Sample gallery: Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN for Sony E-mount

On my phone, the colors look fine.

It happened a while ago

The Sigma 14-24mm is sharper than what the competition offering.

@Beavertown

But the Sony 135/1.8 GM is sharper than the the Sigma 135/1.8 and has faster focussing, so OEM manufacturers still have the edge.

One lens. What about 85mm? What about 35mm? What about 105mm? Like I said Sigma has some lenses in the top spot, but that doesn't mean all of their lenses are the sharpest of all competing lenses. Also, as far as AF goes between the 135's I've used both on the A9 and I couldn't tell the difference in AF speed. You'd really be splitting hairs to notice any difference.

Those are Sony colors.
Sony jpegs look similar though a bit worse. These are the colors we get from all RAW processors and Sony RAW files with little variation.

Most raw processors do a good job at matching the manufacturer's colors. Canon looks like Canon and as bad as Adobe is with Fujifilm, they do well with Fujifilm colors from RAW.

And what we see here are Sony colors. They were worse, but DPR fixed them up some earlier today.

I get a chuckle everyone I see someone new here trying to perpetuate the Sony color myth. Such a straw argument. If you don't like that Sony is a top camera maker now, then just say it. Otherwise, color is a preference, and one that apparently in blind testing most prefer from Sony.

Welcome to the threads.

”Woke” jointed last week and trolling.

”Wildman Jones” joined two days ago and trolling.

Disagreeing with someone doesnt make them a troll.

Sony has stated numerous times they have changed the colour science in new models. Thats a fact.

Agree, colors and tonality look awful. The light wasn't great either. But processing raws in Luminar improves it significantly.

"Sony has stated numerous times they have changed the colour science in new models. Thats a fact."

It is also a fact that Sony never said that there was anything wrong in color output of any of their model.

Now every camera maker change or improve on what they have, this is how they release new models.

Them improving or changing things does not mean that what they had was garbage.

No issues with my sony cameras.

Here, a quick color fix in Luminar: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4489424077/photos/4028312/dsc06520-small
And the original:
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/5115760507/sigma-24-70mm-f2-8-dg-dn-e-mount-sample-gallery/3395700284

@ Woke - so you dont have any username on the DPR?

Better but still no march for some other cameras colors straight from RAW.

But maybe we can get back to the lens.

In-camera lens correction and ACR lens corrections are always turned off for lens sample galleries, whenever possible. This allows the truest look at a lens' optical performance. Raw files are provided for those who'd like to see the samples with corrections on. Camera samples on the other hand are shot with everything, including lens corrections, left at their defaults.

"whenever possible"

Which just means they are left on for M43, Fuji-X, Nikon Z and Canon RF. And you just artificially disadvantage camera manufacturers that give users the option.

By doing so you force Sony to just go the way of all the others and simply tell Adobe to force it. What have we won then?

Either use software that allows you to turn them off for all brands or turn them on for all brands. But currently it is simply arbitrary

DPR reprocessed and reuploaded...

Colours work in misterious ways :)

Oh C#r!$+, here we go...

It's almost like Sonys own color science or their native/colab RAW converter C1 works better with Sony files than the Adobe software optimized for Canon works with Sony files

It is not just JPEGs.

Sony colors are notoriously bad when using their RAW files.
All RAW files are not the same. Go look at Fujifilm and Canon and even Olympus files. Some say Sony colors are "accurate ", but Canon/Fujifilm/Olympus make more pleasing or better looking photos.

Before I knew the photos were taken by a Sony camera, I noticed the colors were not pleasing. This is part of why they look so bland. Sharpness, DR, etc. don't matter much when the color science is not good.

@Mark3794

Well Adobe has to be optimized for something :D

Yeah, because who has ever heard of adjusting Raw files to get better colour? I mean, if the Lightroom default is not perfectly pleasing, then that's it. End of story.

Wildman Jones joined DPR yesterday as troll

I just realized that this is dpr, so I better make it clear; my last comment was indeed sarcasm.

It is not easy to get colors right. It takes a lot of work. And Sony changes with every camera, so previous profiles need to be fixed.
It's funny, because we complain about taking a little time to remove noise from and image, and say cameras with tiny bit less noise are better, but don't care about cameras with bad colors.
The truth is pleasing colors are more important than noise, DR, and resolution.

Nothing wrong with colours. If DPR staff did mistake this was taken with Nikon or Canon system i bet you would not be able tell difference.

I'm shocked that we haven't seen more JPG vs RAW, ACR vs C1P, and brand VS brand testing to show the real differences between camera companies, and how the raw converter might help or hinder them, too

Also, it's pretty dang easy to just photograph a few colorful scenes and a color checker chart, and create a profile that gives "Canon colors" with Sony or Nikon files, for those who sensitive palette thinks they see such a nasty difference.

Personally, I'm jaded after post-producing 2-3M raw images in ACR over the last 15 years as a full-time wedding post-producer; they all look gross to me, especially when over-processed. I think Adobe is the worst offender, not Sony or Nikon. I'd rather have any camera's raw files in Capture One, than a Canon or Fuji file in ACR.

Big difference in color science even with RAW files.
Usually when colors look weird, unpleasant, or boring, it is a Sony. Even with RAW files.

Colors to me are more important than a bit of noise, or a bit less sharpness.

@Wildman Jones

Just log in with your real account. Nobody listens to a one day old account

@Wildman Jones I am sure it is safe to assume that you gained this knowledge from working with hundreds-thousands of Sony RAW files? Or is it what you call "notoriously" which is actually just people repeating other people's negative opinion about something for whatever reason?

Mr. Panther.
I see you go by the adage, if you cant disagree with the comment, attack the poster.

Color and composition are more important than a little extra sharpness, a bit less noise, or a bit less DR.
Usually when you see an unpleasant image with weird colors it is from a Sony. Google bad Sony colors or how to get Canon colors with Sony for the evidence. (Then attack Google, lol)

@Wildman Jones
You haven't provided any arguments or comparisons really. Sure you can say Sony looks bad, I don't think so. Most people don't think so. Sony consistently ranks high/ the highest in blind color tests. (Which also are often just-auto white balance tests, since color science across brands is remarkably similar)

Does Lightroom look bad sometimes? Yes, but that's why we use C1 ;)

Roadrunner

My first Sony an A55. I moved to an A77, NEX7, A7RII and A7RIII.
I found the colors kept changing between cameras as Sony tweaked them. I also found everyone commented that my old T2i jpegs images looked better than all the Sony JPEGS and RAW files.
I at first didn't get it. There was more noise, less DR, less resolution. Why was the overwhelming census that Canon images looked better than even all the Sony images other people posted?
Its because color composition, and content are what really matters.

Like I said, google Sony Bad Colors, or make Sony look like Canon.
It's not just me it is everyone who gets what photography really is.
Panther now can attack them.

@Wildman Jones
So basically you tell us you are not capable to get great colors out of your RAW converter? Because that's all I can see when you say Canon SOOC is better than Sony with RAW development.

Also, it is no secret that Sony colors were poor. Yes A77 NEX 7, A7R II had bad colors. When people say Sony has good colors the speak about gen 3 A7 cameras and up.
Your anecdote about your A55 vs T2i is nice but totally useless today. Just read up on some blind tests and see that Gen3 Sony color has surpassed basically anything currently in the field.

Panther fan, attacking again???

I said Sony images other people posted too.
Look at this gallery or other Sony galleries.
I did not shoot or edit those. Get back to the topic, and end your personal attacks.

@Wildman Jones
BUT WHAT YOU ARE SEEING HERE ARE NOT SONY COLORS

How hard is it to grasp that there is a difference between manufacturer color JPEG engine and a RAW developer?

Also, many people converting just want to get the colors they are used to. That doesn't mean the color science is better. Show me a single blind test where the Canon wins over a modern Sony

How hard is it to grasp that RAW processors have a hard time with Sony RAW files. They default to ugly Sony colors. The colors are hard to improve. This is why very often Sony images look like...well Sony colors, and are often criticized.

This is well documented. Google how to get Canon colors with Sony.
Or just look at all the Sony galleries (jpeg or from raw).

Here is the same image, default settings inside C1 express (free for Sony users)
https://i.imgur.com/B7mwKO3.jpg

Doesn't seem like a bad place to start for a RAW. I don't know why Lightroom is so bad by default

@GrapeJam
In this image, I would say that is due to lighting, autoWB and exposure. Not sure you can expect more from a default setting in that environment. WB and exposure alone will already fix that.

Also regarding the banding. Can you show me an example of that happening? I have used C1 a ton, and never in my life have I seen banding in places where it shouldn't be

This isn't anything new.
Panther has his head in the sand (ugly Sony colored sand)
It's been discussed for years. And for years Sony owners have worked hard to get more Canon like or Fujifilm like colors. Just check Google for the years of discussion.
Or look at the Sony galleries. Ewww.

@Wildman Jones
You still wanted to show me a side by side or blind test of the bad Sony colors

@GrapeJam

Yeah, the viewer inside is f#cked. Just yesterday complained about it here on DPreview:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/0269241343/capture-one-pro-20-update-adds-support-for-7-new-camera-bodies-6-new-lenses?comment=7709572377

But that's another story.

I think for the color part we can agree to disagree. If you like Canon that's fine, after all it's subjective. I tested myself blind and I like Sony more. So for each their own

@GrapeJam
I hope it's not a quickproof export, because that's also f#cked

But man I agree that file looks bad. Never have seen something similar. What did you do to that file?

Colors have been reprocessed and the images all re-uploaded per a comment from DPR.

also you forget one thing. RAW files ain't provide any COLORS. they provide data from sensor, and better ACR profiles can do work much easier, though right now situation is as is. just look for custom ACR profiles or change RAW editor in two words.

I upgraded. I found the bokeh of Tamron 28-75 not too pleasing. Sigma delivers on that front. Of course Sigma is also considerably wider (actually a tiny bit wider than the Sony 2470 GM). I am happy with the switch.

I appreciated the light weight and size of Tamron though!

I think Sigma is doing great things these days. This lens reminds me of my 35mm 1.2, where Sigma clearly designed the lens to perform where it counts (sharpness across the frame, bokeh, and build quality) and leave the stuff that can be easily corrected in post for post correction.

E mount lens corrections are passed along in the RAW file but not forcibly applied by Adobe?

If that's the case DPR's stance does seem pretty arbitrary... I know with some of the mounts like M4/3 the app is supposed to force them if they're paying to participate in it, but C1 doesn't force M4/3 corrections either (are they not using the ones supplied by the lens?). Do all the other recent mirrorless mounts force them with Adobe converters or what?

Seems silly to use any one development app's MO as the standard either way, just pick the logical frame of reference and adjust the processing options to that.

@Impulses
Yes, E-mount corrections are passed along in the RAWs but Adobe allows you to disable them.
DPreview takes the completely arbitrary stand that software correction are enabled if adobe doesn't allow to disable them. This means E-mount and DSLR mounts are shown without correction, and most other mirrorless mounts are shown with correction.

Either use something like C1 and disable corrections for all of them, or enable them for all mounts.
But I have complained about that a ton here on DPreview, and they don't want to change it. So I bring it up under every gallery time and time again :D

@matthew saville
"are lens manufacturers going to try and get away with more and more "hidden" corrections?"

Hahaha

Many M43 or Fuji-X lenses would be completely unusable without distortion correction. It's just part of the design parameter now. And honestly, this is fine. Correcting distortion digitally often allows you to make better lenses in general, especially if you have a size or weight target.
We just need to treat all manufacturers the same.

PS: The color shift you talk about can appear on non-telecentric lenses (lenses that make use of the short flange distance) It can be fixed in post just like vignetting however. I believe Lightroom even does it automatically.

@matthew saville
Well, I am talking about distortion here, not vignetting. A full lens review should of course look at vignetting. [Vignetting correction in a sample gallery wouldn't bother me, however]

And for distortion correction, all that counts is the final sharpness after correction.

But again, no matter if you are for or against digital correction for various reasons, the important part is equal standards. Either show all galleries with or without. I would say show them all with, because that's what people will see in their final images. But I would also be fine without as long as you do it for all brands.
But showing some brands with and some brands without correction is just weird