Sigma 28-105mm F2.8 DN ART Review | The Ultimate Zoom?

0:00
Hi, I'm Dustin Abbott. Sigma has done it again with another genre-busting type lens that
0:16
does something that really hardly anyone else has done. Now, I can't say that no one else
0:21
has done it before because as long as I have been doing photography and doing reviews
0:26
there's been that debate between the zoom range of a 24-105mm f4 lens and then of course
0:34
the maximum aperture of a 24-70mm f2.8. And of course what people have wanted for as long
0:41
as I've known the discussion is people want to have a 24-105mm f2.8 and why don't they
0:47
do that? Obviously the reason is that it's much easier said than done. Now, it has now
0:53
been done since Canon released their 24-105mm f2.8 LIS lens. Obviously it is possible to
1:03
do it, though to be fair that Canon is a behemoth of a lens weighing about over 1300 grams and
1:10
costing about $3000 US dollars. But Sigma has come with a lens that almost does it
1:16
This is not a 24-105mm f2.8, but their newest lens is the 28-205mm f2.8 DG DN Art Series
1:26
lens. The good news, however, is that although it's not quite as wide, Sigma has managed
1:32
to keep the lens weight at under a kilo and it costs just $1500 or half the price of the
1:40
Canon lens. So is this a lens worth considering? Well, that's what we're going to dive into
1:46
in today's review, right after a word from our sponsor. Today's episode is sponsored by the clothing brand Fjobok. You may have seen their ads
1:53
on your social media feeds. The Fjobok brand was launched in 2020 with the intent of producing
1:59
technical clothes with a better fit, particularly for those with athletic builds. I'm 6'1 and
2:04
weigh 175 pounds and I found their size large slim fit cuts work well for me, tapering where
2:10
I want them to while leaving room for my active lifestyle. The materials of even their basic
2:15
t-shirts and polos feel great with soft, cool blends of Pima cotton, bamboo fiber
2:21
and Sirona fibers. This half zip polo features high-end modal fiber along with some spandex
2:26
for stretch. Fjobok boasts a 60% reorder rate, which tells you just how much their customers
2:32
love the feel and fit of their clothes. Fjobok is offering a 20% discount on everything for
2:38
my audience, so visit Fjobok.com and use code Dustin20 to build your wardrobe. That's
2:44
Fjobok.com and use code Dustin20 for 20% off everything. So as you can see, this isn't a small lens, but neither is it ridiculously large. In fact
2:55
as far as the physical dimensions, it is very similar to Tamron's 35-150mm f2-2.8 VXD lens
3:05
though it is a little bit lighter. The Sigma lens is 87.8mm or 3.5 inches in diameter
3:13
It is right under 160mm in overall length or 6.3 inches. It has 82mm front filter threads
3:21
just like the Tamron. However, it weighs in at 990g or 34.9oz. That makes it 310g less
3:31
than the Canon lens and 175g less than the Tamron, mostly because the Tamron is a little
3:38
bit wider around in diameter. So I feel like overall, all things considered, Sigma has
3:46
done a pretty good job managing the weight here, though to be fair, it is a smaller zoom
3:52
ratio than either of those other two lenses. The Tamron also has the advantage, while it
3:56
doesn't go as wide, of having a larger maximum aperture, going as large as f2 on the wide
4:02
end. But overall, I think that Sigma has done the job, particularly if they've managed to
4:06
pull it off optically, which we'll dive into in just a moment
4:11
Modern Sigma lenses that are part of their art series or sports series are very full-featured
4:16
and that's the case here. That starts with a wide variety of controls for the aperture
4:23
You do have an aperture ring, you have the option of either having clicks or with a button
4:27
you can de-click it. You have the ability to use an iris lock that will lock you either
4:33
into the aperture ring or if you want to lock out of it. If you prefer just not control
4:40
aperture yourself manually, but control it from within the camera, you just lock it into
4:45
the A position and it will allow you to just use the in-camera control and not mess with
4:51
the aperture ring. We have got a couple of the custom buttons, function buttons that
4:57
you can program the function from within the camera, an AF-MF switch, and then we have
5:01
a zoom lock that locks you into the 28mm position to prevent anything like zoom creep. Though
5:09
as you can see, I can shake it up and down. This is a very well-engineered lens. Even
5:15
if I put it halfway through, it's not doing any kind of creeping. It is a very nicely
5:20
made lens. A combination of some different materials here in it. I think largely we have
5:27
got their thermal composites, which is their engineered plastics, though it has a premium
5:32
feel to it that doesn't feel plasticky in any way. But I think that's part of the way
5:37
that they have kept the overall weight down. Now, the zoom function is very nice and smooth
5:43
nicely damped, no kind of sticking points anywhere. I will note that unlike Sony or
5:51
any of the other third-party lenses that I'm aware of on Sony E-mount, it zooms in the
5:55
opposite direction. So that's a little bit annoying if your muscle memory goes the other
5:59
direction, which for most of us it does. But anyway, just something to be aware of. This
6:03
is also available in a Leica L-mount as well. We do have a thorough weather sealing here
6:09
that starts with a gasket at the lens mount. There are internal seals and then a coating
6:16
similar to a fluorine type coating on the front element that helps with fingerprints
6:20
and moisture to complete the weather sealing design. Now inside we have got a one unique
6:26
aspect here, and that is that they chose to do a 12-bladed aperture here. That's atypical
6:32
for a Sigma. Typically, they use odd blade count numbers, 9 or 11 blades, for example
6:40
In this case, it's 12. And I don't actually, I don't understand why more manufacturers
6:44
don't do this because the upside is it produces really nice-looking sun stars. And in this
6:50
case, to have that, those 12 clean sunburst effect, I think it looks really, really nice
6:56
And so I appreciate that. Here we have no optical stabilization built in. You're going
7:02
to be relying on whatever in-body image stabilization you have on your cameras. And most cameras
7:07
it's probably not going to be a factor, but if you have a camera that doesn't have IBIS
7:11
know that there is no lens-based image stabilization. It does come with the hood, which is a nicely
7:17
made hood that locks. Sigma's modern designs have a lot of different textures and lines
7:22
on them that make them have a great-looking kind of modern, but yet sleek look to them
7:27
overall. It also includes a nice padded zippered nylon case to carry the lens in. So it is
7:33
very, very nice overall. Now we have a 40-centimeter minimum focus distance, and that's going to
7:41
give you varying degrees of magnification, obviously, depending on where you are in the zoom range. If you go all the way to 105 millimeters, however, you can get as high as 0.32 times
7:50
magnification. That's a very useful figure. And by the way, that's one area where it definitely
7:55
tops the Tamron, which has about half that degree of magnification. And so it's definitely
8:02
something that I appreciate on the Sigma lens. So feature-wise, a nicely equipped lens. How
8:08
about autofocus? Autofocus, we have the HLA, which is the high-speed linear actuator focus
8:15
motor here. That is Sigma's premium autofocus motor. It has a lot of thrust to it, and thus
8:21
it is able to do near instantaneous autofocus changes, not just on the wide end, but also
8:27
as you can see here, as I move towards the telephoto end, that we're able to just essentially
8:32
instantly go back and forth. So that helps a lot to have the ability to focus in situations
8:38
that demand high-speed focus. I had the opportunity to use this lens at a rodeo that came to town
8:44
And so as a byproduct, even though the lighting conditions weren't great, I think in some
8:47
of these sequences I was shooting at ISO 6400, but this lens had no problem keeping
8:53
up with the action and both acquiring the fast moving, you know, horses and cattle
9:00
but also being able to track that action and to deliver well-focused results. And I found
9:05
that autofocus was able to just snap into basically whatever I wanted to do. And we
9:10
used it at a few events. I used it some, my wife used it some, and was able to capture
9:14
things, you know, like people tossing horseshoes and to catch things in the midst of action
9:18
had no problem in acquiring that. There is essentially no sound to the autofocus motor
9:23
as well. It is pretty close to perfectly silent. I will point out the only limitation when
9:29
it comes to action is one that affects all third-party lenses on Sony. So this doesn't
9:33
exist on Leica, though, you know, to counterbalance it, there are no cameras on Leica with, or
9:38
at least with L-mount at the moment that are shooting really high burst rates. But for
9:42
example, on Sony, you're going to have a maximum burst limitation of 15 frames per
9:47
second, which means, you know, I have the Sony Alpha 1, it can do 30 frames per second
9:51
You're still going to be limited at 15. And even if you have the A9 Mark III and it's
9:55
incredible 120 frames per second, your limit is still going to be that 15 frames per second
10:00
not Sigma's fault, but a reality here on Sony. Now on the video side of things, focus pulls
10:08
were nice and smooth and confident, no issue there. There is some focus breathing, but
10:13
it's not terrible. And so I don't have any real kind of critiques there overall. I did
10:19
notice that when it came to my hand test, that the transitions were overall good. And
10:23
so whenever the hand was actually there and blocking my eye, sometimes I didn't realize
10:28
it, but my eye was actually looking through there. So a couple of those sequences does
10:31
stay locked on my eye, but whenever I got my hand in the right place and made that transition
10:36
nicely from hand to eye and vice versa. What I found in some of my real world focus changes
10:42
is that it's not quite as nicely damped as what I would prefer. And so there is a little
10:48
bit of a jump, you know, quickly moves to the next focus subject rather than a more
10:52
cinematic focus pull. But, you know, if you want more cinematic looks, you know, fortunately
10:58
it does have a pretty nice focus ring here and you can do those focus pulls yourself
11:03
I have used this lens for probably at least a half dozen of my YouTube videos. I obviously
11:09
wasn't announcing that because the lens wasn't announced, but I used it for filming in a
11:13
number of situations and it was reliable, rock solid. And of course the footage looked
11:18
great. Overall, I do think it's a very nice lens for video. You do have the ability to
11:24
you know, zoom in relatively smoothly. You can see here in this shot that I went throughout
11:28
the whole zoom range and it's relatively smooth. It would be better on a tripod obviously
11:34
but for handheld, not all that bad. So overall autofocus is pretty great. So how about the
11:40
optics here? I'm going to give you an optical overview and then those of you that want the
11:45
deeper dive, you can take a look at the deep dive optical breakdown that will come at the
11:50
end of the video. I will film, it'll probably be a while before I can release it, but I
11:54
will film a direct comparison with the Tamron and give you one of my versus episodes. But
12:00
overall here we have an optical design of 18 elements in 13 groups that includes 2 FLD
12:07
2 SLD and 5 aspherical elements. Sigma in their internal literature that was shared
12:13
with me, they compare this favorably to both their 24-70mm f2.8 and older 24-105mm f4 lens
12:22
So this is a lens that has a very strong optical performance, though of course the
12:27
Tamron also has an exceptional optical performance as well. Back to the Sigma, however, some
12:34
pluses is that I saw very, very little fringing of any kind, either the longitudinal aspect
12:40
before or after the plane of focus, then also the lateral chromatic aberrations that show
12:44
up near the edge of the frame. I didn't see any issue with those either. So overall a
12:48
really nice performance for that. Unfortunately, even though they only went as wide as 28mm
12:54
rather than 24mm, they still ended up with a fairly pronounced amount of barrel distortion
13:01
on the wide end. I needed a plus 26mm to correct a significant amount of barrel distortion
13:07
and manually correcting it is a little bit challenging. It's not fully linear, so if
13:11
you go to all the way where I adjusted the inside lines here, you can see it almost creates
13:16
some pin cushion distortion on the outside edges. There is a correction profile obviously
13:21
it does it a little bit more cleanly, though it doesn't fully correct the barrel distortion
13:27
and so unfortunately a little bit of that does remain on the wide end. Vignette is also
13:31
very heavy on the wide end. We have got a plus 90mm to correct for it, so almost maxing
13:38
out the sliders for correction. On the telephoto end, the switch is to a pin cushion style
13:43
distortion, still fairly strong, a minus 10mm and I knew it was fairly strong because
13:48
I saw it in some of my real world shots where you could see where there was lines towards
13:52
the edge of the frame. For example, in this shot you can see there's a bit of a bow to
13:55
the line and so seeing that I was like, oh, there's definitely some pin cushion distortion
14:00
here and sure enough when I tested it was a minus 10mm to correct the pin cushion distortion
14:05
Vignette is about a stop lower. I needed a plus 61mm to correct on the telephoto end
14:12
and so that's right over two stops, whereas on the wide end it is three plus stops and
14:18
so definitely some vignette throughout the zoom range, though less so on the telephoto
14:23
end. In terms of the optics, I tested on a 61MP a7R Mark V and my crops are shown at
14:30
200% here. I found that the lens is extremely sharp in the center and the mid-frame, however
14:36
at 28mm there's a fairly significant drop off into the corners. It's quite a bit softer
14:41
in the corners. Stopping down to f5.6 I found that the corners were sharper, but never as
14:48
sharp as the rest of the frame. They never quite catch up. I found that diffraction will
14:53
start to show up by f11. It becomes much more noticeable by the minimum aperture of f22
15:00
You're probably going to want to avoid that because your image will get considerably softer
15:04
As we go throughout the zoom range, I found that things improved a bit at 35mm all across
15:10
the frame, including some improvement in the corners, a little more capacity for the
15:14
corners to sharpen up as you stop the lens down. When you get to 50mm you have hit basically
15:20
the benchmark high watermark for this lens in its zoom range. It is basically perfectly
15:25
sharp at 50mm, even at f2.8, all across the frame. Fantastically sharp, fantastically
15:31
high contrast. It looks amazing there. Still good at 70mm, though it drops off a little
15:36
bit from that high watermark at 50mm. 105mm is roughly the same, a little give and take
15:44
relative to 70mm. What the MTF chart shows is that it's really sharp on one axis and
15:51
a little less sharp on another axis. So byproduct is that contrast isn't fantastic at 105mm
15:59
But it is good enough that I found that my real world results were sharp, not mind-blowingly
16:04
sharp, but nice and sharp even at f2.8. Stop it down a bit and it gets sharper still
16:09
Just to give you a quick overview, when I compared to the Tamron, on the wide end the
16:14
Tamron is just a hair sharper, but there is some give and take. At 105mm, comparing there
16:20
the Tamron is sharper at that point across the frame. And as you stop the lenses down
16:25
the Tamron's improvement actually grows relative to the Sigmas. And so it is a little bit sharper
16:32
I would say, overall as a lens. I've used this lens ever since its introduction and
16:36
so being very, very familiar with it, I've probably used this lens more than any other
16:41
over the last three plus years. So what I found relative to the Sigma is that I felt
16:47
like under similar situations, the Sigma was sharp, just not quite as sharp
16:52
Bokeh quality is good, but not exceptionally good. I did find that there is some extra
16:58
outlining in some areas and if you've got bright specular highlights, you may see a
17:02
little bit of onion bokeh or concentric circles inside the specular highlights in some places
17:07
So it can get a little busier in some situations, in other situations it looks very good. The
17:12
rendering here though, I would say is good, but not exceptionally good
17:17
Flare resistance, however, is exceptionally good. And for a zoom like this, I'm very impressed
17:21
by how good it does. And its flare resistance, definitely something that the Tamron struggles
17:25
with a bit. The Sigma was much better and basically rock solid in bright sun conditions
17:30
and I love those sun stars. So that's a definite plus. Colors are also excellent. This lens
17:35
produces beautiful looking images and so obviously I appreciate that. In conclusion, this is yet another example of Sigma being unafraid to take on the major
17:46
engineering challenges. They continually produce lenses that no one else has either produced
17:53
or is even willing to try to produce. And even though they take big risk, I will say
17:57
this for Sigma, they largely pull it off. And so I am impressed that here's another
18:02
lens that does something, not quite, but almost does what people have been clamoring for
18:07
for nearly 15 years that I've been involved in the photography community and they have
18:12
largely pulled it off. Yes, it doesn't go all the way to 24 millimeters, but still a
18:16
28 to 105 millimeter F2.8 zoom is impressive. And I think that that versatility is really
18:22
what's going to sell people on the potential of this lens. I would say for myself that I still slightly favor the 35 to 150 millimeter Tamron, largely
18:32
because I really do value that wide end of it and makes it easier for me to carry just
18:37
one lens into an event setting. But I also recognize that the Sigma does have some relative
18:42
advantages. It's cheaper at $1,500 versus $1,800. It goes wider, 28 versus 35 millimeters
18:50
It has much higher magnification. And so that for, if you're doing wedding photography
18:54
for example, it means you can get in close and get some of those details in nicely magnified
18:59
shots. And the Sigma also has better flare resistance. It's not cheap. It's not small
19:04
but there is a lot of versatility that's packed into this lens for a $1,500 US price. So not
19:11
cheap, but I think, you know, reachable, particularly when you consider that for many photographers
19:16
this is a lens that might be able to replace multiple lenses for them, which obviously
19:20
extends its versatility. I'm Dustin Abbott. And if you want more information on the Sigma
19:25
28 to 105 Art Series lens, you can check out my text review that is linked in the description
19:30
down below. It's also linked to an image gallery and some buying links there. And if you want
19:36
a deeper dive into the optical performance, stay tuned. Here we go
19:40
So we'll start by taking a look at the distortion at 28 millimeters. You can see a very pronounced
19:45
amount of barrel distortion. So if I fully correct the lines inside here, you can see
19:51
that it creates a pin cushion distortion on the outside edges because you have to overcorrect
19:56
the outside edges to properly correct the inside edges. By comparison, here is the correction
20:01
profile from Sigma. And you can see what it does is it doesn't entirely correct all of
20:08
these lines, leaving just a little bit of a bulge on the outside to, in order to allow
20:13
for kind of a happy medium somewhere in between. To get this result on the manual correction
20:18
I dialed in a plus 26 and then all the way up to a plus 90 to correct for the vignette
20:24
in the corner. So pretty close to maxing out that slider. Now, as you go throughout the
20:28
zoom range, that will invert to a pin cushion distortion. As you can see here, vignette
20:32
still heavy, but not as heavy. And also this distortion pattern is much more linear. So
20:38
even with a manual correction, you can see that I was able to correct it pretty cleanly
20:42
We have about a plus 60 for the vignette correction. So a little over two stops of
20:48
correction in the corner here at 105 millimeters. Fortunately, the next few metrics are much
20:54
stronger and you can see here that there is a minimal amount of a longitudinal chromatic
20:59
aberration, a little bit of fringing after the plane of focus, but very, very little
21:03
in this shot of the grass. You can see, first of all, that you're able to get nice sharpness
21:08
and contrast in the grass itself. But as we look here in the edges, the places where
21:14
there could be fringing, it's, it's, there's a little bit there, but it is quite minimal
21:19
No real issue with fringing here. Likewise with lateral chromatic aberrations, very well
21:24
corrected for that. I see basically no fringing here, even at a high level of magnification
21:29
So nothing to worry about. So taking a look at resolution here, this is 61 megapixels
21:35
I'm going to show you results at 200% magnification, 28 millimeters F 2.8 in the center of the frame
21:41
looks fantastic. Lots of detail, lots of contrast, no concerns there. Mid-frame also looks fantastic
21:49
As we pan down here, we can see, I like to look at this bill. You can see that looking still good
21:55
up in this quadrant, just a little bit softer, less contrast. As we move down here, you can see
22:01
likewise that we're losing a little bit of that contrast. And as we get down towards the corner
22:06
definitely a lot of loss from this point here to that final bit there towards the edge
22:11
And so we lose a lot of contrast and detail there towards the edge. Now, stopping down to F4
22:17
it produces just a little bit of improvement in the center of the frame. You can mostly see that
22:22
in the text here, which is a little bit more crisp, but already the center looked pretty fantastic
22:27
Mid-frame already looked good, but you can definitely see an improvement in the mid-frame
22:31
And what you're going to be able to see is that as we come down here, even in this corner
22:36
it's definitely more contrasty and sharp, but even more noticeably here down in this zone
22:42
look at the $2, how much better the contrast and the resolution is there. And you can see that as
22:48
we get down towards the corner, that it's definitely improved. It's still not fantastic
22:54
From F4 to F5.6, another improvement for sure, but still not amazing. We'll take a look around
23:02
different places around the frame. And you can see that looking at this side, this side also
23:08
is looking quite equal. As far as the centering goes up into this corner, again, looking very good
23:13
at F5.6 and then up into the upper right corner. And we can see here, it also looks good there
23:22
And so we do have a nice centering performance. So you'll find the center of the frame, very
23:26
slightly less sharp at F11, not bad, but you can see by F22, which is the minimum aperture
23:33
that it is dramatically softened. And so you're probably going to want to avoid going past F11
23:37
unless you really need to. Now, if we compare 28 millimeters to 35 millimeters
23:42
which is the next marked place on the zoom ring, you can see that in the center of the frame
23:47
a very, very slight improvement. It's not a lot to improve because it was already fantastic
23:52
but 35 millimeters does look a little bit more crisp. We look in the midframe, you can see that
23:58
there's just a little bit more contrast pop there. Let's take a look at this zone on the $2 bill
24:04
It's a little improved, but not significantly. And that's going to carry on as we go towards
24:08
the corners. It is definitely better. It's not great yet, but definitely better at F2.8
24:17
And it does sharpen up a bit faster at F4 and by F5.6 looking pretty good at 35 millimeters
24:25
What's interesting is that even if I compared F5.6 at 35 millimeters to wide open F2.8 at 50
24:32
millimeters, you can see that 50 millimeters may look even better. This is really the pinnacle
24:37
of the performance in this midframe. I would say it's sharper at F2.8 and better contrast than it
24:42
is at 35 millimeters, even at F5.6. And down into the corners, it's probably not quite better
24:51
but it's certainly hardly any worse even at F2.8. And if we stop down to F5.6, it's really close to
25:00
about as good as we get in the corners. The corners are never amazing with this lens
25:05
but good enough I think to get by in real world use where you're not looking at it at 200
25:09
magnification. So if we move on to 70 millimeters, you can see that at F2.8, it looks good in the
25:15
center, not as great as what it did at 50 millimeters. You'll find a bit of improvement
25:20
as you stop it down, you tell a little bit more contrast there. Midframe looks good, better still
25:25
at F4. As we go down towards the edge here, you can see looking good down through here. And as we
25:32
get down towards the edge performance, again, it's not amazingly good, but it's good. So finally at
25:38
105 millimeters, center of the frame looks very similar to what we saw at 70 millimeters. Again
25:44
some improvement when you stop down to F4. Midframe is looking good and a little bit better
25:50
as you stop it down a little bit. As we scroll down here towards the edge, again, it's looking
25:56
good. It's never amazing in the corners. And here I would say corners look a little bit softer
26:02
lower contrast, even when you stop it down a little bit. For some real world perspective
26:06
however, this is at 105 millimeters F2.8, and you can see that that's a lot of contrast and detail
26:14
There's nothing there that anybody would be unhappy with. So for some perspective, we're
26:19
going to put the Sigma at 28 millimeters and the Tamron 35 to 150 at both of them at F2.8, obviously
26:26
35 millimeters for the Tamron. You can see in the center of the frame, the Sigma is good, but the
26:32
Tamron is crazy good. It's just exceptionally sharp in the center of the frame. Very, very crisp
26:38
detail. In the midframe here, the Tamron is better, but it's more slightly better. As we move down
26:45
towards the corners, however, you can see that both of them are not fantastic and the Sigma is
26:53
about equally not good compared to the Tamron. But if we look in this zone, for example
26:58
the Tamron is clearly better going all the way over to the left side here. And we can see again
27:04
they're roughly equal. If anything, I think the Sigma is slightly better over on the left side
27:09
So I mean, overall, there's some give and take though the Tamron is probably more consistently
27:13
sharp. Now the difference is a little bit more noticeable when you come towards 105 millimeters
27:18
I'm close. I didn't quite nail it there with the Tamron, tried to get as close as I could
27:22
But in the center of the frame, both of them at F2.8, you can see that in the center of the frame
27:27
it's not radically different though. The contrast is definitely better there in the text
27:32
In the midframe, the Tamron is obviously a bit better. You can see, let's come back here for
27:37
a moment. You can see that in the writing here on the bill, contrast is much more detailed and crisp
27:43
there on the Tamron and into the corners. Neither one of them is amazing in the corners
27:48
but the Tamron has just a little bit more contrast and detail resolving there
27:53
What's interesting though, if you stop these lenses down, here's the Sigma at F4, the Tamron
27:58
also at F4, the Tamron is just ridiculously sharp. And so it really, really improves at F4
28:06
You can see in the midframe, it is considerably improved. It looks much better than the Sigma
28:12
Down into the corner, it looks better. It doesn't look amazing, but it definitely looks
28:16
better than what the Sigma does. And you can see over on this side, you can see that difference a
28:21
little more clearly that it is definitely just a lot more detail and contrast that's there
28:26
So I mean, definitely on the longer end, the Tamron is the winner
28:30
Now we can see that you're able to achieve a nice high level of magnification with the Sigma
28:36
You can also see that it is achieved at a not particularly flat plane of focus. In fact
28:40
it almost seems three-dimensional as if the ship is sailing right out of the rest of the scene
28:45
So kind of an interesting effect here, not what you're looking for if you're wanting a flat plane
28:49
of focus. And you can see here up close, that's a great amount of magnification
28:54
If we poke in at a pixel level, you can see that the detail is okay. It's not amazingly good. So
29:00
it's not going to replace a macro lens. But again, if you just back off and look at the image as a
29:04
whole, I think it looks pretty great. Here's another shot here of a mushroom up close. Again
29:10
there's a little bit of hard edges here in the bokeh, but still, it's pretty nice melting away
29:15
of that background and a high level of magnification. Another shot here, I think the
29:19
bokeh works a little bit better here and getting very, very close to these tiny little blossoms
29:25
And you can see that the detail up close looks pretty nice there. And this shot here, I wanted
29:30
to come back to this scene. This is a little bit different a shot, but morning dew shot
29:36
because it shows what is probably the weakness of the bokeh. There's definitely some concentric
29:41
circles and those specular highlights, some outlining, as you can see, and just some hard
29:47
edges there that don't delight me for sure. It's not a look that I particularly love
29:52
And so what that means is that in this shot, for example, things look pretty good, bokeh is pretty
29:58
soft. But here, I mean, there's definitely more outlining than what I would personally like
30:04
in that particular shot. Here's more of a medium distance portrait shot, obviously full length
30:08
And there's some things I really like about it, things that I don't like as well. I love the
30:12
overall look of the image. I think that the colors look great. Skin tones look good here. Detail on
30:18
my wife's face looks very nice. You can also see that the detail in the wood textures here all look
30:24
good. If we pan towards the background here, you can see if you look carefully, it's not wildly
30:32
soft. There's definitely some outlining and it gets a little bit busier than what I would like
30:37
I do really like the colors. However, this was a pretty scene, but the colors are very nice
30:43
nice and nuanced there. Another shot of my wife here looking out at that scene. Colors are just
30:50
nice. The overall image I think looks really good. And the final real strength is flare resistance
30:56
And so here, stop down, that sunburst effect looks great here at wide open. You can see a very good
31:01
flare resistance, no issues there. Even zoomed in, I actually found that the sunburst looks pretty
31:06
good. And so it makes me wonder why they don't do this more often, because typically when you zoom
31:12
into a zoom lens towards the telephoto end, the sunburst effect looks pretty lousy, but in this
31:16
case, it still looks good. Here's another shot at kind of a medium framing, and you can see that
31:22
the sunburst effect looks really nice, but overall the flare resistance is fantastic
31:27
So some give and take, but overall a lot of positives in the optical performance here
31:32
So hopefully the deep dive into the optics gives you an even better sense of whether or not this
31:36
is a lens that is worth your hard earned cash. As always, thanks for watching. Have a great day
31:41
and let the light in

Sigma 28-105mm F2.8 DN ART Review | The Ultimate Zoom?

dustinabbott.net

Schneider-KREUZNACH x LK Samyang 14-24mm F2.8 FE Review | Impressive!

Nikon Z5II Review | Is This the Best Sub $2000 Camera?

Viltrox AF 28mm F4.5 Chip Z-Mount Review | The Most Fun for Under $100

Chest Circle Dance Move for Bollywood and Fusion Belly Dancers

How To Optimise Youtube Shorts To Get Views

Python 3 Web Scraping Script to Get All Videos of Youtube Channel Using Youtube Data API V3

Build a Next.js Canva Clone Video Editor in Browser Using FFMPEG WASM & Fabric.js in TypeScript

GRUESOME HUMANOIDS! CRAWLERS, GHOULS, & GOLLUMS| Join Us - LIVE CHAT | Q&A (WHAT ARE PEOPLE SEEING?)

All Roads Lead To Zion | Oddman Jeremy Stone & John Brisson

Create ANIMATION videos from TEXT Using Free AI Tools (Text-To-Animation AI)

Testing Out The Ahape Wrist Weights

First Look At This LONGTEN 3 in 1 Winter Set

Up next in 10

Sigma 28-105mm F2.8 DN ART Review | The Ultimate Zoom?

dustinabbott.net