That Sigma look ... The essence of a Sigma photograph

[mikeodial]

So for me the Sigma look is hard to put into words. Certainly I know it when I see it, it's in some of the images from my SD1M and DP2M, example at the end of this post. But is there something more.

I believe there is, I can tell images created with my 24-35/2 ART lens on my Nikon D810 have a "Sigma-ish" look to them. There is a certain density to the contrast and tonal transitions that's not there in the Zeiss lenses I use on the D810, particularly for landscape applications.

So for me there are levels of the Sigma look ...

1. Sigma Lenses on non-Sigma cameras
2. Sigma lenses on Sigma DSLRs
3. Sigma lenses on Sigma Foveon cameras (fixed)
4. Sigma lenses on Sigma Quattro cameras
5. Sigma lenses on Sigma Q and H Mirrorless
6. Non-Sigma Lenses on Sigma DSLRs (image shown below)

I know much of the discussion about the new camera is based on whether we "like" the new look, but there is a certain "essence" which seems to permeate the high end lens designs and the sensors which make up that look which the company has created.

Thoughts ...



70/2.8 Sigma on SD1M


Sigma 24-35 on D810

135/2 Zeiss on SD1M

 

[xpatUSA]

As to lenses, recent reading has shown that lenses do vary in terms of image quality and that, importantly, sharpest is not always "best".

Slightly off-topic but I've always found this old illustration interesting:

[IMG width="400px" alt="The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line."]http://kronometric.org/phot/lens/50mmlenses.gif[/IMG]
The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line.

And then my many MTF tests on Foveon sensors show much "better" medium detail contrast than my Bayer cameras past and present.

Not forgetting too that that Foveon does not have color-aliasing.

http://kronometric.org/phot/sensor/fov/Color_Alias_White_Paper_FinalHiRes.pdf

All these things add up, I guess . . .

--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted

 

[mikeodial]

As to lenses, recent reading has shown that lenses do vary in terms of image quality and that, importantly, sharpest is not always "best".

Slightly off-topic but I've always found this old illustration interesting:

[IMG width="400px" alt="The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line."]http://kronometric.org/phot/lens/50mmlenses.gif[/IMG]
The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line.

And then my many MTF tests on Foveon sensors show much "better" medium detail contrast than my Bayer cameras past and present.

Not forgetting too that that Foveon does not have color-aliasing.

http://kronometric.org/phot/sensor/fov/Color_Alias_White_Paper_FinalHiRes.pdf

All these things add up, I guess . . .

--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted

Ted,

Love your technical responses. So in English does that mean you agree "there is such a thing as a Sigma look?".

- Mike

 

[xpatUSA]

As to lenses, recent reading has shown that lenses do vary in terms of image quality and that, importantly, sharpest is not always "best".

Slightly off-topic but I've always found this old illustration interesting:

[IMG width="400px" alt="The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line."]http://kronometric.org/phot/lens/50mmlenses.gif[/IMG]
The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line.

And then my many MTF tests on Foveon sensors show much "better" medium detail contrast than my Bayer cameras past and present.

Not forgetting too that that Foveon does not have color-aliasing.

http://kronometric.org/phot/sensor/fov/Color_Alias_White_Paper_FinalHiRes.pdf

All these things add up, I guess . . .

Ted,

Love your technical responses. So in English does that mean you agree "there is such a thing as a Sigma look?".

- Mike

Yes it does, Mike. Shoulda said that. The circling sharks should move in shortly . . ;-)

--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted

 

[LasseS]

As to lenses, recent reading has shown that lenses do vary in terms of image quality and that, importantly, sharpest is not always "best".

Slightly off-topic but I've always found this old illustration interesting:

[IMG width="400px" alt="The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line."]http://kronometric.org/phot/lens/50mmlenses.gif[/IMG]
The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line.

And then my many MTF tests on Foveon sensors show much "better" medium detail contrast than my Bayer cameras past and present.

Not forgetting too that that Foveon does not have color-aliasing.

http://kronometric.org/phot/sensor/fov/Color_Alias_White_Paper_FinalHiRes.pdf

All these things add up, I guess . . .

--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted

There certainly is "something", but not so easy to tell. I often can tell if a image is shot with a Foveon sensor, but never if there is used a Sigma lens on a Bayer camera.

Here is an example shot with the 50/1.4 "non ART" vs. a 40 year old "foreign" lens. Which is which?

 

[veritalens]

Wow. Well I can tell you now, that if there is a "Sigma look" to their lens lineup, I'd imagine that in the case of the last two photos posted, that "look" was washed away by the PP you smothered them in.

As for the tripod head pics. I would guess that the Sigma is the one on the right.

 

[LasseS]

Wow. Well I can tell you now, that if there is a "Sigma look" to their lens lineup, I'd imagine that in the case of the last two photos posted, that "look" was washed away by the PP you smothered them in.

As for the tripod head pics. I would guess that the Sigma is the one on the right.

--
http://www.alanclaytonwilliams.com/pf.html

You are right about the ball head pics. Typically more contrast in the modern lens (and ugly purple fringing). I prefer the old one

 

[PrebenR]

Is the old one a Helios 58mm? Just guessing

 

[LasseS]

Nope, Olympus OM Zuiko 55/1.2.

 

[mikeodial]

As to lenses, recent reading has shown that lenses do vary in terms of image quality and that, importantly, sharpest is not always "best".

Slightly off-topic but I've always found this old illustration interesting:

[IMG width="400px" alt="The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line."]http://kronometric.org/phot/lens/50mmlenses.gif[/IMG]
The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line.

And then my many MTF tests on Foveon sensors show much "better" medium detail contrast than my Bayer cameras past and present.

Not forgetting too that that Foveon does not have color-aliasing.

http://kronometric.org/phot/sensor/fov/Color_Alias_White_Paper_FinalHiRes.pdf

All these things add up, I guess . . .

--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted

There certainly is "something", but not so easy to tell. I often can tell if a image is shot with a Foveon sensor, but never if there is used a Sigma lens on a Bayer camera.

Here is an example shot with the 50/1.4 "non ART" vs. a 40 year old "foreign" lens. Which is which?

The one on the right looks sharper, but as already notes a lot of purple fringing. Perhaps we need an photograph with a little more differentiation to be able to "tell"

 

[D Cox]

As to lenses, recent reading has shown that lenses do vary in terms of image quality and that, importantly, sharpest is not always "best".

In the days of single coating, high contrast was often preferred to high resolution. Nowadays we can have both, with moire thrown in for free. (Because the lenses have higher resolution than the sensors.)

But there is also a need for soft-focus lenses, like the ones Alvin Langdon Coburn had made to order. Or variable-softness portrait lenses. Sigma don't make these.

And then my many MTF tests on Foveon sensors show much "better" medium detail contrast than my Bayer cameras past and present.

How big is "medium detail" ? Wavelengths of 4 pixels or 40 pixels ?

Not forgetting too that that Foveon does not have color-aliasing.

http://kronometric.org/phot/sensor/fov/Color_Alias_White_Paper_FinalHiRes.pdf

All these things add up, I guess . . .

 

[LasseS]

As to lenses, recent reading has shown that lenses do vary in terms of image quality and that, importantly, sharpest is not always "best".

Slightly off-topic but I've always found this old illustration interesting:

[IMG width="400px" alt="The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line."]http://kronometric.org/phot/lens/50mmlenses.gif[/IMG]
The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line.

And then my many MTF tests on Foveon sensors show much "better" medium detail contrast than my Bayer cameras past and present.

Not forgetting too that that Foveon does not have color-aliasing.

http://kronometric.org/phot/sensor/fov/Color_Alias_White_Paper_FinalHiRes.pdf

All these things add up, I guess . . .

--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted

There certainly is "something", but not so easy to tell. I often can tell if a image is shot with a Foveon sensor, but never if there is used a Sigma lens on a Bayer camera.

Here is an example shot with the 50/1.4 "non ART" vs. a 40 year old "foreign" lens. Which is which?

The one on the right looks sharper, but as already notes a lot of purple fringing. Perhaps we need an photograph with a little more differentiation to be able to "tell"

I think the impression of sharpness is due to the higher contrast. And there may be a small difference in focus. Manual focus with the SD14 is no easy task.

Left: Olympus OM Zuiko 55/1.2, right: Sigma EX DG 50/1.4. Both at f:2.

 

[LasseS]

As to lenses, recent reading has shown that lenses do vary in terms of image quality and that, importantly, sharpest is not always "best".

Slightly off-topic but I've always found this old illustration interesting:

[IMG width="400px" alt="The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line."]http://kronometric.org/phot/lens/50mmlenses.gif[/IMG]
The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line.

And then my many MTF tests on Foveon sensors show much "better" medium detail contrast than my Bayer cameras past and present.

Not forgetting too that that Foveon does not have color-aliasing.

http://kronometric.org/phot/sensor/fov/Color_Alias_White_Paper_FinalHiRes.pdf

All these things add up, I guess . . .

--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted

There certainly is "something", but not so easy to tell. I often can tell if a image is shot with a Foveon sensor, but never if there is used a Sigma lens on a Bayer camera.

Here is an example shot with the 50/1.4 "non ART" vs. a 40 year old "foreign" lens. Which is which?

The one on the right looks sharper, but as already notes a lot of purple fringing. Perhaps we need an photograph with a little more differentiation to be able to "tell"

OK. two new lenses one of them Sigma. Both macro lenses, both at f:11.





Lasse

 

[mikeodial]

As to lenses, recent reading has shown that lenses do vary in terms of image quality and that, importantly, sharpest is not always "best".

Slightly off-topic but I've always found this old illustration interesting:

[IMG width="400px" alt="The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line."]http://kronometric.org/phot/lens/50mmlenses.gif[/IMG]
The dashed line is the so-called "diffraction limited" line.

And then my many MTF tests on Foveon sensors show much "better" medium detail contrast than my Bayer cameras past and present.

Not forgetting too that that Foveon does not have color-aliasing.

http://kronometric.org/phot/sensor/fov/Color_Alias_White_Paper_FinalHiRes.pdf

All these things add up, I guess . . .

--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted

There certainly is "something", but not so easy to tell. I often can tell if a image is shot with a Foveon sensor, but never if there is used a Sigma lens on a Bayer camera.

Here is an example shot with the 50/1.4 "non ART" vs. a 40 year old "foreign" lens. Which is which?

The one on the right looks sharper, but as already notes a lot of purple fringing. Perhaps we need an photograph with a little more differentiation to be able to "tell"

OK. two new lenses one of them Sigma. Both macro lenses, both at f:11.



Lasse

These are hard pics to see a "Sigma" difference, but the right hand image is sharper, has greater microcontrast and the colors seem better saturated. The edges are fuzzy and fill areas less "defined" on the left hand image. To me at least.

 

[LasseS]

You are right about the edges. It seems to me that the focal point is a little closer to the camera in the left image. the Citroën wheel and the rim of the box seems a tad sharper in the left image, to me. (I want live-view for these shots...)

 

[xpatUSA]

As to lenses, recent reading has shown that lenses do vary in terms of image quality and that, importantly, sharpest is not always "best".

In the days of single coating, high contrast was often preferred to high resolution. Nowadays we can have both, with moire thrown in for free. (Because the lenses have higher resolution than the sensors.)

But there is also a need for soft-focus lenses, like the ones Alvin Langdon Coburn had made to order. Or variable-softness portrait lenses. Sigma don't make these.

And then my many MTF tests on Foveon sensors show much "better" medium detail contrast than my Bayer cameras past and present.

How big is "medium detail" ? Wavelengths of 4 pixels or 40 pixels ?

I actually look at the MTF curve, both it's shape and values of MTF. I used "medium detail" instead of numbers so as to be more readily understood.

So 4 pixels and 40 pixels represent what, in terms of detail level?

--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted

 

[LasseS]

Shot in RAW. Processed in each cameras native RAW converter with default settings, except for setting white and black point. Lens: Pentacon Electric MC 50/1.8.