>go mirrorless they said
>it will be small and lightweight they said
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1750Image Height1096
New Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 Zoom
>go mirrorless they said
>it will be small and lightweight they said
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1750Image Height1096
looks suHispaniciously Nikon-sized
Looks pretty small and lightweight for a f/1.8 FF zoom.
It literally looks like they a DSLR lens design with an adapter glued on the end of it. Where's the mirrorless size advantage?
Its fucking sigma. you think they can design a good lens? they have designed maybe ONE lens that is both good and small, and it's a short telephoto that still needs distortion correction.
sony released the smallest ever 24-70 f2.8, the smallest ever 16-35 f2.8, a 70-200 f4 0.5x macro that's smaller than all but a non-macro extended canon version, a set of small premium primes that are the size of DSLR budget lenses but 2x sharper and arent pushed forward by the mirror box, a 20mm f1.8 that is sharper than nikons but half the size (also sharper, and smaller even plus camera, than nikon's F mount 20mm), the f1.4 GM primes are the size of nikon's f1.8 S primes, their 50mm f1.2 is the smallest ever made without being a baby butt soft leicastyle "noct" and vignettes LESS than canon's (the largest)... you're looking at the wrong lens maker if you want small lenses. Sony first party glass is consistently smaller, sharper, and faster - other companies just don't have the expertise to get the most out of mirrorless.
Canonikon be like
"We made a 26mm/28mm pancake, with hilarious compromises like 3 stop vignetting+noisy slow AF and no WR, aaaaand thats it next lens will be wedding zoom/astrophotography boat anchor! did someone say $20,000 telephoto prime? Oh yeah baby we're making another one of those next"
What's the good lens? 56/1.4?
>Sony first party glass is consistently smaller, sharper, and faster
That's not compeltely true. Sigma and even Tamron are making lenses with better optical quality these days. I've been looking to get a long telephoto for wildlife and the general build quality is usually better on Sony lenses but optically they're either on par or slightly worse than 3rd party lenses. I'll probably still go with the Sony lens just for the internal zoom though.
memes aside, Sigma really does have a few mirrorless lenses that are just DSLR lenses with an integrated adapter tube.
They don't hide that though and those lenses are like over a decade old at this point. I think they've all been replaced with mirrorless versions at this point as well right?
>those lenses are like over a decade old at this point
That's because you can't improve upon perfection
Nope, at least there isn’t a mirror less version of the 105/1.4 bokeh monster yet that I know of. I’m keeping my ef mount version til I die or they update it for rf native
>bokeh monster
135mm f/1.8 has more bokeh, its just not a meme 105mm filter thread
Protip, you don't shoot different focal lengths at the same distance. At the same f/ stop depth of field is identical no matter the focal length with the same framing (so moving further away for a longer focal length and vice versa) and so the 105mm at f/1.4 will have a shallower depth of field. However the longer focal length of the 135mm will give a different perspective because you've moved back, and that will enlarge the out of focus background giving it the appearance of being more blurred.
Yeah but nicer to work closer. You can get roughly the same blur as a 105 1.4 with a bog standard 70-200 2.8 at 200mm but the working distance is annoying. Not an issue in a studio maybe but I prefer 50 and 85 1.4s for that reason or the 1.2s if I could afford them. Though that said, the internet tells me the old 200/1.8 is popular among Korean wedding photographers and there's probably some bokeh obsessed clown out there shooting people with a 600/4 (or to keep with the Sigma theme, a 500/4).
My secret to great cheap bokeh is the MC 105/2.8. It’s slow to focus but it does amazing headshots.
That’s what the lens is colloquially known as anon I didn’t make up the term myself. Take it up with the internet lol. Personally I prefer 135, but I love em both. Which child do you love more kind of thing
105 f1.4 has more blur for the same subject framing
85 f1.2 and even 1.4 also have more blur for small subject to background distances (like 3-10m)
>105 f1.4 has more blur for the same subject framing
thats a retarded way of coping that it has less bokeh. also i'm not sure why you would be retarded enough to put a 200 f/2.8 in there when it should be a f/2
>f1.8 zoom
What did you expect?
Explain to me like I'm 5, how a larger aperture makes a lens bigger?
BIGGER HOLE MORE LIGHT
>BIGGER HOLE LESS TIGHT
well the only way to collect more light is to have a wider lens. Think of a water pipe. If you want more water you make the pip wider
OR you make the water go faster in the pipe. Thus all you have to do is make light go faster-than-light in the lens. It's THAT shimple.
holy shit. he's cracked it. someone call sigma
The size of the front lens element dictates the maximum aperture possible. A 50mm 1.4 must have at least a 35.7mm element whereas a 50mm 2.8 only needs a 17.9mm front element. The other lenses inside also typically scale up so you are adding quite a bit of extra glass volume which means a lot more weight and barrel material, bigger motors, etc.
>28-45
For what purpose
What's sigma?
SIGMA BALLS :-DD
Wow it's almost like mirrorless is half advancing tech and half meme to market a new line of lenses.
I'm not even sure how they can realistically advanced lens technology beyond just making them more light weight. Mirrorless tech will peak soon, so how will these compnays make money? By taking old lenses and squishing them pretty much.
>that lens
the full frame foveon is close. It's obviously the sensor that monstrosity is actually designed for.
mirrorlesscucks on suicide watch
pretty cool but why did they feel like they had to print "L-rumors.com" on top of it?
4 the aesthetics, its a fetish
I'm mad they didn't realease this as a DSLR lens. This whole portion is clearly an e mount adapter, so I'm not sure why this isn't available in EF, SA, F or K mount
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
That's just how loads of sigma lenses look. There is still going to be glass there.