Sigma 56 F1.4 on M6II versus RF 85 F2 on R

JustUs7 wrote:

Process them the way God intended. In DPP4. 😁

I would be interested to know if Canon has lens profiles for Sigma lenses.

I have the 85. For portraits I prefer it because my RP picks up the eye so much further away than my wife’s M6II. So we happily keep the EF-M 32 for a nice general candid focal length (the RF 50 f1.8 won’t top that), and the 85 on my RP.

You made a good point. I wish Canon would release M5mk2 with R6 AF.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

I've never experienced anything like that with the RF 85 on my R. Do you think it's peculiar to the R5?

It's mainly with AF face/eye tracking at speeds and/or in situations needing "stickyness" the R can't handle anyway. Now that might seem challenging, but my Sigma lenses don't have these kind of problems on the R5, while these are third party lenses in stead of OEM brand native RF. It seems somehow AF speed is prioritized over stickyness to the subject. Now there isn't a whole lot of speed to trade here, however, I do prefer stickyness to be main priority, and speed the secondary. Or, even better, gimme a setting to tweak these things.

Can't you tweak them in camera?

You've got me thinking.  I've reduced the number of used C-modes to one, so I have 2 C-modes left.  Maybe I should use those for several AF tweaks.

The low light jumping though was the same on the R. With low light the AF can jump even with moderate movements.

When using the IS at full extent there's not a whole lot of light as the IS is very good, and then it even doesn't take any movement to get hunting AF. Still, my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mkII doesn't hunt in the exact same situations (on a tripod), while it is actually a stop slower and isn't a native RF lens.

It's possible I haven't used it in those situations. Probably the lowest light I used it in for moving subjects was stage lighting, taking rehearsal shots. It had no problem sticking to the eyes of moving actors, in lighting that varied quite a bit (it was a rehearsal, so the lights were all over the place).

Rehearsal.... of a Bach choir, or rehearsal of break dancing?

Otherwise, I've used it for fast runners in good light, with no problems.

Runners have their faces hided sometimes, but they don't make turns and run in one direction at a relatively constant speed.

Skaters on a half pipe is another story. Kids in a playground is also more challenging. Faces are turning away, movements are fast sometimes and the direction of movement is unpredictable.  There's also other kids or things in the way. One of the reasons I dropped the money on the R5. It works pretty well with a lot of lenses, but not my only RF lens, at a great focal length and not a whole lot of impact in the bag.

I will wait if the next AF firmware update will bring any good to the table. The next step is tweaking AF settings  (this can be quite time consuming I'm afraid) and write good settings for this lens to a C-mode. If nothing works I might sell it.

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

I've never experienced anything like that with the RF 85 on my R. Do you think it's peculiar to the R5?

It's mainly with AF face/eye tracking at speeds and/or in situations needing "stickyness" the R can't handle anyway. Now that might seem challenging, but my Sigma lenses don't have these kind of problems on the R5, while these are third party lenses in stead of OEM brand native RF. It seems somehow AF speed is prioritized over stickyness to the subject. Now there isn't a whole lot of speed to trade here, however, I do prefer stickyness to be main priority, and speed the secondary. Or, even better, gimme a setting to tweak these things.

Can't you tweak them in camera?

You've got me thinking. I've reduced the number of used C-modes to one, so I have 2 C-modes left. Maybe I should use those for several AF tweaks.

The low light jumping though was the same on the R. With low light the AF can jump even with moderate movements.

When using the IS at full extent there's not a whole lot of light as the IS is very good, and then it even doesn't take any movement to get hunting AF. Still, my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 mkII doesn't hunt in the exact same situations (on a tripod), while it is actually a stop slower and isn't a native RF lens.

It's possible I haven't used it in those situations. Probably the lowest light I used it in for moving subjects was stage lighting, taking rehearsal shots. It had no problem sticking to the eyes of moving actors, in lighting that varied quite a bit (it was a rehearsal, so the lights were all over the place).

Rehearsal.... of a Bach choir, or rehearsal of break dancing?

LOL. It was something in between the two. It was a traditional sword dance with 6 dancers performing a fairly intricate dance with plenty of movement, but at a walking pace. There was a fair bit of change of direction, though, and heads moving up and down.

Otherwise, I've used it for fast runners in good light, with no problems.

Runners have their faces hided sometimes, but they don't make turns and run in one direction at a relatively constant speed.

Skaters on a half pipe is another story. Kids in a playground is also more challenging. Faces are turning away, movements are fast sometimes and the direction of movement is unpredictable. There's also other kids or things in the way. One of the reasons I dropped the money on the R5. It works pretty well with a lot of lenses, but not my only RF lens, at a great focal length and not a whole lot of impact in the bag.

I will wait if the next AF firmware update will bring any good to the table. The next step is tweaking AF settings (this can be quite time consuming I'm afraid) and write good settings for this lens to a C-mode. If nothing works I might sell it.

-- hide signature --

45 is more than enough, but 500.000 isn't

Did you do any tweaking of AF settings for your R ?

thunder storm wrote:

Did you do any tweaking of AF settings for your R ?

I set tracking sensitivity to -2 (the lowest setting). The other two are on their defaults.

thunder storm wrote:

I will wait if the next AF firmware update will bring any good to the table. The next step is tweaking AF settings (this can be quite time consuming I'm afraid) and write good settings for this lens to a C-mode. If nothing works I might sell it.

I was going to ask what firmware revision you were on. I haven’t tried 1.5.1 yet (maybe this weekend). 1.5.0 was a no-go for me (jumpy AF and too many lock-ups), so I rolled it back to 1.4.0. AF with 1.4.0 doesn’t jump around as much (it’s stickier), but it’s also a hair slower to acquire. Always trade-offs.

R2

lumenite wrote:

I appreciate your comparison as I was wondering how DXO PL5 works. I couldn't think that DXO's sharpening may spoil bokeh until seeing your comparison.

Actually it was the Micro Contrast setting that messed up the bokeh, since it was applied globally (it normally comes defaulted at 0). I only apply Micro Contrast locally to areas of my choosing, such as a low contrast subject. It does work very well for that.

R2

R2D2 wrote:

lumenite wrote:

I appreciate your comparison as I was wondering how DXO PL5 works. I couldn't think that DXO's sharpening may spoil bokeh until seeing your comparison.

Actually it was the Micro Contrast setting that messed up the bokeh, since it was applied globally (it normally comes defaulted at 0). I only apply Micro Contrast locally to areas of my choosing, such as a low contrast subject. It does work very well for that.

R2

Exactly. Actually, doing this comparison got me to change my PL5 defaults, and turn down micro contrast and reduce the clear view setting too. I always turn them down for people shots where I don't want the skin to show lots of texture (some people shots I do want to look like that, but most not), so I've found myself turning them down more often than leaving them at my default settings recently. If you find yourself changing particular default settings in the same direction for most of your images, it's time to change your defaults. I'm still learning PL5, and how the settings differ from LR.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

lumenite wrote:

I appreciate your comparison as I was wondering how DXO PL5 works. I couldn't think that DXO's sharpening may spoil bokeh until seeing your comparison.

Actually it was the Micro Contrast setting that messed up the bokeh, since it was applied globally (it normally comes defaulted at 0). I only apply Micro Contrast locally to areas of my choosing, such as a low contrast subject. It does work very well for that.

R2

Exactly. Actually, doing this comparison got me to change my PL5 defaults, and turn down micro contrast and reduce the clear view setting too. I always turn them down for people shots where I don't want the skin to show lots of texture (some people shots I do want to look like that, but most not), so I've found myself turning them down more often than leaving them at my default settings recently. If you find yourself changing particular default settings in the same direction for most of your images, it's time to change your defaults. I'm still learning PL5, and how the settings differ from LR.

I chose advanced settings -- zero defaults to begin each photo

Alastair Norcross wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

lumenite wrote:

I appreciate your comparison as I was wondering how DXO PL5 works. I couldn't think that DXO's sharpening may spoil bokeh until seeing your comparison.

Actually it was the Micro Contrast setting that messed up the bokeh, since it was applied globally (it normally comes defaulted at 0). I only apply Micro Contrast locally to areas of my choosing, such as a low contrast subject. It does work very well for that.

R2

Exactly. Actually, doing this comparison got me to change my PL5 defaults, and turn down micro contrast and reduce the clear view setting too. I always turn them down for people shots where I don't want the skin to show lots of texture (some people shots I do want to look like that, but most not), so I've found myself turning them down more often than leaving them at my default settings recently. If you find yourself changing particular default settings in the same direction for most of your images, it's time to change your defaults. I'm still learning PL5, and how the settings differ from LR.

Really good that you are spreading the word on this. Kudos!

Last week I was freezing my butt off in -15 F temps (and 45 mph winds) in Northern Minnesota chasing after the highly elusive Great Grey Owl (in the US at least), and on the last day we finally spotted one (after our guide had deserted us ).

This hot mess of a shot was the best I could do, but it illustrates how any increase in the Micro Contrast would have Completely ruined it (the bokeh is so darn busy). I did have to apply a +50 Micro Contrast locally on the owl alone however to help it stand out...

Canon R5, Rf 100-500 + 1.4x.  1/640 sec @ f/10, ISO 3200,   Resized 2160 high, uncropped. DxO PL5. Click on "original size"

R2