鏡頭評測 適馬 28-45mm f1.8 鏡頭評測：都不錯就是太重

我們今天有新的鏡頭 這是SIGMA 28-45mm DG DN 它來自Sony E-mount 我這裡也有它,還有L-mount 我相信它應該是SIGMA最有名的18-35mm APS-C鏡頭的神祕搭載者 它也有F1.8 這個鏡頭也有 為了公開,SIGMA給了我這個鏡頭 我有早期資訊 它是一名失業者,我把它寄回給它 SIGMA沒有在金錢上贊助這段影片 我沒有收到任何贊助 SIGMA沒有在金錢上贊助這段影片 我沒有收到任何贊助 這段影片有一個真正的贊助者 那就是Sennheiser的新的Evolution Wireless Digital Portable E&G 套裝 它有SKP模組 放在麥克風後面 我們稍後會更詳細介紹 我們來看看它的組裝和其他功能 最下方有一個Aperture Ring 可以從F1.8到F16 可以把鏡頭鎖定到A模式 如果你想保持鏡頭控制 也可以按下和移動 然後有一個Zoom Ring 可以從F28到F45 它有一定的重量 感覺像是我們在移動一些重玻璃元件 當我們把它移動 但感覺不錯 然後有一個Focus Ring 就像其他SIGMA的鏡頭 它是一個非常好的Focus Ring 兩個功能按鈕 一個在這裡,一個在那裡 在Art的旁邊 前面的濾鏡是82mm 尺寸和重量來說 它是一個很大的鏡頭 對比來說 這裡是Sony 24-70mm G Master 這裡是SIGMA 22-45mm 它是相當高的 但這個鏡頭有內置放大 所以這個鏡頭會是最高的 如果我們延伸到24-70mm 你可以看到 它們的尺寸差不多 延伸到24-70mm 但它們的重量有很大的分別 這個鏡頭重950克 Sony的960克 L-Mount的重量超過兩磅 回到Focus Ring 它很像很多 Focus by Wire鏡頭 SIGMA在過去幾年 如果你要對比 18-35mm的原始鏡頭 那是DSLR鏡頭 所以它有很不同的感覺 對於手動焦點來說 這個鏡頭 就像SIGMA 24-70mm 那種鏡頭 它有很長的焦距 但它是無線的 所以手動焦點 對於攝影來說 其實感覺很好 因為它是速度基礎 所以如果你轉得很慢 你可以很準確地 按下手動焦點 然後你會有一個很長的焦距 但對於影片的重覆焦點 是很難做到的 因為如果你轉得快一點 然後轉得慢一點 你會有完全不同的焦點 對於自動焦點來說 這個鏡頭也有很大的升級 超過18-35mm 和SIGMA最新的24-70mm Mark II 更接近 它們的HLA 它們的高速直線引擎 所以你會有快、安靜 和順暢的自動焦點表現 當我測試了 再一次 非常非常快 從最低到極限 並且保持了 我所測試的焦點 如果我們還在對比 SIGMA 18-35mm原本的焦點 它是更快、更順暢 和更安靜 然而 它確實有些焦點 你可以看到 無論你在28mm或45mm 有些焦點 如果你不知道 什麼是焦點 那就是在你焦點 從最低到極限 時 而說到焦點 最低的焦點 這個鏡頭的近焦距離 是0.3米 也就是0.98米 也就是 差不多一腳的距離 那有趣的是 焦點的焦點 並沒有改變 無論你在28mm或45mm 所以在測試畫面中 在45mm 你會近焦一點 比在28mm近焦一點 你無法將鏡頭 移動得更近 這可能會是 我最大的憂慮 當我走在這鏡頭旁邊時 我總是希望 我能夠 移動得更近一點 這純粹是 個人喜好 如果你使用這鏡頭 為了什麼 完全不同的目的 如果你是為了 35mm 和更環境性的 28mm 做一些 更廣闊的設計 這並不重要 但如果你 我不會購買這鏡頭 作為走動鏡頭 然後嘗試 近鏡 因為總是覺得 你不太像 你喜歡的近鏡 所以這不是 我會買這鏡頭的原因 好 現在我會拿出Lightroom 展示給你們看 我集中的樣本 來測試 這個鏡頭的質量 但在此之前 我想告訴你們 今天的影片的贊助商 Zennheiser EWDP-ENG 我已經有 設定 我其實 已經很喜歡這個鏡頭 事實上 這段影片的 開頭 是在使用 這個功能 SKP 我把這個鏡頭 插在了 我的Zennheiser MKH50 這是一個麥克風 大家應該都知道 我已經 好久都在使用 我還使用了 收集器 並將它連接到 我的ZOOM F6 因為這裡有XLR支援 連接方式 非常簡單 但我並沒有意識到 直到我測試了 SKP的功能 可以錄製 32-bit float onto a microSD card attached to it while simultaneously transmitting to the receiver that can record on my Zoom F6. And you can do this even in the US. It's not restricted regionally. And obviously it comes with a body pack as well if you want to wear a lav and do the same thing. Now you can't record 32-bit float into the body pack. That's more of just an SKP thing. But the SKP part even has a locking 3.5mm thread on the bottom if you wanted to use it as a body pack instead. And then I guess you could record your lav that way. But honestly, I'm just in love with the fact that I can just take this little device, stick it on the back of my microphone and record 32-bit float audio without needing to run an XLR cable all over the place. It's a really, really great little device. And by the way, I'm back to an XLR cable like I mentioned. Did you hear a difference between this part and the beginning of the video? Alright, let's get into Lightroom and show you the sample images. Alright, let's start with some chromatic aberration. This is for longitudinal chromatic aberration, or LOCA, which is when you get fringing on areas as they go out of focus to the foreground and background. We do this wide open because really the only way to solve LOCA is by stopping down. And if you shoot at one point and it has LOCA, then it's hard to remove it in post. I am seeing just a hint of a cyan colour going this way. And not much of anything this way. Normally, it would be sort of like the opposite colour, which would be kind of like a red-magenta tone. And I'm not really seeing much of that here. Let's take a look at the 45mm side. Oh, interesting, the colours actually change at 45mm. Now we're getting more of, like, a lime colour up here. And purple down here. And it seems like maybe at 45mm it's slightly worse than it is at 28mm. But in both cases, honestly, this is pretty minimal longitudinal chromatic aberration. It's not perfect, but if you shoot not punched in, it looks black and white, and that's good. And I have a shot here of a fence to test the same thing, but in a real-world sample and not of a chart. And same thing, just really, really, really minor amounts of LOCA in each direction. But I wouldn't complain about this too much at all. Now, let's look at the bokeh. So, we have an 11-bladed iris on this lens, and this is 28mm at f1.8. And you can see there is some cutting in in the corners. Let's punch in here. And yeah, it's very round, very smooth, and not a whole lot going on in terms of, you know, ringing or outer membrane or anything. I think it looks pretty good. Up next, we have the 45mm at f1.8, which we have much worse cat's eye going on. In fact, there's not a single orb here that isn't affected by it in the top row. The next shot, if we bring it down into the centre, then you can get some perfectly round ones. And again, really nice. You know, there's a little bit of busyness going on here, a little bit of ringing, but it's not too bad at all. But the cat's eye is pretty severe at 45. Look, even in the midline, and not even all the way to the edge. Now, if we stop down to around f4, then they mostly round out, and here's where you can see your 11 iris blades. And if you want to see some of that bokeh in a real environment, this is outside, shooting some trees with some light cutting through, and you can see again, you know, the cat's eye is present here, and it does create a little bit of a swirly sensation at 45mm. But I would say it's otherwise pleasing. And as far as transitions, if we look here, this is a nothing burger shot, but it's just to show you the transitions along the edge here and across the top, and then how that plays with the background that's quite separated from it. And again, we're getting a bit of a swirly action, but I'd say the rendering is quite pleasing. Now, jumping back to that close focusing situation here, I actually was at 29.4, I didn't realise, I thought I was at 28, but this is about as close as you can get on the wide end. And if we take a look at the sharpness while focused as close, it's very, very good. So that's not a concern there. And aberration and fringing is not an issue on the text here. And then at 45mm, it's closer, very, very sharp, and doesn't suffer from much in the way of fringing or aberration on that centre target there. So it looks great. And then my last little test here on the close focusing, again, with sort of a real-world example. And if we punch right in, we can see even the little strand or whatever this little hair thing is, is really sharp. Everything looks really good. Look at the detail over here in the little plant fibres. I mean, it's excellent. So you can get excellent results close focusing. I just wish I could get a little bit closer. That's really my only criticism about that. And then I also tested it for parfocal-ness, if you will, which is the lens's ability to focus at one end of the zoom, and then when zooming, does it keep focus or does it lose focus? And so this is focused at 45mm. You can see we're nice and sharp. And then if we zoom to 28mm without changing our focus, it gets a little bit soft. Not the worst I've ever seen, but it certainly isn't parfocal. And if we went the other way, if we focus at 28mm and then zoom to 45mm, again, not fully sharp. Here we've got some flare examples. Just like the previous Sigma lens that I reviewed, the flare is extremely well controlled. You can see that our blacks are still pretty black. There is, you know, a couple of artifacts here, but it's not too bad. I've done some lenses where you just get, like, ghosting and artifacts all the way down. So pretty good flare control. This is at 45mm, and at 28mm, same thing. You can see the area of the frame that's affected right here, but your areas that are outside of that still maintain pretty good contrast, and even the areas that are affected aren't that muddy, which is great to see. I also have some sun stars here, if you're into that. This is at the minimum aperture, which is f16 on this lens. And, you know, we're getting decent results. If you're into, you know, seeing your little spiky sun stars, that's what they look like. Let's talk about vignetting and distortion. You can see there definitely is some. What's interesting is it flips. So on the 45mm side, you can see we're getting pin cushion distortion here, and then on the 28mm side, it switches to a little bit of barrel distortion. There is a focal length somewhere in between where the distortions kind of equalize and you get straight lines. Now, Sigma did send over the lens correction profiles to go along with this lens, so I could test those. And so if we apply that on here to see what it would look like, it does do a great job of straightening up the lines. The one thing I noticed, though, is that I feel like it overcompensates for peripheral illumination, so for vignetting. So if we reset this to the default at 100, it's actually brightening up the corners more than it needs to. And I find that setting it down to about 50 gives you a better result if you're using these profiles. And then with that vignetting, I wanted to compare 1.8 to 5.6 to see if there's a significant difference. So this is with no profiles enabled. This is at 1.8 and then 5.6. You can see that it is a little bit darker in the periphery, on the 1.8, and it does get a little bit better at 5.6, but it's not huge. It's not a huge deal, which again is why I think the correction in the lens profile is actually sort of overcooked. Let's jump over here. I just have a brick wall, which again, you can see the pin cushion at 45 and the barrel at 28. It's kind of funny flipping back and forth. But we can also see how the sharpness plays across the frame. So if we punch in here on the 45mm and we take a look, really outstanding detail. Look at all these little bits here. And as we go down toward the corner, it does get slightly worse. I can see a little bit of softness here, but it's not too bad at all. And I looked at the MTF charts for this lens and they're actually outperforming. So if you shoot this 28-45mm at its 1.8, so it's wide open, and compare it to Sigma's 1.4 art lenses at their 1.4, this outperforms them when each lens is wide open. And if we jump to the 28, same thing. We're getting incredible detail in the centre. And as we scroll down to the corner, you can see that it really doesn't even become noticeable until all the way down here, because this part looks great, this part looks great. So it's, like, really just the extreme of the peripheral, which does line up with what I saw with the MTF charts. So really, really good sharpness. And I have an example here of some rocks to show you again that same thing, but also talk a little bit more about the vignetting, because I think this is important for Sigma to see. So this is at 1.8, and then this is at f4. And you can see at f4, the vignetting is definitely gone. So if we go back to the 1.8 and then apply the lens corrections, we can see that it gets too bright on the edge. Look back at the f4, and then back to the 1.8. So this is why I would suggest dropping this down to about 50, so half the power of the vignetting correction. And then now if we switch to the f4 and then the 1.8, they're very, very similar now. And then if we compare the sharpness between that 1.8 and the f4 version, and we look here, we can see in the centre, you're not really gaining much, in my opinion, by stopping down. Maybe the f4 is a little bit better. And then what about in the corner? Yeah, so you do gain a little bit by stopping down in the corner, but it's not that much. Like, the lens performs very well wide open. So overall, there's not a lot to complain about on this lens when it comes to its optical quality. It's pretty great. It really just comes down to price and what it's trying to do, if that's useful to you. So price-wise, it's more expensive than I was hoping, to be honest. When I looked at some of the recent Sigma lenses where they're going for, you know, in that, like, $1,000 US price zone, I thought, yeah, that's reasonable. And I looked at what the 18-35s are going for now. Mind you, those are APS-C lenses and they're DSLR lenses, so I expected there to be a price hike. But they want $1,350 US for this one, which feels maybe a little bit expensive for what it is. Now, it is a unique lens, and it is, you know, 1.8, 28-45, which I don't really think exists otherwise. And it is kind of cool. Like, the 18-35 is really popular. And if you take an 18-35 and you do the crop factor math on it, you get, like, what, like a 27-50 something? So they're, like, a 52 maybe? So they're really close to that 27-52 with the 28-45, but they managed to keep the 1.8 even when on full frame, which means that, you know, you get lower noise when you compensate for all the aspects of a crop sensor. I guess it's a better lens than the 18-35 in some ways, except for the fact that the 18-35 was, like, the most adaptable lens that people were using for everything, you know, Micro Four Thirds and crop sensors and everything. You can even use it on a full frame if you're willing to, you know, either punch in a little bit or use it on the tighter end of the zoom. This lens, to me, doesn't strike me as that kind of extremely versatile, everybody's going to use it for 10 years on every kind of thing. It's more of just, like, a niche full frame lens that had to be big and heavy in order to be a 1.8, 28-45. All that being said, this is kind of where I live. Honestly, a lot of the shots that I do are between 28 and 40. So, for me, this is just a faster 28-40 zone, so I kind of love it. Again, I just wish it was a little bit cheaper. So, I don't have a recommendation or not a recommendation here. I would say that if you are in that focal range, like, that's exactly what I need, and I wish that I had a 1.8 instead of a 2.8 option, which is what most other ones are, then I can vouch for this lens being optically sound, and it has all the features, and it performs well, you know, in autofocus and stuff like that. It's not the greatest video lens when you consider how it manual focuses, that it focus-free's a little bit, but it is optically sound. Otherwise, I don't know that it's as broad of appeal as some of other Sigma lenses. This one feels a little bit more niche, but it's cool, and it works well. Alright, I'm done.