Bothe great lenses. I have the Sony 1.8 and upgraded to the excellent Sigma 1.4 DG DN. I've just purchased the Sigma 90 to pair with the Sony 40G for a super light street kit. Sometime the 35GM and Sigma 85 1.4 can be too much weight. I think the obvious selling point of the i90 is size and weight for street or travel and Mark Galer's video shows how effective and how sharp it is.
I have the Sigma 65mm I series and really like it . Especially for outdoor nature type photography. It is a phenomenal focal length for people and portraits with a touch of story. The only thing I do not like is it’s harsh skin rendering. It’s atrocious! I think this 90mm I series has the same qualities where I love how it renders and hate the same thing for skin . The new 24mm also is a great match and I haven’t checked into the 35 f/2 I series yet. So after watching your video and test I believe I prefer the Sony . It has a slightly nicer skin rendering and for function and use it is a Swiss Army knife . The bokeh actually looks smoother because of the greater compression. This 90 looks tighter than the Sigma and being macro will vary . But Sigma is known for being a touch wider than other lens manufacturers at a given focal length . Great review Tom , thanks
Thanks Troy, appreciate the comment. I think you're right about the Sony - it's a much more versatile option. Unless you need to keep size and weight down, for street photography for instance, then the Sigma might be the better one to go for.
Actually with my Sigma 65mm I lens, I've been fortune to have fairly pleasant skin tones. And having the 65mm and 90mm side by side makes for a nice travel kit. I also use the Sony 20mm F/1.8 G lens which is also small, so kit is very small.
Great review! After 15 years using DSLR, including 105 2.8 macro from Sigma and Nikon, and also some 85mm 1.8 and 1.4 (beast), I really understand that it's all kind of personal preferences. I'm a kind of prime amateur photographer and videographer. I really like wide angle lens using 1.8 or 2.0 instead of 2.8 lenses. Also I like compact and lightweight gear for street and general use. So I really like how this sigma looks small and funny. Probably I'll give a try. Thank you.
Based on the results shown on screen, looks to me that Sigma won easily. For example AF was faster. A few other issues mentioned with Sony and still green mark. Anyway, thanks for showing it all, everyone can reach their own conclusion.
Definitely an odd pairing, but I like that you did something different. The image quality comparison is very useful. Now I'm going to watch your macro lens comparison. I was just thinking that the Sony needs to be compared to the Sigma 105 DG DN . . .
@@TomCalton Okay, no harsh criticism of the macro comparison. :-) I wanted to add that I like these "mismatched" comparisons because I don't always know which lens (or other product) will be best for me; I may not even have it narrowed down to "macro lens" or "portrait lens." It's helpful to see comparisons of things from different categories to discover advantages and disadvantages that I might not have thought of.
Mine did not have the rubber o-ring around the lens mount! I don't see it in the photo of yours either. That was one thing that really concerned me about this lens is getting it in the rain. I do not! want hard water spots or mildew on my glass and sensor.
I have seen and read a lot of reviews of both the Sigma and the Sony, you are the only one who says the Sony are the sharpest, strange !!! If anyone wants a small, compact, light short tele Lens the Sigma 90mm 2.8 are a very good choice !
Sorry, ur final evaluation was way off, Tom! The Final Winner goes to the 10+ beautiful, gorgeous model, Georgia! After that, then u can give the Sony the higher nod with the Sigma coming in second. Photogenic reality after all the test charts comes down to being the only thing that really matters when using a camera. Thanks for the great test shot video. Kudos to your model, let her know that she's the reason this demo works, not the camera, nor the lenses. 😎😎
It depends what you're using them for. Really, they're both totally different animals. The Sigma 85mm has a much wider maximum aperture of f/1.4, which means the bokeh is much thicker when shoot at a mid to far distance, so this is brilliant for subject separation. It also means it'll perform better in low light. Plus the AF is generally faster and it's better for video work (silent and not much focus breathing). The Sony 90mm is lovely and sharp (probably one of the most optically 'perfect' lenses available), but it's been designed to be used for macro work. It can obviously be used for other things, but it's not ideal as things like the AF speed are compromised for it to function as a macro lens. So like I said, it depends what you use them for. I personally have the 85mm AND a 105mm macro - the 85mm is for portraits and the 105mm is just for macro project photography.
@@TomCalton yes it is specifically designed for that and quite unexpected, but a good thing for macro. It is also the reason why I switched the 90mm macro for the 105mm sigma
