![]() ![]() Light changed a bit but perhaps not as much as the images imply, contrast and color balance is different between the two lenses. Yes, the comparison was not ideal just a series of snap shots. The out of focus areas on the left (green branches) are quite distracting aka ugly -) with the 1835.Ĭonsidering that the 18105 costs & weighs half of the Sigma, doesn't need an extra adapter, works also on the cheapo older A6000 etc, has a 3x larger focal range, has OSS, it seems to me that the 18105 is doing a very good job and has quite good sharpness. The 1835 is a bit better but it is unclear how much under same lighting. The 18105 still has all the details there if you look at the minute branches in the back. Three things I take from this comparison: I made two crops and sharpened the one of the 18105 to compensate at least a bit for the different lighting disadvantage. Total exposure is different, the 18105 is exposed a stop more in spite of a more sun-lit scene, leading to partial blow-out of highlights. Crops show branch movement between the shots (wind) so the Sigma had the advantage of being able to better freeze them.Ĥ. Shutter speeds are drastically different: 1/200 versus 1/2000 with the 1835. IMHO the shot of the 1835 is focused further back.ģ. With the tree in center probably used as AF target, AF differences can introduce further variance. In contrast, the shot with the 1835 is with clouds shading the branches, increasing contrast greatly.Ģ. ![]() The shot with the 18105 is with the sun breaking through, illuminating details and causing low contrast against the bright white/grey sky. However, while I can understand your enthusiasm for the 18-35, I don't see the differences as you do and come to different conclusions.ġ. I posted full size samples comparing these two lenses about 4 weeks ago here in this forum. Would it be possible for you to post a sample? But once you see the images, oh my God!!! This lens is much sharper at f1.8 than my Sony 18-105 at f8. If possible, try this lens in a store before you buy. I also tried the Metabones iv adapter in the store, but the MC-11 focuses a bit snappier. HOWEVER, it is much slower compared to my native Sony 18-105 and hunts quite a bit in anything but ideal light. All functions work properly, including the continuous AF and eye focus. My photo dealer recommended Canon mount with MC-11 adapter, which is what I did. As for image quality, this is the best lens I have for this camera. I recently bought this Sigma for my A6300. At the moment with my a6000 adapted lenses don't really work as needed (you need the a6300 or a6500 for that). I will also be getting the a6500 once it releases in the middle east, if it does ever. So yes, I suggest the canon version + MC-11. It works great and everything it does is great, the auto focus for video is as good as I can imagine, haven't really had any issues apart from the lens being a tad heavy and sometimes limit the movement on the gimbal although with Pilotfly H2 I can simply just invert the handle, and then I have full movement for the camera (the camera itself has to be put a little too much on the back)Īpart from that, all the native lens mechanisms work (eye af, video focus.etc). Usually used on a gimbal and the reason I use this lens is because of the internal zoom & focus mechanism. I take some stills every now and then when I have to and the images always look great although limited to crop sized photos. I have the MC-11 and the 18-35mm f1.8 that I use with my a7rii adapted for video work. It seemed like doing Canon to E with the MC-11 allowed for everything on the lens to function as a native lens but please correct me if I am incorrect on anything. At the time of typing I forget exactly now. I really liked the idea of Metabones being able to allow the lens to still work at the full frame size but I recall now going at least from A to E with Metabones that I think it was AF didn't work. I am pretty sure I did want to pick up a Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART which initially I was thinking of getting the Sony A mount and use an adapter to E but it seems like the better option is going to be a Canon mount and using a Canon to E mount adapter, probably the Sigma MC-11 adapter.Ĭan someone give help on if I should go with Canon or A? I want which ever is going to allow an adapter to allow metadata from the lens to be passed on, keep at least 1.8 without stepping down like LAEA4 causes, and also hopefully keeping the native AF speed and accuracy. I just picked up an a6500 but haven't decided just yet on the lenses I also want to go with. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |