Okay, today we're talking about a new lens,
the SIGMA 28-105mm f/2.8 DG DN Art,
and this one's for Sony E-mount,
but I believe there's a LUMIX version as well.
Sigma did lend me this lens to make this review.
They didn't pay me any money to make this,
they don't get to see it before it goes up.
This lens goes back to Sigma when I'm done.
But this video does have an actual sponsor
and that's Storyblocks.
Let's start by going over
just a few basic specs on the lens.
So it weighs 990 grams
or at least the Sony version does.
And for comparison,
Sigma's own 24 to 105 f/4 is 885 grams.
So the interesting thing is that it's not
that much heavier than the f/4
and they accomplish that by
one, a new optical formula,
but also not getting that four millimeter on the wide side.
Also, for a 105 millimeter lens,
it's not stabilized.
That's something to consider.
It is an external zoom,
but at 105, it's not stabilized.
Where often, 24 to 105 f/4s are often stabilized.
So just keep that in mind.
Let's go over some of the buttons
and switches it has here.
First off, in the hands, it feels really good.
I like the texture on it.
And speaking of that zoom ring that I just moved,
it's nice, it's well dampened.
Smooth, no complaints.
You'll notice that there is a zoom lock switch
over on this side.
Now this is more for storage
or for if you hold the lens upside down,
it's not gonna break free,
but you can still break through
that lock by just zooming it.
There's two function buttons on the lens, one here
and then one over here
by the AF/MF focus selector.
And there's also a switch for clicking
and declicking the aperture ring.
And the aperture ring also has a feature I like,
which is a lock to help you keep the lens in the A-position
if you want to control it on the camera without it
accidentally, you know, going to f/4.
And then you're wondering why you can't change
the iris on your camera.
It has that.
So basically every little switch
and button that you could want on a lens is here,
and the front filter diameter is 82 millimeters.
So overall, no complaints
with the lens, feels good in the hand.
It's nice, seems well made.
There is a difference with the manual focusing though.
If you're familiar with some
of the more recent Sigma lenses,
I've often had trouble describing them.
I would say they're not completely linear,
but you can move it precisely
enough that you can get around that,
especially for photographers.
Normally, you'd be able to dial in the manual focus
because the nonlinear response means
that when you move it slowly, it focuses slowly.
Then when you move it quickly, it focuses quickly.
But I found that just by moving it naturally,
I always felt very precise.
Sony lenses often work on sort of a medium quick speed,
but they're linear.
The acceleration is the same all the way through.
Now I believe you can probably program this on a LUMIX
camera to be linear or non-linear whatever you want.
But on the Sony cameras, we're stuck with just
how the lens performs naturally,
which is different on this lens.
There is no slow speed anymore.
It's sort of, like, even if you turn it quite slowly,
it still feels more like a medium speed.
Medium to quick are your two options now.
And I'd say this is maybe the worst thing about this
and it's definitely a step in the wrong direction
because if you're not gonna be linear,
then at least give me
that super slow, super precise thing.
If you're gonna be non-linear,
then why make everything, you know,
so now it's just non repeatable and not as precise.
So that's a con
and again, for the LUMIX version it might be fine,
but it definitely feels like a little bit
of a downgrade compared to a Sony lens
and possibly even to the,
you know, super long throw, previous Sigma ones.
You still have a long throw,
but yeah, I don't like it quite as much,
but the ring does turn nicely in the hand.
The autofocus is improved though compared to some
of those older Sigma lenses
because this is now using their high
response linear actuator.
So they're, you know, linear,
super fast autofocus motors,
which on the last couple Sigma lenses
that are also using these is terrific.
They work excellently and no complaints at all.
So autofocus will be fine,
just some nitpicks about manual focus.
And the minimum focus distance is the same on this lens at
the wide end as it is on the telephoto,
which is 0.4 meters
or 1.31 feet,
which means that you're gonna get much closer reproduction
on the telephoto end than you will on the wide end.
And the reproduction is actually pretty good.
So this is a 28 millimeter
and if we punch right in,
we can see that it is quite sharp,
which is good,
means we don't have any issues
with minimum focus.
But look at the difference if we zoom to 105,
you should get pretty good reproduction.
It's not, you know, full macro obviously,
but it's pretty tight.
It's one of the tighter zoom lenses I've seen
for photographing this Rubik's cube.
And again, we're getting incredible sharpness
right there in the center,
even even at the absolute minimum focus.
I also have a couple somewhat real world examples
of me testing both the autofocus
and again, close focusing.
This was at 105 mil
and I was kind of tracking this bumblebee around
and I was really impressed by the sharpness.
I mean, just look at all these little tendrils
on the dandelion and yeah,
and even the bumblebee just looks,
it looks great
and I have one more example,
again, incredibly sharp.
You can see the full frame here.
This will also give you a little bit of an idea
of the bokeh, which we'll talk about again in a minute.
But pretty clean, standard bokeh.
Nothing too, you know, it's not really swirly
or anything weird going on,
just pretty standard in the background.
But just look, the sharpness is incredible,
although I do wish on this one that I got both wings sharp,
but that's not really a lens issue.
That is a skill issue
because if there's one thing I'm not,
it's an insect photographer.
So if I really needed images of a sharp bumblebee,
I probably would've been better off just
downloading 'em from Storyblocks,
the sponsor of today's video.
The stock media platform
that offers unlimited downloads of diverse
and high quality content
for one predictable subscription cost,
but Storyblocks offers a whole lot more than
just bumblebee media.
In fact, their library houses over a million HD
and 4K video files,
images and motion graphics templates.
And jokes aside, those motion graphics have actually saved
me time on previous projects,
especially now that they added DaVinci Resolve Templates.
Much better than my previous and tedious method
of making those graphics in Photoshop
and then animating them in the Edit tab using key frames.
Plus anything you download from story blocks is 100% royalty
free with clear cut licensing,
so you can focus on creating.
Not worrying about usage rights.
The platform is incredibly easy to use
and the library is frequently restocked
with commission content based on customer demand
to ensure you'll have access to files
that are not only high quality, but fresh and diverse.
So to get started with unlimited stock media downloads at
one set price,
head to storyblocks.com/undone
or click the link in the description.
Okay, let's finish off the Focus section
by talking about parfocalness
and focus breathing.
In the parfocal department,
which is the lens's ability to focus at one end
of the zoom range and then when you zoom to the other
to maintain focus without needing to refocus.
So on this one you can see,
okay, we're in focus here
and this is focused on the wide end,
but if we go to the 105 end,
it's not quite sharp anymore.
However, if we refocus on the 105 end
and then zoom out to 28,
it actually maintains its sharpness pretty well.
Again, not perfect,
it's okay.
Let's give it a 6 out of 10 for parfocalness.
The autofocus is pretty fast though,
so as long as you're not crash zooming
like some episode of "The Office",
you can probably allow the autofocus
to bridge the gap in the lack
of parfocalness on this lens, if that makes sense.
And then lastly, focus breathing was extremely well
controlled in this lens,
which was great to see
because, you know, even if you use a Sony camera
with focus breathing compensation,
usually it doesn't work with third party lenses.
So you want the lens to have really
good focus breathing control.
Now I'm sure I'm showing a clip of it on the screen now,
but for those of you that don't know,
focus breathing is
where the field of view changes as you focus.
It almost seems like you're zooming instead of focusing.
But this lens, the frame barely changes at all.
So that's fantastic.
Now let's move on to bokeh.
This is at 28 millimeters at f/2.8.
You can see we do have some cutting in in the corners
and if we look at some of these orbs in the center here,
they look quite nice.
You will notice something that's interesting about
how many iris blades there are
and we'll get more into that in a minute.
But this is a 12-bladed iris,
which is uncommon for Sigma.
At 28 mil, though, they're not gonna be that luxurious,
but at 105, we get a better look at them here.
Even up in the corners, they do quite well.
There is a bit of that onion-ringing going on,
but the outer membrane isn't too strong, so that's nice.
Not the best I've seen, but certainly passable.
And again, one more shot so we can see the extent
of the cat's eye,
which isn't too bad at all,
which is why in those other shots you didn't really have
that much of a swirly look
because the bokeh for better
or worse is a little bit sterile on this lens.
So it's not gonna be distracting,
but it's also not gonna add anything,
you know, magical to your shots
if that's what you're looking for.
And then if we stop down,
we can get a look at that 12-bladed iris.
Now the 12-bladed thing is interesting.
Sigma doesn't really make lenses with 12 blades
and they don't plan on doing so in the future,
I was told in my briefing.
This is sort of a one-off
that was necessary for this optical design
to maintain some other characteristics that they wanted.
But it does create interesting sunstars.
You'll notice that instead of getting twice as many spikes
with ones in between these,
you get fewer, stronger, thicker, more distinct spikes
sticking out of the sun.
It's one of the interesting characteristics about
an even-bladed iris, especially when you're at
12 blades of this one here.
So, you know,
this could be some interesting character if that's something
that you wanted,
if you wanted to show the sun in your shots.
But while we're here,
let's talk a little bit about flare.
So you can see on certain angles,
it is incredibly well controlled.
These blacks are super black and rich.
You can get a little bit of,
you know, ghosting and artifacts depending on
how you let it enter the frame.
These sun stars are pretty wild though.
This is sort of a worst case scenario
where you shoot in a really strange angle.
I don't know why you would shoot this,
but I just wanted to show the sort of extent
of the combination of the 12 blades mixed
with flare combining at the worst possible nexus.
This is what you get.
But if you're shooting like this,
put your hood on, it's good.
The flare's okay,
they're usually pretty well controlled,
but these sunstars are wild.
And it's kind of just a fun little
characteristic about this lens.
And it might end up being a one-off that it's like,
"What's that lens that has the 12-bladed iris from Sigma?"
It's this one and it might be the only one.
Now let's talk a little bit about LoCA,
longitudinal chromatic aberration,
which is the fringing
that occurs on the foreground
and background out of focus areas
that can usually only be resolved by stopping down.
So if we wanna shoot wide open,
we want a lens that has good control over this
type of chromatic aberration.
And if we zoom in right here, first of all,
we can see the frame looks predominantly black and white,
which is great news because
otherwise you would see, you know,
opposite colors like pink and green
or red and blue.
But I don't really see anything.
I mean if I get really close,
I can see the faintest little tinge,
but this is incredibly well controlled LoCA.
Some of the best I've ever seen honestly.
Like that is absurdly good at 28 millimeters,
so that's fantastic.
And this is wide open.
And at 105 mil,
this is the full shot
and I can maybe see it a little bit worse at 105,
but again, like, this is really good.
And so if I zoom out, yeah,
you can see right here a little bit of bluish there
and a little bit of reddish there.
But you know, we're magnified at this level.
It looks black and white to me,
and at the wide end I can barely see anything.
So really, really, really good results as far
as chromatic aberration is concerned.
Here we can take a look at distortion and vignetting.
I have no lens corrections applied,
but there will be some obviously that can improve this,
probably fix it completely
so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
But if you wanna see what it looks like
with no corrections on,
there is a little bit
of vignetting I can see in the corners.
We're at 28 millimeters at f/2.8
and we are also seeing some barrel distortion.
And if we zoom to 105,
it actually kind of flips.
There's a little bit of pincushion distortion now,
but the vignetting mostly cleans up.
If we go over here,
we can take a look at the sharpness,
but also again, some vignetting.
And at 28, I do see a little bit in the corners.
Again, this is uncorrected
and if we look in the center here and zoom in,
very, very, very sharp.
And as we move out toward the edge of the frame,
it does fall off a little bit.
I saw the MTF charts of this lens
and comparatively, it performs similar on the MTF charts
to Sigma's 24 to 70 f/2.8,
which is a very sharp lens
and noticeably better than Sigma's 24 to 105 f/4.
And center sharpness is not an issue.
Just on the wide end, it does fall
off a little bit in the corners.
Let's take a look at the 105.
Again, very, very, very sharp in the center.
Let's see how it does out toward the edge.
At 105, the sharpness doesn't seem to fall off as badly,
but still this result is excellent.
The sharpness is excellent throughout the frame,
you know, not as good as some primes and stuff like that,
but for 28 to 105 zoom, there's nothing really
to complain about here when it comes to sharpness.
And that really is the big question, isn't it?
Because this is sort of a strange focal length
28 to 105 f/2.8,
which makes it, you know, a bit bigger
and heavier than lenses that don't quite have
that focal range,
but not quite the reach of a 24 to 105 f/4.
So it's definitely somewhere in the middle.
I thought it was gonna be more compromised than it is,
and it isn't, at all.
It's, like, without hardly any flaws.
I guess what it comes down to is
that if you find this combination
of features in a lens useful,
you know, one that goes from 28 to 105
with a healthy barrel extension
or one that has an aperture range of f/2.8 to f/22,
then I can assure you that this lens is of top quality
and that I think you'll be happy with it.
Passed all my tests with flying colors.
It is very sharp.
Has, like, no focus breathing.
The chromatic aberration is fantastic on it.
It truly is just a terrific lens.
So it really just comes down to if it's a lens
that you can make use of.
And if so, I think you're gonna be quite pleased with it.
Alright... I'm done.
Actually, hold that thought.
Editor Gerald here with a minor correction
about the longitudinal chromatic aberration.
I heard from some of my fellow lens reviewers
that they were experiencing more LoCA
than what I showed here in my tests,
so I went back to try and recreate it.
And while I couldn't recreate it
using my test method conventionally,
I was able to create some more striking LoCA results
by following what they did.
Here is one that's similar to what I showed you.
I did the test again.
And as you can see, really, really, good.
I see the faintest bit of maybe like a green color this way
and the faintest amount of sort of a purple color this way.
But if we take a shot like this.
This is a 28 mil at a very low angle
and jack up the ISO,
then you can see it a little bit worse.
Little bit more green,
a little bit more of the magenta coloring down here.
It's still really minor though,
which is why I usually like to say you should zoom out
and then determine if the overall image, you know,
looks black and white
or if you can see chromatic aberration.
At 105mm, it's a little bit worse
just like we saw with my original test.
We can see the blue and the red.
But again, it fades out right away
in both directions.
And in this example,
again, a little bit worse
but it fades out in both directions.
But when zoomed out, it still looks,
they both still look pretty much black and white.
And again, this is accentuated by getting a really low angle
and then either shooting underexposed
and cranking it up in post,
or by shooting with a much higher ISO.
But I wanted to show you why I didn't complain
about the chromatic aberration in the first place too much.
This is my recent review of the 85 G Master II from Sony
compared to the original G Master.
And this is chromatic aberration that's worth pointing out.
And differences between the two.
But look at this shot
and then look at the 28 to 105 zoomed to a similar level.
This is not a problematic chromatic aberration.
Once again, there's the 85 G Master.
And if we compare it to the ARRI Signature Prime
that I did from that, you know,
Best Lens I've Ever Used video that I made,
even it has a minor amount of chromatic aberration.
But once again, look at the one on the left.
This is the Signature Prime
and then now look at the 28 to 105 at 28 millimeters.
It's better than the Signature Prime.
So that why I said it's essentially flawless optically.
So while I admit that I definitely underestimated
how bad you can make the LoCA look
by applying certain principles to it,
I do like to keep my test results standardized
across the board,
which his why I didn't test it at high ISOs
with a low angle.
But even at high ISOs with low angle,
I wouldn't call this LoCA problematic.
Okay, enough rambling about chromatic aberration,
back to that funky outro.
(funky music)