first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
just unpacked the lens and did some first test shots on a Sony A7r4 f2.8 - I am quite happy
run a stack at 50µm -> Zerene pmax, topaz denoise
crop bottom left
crop center
crop top right
Link to fullsize image
Link to a picture of this waver done by the Mitutoyo 7,5x
run a stack at 50µm -> Zerene pmax, topaz denoise
crop bottom left
crop center
crop top right
Link to fullsize image
Link to a picture of this waver done by the Mitutoyo 7,5x
Re: first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
thanks for the sample images.
quite a bit of distortion - is that around 1:1?
quite a bit of distortion - is that around 1:1?
chris
Re: first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
Chris, I think Sigma and other lens makers are moving more and more to allow distortion to be undercorrected, which gives them more freedom to correct CA. They figure distortion is easy to correct automatically in processing. Sigma was already doing this with their 70mm Art macro lens. I must say the software does do a good job of correcting it.
Re: first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
Hi Lou,
yes, that makes sense, and for most purposes it's an excellent trade off.
In some of my technical uses distortion (or rather the lack there off) is critical (like 1 pixel at the edges), so I'm a bit over sensitive.
I'm planning to rent the sigma eventually and compare it to some reference line scanner lenses, would be interesting anyhow and maybe I can get it to work with good lens profiles.
btw, does anybody know if lens profiles are adjusted for distance/magnification or does one have to create a separate one for each magnification?
yes, that makes sense, and for most purposes it's an excellent trade off.
In some of my technical uses distortion (or rather the lack there off) is critical (like 1 pixel at the edges), so I'm a bit over sensitive.
I'm planning to rent the sigma eventually and compare it to some reference line scanner lenses, would be interesting anyhow and maybe I can get it to work with good lens profiles.
btw, does anybody know if lens profiles are adjusted for distance/magnification or does one have to create a separate one for each magnification?
chris
Re: first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
Chris, wow, 1px is quite a strict tolerance! The only lenses that I know of that can achieve that are photolithography lenses and some of the special Nikkors like the Repro-Nikkor. What do you use?
Re: first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
yeah, it's not strictly necessary, and I probably could use lens profiles (although I imagine it would be hard to create them to the same precision), but it is a good feeling to know that even the RAW files are undistorted and it makes stitching easier.
1 pixel on a 40MP camera is about 0.00025 (or 0.025%) on the edges and 0.0002 on the corners if my math is right.
quite a few line scanner lenses can do this on a FF sensor, for example most of the Mejiro OHT, most of the the Xenon Sapphires, and I guess some of the Rayfact lenses (even though the lack of graphs make it hard to verify).
at 1:1 there's quite a few - seems to be a lot easier there (maybe because of symmetrical designs?).
even the macro varon should qualify at 1:1 from what I can figure.
anyway, back to the topic at hand:
the Sigma 105 sure looks like a winner considering the price and ease of use.
anybody knows if there is a lens profile for the 105mm already?
1 pixel on a 40MP camera is about 0.00025 (or 0.025%) on the edges and 0.0002 on the corners if my math is right.
quite a few line scanner lenses can do this on a FF sensor, for example most of the Mejiro OHT, most of the the Xenon Sapphires, and I guess some of the Rayfact lenses (even though the lack of graphs make it hard to verify).
at 1:1 there's quite a few - seems to be a lot easier there (maybe because of symmetrical designs?).
even the macro varon should qualify at 1:1 from what I can figure.
anyway, back to the topic at hand:
the Sigma 105 sure looks like a winner considering the price and ease of use.
anybody knows if there is a lens profile for the 105mm already?
chris
-
- Posts: 3438
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
- Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
- Contact:
Re: first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
Don't those distortion corrections noticeably degrade sharpness due to interpolation effects? I would think they are similar to a small change in scaling, though the effect isn't global.
Re: first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
Ray, you must be right about that. But the error could be of the same order of magnitude as the error between adjacent pixels caused by Bayer interpolation.
-
- Posts: 3438
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:40 am
- Location: Santa Clara, CA, USA
- Contact:
Re: first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
Perhaps same order, but it's an additional degradation, and in my experience it's very noticeable. It is of course additive to the demosaicing, which you can't really do much about.
Re: first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
Just as a side note, in general, random errors are less than additive, so things aren't quite as bad as we might expect.
If noise is random, the total noise is the square root of the sum of the squares of component noise levels.
Noise is the standard deviation. Variance is the square of the standard deviation, and variance is additive. So you add the variances and then take the square root.
So in practice, if there is a random error of about 1 pixel (on the average) due to some cause, and another independent random error of about 1 pixel (on the average ) due to some other cause, the total average error would not be 2 pixels but 1.4 pixels. That's because it is very unlikely that both sources of error would be maximally bad at the same time.
If noise is random, the total noise is the square root of the sum of the squares of component noise levels.
Noise is the standard deviation. Variance is the square of the standard deviation, and variance is additive. So you add the variances and then take the square root.
So in practice, if there is a random error of about 1 pixel (on the average) due to some cause, and another independent random error of about 1 pixel (on the average ) due to some other cause, the total average error would not be 2 pixels but 1.4 pixels. That's because it is very unlikely that both sources of error would be maximally bad at the same time.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23621
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Re: first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
True, but I think that Ray is referring to effects that are very far from random.If noise is random...
The problem with resampling to adjust geometry is that there are unavoidably large areas of the image where the shift is around 1/2 pixel. In such areas, unlucky subjects will get softened a lot. The canonical worst case is where pixels start out as a sequence of alternating values, say 0,100,0,100,0,100, which after 1/2 pixel shift must end up as just the average: 50,50,50,50,50,50. Of course most cases are not nearly that bad, but there's always a hit.
So, if you care simultaneously about exact geometry and pixel-peeping sharpness, I think there's no substitute for getting it correct in the optics.
--Rik
Re: first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
Absolutely, but my point is that the correection may not be as bad as expected.I think there's no substitute for getting it correct in the optics.
For very special arrangements of the subject, I agree, but I think the effects should indeed be close to random at the pixel level for typical subjects.I think that Ray is referring to effects that are very far from random.
Re: first test of my Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro Art
I don't bother about distortion but I like the excellent CA control and the superb sharpness over the whole frame, a good piece better than my old Sony FE90.