perfect, when in reality such lenses are absolutely stellar. I’d rather have a lens with flaws that give pleasing to the eye images rather than a perfect lab tested lens that gives clinical images.
Click to expand...
in upgrade mode I most certainly am. There has to be real tangible benefit, and in most cases particularly primes the camera companies have to provide a real improvement over what in most cases is already great performance gear. Not in one area, not a compromise but a real winner.
 
mav said:
What made you swap from the z9 to Sony , just curious as i am thinking of swapping to the z8 for wildlife
Click to expand...
Hi Mav, I really wanted a smaller set up, I was not taking it out enough with the wife and dogs, I had also lost my mojo and thought an A6700 and 70-350 would be ideal, it was a lovely little setup but after a Z9 it just did not cut it when the SEO’s turned up, I picked up a 200-600 and then decided to get an A1 as it matches Z9 but in a much smaller body, I was very tempted with a Z8 and if I had not sold all my Nikon lenses I would have had one.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
That's all not the point. The point is everyone CAN make zero distortion 85mm and I am not at ease that sigma decided to downgrade their version with an outstandingly high distortion.

It makes me very hesitant about swapping out my DG ART version for this lens, with you guessed it ZERO distortion. It looks like trading one drawback for another and paying a lot more in the process. DG one is definitely on the large size but nothing I can't live with. If anything it should leave a better impression on the client.
Click to expand...

the distortion is not "outstandingly high". Its barely noticeable unless you are shooting brick walls for your clients.
Even then LR corrects all files automatically on import.

DN version is sharper and lot lighter and smaller than DG version.

I really doubt anyone will care or even notice the distortion in real life including yourself.

if you want to carry massive lenses that's your choice, I am more than happy with the DN version. In fact I swapped DN version for samyang 85mm f1.4 ii which is even lighter and packs up to be smaller. It's not as sharp as sigma and I can see that by pixel peeping but once again no one other than me cares or notices. but it made the difference between having a 85mm f1.4 on me when I need and not taking it out half the time. I picked having it on me all the time. Sure beats staring at sharpness charts....
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
That's all not the point. The point is everyone CAN make zero distortion 85mm and I am not at ease that sigma decided to downgrade their version with an outstandingly high distortion.

It makes me very hesitant about swapping out my DG ART version for this lens, with you guessed it ZERO distortion. It looks like trading one drawback for another and paying a lot more in the process. DG one is definitely on the large size but nothing I can't live with. If anything it should leave a better impression on the client.
Click to expand...
When making a lens they have to decide on a philosophy and in recent years there’s been a definite shift towards making lenses smaller and lighter and using corrections to do so to maintain and even better image quality, I have no issue using tech to make things better, especially if it means smaller and lighter. I don’t want to carry around an 85mm that weighs over a kilo, especially when I can have a better lens* that weighs just over half as much.

So to sum up I’d choose a lens with correctable distortion any day of the week over one that’s almost twice as heavy, arguably isn’t as good optically, and doesn’t have as good AF (y)

*I’m sure the reviews I’ve seen all say the DG DN is optically superior than the old art even when corrected.
LongLensPhotography said:
All I am saying is disable the profile and see the difference.
Click to expand...
Of course I can see the difference, as I can with all my lenses when I turn correction on/off, but what does it matter when the corrected image is as good as it is, and arguably better than the 85mm f1.4’s that came before it? Also, the uncorrected image is unlikely to be a true 85mm so why would I choose to use it?
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
the distortion is not "outstandingly high". Its barely noticeable unless you are shooting brick walls for your clients.
Even then LR corrects all files automatically on import.

DN version is sharper and lot lighter and smaller than DG version.

I really doubt anyone will care or even notice the distortion in real life including yourself.

if you want to carry massive lenses that's your choice, I am more than happy with the DN version. In fact I swapped DN version for samyang 85mm f1.4 ii which is even lighter and packs up to be smaller. It's not as sharp as sigma and I can see that by pixel peeping but once again no one other than me cares or notices. but it made the difference between having a 85mm f1.4 on me when I need and not taking it out half the time. I picked having it on me all the time. Sure beats staring at sharpness charts....
Click to expand...
I am sorry but 5% for a short telephoto prime simply is insane, and unrivalled figure considering the MSRP of the lens.

snerkler said:
When making a lens they have to decide on a philosophy and in recent years there’s been a definite shift towards making lenses smaller and lighter and using corrections to do so to maintain and even better image quality, I have no issue using tech to make things better, especially if it means smaller and lighter. I don’t want to carry around an 85mm that weighs over a kilo, especially when I can have a better lens* that weighs just over half as much.

So to sum up I’d choose a lens with correctable distortion any day of the week over one that’s almost twice as heavy, arguably isn’t as good optically, and doesn’t have as good AF (y)
Click to expand...
My perhaps over-simplified understanding of Sigma's ART and Contemporary lines was:
ART - fast, ultra-high performance glass without any intentional compromises (zero distortion, low vignette, flare, aberrations, very high level of resolving power, clean rendering of OOF areas)
Contemporary - slower, lighter, even higher value, still great performance but with certain compromises made at design stage such as correctable distortion or vignette

Now it would appear Sigma has been playing around with their ART formula with 85mm DN representing the low point in my view. It seems they got their act back up together with 50mm which appears to be an all out worthy upgrade that I am looking to get, unless I win a lottery and get F/1.2 instead. Sadly 20 and 24mm ART also appear to be a bit of a failure - in sharpness department this time; Contemporary being the far superior versions.
So I would strongly welcome 20, 24 and 85mm ART II versions fixing their respective issues and with the new linear motor. I appreciate this may not happen as soon as '24 or even '25.

snerkler said:
*I’m sure the reviews I’ve seen all say the DG DN is optically superior than the old art even when corrected.
Click to expand...
The only setting where it could potentially be much better is wide open right at f/1.4. The old lens has a bit of visible haze or lack of contrast. I am sure for some clients that is an ADVANTAGE. At f/2 that's mostly gone and corner sharpness is reasonable but not stellar at 8K (and nothing to worry about on 6K). At f/2.8 and onwards it would be very difficult to noticeably to better these results. Maybe £3K f/1.2 lens is noticeable better overall. That's 5x more expensive.

Now I have spent more time than is reasonable looking at the charts and I am actually struggling to pick a sharper one overall
www.the-digital-picture.com

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
So distortion and heavier vignette basically become the deciding factors. As I said, screw the weight. I am not swapping ALL of my bag at £10,000s of cost when I can lose more weight on a LOO on a given occasion :LOL: . An extra dose of vitamin C and dried eco apricots seam to help without fail.

snerkler said:
Also, the uncorrected image is unlikely to be a true 85mm so why would I choose to use it?
Click to expand...
Frankly I couldn't give a toss about whether it is 85.000mm or 86.791mm. You will find this discrepancy is even greater with Canon RF glass where the fancy f1.2 is suspected to be somewhat closer to 100mm side giving that extra smooth background rending a bit more like 105mm ART. And likewise nobody gives a thing about it. You take a step back and get on with it.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Aperture and T-stop are a little different. Sometimes very different. Losing 1T stop is not unheard of, and you will see the best case scenario only dead in the centre with periphery up to 2-4 stops behind, and even more if you buy some fancy new Canon RF glass :headbang: .
Lens corrections, which I guess are not available for PEARgear, can make a big difference too; so you want to compare with everything off. In worst case sony drops a wrong profile on in camera. You really don't want that at all.

It is a cheap lens and aside from complex measurements it still allows you to do reasonable work, as you said it yourself. I expect I would have more to say about it, but you never know. I am not keen on MF only lenses for my work, unless they are so wide that it no longer matters (i.e. 17mm or wider).

However I absolutely don't see a single reasonable reason not to use your 1.2 lens or AF 1.8 lens instead. None whatsoever, other than making some statement.

Now in the case of that samyang 14/2.8 it worked one year, and next year I picked it from the shelf it no longer did and I could not reassemble it, comprising a 100% loss of function. I could only hope their recent AF lenses got their act together. As long as I can get a reasonable end result I didn't care much about T stop; it was clearly very bad but came in at a fraction of cost of a rather shoddy and very expensive EF 14mm f2.8 prime (i.e. ~20% cost). It sort of ticked that box while it worked. I took maybe 30-50 shots that I kept (usually the numbers are in tens of thousands for my average mainstay lens). It was just way too wide for anything other than tiny toilets, and these just didn't deserve a lens swap. Distortion and vignette was CANON-RF level crazy :LOL: and focus scale was completely off. It was a really mega shoddy lens, but it was acceptably sharp on 20MP sensor until it just decomposed to complete trash

By the way anyone looking at 10mm FF lens you better realise how INSANELY wide it will be with all fisheye-like geometric and perspective distortions that will never ever correct to anything reasonable. 14mm is beyond usable for most work, and that comes from someone who uses 16mm lens for most of my commissioned work.
Click to expand...

I know T at f are different as I've been at this over 50 years now but that's not all that's going on here as regardless of transmission and exposure settings the depth of field in pictures taken with different 35mm lenses should be similar at the same aperture settings. When pictures are taken at the same distance the diameter of the physical aperture at each f stop affects the depth of field and this is a fundamental thing. If all I was seeing was a difference in transmission / exposure the depth of filed could be expected to still be similar at the same f settings and it isn't. This piques my interest and I wonder why it seems to be so far out and I suppose there are just a number of possible explanations, either it's sloppily made, components are out of spec or someone is being less than honest, or a combination or all of that.

As for why I'd use the Pergear ahead of other lenses I have, it's much much smaller and much lighter than any other 35mm f1.x I have and for me that could be reason enough although the cost could well come into it as well. If it is indeed effectively a f2.x lens then my Sony 35mm f2.8 then becomes stiff competition for it but the Pergear is believe it or not the more enjoyable lens to use as it's an old style metal lens with an aperture ring and distance markings and it is very tactile and just a joy to use compared to the soulless AF lenses of today.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Do you have any examples of the dof compared to others? You might accept 1/3 stop on a cheaper lens but over one stop is nowhere near acceptable.
Click to expand...

As soon as time and weather allow I'll take some pictures and post them here.

Yes, I agree. I know that lenses from different manufactures and even different lenses from the same manufacturer can be expected to be slightly different, not including sample variation here, but this Pergear does seem too far out. As I mentioned above, the aperture is a fundamental thing. I don't know how many lenses I've had but I've never encountered a lens this far out of whack from what I'd expect before.
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
I am sorry but 5% for a short telephoto prime simply is insane
Click to expand...

I disagree but each to their own.
A number doesn't mean much if real life usage isn't being impacted by it.
I would be happy with that lens any day. You are literally the only person that I have come across has a problem with DN on this basis and also you haven't actually even used the lens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top