This stinks...and beware of Sigma/Sony

[Mike -]

I THINK that I read about this, but forgot..! Another heads up to those with Sigma lenses.

I have both the big 50-500 and the 24-105 Art lens's for my a99 II.

I bought the 50-500 long before buying the Art lens. I did a bit of "Micro Focus" work, in camera for the BIG lens.

Then, some time later, I bought the 24-105 Art lens. It needed a lot of help (more-so than the BIG lens) So, with the Dock in hand, I spent a lot of time completing THAT task. THEN...I see that the camera did not recognize the difference between the two lenses...GREAT..!

So I started today, resetting the camera back to zero micro focus, and started over with doing the new settings with the Dock and Art lens. All new settings..!

Will double check my new settings tomorrow..!

Mike

 

[craig66]

They possibly have the same lens ids. Check here

This issue has been around for decades and is not unique to Sigma. I blame Minolta/Sony. If they had setup a registry of lens ids and handed out a unique one on request to third party lens manufacturers, there never would have been a problem.

 

[MediaArchivist]

I have the (older) Sigma 50/1.4 EX, which is not compatible with the USB dock. It shares the same lens ID as my new(er) Sigma 35/1.4 Art, which is compatible with the dock.

I used the camera to adjust the AF for the 50, then used the dock to adjust the AF for the 35 (thus the 35 ends up with the combined adjustments of the camera and dock). Both are now adjusted to the degree possible.

Problem solved!

 

[Mike -]

Thanks Craig66 -

Not the same number, BUT, 128.21 and 128.22...pretty freaken close..! Makes me wonder why the 50-500 isn't "Dock" capable !?

And yea, MediaArch -

I thought about that (mixin the numbers up) while I was redoing the Art lens. Wondered if it would work or not. Luckily, the the 50-500 isn't THAT far off. Though I will recheck it once I verify the Art lens from todays work. May let it go a week or two, the Art lens was a lot of work..!

Thanks guys.

Mike

 

[craig66]

Thanks Craig66 -

Not the same number, BUT, 128.21 and 128.22...pretty freaken close..!

They actually are the same number. 128 is the ID reported to the camera by the lens. The numbers after the decimal point are generated internally by exiftool by looking at other exif tags as well as the lens ID. For example the maximum and minimum focal lengths. Obviously a lens with max focal length of 500mm can't be a 24-105. And so on. It's kind of a process of elimination to determine which lens was actually used.

Of course the Sony camera bodies don't engage in such subtleties. The two lenses are both reporting 128 and the camera makes no effort to distinguish between them for purposes of MFA or in camera lens corrections.

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

Thanks Craig66 -

Not the same number, BUT, 128.21 and 128.22...pretty freaken close..!

They actually are the same number. 128 is the ID reported to the camera by the lens. The numbers after the decimal point are generated internally by exiftool by looking at other exif tags as well as the lens ID. For example the maximum and minimum focal lengths. Obviously a lens with max focal length of 500mm can't be a 24-105. And so on. It's kind of a process of elimination to determine which lens was actually used.

Of course the Sony camera bodies don't engage in such subtleties. The two lenses are both reporting 128 and the camera makes no effort to distinguish between them for purposes of MFA or in camera lens corrections.

I just noticed that two Sigmas I own - 85 1.4 and 35 1.4 ART share the same ID so I will need to do something about the MFA issue - but a cheaper alternative to buying the dock for the 35 1.4 is to just make a note of the requried MFA value on the a99ii and then just change it in the menu based on which lens is attached, or am I missing something here? As long as though you know what MFA each lens needs and keep a note of it, it takes, what, 5-10 seconds to change the setting in the menu, especially given that the third party lens MFA settings are way simpler than all the MFA settings you can have for Sony lenses.

 

[neilt3]

They possibly have the same lens ids. Check here

This issue has been around for decades and is not unique to Sigma. I blame Minolta/Sony. If they had setup a registry of lens ids and handed out a unique one on request to third party lens manufacturers, there never would have been a problem.

Blame Sigma , not Minolta , Sony , Nikon or Canon etc .

Rather than pay a license fee to camera manufacturer they bought a lens and reverse engineered to make their lenses work with current and previous bodies .

A new camera came out and your lens was no longer compatible .

Sigma's been doing this since the 80's .

Likewise for using random lens i.d's , it wouldn't be so bad if they used a lens i.d of a similar focal length !

 

[MediaArchivist]

A new camera came out and your lens was no longer compatible .

I don't think that is an accurate paraphrasing of the OP's issue.

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

A new camera came out and your lens was no longer compatible .

I don't think that is an accurate paraphrasing of the OP's issue.

Indeed, these old Sigma lenses work OK on the a99ii, it's just that the fact they share lens IDs with multiple lenses creates a headache for MFAing them, unless you do what I suggest earlier on in the thread which is just change the setting as and when needed and keep a record of which lens needs which setting.

 

[tbcass]

The AF of my Sigma 24-105 is dead on with my A99ii without MF adjustment. The fact is I have owned 13 different A Mount lenses and used them on 6 different A Mount bodies and not one of them needed any focus adjustment. In case you wonder I do pixel peep to check for focus. If any were out of adjustment it was so close it didn't matter.

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

The AF of my Sigma 24-105 is dead on with my A99ii without MF adjustment. The fact is I have owned 13 different A Mount lenses and used them on 6 different A Mount bodies and not one of them needed any focus adjustment. In case you wonder I do pixel peep to check for focus. If any were out of adjustment it was so close it didn't matter.

That's great Tom but it's not always everyone else's experience. Tends to be mostly an issue for fast lenses. My copy of the Sigma 35 1.4 ART is pin-sharp but only once I had adjusted the MFA setting for it to around -7. Now if I then go ahead and mount my Sigma 85 1.4 on my a99ii it will read as the same lens and apply the same MFA. It's a little annoying but not too much of a hassle.

 

[tbcass]

The AF of my Sigma 24-105 is dead on with my A99ii without MF adjustment. The fact is I have owned 13 different A Mount lenses and used them on 6 different A Mount bodies and not one of them needed any focus adjustment. In case you wonder I do pixel peep to check for focus. If any were out of adjustment it was so close it didn't matter.

That's great Tom but it's not always everyone else's experience. Tends to be mostly an issue for fast lenses. My copy of the Sigma 35 1.4 ART is pin-sharp but only once I had adjusted the MFA setting for it to around -7. Now if I then go ahead and mount my Sigma 85 1.4 on my a99ii it will read as the same lens and apply the same MFA. It's a little annoying but not too much of a hassle.

My Tamron 45mm f1.8 and Sony 35mm f1.8 did not need MFAF. I have never owned an f1.4 lens.

Sometimes I think it's noticeable only when people do rigid controlled focus tests but is not noticeable, unless it's way off, in real world use. If true then in my case ignorance is bliss. When I first get a lens I test it by focusing on several objects at various distances and then pixel peep. I do not set up a controlled AF test like many do.

--
Tom

 

[Marco Cinnirella]

The AF of my Sigma 24-105 is dead on with my A99ii without MF adjustment. The fact is I have owned 13 different A Mount lenses and used them on 6 different A Mount bodies and not one of them needed any focus adjustment. In case you wonder I do pixel peep to check for focus. If any were out of adjustment it was so close it didn't matter.

That's great Tom but it's not always everyone else's experience. Tends to be mostly an issue for fast lenses. My copy of the Sigma 35 1.4 ART is pin-sharp but only once I had adjusted the MFA setting for it to around -7. Now if I then go ahead and mount my Sigma 85 1.4 on my a99ii it will read as the same lens and apply the same MFA. It's a little annoying but not too much of a hassle.

My Tamron 45mm f1.8 and Sony 35mm f1.8 did not need MFAF. I have never owned an f1.4 lens.

Sometimes I think it's noticeable only when people do rigid controlled focus tests but is not noticeable, unless it's way off, in real world use. If true then in my case ignorance is bliss. When I first get a lens I test it by focusing on various objects at various distances and then pixel peep. I do not set up a controlled AF test like many do.

First day of ownership I took my Sigma 35 1.4 to a local museum and shot a bunch of shots with it wide open at f1.4 - just checking on the rear LCD or EVF it was clear something was wrong. I honestly thought i had bought a dud lens because some of the shots were really soft. So I tried dialling in MFA and the difference was night and day. Now I consider it one of my sharpest lenses. I didn't need to do any pixel peeping to see how it was out without the MFA.

 

[SQLGuy]

The AF of my Sigma 24-105 is dead on with my A99ii without MF adjustment. The fact is I have owned 13 different A Mount lenses and used them on 6 different A Mount bodies and not one of them needed any focus adjustment. In case you wonder I do pixel peep to check for focus. If any were out of adjustment it was so close it didn't matter.

Interesting.

I've got probably about the same number of A mount lenses, used on an A900, and on an LA-EA4 on a few different E mount bodies, and I think there is only one lens that did not require MFA. Most of them required quite a bit of it.

 

[TomV1]

The AF of my Sigma 24-105 is dead on with my A99ii without MF adjustment. The fact is I have owned 13 different A Mount lenses and used them on 6 different A Mount bodies and not one of them needed any focus adjustment. In case you wonder I do pixel peep to check for focus. If any were out of adjustment it was so close it didn't matter.

That's great Tom but it's not always everyone else's experience. Tends to be mostly an issue for fast lenses. My copy of the Sigma 35 1.4 ART is pin-sharp but only once I had adjusted the MFA setting for it to around -7. Now if I then go ahead and mount my Sigma 85 1.4 on my a99ii it will read as the same lens and apply the same MFA. It's a little annoying but not too much of a hassle.

I am with Marco here. 4 MFA cameras and nearly all my lenses benefit from some adjustment. I use a herringbone test pattern. I test at various focal lengths to ensure there is no knee in the curve where the value no longer holds true (had this issue with 1 lens). I then use the test pattern to evaluate at the extreme focal lengths for the aperture at which the sharpness is optimized (how much do I need to stop down?).

TBCass, you did not need MFA even for the Tamron 150-600?

TomV

 

[tbcass]

I am with Marco here. 4 MFA cameras and nearly all my lenses benefit from some adjustment. I use a herringbone test pattern. I test at various focal lengths to ensure there is no knee in the curve where the value no longer holds true (had this issue with 1 lens). I then use the test pattern to evaluate at the extreme focal lengths for the aperture at which the sharpness is optimized (how much do I need to stop down?).

TBCass, you did not need MFA even for the Tamron 150-600?

TomV

No it did not but then I don't test my lenses to the degree you do. It's possible that the lenses are off by a little bit but it doesn't show up in real world use.

 

[SQLGuy]

I am with Marco here. 4 MFA cameras and nearly all my lenses benefit from some adjustment. I use a herringbone test pattern. I test at various focal lengths to ensure there is no knee in the curve where the value no longer holds true (had this issue with 1 lens). I then use the test pattern to evaluate at the extreme focal lengths for the aperture at which the sharpness is optimized (how much do I need to stop down?).

TBCass, you did not need MFA even for the Tamron 150-600?

TomV

No it did not but then I don't test my lenses to the degree you do. It's possible that the lenses are off by a little bit but it doesn't show up in real world use.

When I got my A7R2, I did some shooting one day with the LA-EA4 and Minolta 100-300 APO. I had just gotten the camera, and didn't think about MFA. The bad results were obvious, and unusable. With MFA, that lens is just as sharp as the Tamron 70-300, for which MFA is not applicable on the LA-EA3.

BTW, I am normally testing/adjusting wide open, since I am more concerned about DOF making it harder to see whether the lens is at, before, or after the focal point. Also, longer lenses, where this is more of an issue, are more likely to be used at their larger apertures. Not sure what the results would be like if I were adjusting at F8. On the one hand, that would compensate a bit for focus shift, maybe, but it might make things worse at full aperture.

--
A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); NEX-7 converted to IR.

 

[Mike -]

Yea, my copy of the 24-105 Art lens was quite far off between 24mm and just shy of 70 mm. But very close from 70mm to 105mm. Now it's nice from one end to the other.

Now I'll recheck my 50-500. I remember that it wasn't too far of through out the range. Maybe a bit in the 50 to 150 or so. Gotta double check it and maybe redo the Art lens after putting the corrected info into the camera body. We'll see. I only use it for Air Shows.

And my original a99 II lens...it just sits collecting dust..!

Mike

 

[tbcass]

And my original a99 II lens...it just sits collecting dust..!

Mike

Which lens was that? I bought mine without a lens and instead bought a Sigma 24-105 ART and a Tamron 45mm f1.8.

--
Tom

 

[ActionPhotoPassion]

I am with Marco here. 4 MFA cameras and nearly all my lenses benefit from some adjustment. I use a herringbone test pattern. I test at various focal lengths to ensure there is no knee in the curve where the value no longer holds true (had this issue with 1 lens). I then use the test pattern to evaluate at the extreme focal lengths for the aperture at which the sharpness is optimized (how much do I need to stop down?).

TBCass, you did not need MFA even for the Tamron 150-600?

TomV

No it did not but then I don't test my lenses to the degree you do. It's possible that the lenses are off by a little bit but it doesn't show up in real world use.

When I got my A7R2, I did some shooting one day with the LA-EA4 and Minolta 100-300 APO. I had just gotten the camera, and didn't think about MFA. The bad results were obvious, and unusable. With MFA, that lens is just as sharp as the Tamron 70-300, for which MFA is not applicable on the LA-EA3.

BTW, I am normally testing/adjusting wide open, since I am more concerned about DOF making it harder to see whether the lens is at, before, or after the focal point. Also, longer lenses, where this is more of an issue, are more likely to be used at their larger apertures. Not sure what the results would be like if I were adjusting at F8. On the one hand, that would compensate a bit for focus shift, maybe, but it might make things worse at full aperture.