Reading mode: Light Dark

Sigma or Sony 50 1.4 for A900

Go to last post
davidtwlam said:
I had the Sigma for more than 2 months which is borrowed from my friend after he sold the A700. I need to sent the lens back to Sigma for alignment as I could not manage to adjust the focus with my A900, the sharpest area is on the right side of the frame no matter how I adjust with micro-focus.

I got back the lens after 1 month and have some test shots, the AF hit rate for portraits shooting at f/1.4 is far from satisfactory unless the eye is within the cetnre focus area. Therefore, I have to stopped down to f/2 to be safe.

It is a little wider than standard 50mm lens and I found that was good for take indoor portraits when space is limited. I dont really like the skin tone of Sigma at all as I found that the colours are very 'dry' and 'flat' as compared to those from Minolta, Zeiss or Leica esp. when using fill-in flash.

I also got a copy of the MD50/1.2 (latest version), the butterly bokeh is unbeatable. But I need to work very hard to manual focus in order to get a sharp picture - even more painful than shooting the Sigma wide-open. Colour and contrast is execellent - much better than the Sigma.

Just my 2 cents
--
Enjoy it while it lasts
Click to expand...
You may try a ME1AM 1.15X eye cup from Sony. It really help me on MF.
 
sigma seems to have adopted a similar strategy in both their 30 and 50s—they optimised them for wide open shooting.

i think it's a good move, because these lenses are certainly no slouches when stopped down either. to me, it's really a tradeoff in size vs wide-open performance. and hsm focussing, if that means much to you.

either way, you'll have a handy 50, and you will be happy.
 
OldScotch said:
headofdestiny said:
At f2.8, the SAL50's center sharpness takes up quite a bit of the A900 frame.
Click to expand...
If you're shooting at 2.8, there's little difference between the lenses at all.
Click to expand...
That's my point. I was responding to Jakub, who said the Sigma kills the Sony at f2.8 Ultimately, the bottom line to me is that the Sigma is obviously better wide open, and the Sony is better at f8, but, in between f1.4 and f8, it's whether one prefers an insanely sharp center frame with a bit softer corners, or slightly less sharpness that is more evenly distributed across the frame. Neither is a wonder lens, and each has its strengths. I say buy both! :)
 
Also, from the chart it appears that the Sony is sharper in the center at f2 but only a softer in the corners... however the Sigma test wasn't on the A900, but the 1ds mk III. At 1.4 the Sony corners get soft fast.That doesn't mesh with dpreview's review though, where they claim the Sigma is quite a bit better than the Sony at wide apertures? Do they mean 1.4-1.6 or are they not making sense as usual, becaus eht the charts don't quite show the same conclusion. However, maybe comparing the 2 based on those charts doens't make sense because they weren't tested on the same camera.
 
JPSiii said:
I have the Sony 50 1.4 and use it with the A850. I don't have experience with the Sigma. The sony is light and fast and fun to have on the camera around the grand kids.. I don't think it is as sharp wide open as my 85 though.

Click to expand...
I too have been pondering whether to get a Sony or Sigma 50mm f1.4 for my a900. So I found this thread very interesting.

I already have the Sigma lens in Canon and Nikon mounts, and like the results very much. But it's big and heavy, and quite expensive. The Sony looks pretty good on paper, though I was inclined to go for the Sigma.

Then, a few days ago, my local camera shop had a used Sony 50mm f1.4 at a good price, so I bought it. I tried it out today, but was disappointed with the results. The lens (or my a900) back focuses slightly.

I think I can see something similar on the shot posted above - the neck area of the jumper looks crisp, but the face is slightly soft and blurry. Anybody agree?

Does anyone else have back-focus issues with their a900 and the Sony 50mm f1.4?

J M Hughes
 
My Sony 50 has quite a bit of back focus, but, like was mentioned above, that's what the A900's AF adjustment is for. Mine is very, very sharp.
 
headofdestiny said:
My Sony 50 has quite a bit of back focus, but, like was mentioned above, that's what the A900's AF adjustment is for. Mine is very, very sharp.
Click to expand...
Thanks - I'd forgotten you could adjust focus on this camera.

Trouble is, I'm not sure this is the root of the problem. While a lot of the shots I took yesterday seemed to have slight B/F, when I tried to nail the problem by doing some controlled tests, the results were inconclusive.

Last night, I put the a900/50 1.4 on a tripod and took some test pictures using the 2s delay and flash as my light source, with SSS switched off. I found the lens would usually focus accurately, but sometimes not. I did the test again, using my old Minolta 50mm f1.7 (both lenses at f2) and seemed to get a slightly better 'hit' rate with the latter - or was that pure luck?

This morning (in better light) I repeated the test, using focus adjustment in increments of 2. I took two shots at various settings upto +8, and found +2 seemed to give the sharpest result. But differences (up to +4) seemed fairly slight and I could see tiny variations in sharpness between shots that were taken at the same setting.

It's almost as though my a900 and Sony 50 1.4 can focus correctly without AF adjust, but that sometimes (for whatever reason) the camera chooses to back-focus. I'm puzzled!

J M Hughes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top