Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
Stujomo
Contributing MemberPosts: 948
Like?
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series, the 3D-look and real photos
In reply to Matsu, 1 month ago

Matsu wrote:

Nikon has four current 1.8G lenses and they're all good to excellent. Two are among the very best in any mount at any aperture. Those being the 28mm and the 85mm. The 50 is cheap enough that it's worth owning for a lightweight fast normal. The 35, I have not tried yet, but it tests well and the images look good. For size, weight and price, I wouldn't hesitate to get any of them. On pure quality, some are at least as good or better than faster f/1.4 peers.

Some of the Sigma's are special, but they're large and heavy, and may or may not have some AF problems, though I trust Sigma to be able to cure these with firmware updates, and to stay on top of it. However, at the sizes involved, you're almost certainly better off with a 24-70 f/2.8 AFS

Prime shooters may cringe, and you will no doubt read people posting about the "3D" look and sharpness at maximum aperture, but I offer a cautionary note. A lot of blur and a thin focus plane do not add up to a 3D effect. If anything, they produce the exact opposite - a painterly effect with a thin slice of focus - more 2D than 3D. Photos are in fact 2D representations of a 3D world, and besides stating the obvious, it's worth mentioning and repeating, because obliterating depth cues does nothing to make an image "More 3D". Subtly rounding them can help, but for most subjects this needs apertures at least two stops smaller than f/1.4, maybe f/2.8 or even f/4 or f/5.6.

3D effects come from lighting and shadow (primarily directionality or modelling, but also fall off, transition, specularity, etc) and perspective (depth cues like relative size, environmental haze, and field of view.). Sometimes even the suggestion of motion might enhance the feeling of three dimensionality, well captured motion blur that makes a subject appear more animated.

A sharp focal plane that punctuates the action or artistic intent can heighten the importance of the subject within the scene, of course it has value, but it is so often abused and seems like a tired contemporary trope now, and, it's just technically bad photography in many cases - when only one eye is in focus, for instance, or once face between a couple, etc...

Shallow depth of field ruins more photos than it helps.

I like images that don't have too shallow DOF. I found that my 85mm 1.4 Ais is not great wide open but stopped down to f4 or f5.6 it becomes really crisp and the subject jumps from the background.

This one came from the 85mm 1.4 AIS. The EXIF maybe wrong as I forget to change the lens in the menu.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow