General photography news

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Holy shit, how did they let that get out the door, that's horrible.

That is a fairly prominent example, but it can happen with backlit subjects and these sensors. The $6,000 A9 does it too.

[blitz]

That banding is fucking horrible.

Although I think it's a nice addition, I hope that tripod foot on the 105/1.4 is removable.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That banding is fucking horrible.

Although I think it's a nice addition, I hope that tripod foot on the 105/1.4 is removable.

The tripod collar and the hood are removable.

[msommers]

Damn...!

"Now, I’m not one to fat-shame a lens, but it’s quite a bit larger and significantly heavier than the Nikon 105mm f/1.4E, which comes in at a relatively svelte 985g, making the Sigma 66% heavier"

[D'z Nutz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Damn...!

"Now, I’m not one to fat-shame a lens, but it’s quite a bit larger and significantly heavier than the Nikon 105mm f/1.4E, which comes in at a relatively svelte 985g, making the Sigma 66% heavier"

Yeah reports are coming in that it's 1.6kg. I'm okay if it's 66% heavier as long as it's 66% of the price of the Nikon haha

[msommers]

Yeah alright, I'll sign that petition

[blitz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yeah reports are coming in that it's 1.6kg. I'm okay if it's 66% heavier as long as it's 66% of the price of the Nikon haha

I hope the weight difference is all AF motor. The only shortcoming of the Nikkor is it's slow as AF speed.

[D'z Nutz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I hope the weight difference is all AF motor. The only shortcoming of the Nikkor is it's slow as AF speed.

That's kind of what I'm hoping too. The Sigma offerings typically have slower/less accurate AF compared to the OEM equivalents they're competing with. I'm hoping it's as good or better cause Nikon set the bar pretty low in that area. If it's worse, I don't know what to say haha

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I hope the weight difference is all AF motor. The only shortcoming of the Nikkor is it's slow as AF speed.

The really fast 1.2-1.8 lenses always have slower AF motors tuned for accuracy. Same reason why macro lenses never have the fastest AF, they are all tuned for maximum accuracy. The ultra-fast ring motors like the ones in the big teles are not always the most accurate and they add size and weight. The Nikon 105/1.4E has a mini ultrasonic motor, not a ring motor, and whether that is more of a size or accuracy decision we will probably never know.

For a lens as huge as the Sigma though I would have expected them to throw in OS which is tremendously useful in that range, and would help sway some people away from the OEM.

[blitz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The really fast 1.2-1.8 lenses always have slower AF motors tuned for accuracy. Same reason why macro lenses never have the fastest AF, they are all tuned for maximum accuracy. The ultra-fast ring motors like the ones in the big teles are not always the most accurate and they add size and weight. The Nikon 105/1.4E has a mini ultrasonic motor, not a ring motor, and whether that is more of a size or accuracy decision we will probably never know.

For a lens as huge as the Sigma though I would have expected them to throw in OS which is tremendously useful in that range, and would help sway some people away from the OEM.

People always say that, but my 200/2's speed and accuracy is amazing, and my 85/1.8 is much quicker than a 85/1.4. I know a ring motor would be more expensive and bigger, but I refuse to believe that the AF speed of the Nikon 1.4 Primes couldn't be better while maintaining accuracy.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Damn, that 105 is a fucking boat anchor of a lens. Such is life with no-compromise optical designs.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

People always say that, but my 200/2's speed and accuracy is amazing, and my 85/1.8 is much quicker than a 85/1.4. I know a ring motor would be more expensive and bigger, but I refuse to believe that the AF speed of the Nikon 1.4 Primes couldn't be better while maintaining accuracy.

The 200/2 is not a F1.2-1.8 lens, it is also ~$8,000 and enormous, with plenty of room for a high end ring motor. The 85/1.8 being quicker than the 85/1.4 is exactly my point - typically the faster aperture lenses have slower focus motors. Below about F2.8, Focus speed is almost always inversely related to aperture speed, using your example, the 85/1.4 is slower than a 85/1.8 which is slower than a 200/2. Slower yet, Canon's 85/1.2 used a ring motor and was still one of the slowest focusing lenses you could buy because they tuned it that way. Believe what you want but they typically do not make ultra fast focusing F1.2-1.8 lenses for a reason, I have had both Nikon and Canon reps tell me the same thing. Most people do not use these types of lenses for fast action, they use them for portraits where the subject movement is slower, focusing needs to be more precise with a couple mm's of DOF, the necessary internal lens movements are a lot smaller, and the AF speed is largely a non-issue. There is a world of difference between that and something like a 70-200/2.8 with fast action coming straight at the camera - much larger movements are required of the lens groups to maintain focus and that's what the big ring motors are good at. Nobody makes an ultra fast focusing f1.4 lens, and I am sure every manufacturer could just put in a super fast ring motor if they wanted to, but none of them do. The other thing that makes these lenses focus a bit slower is they typically have very long AF travel, again this is done for focusing precision.

[D'z Nutz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For a lens as huge as the Sigma though I would have expected them to throw in OS which is tremendously useful in that range, and would help sway some people away from the OEM.

You expect everyone to put OS on every lens, whether it's needed or not!

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Damn, that 105 is a fucking boat anchor of a lens. Such is life with no-compromise optical designs.

If only I knew someone who owned a boat....

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You expect everyone to put OS on every lens, whether it's needed or not!

This is true, but whether it's needed or not is very much debatable. It is so incredibly useful all the way down to the UWA's, I wish it was more common than it is. In the 100mm range though, both Nikon and Sigma should have put it in. Canon and Tamron did with their new 85's so hopefully more lenses are trending that way. If the lens is enormous as the Sigma is already, just throw in some OS

[blitz]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The 200/2 is not a F1.2-1.8 lens, it is also ~$8,000 and enormous, with plenty of room for a high end ring motor. The 85/1.8 being quicker than the 85/1.4 is exactly my point - typically the faster aperture lenses have slower focus motors. Below about F2.8, Focus speed is almost always inversely related to aperture speed, using your example, the 85/1.4 is slower than a 85/1.8 which is slower than a 200/2. Slower yet, Canon's 85/1.2 used a ring motor and was still one of the slowest focusing lenses you could buy because they tuned it that way. Believe what you want but they typically do not make ultra fast focusing F1.2-1.8 lenses for a reason, I have had both Nikon and Canon reps tell me the same thing. Most people do not use these types of lenses for fast action, they use them for portraits where the subject movement is slower, focusing needs to be more precise with a couple mm's of DOF, the necessary internal lens movements are a lot smaller, and the AF speed is largely a non-issue. There is a world of difference between that and something like a 70-200/2.8 with fast action coming straight at the camera - much larger movements are required of the lens groups to maintain focus and that's what the big ring motors are good at. Nobody makes an ultra fast focusing f1.4 lens, and I am sure every manufacturer could just put in a super fast ring motor if they wanted to, but none of them do. The other thing that makes these lenses focus a bit slower is they typically have very long AF travel, again this is done for focusing precision.

I'm obviously aware of all of that. I'm also aware that a even though a 200/2 isn't a 1.2-1.8 lens, it's DOF at similar magnification ratios is the same or less than a 1.2-1.8 prime.

I'm not saying there's not a reason for the way these lenses are designed. I'm just unhappy that manufacturers don't seem to put any consideration into AF speed and I'm unconvinced that it's an insurmountable problem.

People don't use these lenses for fast moving targets because they can't due to the focus speed. A 105/1.4 would be awesome for a lot of indoor sports.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If only I knew someone who owned a boat....

If you huck a 105/1.4 outta my boat, I'll be diving in after it!

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm obviously aware of all of that. I'm also aware that a even though a 200/2 isn't a 1.2-1.8 lens, it's DOF at similar magnification ratios is the same or less than a 1.2-1.8 prime.

I'm not saying there's not a reason for the way these lenses are designed. I'm just unhappy that manufacturers don't seem to put any consideration into AF speed and I'm unconvinced that it's an insurmountable problem.

People don't use these lenses for fast moving targets because they can't due to the focus speed. A 105/1.4 would be awesome for a lot of indoor sports.

Well we both have something to complain about then, I want VR/OS in everything and you want some faster prime AF I wouldn't hold my breath on either. That being said, Nikon seems to be moving toward AF-P stepper motors and that could be one solution. They are incredibly accurate and fast, but I suspect their preliminary use for AF-P will to be to focus on MILC lenses and video requirements.

Back to the new Sony cam, I wonder how this affects bodies like the Panasonic GH-5, Olympus EM1 Mk2, and Fuji X-H1 that cost about the same money but are less featured and have much smaller sensors. Starts to make them look a bit overpriced.

This A7III I think is preempting exactly the feature and price point that Nikon/Canon will be targeting when their FF mirrorless land. Nikon's (might be APS-C first) are still rumored for May, and they have a booth at the NAB show which suggests a heavy focus on video. Canon I am a little more worried about if their recent camera additions are any indication of what they will be offering.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Here's a picture for scale, that lens is huge. The front element is much larger than it needs to be as well at 105mm:



Hands on reviews are saying it auto focuses like an 85/1.4 - slow and smooth, so no surprises there.

Here's the Nikon for size comparison:

[BerserkerCatSplat]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The front element is much larger than it needs to be as well at 105mm:

How do you figure the element is unnecessarily large? Do you figure Sigma's optical engineers installed extra glass for funsies?

[msommers]

A true mini chub!