Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
z2122
Regular MemberPosts: 261Gear list
Like?
Re: 28, 35 and 85
In reply to draculr, 3 months ago

28 1.8 g is the best lens ... i often use it when i am travelling or together with a group of people. super contrast from f1.8 and very sharp. light and fast af.  would buy it again

 z2122's gear list:z2122's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
HSway
Senior MemberPosts: 2,724
Like?
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?
In reply to thelenspainter, 3 months ago

thelenspainter wrote:

It's certainly a fair point. Possibly you could view it like this: it is without a doubt possible to take great photographs with a lens with average bokeh. The same photograph taken with a great bokeh lens looks even better. As you say the differences are subtle and many people would not consciously notice it, but I feel it can affect the way the viewer's eye moves in viewing the image.

I am not sure about that eyes moving because of it (and the leading lines rules and similar) but as I said before and more than once the bokeh can be that significant feature in the image that it's not clear what part of the image makes the image more. So I agree I guess.

Add to that, many people you will meet on the forum here are as much photo geeks as photographers, and with that comes a certain degree of obsessive searching for perfection (looking at you, anotherMike!).

Well let me tell you are coming this a bit too far. Mike likes great glass that he has been critically assessing over a long period of time in nuances some may not care about. He knows his requirements for practical and personal reasons and they aren’t average. No bad blood needed because people are different I guess. I see him an exceptional source of information and views taking advantage of his passion and experience. But he will be attacked because of some other forms of obsessions and maybe insecurity of which some can be popping out here and there and I hope he is taking that with a good humour.

One thing is an opinion and decision that 24-120/4 is good enough or not noticing the field curvature (which has nothing to do with the lower resolution sensor, certainly not with 24mp) and quite another is to see other views as obsessive. I hope you didn’t mean it very seriously. While at this though, I think that there are many kinds of obsessions and especially for those that frequent the forums often while presenting a stream of view firmly and strangely stuck in one direction. And then, they start talking about the obsessions of other peoples. Maybe Mike presents his positions a tad more vigorously for the taste of some but frankly that’s an option everyone has got here.

I also don’t always agree with Mike, remotely not. Example his highlight rendering preference for Sigma over the Nikkor.. it’s actually the only aspect I like about the Nikkor better and find it an advantage for processing to put it in just one simple sentence. But appreciate that its probably more complex here as I see something with that respect in 50A rendering I can’t well describe yet but it has something to do with the light tonalities and contrast that brings the capture alive? its own way. These things are likely related so I didn’t mention anything about it yet, I usually need more time for this. We would clearly disagree about the Samyang 35/1.4, too, and so like.

Until Nikon comes with an extra high res lens thru the aperture range for more usual budgets and uses that also has no major optical flaw or inferior build, there will be an exaggerated tendency from the hard core Nikon users to draw a line 'that is good enough' and beyond which the improvement is for the obsessive ones never mind the practical requirements they may have or, indeed, their preferences. While their argument is to be heard and it is 50% truth that we I think need to be more realizing (photography doesn’t equal to sharpness or optical perfection) it’s good not to blow it out to 100% as those (I should say these) other 50% are valid. As if people can never go from one extreme somewhere to the middle but always to the other side of it. And do it hard. Sigh

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,628Gear list
Like?
Re: 28, 35 and 85
In reply to draculr, 3 months ago

draculr wrote:


I'm much more concerned if the 28mm 1.8g doesn't live up to expectations. I really would love for something to go well with my 85mm 1.8g which is such a sweet lens - hoping the 28mm 1.8g is just that!

I would say the 28 1.8g -is- the WA equiv of the 85 1.8g. As cheap as the 50mm f1.8g is, it's not a bad lens to own. But that said, I can't say I've ever captured a "wow" image with it either.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
HSway
Senior MemberPosts: 2,724
Like?
Re: Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series
In reply to draculr, 3 months ago

As lenses come usually in complete packages so does the 50A. Mostly there are some reasons for it. You either want it or not. It works like that. I am thinking if it’s heavy take it back and buy a lighter option(s)? On an impulse buy this must be a routine. G primes are very good, inexpensive and lightweight. Not that sure about the build quality of 28G for the price if that is what matters; it may be better with the current batches.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,628Gear list
Like?
Here is why it matters.
In reply to digital ed, 3 months ago

digital ed wrote:

First, this is my opinion and is not meant to denigrate anyone who feels differently.

I have never looked at one of my images and felt "if only the OOF part was better formed the image would be better."

If you are going for a shot that requires subject isolation, (and remember, many times you don't get to choose the background..) THAT is where this matters. Harsh bokeh ruins the "3D" effect I am sometimes after.

The other important qualities I look for in a lens is the transition from in focus to out of focus. Some lenses have a very rapid/harsh transition from the focus plane with can make the dof appear even more paper thin. I'm not a fan of the "obviously only one eye is in focus at all" type shots. I like there to be a slow transition from the actual focus plane to where the image becomes really blurry. Like their ears don't have to be crisp, but they look weird if they are totally blurred out as well. Sure you can stop the lens down to avoid this, but then you also bring the background more into focus.

Below is an example of this transition from the 80-200 f2.8 (old 2 ring version). If the transition was harsh like the 50mm f1.8g's is, her hand in the foreground would be so blurry as to become distracting. Especially if it was choppy looking with double vision type bokeh. You would "see it" as being a weird optical defect. Instead, as this lens renders you just don't really pay much attention to it. A lens like this allows you to shoot it wide open without having to worry about "working around" it's defects. And I think we all can agree, this shot done at f8 would not have turned out like this for many reasons.

Someone else posted some 50mm f1.8g shots at f8-f9 saying they look OK to him and they do. What happens with a lens like this (with choppy bokeh) is you are either limited to a couple of aperture settings (F8-f11) or you are limited on what the subject foreground/background can be. Good lenses don't require you to work around optical defects and I'm willing to give up some pure resolution at the focus plane (especially in the corners) to get it.

Most of this stuff you will never see in a lens review (and can you even test for it, i.e. put a number to it?) or from shooting test charts. It's actually hard to put your finger on it but there is a reason certain lenses "rise to the top" over the years like the 80-200 f2.8 has (and the 105mm f2.5 etc.) and this stuff is the reason. People have known for decades these lenses produce pleasing images, well before anyone really bothered to analyze why.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Stacey_K
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,628Gear list
Like?
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?
In reply to HSway, 3 months ago

HSway wrote:


Well let me tell you are coming this a bit too far. Mike likes great glass that he has been critically assessing over a long period of time in nuances some may not care about.

I also enjoy and respect Mike's reviews but I shoot very different subject matter most of the time and I also have my own style, which I have to take into account. That is something you always must consider when reading someone's opinion about a piece of gear. For example, if I mainly shot landscapes, I'm sure my bag would probably be filled with a completely different set of lenses. And some of the lenses I own now I would likely consider useless.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D7000 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +17 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
HSway
Senior MemberPosts: 2,724
Like?
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?
In reply to Stacey_K, 3 months ago

You express your views with the vigour as well. But have yet to be promoted to the degree of obsession as far as I noticed. Though you have at least become a member of The usuals and treated like that in a thread or two. It’s true what you say and those parts are never conflicting when one has that clear in one's own mind.

Btw, I recall remotely, Mike would pick the 58G (he is not overly enthusiastic about for his needs) for people shooting at that FL. mentioning it renders best for this type of use in his view, or in a similar sense.

Stacey_K wrote:

I also enjoy and respect Mike's reviews but

I shoot very different subject matter most of the time and I also have my own style, which I have to take into account. That is something you always must consider when reading someone's opinion about a piece of gear. For example, if I mainly shot landscapes, I'm sure my bag would probably be filled with a completely different set of lenses. And some of the lenses I own now I would likely consider useless.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

-- hide signature --

Hynek

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Johan1967
Regular MemberPosts: 371
Like?
Probably not ....
In reply to digital ed, 3 months ago

digital ed wrote:

First, this is my opinion and is not meant to denigrate anyone who feels differently.

I have never looked at one of my images and felt "if only the OOF part was better formed the image would be better." Neither has anyone (mostly non photography types) looked at any of my prints and said "that would look much nicer if the blurry stuff was better shaped." Nor have I looked at another person's image and thought that would be better if the bokeh was better. I realize that some would say the poor OOF stuff subconsciously influences the viewer even though they do not know what is bokeh.

I just do not care about bokeh and have never thought about purchasing a lens based upon that criteria. I guess I am looking for different stuff in my images. Or, I am just not that good evaluating the quality of a image or print and need to be better educated.

-- hide signature --

"There is a little of not done yet in all of us."
John Madden, football coach

... but for me a good or bad bokeh can make or ruin a picture. I think I belong to a minority, because many people are only looking at ultimate sharpness.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thelenspainter
Contributing MemberPosts: 921Gear list
Like?
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?
In reply to HSway, 3 months ago

HSway wrote:

Well let me tell you are coming this a bit too far. Mike likes great glass that he has been critically assessing over a long period of time in nuances some may not care about. He knows his requirements for practical and personal reasons and they aren’t average. No bad blood needed because people are different I guess. I see him an exceptional source of information and views taking advantage of his passion and experience. But he will be attacked because of some other forms of obsessions and maybe insecurity of which some can be popping out here and there and I hope he is taking that with a good humour.

I think because (as far as I can tell) English is not your first language, you have missed the tone of sarcasm in my post. It was meant as a goodhearted ribbing, not an attack.

One thing is an opinion and decision that 24-120/4 is good enough or not noticing the field curvature (which has nothing to do with the lower resolution sensor, certainly not with 24mp) and quite another is to see other views as obsessive. I hope you didn’t mean it very seriously. While at this though, I think that there are many kinds of obsessions and especially for those that frequent the forums often while presenting a stream of view firmly and strangely stuck in one direction. And then, they start talking about the obsessions of other peoples. Maybe Mike presents his positions a tad more vigorously for the taste of some but frankly that’s an option everyone has got here.

Very well, I'll elaborate. I sometimes take issue with Mike because he magnifies what are in fact almost microscopic differences between already extremely good lenses. I've said this before: 99% of people would not be able to see the differences he detects. Mostly they are differences visible only on D800E, with careful, slow testing in a studio with controlled lighting. In day to day shooting, they simply are not apparent. Further to this, many of these differences are smaller than the manufacturer's assembly tolerances, so something as simple as getting a less than stellar copy of the lens can erase them completely.

I have at various times replicated some of the tests he talks about, where I owned the same lenses. On my equipment, the D600 with 24mp, the differences could not be seen, no matter how carefully I tested. I test software for a living, so I know about testing protocol.

I'm sure Mike does what he does it because he enjoys it, but it can encourage an unhealthy obsession with perfection which pushes aside all pragmatism. As the saying goes: the perfect is the enemy of the good.

 thelenspainter's gear list:thelenspainter's gear list
Nikon D600 Sony a6000 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thelenspainter
Contributing MemberPosts: 921Gear list
Like?
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?
In reply to thelenspainter, 3 months ago

Having said all that, by no means am I suggesting that Mike should stop - as I said in another post 'keep up the good work'. I have learned a huge amount from his posts since joining this forum and very few people take as much time as he does to write extensive posts on various subjects. My main suggestion to Mike would be to post more (yes, more!) background information on the testing conditions he uses so that people who want to replicate it can do so, and people who are reading it can better decide whether those conditions will apply to their shooting.

 thelenspainter's gear list:thelenspainter's gear list
Nikon D600 Sony a6000 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Altruisto
Contributing MemberPosts: 845
Like?
Re: 28, 35 and 85
In reply to draculr, 3 months ago

draculr wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

These are all good, especially when you take into consideration their weight and cost. I would skip the 50 1.8g, the nervous bokeh is a deal breaker for me at this focal length.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

How's the 50 1.4g? I was under the assumption that the 1.4g was more nervous which was why I was leaning toward the 1.8g!

-- hide signature --

I own the 50 f1.8G and I've seen many comparisons. Its bokeh is absolutely an improvement over the 1.4 with less Loca and perfectly round specular highlights with minimal ringing and no fringing. Even the new Sigma 50f1.4 art has nervous bokeh with complex patterns. But I share the view of those who say that its rendering is clinical and has no magic. It's the same too with my small Panasonic 20mm f1.7 on m43, no oomph effect. I think the best of the bunch at these focal lengths as regards bokeh is the old Sigma 50 f1.4, creamy bokeh and some charm to the shots.

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/altruisto/
http://www.facebook.com/tarekmradrtci
https://twitter.com/#!/tarekmrad
owning a Nikon D600 with a Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, and a bunch of Nikon primes, a Nikon J1 but not particularly a Nikon fanboy, since I have an Olympus E-PL5, a Panasonic GX7, a Sony RX10, a Panasonic TZ60 and a Canon S110 too!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
anotherMike
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,106
Like?
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?
In reply to thelenspainter, 3 months ago

I think you don't get me at all.

I have very high technical standards because as I've said many times in the forum over the years, I have a background that includes all three film formats - 35mm, medium format film, and large format film. I've seen stellar - as in "best there is" prints - original Ansel Adams prints at the George Eastman house in upstate NY, large format landscape work printed on cibachrome in galleries in the southwest, and top of the line epson inkjet output from modern fashion masters. NONE of which was shot with small format. The problem is that I'm just not a large format guy - particularly in the studio, where I like the responsiveness and feel of the SLR/DSLR, so my lifelong dream as a child and young adult was to someday find a 35mm sized camera that produced near large format quality. If you've never seen the work of a darkroom master who shot large format, and knew what the hell he/she was doing in the darkoom (whether it be analog or digital), frankly you're going to have a very difficult time understanding my point of view.

Fast forward to 2012: When the D800E came out, the ability, the promise, of being *able* to get to this "dream" was realized. It doesn't happen every time, nor every shoot - and believe it or not, I shoot a bunch of stuff where I'm absolutely okay with not achieving that level. While I post very technically and have extremely high technical standards here in dpreview, trust me that if some godlike higher alien power, some little green alien dude or something, came down to earth and said I had to choose between posting here on dpreview or shooting as I do, and I couldn't have both, then you'd never hear one damned word from me ever again. Not one. Luckily I don't have to make that choice (....as I watch the sky for a bright shining light LOL)

What I've learned over the years - much of it from my own experimentation but also by learning from others is that getting this "level" of quality from the D800E (or, say, a high rez Canon if one were to come out) requires the maximization of as many individual components in the imaging chain in terms of quality as you can. If you start taking the "good enough" as opposed to "great" option several times, the cumulative effect is going to be that I don't get to that goal. The D800E is an easy camera to get great results from, but it's another notch harder to get world class results from.

Now, it's in now way a mandate from the same skies that produces our alien friend that everyone MUST have the same standards as I do. I don't always have the same technical standards for everything I shoot - I end up having to do a live theater/dance gig in lousy light, I'm like the next guy praying I'm in focus, praying I've got a high enough shutter speed and praying I've estimated the white balance of the mix of stage lights right while trying to time a shot, and given I'm likely at ISO 3200 (or higher), I'm not at all concerned with resolution, microcontrast or tonal transitions in highlights. But on a landscape print on a tripod, I am. This doesn't at all relieve me from my responsibility to produce a good image artistically either - my feeling is you want to be solid on a craft level, solid on an artistic level, and for landscape work, be lucky enough to wander into some excellent light on top of it all (and trust me, a lot of that last part is luck, or being stubborn enough to revisit favorite places in order to get the odds of lucky light on your side)

What I get a bit tired of is those tho seem to think just because someone goes for high standards technically that they can't be artistic, or produce artistic work, or think in terms of creativity as well, and I get tired of those who feel it's being "too microscopic". Just because you don't have high standards for quality doesn't mean I shouldn't have high standards and vice versa. I'll drag out the alcohol analogy I've used. I'm pretty much an expert palette in two spirits: Gin and Cognac. Spent way too much money on both But I'm strictly an 'advanced amateur' when it comes to wine. I *know* I don't have the palette of the top guys at wine spectator, but I also know what I like. I know I prefer some regions to others, and some varietals to others, but there is no way on pluto or saturn, much less this planet, that I could ever begin to critique the work of the one pros. And I'm okay with that. You'll never see me in a wine forum calling out some wine expert because he only rated "my wine" a 92 instead of a 94 and it hurt my feelings. If anything, it makes me wonder "If I ever had the time, I'd like to *understand* what he tastes that I am not yet tasking", as opposed to "he's been too microscopic and I can't tell the difference so he must be full of it". Make sense?

And as usual, I'll end with a story. My view is that not everyone is created with the same ability to see differences - from photographers to customers of simply the parents/uncles/kids who get our work. I have a friend, retired now, who is unlucky in that he's color blind, is on more drugs than any one person should be for a variety of health conditions, is NOT a good photographer by his own admission, and isn't really a person who in his entire life has cared a single thing about high standards in any arena at all, whether it be beer, cars, cameras, cigars or chinese food at the take out. Just happens that recently he used, in parallel, at his beginner-at-best skill level, the 70-200/2.8G VR-II in parallel with his own 80-200/2.8 AFD from the late nineties. He doesn't even make big prints. And he could see the difference in quality output EASILY and I seriously doubt there is one person in the entirety of dpreview who isn't far better technically than he is. And he shoots a D700 - a very, forgiving camera. And this is FAR from the first time something like this has happened. You'd be surprised at the variance of how people perceive things. It would be an interesting study for a young grad student out there somewhere I'm sure.

BTW, on the 28/1.8G, I am far from the only one who has found field curvature to be an issue with this lens. Not every scene or distance, but it is there, and you could see it on a D700, much less a 600 or 800 series body. Add to this that pretty much every wide angle I know from any brand at under 35mm has some field curvature and that makes me seriously question why you can't see it.

This is a lens forum, and if we're only going to talk about "good enough" lenses, there won't be much to talk about, because - shock of shocks - most every lens I know of, even things I don't like, are good enough in a basic sense. I don't consider it a stretch to have a discussion about the finer points of lens image quality (here in this forum). Of course not everyone has to strive for the same goals, but some do and it's for that audience that my posts are generally intended for. My contributions here don't cost anyone anything, and if you feel I'm overly analytical, well, you don't have to read them and you can, as they used to say in the wild (american) west, "ride on". I get enough private messages that support what I do so as long as I have long running backup jobs or print jobs, I'll keep contributing to dpreview. Well, unless that little alien tells me to make a choice

-m

(Edit): As for your wish that I disclose more about testing and conditions - yea, I guess if I had more time I could type even LONGER posts than I already do. Frankly I think anyone who follows my posts knows I test as completely as possible within a set of scenarios I would use the lens for personally, and I try to disclose what I haven't tested (example: I note I am not interested in the 35mm lenses wide open and have not spent time there - perhaps if someone was paying me to test there I would, but they're not so I don't given I don't shoot the lens wide open)and I'm always advocating people to not fully trust the one test / one test scenario / one test distance posts.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
anotherMike
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,106
Like?
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?
In reply to Stacey_K, 3 months ago

Stacey is absolutely, 100% spot on correct here.

I've typed this before, but will again: The more I shoot with the D800E, within the context of a set of lenses that would be considered/graded "very good" to "world class", the more I'm struck by how the "winner" between two candidates might be completely different and dependent upon different use cases. If I mostly shot close/mid distance environmental portraiture, particularly in natural light, and was shooting often between F/2 and F/4, yea, I'd have a 58/1.4 even while screaming about it's (to me) overpriced price tag, because that is what Sato designed the thing for, and that is what it excels at. For sure.

Since I don't shoot that sort of thing at all with a 50 (I'd use my 200 for that), and my needs are for another use case, I shoot the lens best matched to that use case, which is clearly the Sigma 50 art.

-m

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
anotherMike
Veteran MemberPosts: 7,106
Like?
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?
In reply to HSway, 3 months ago

Hey Hynek:

A quick word on the Sigma 35 and the highlights. You don't live in the USA so I don't know if you've ever been to Bryce Canyon National Park here, in Utah. This is where I spent the most time with the Sigma and Nikon 35's last spring - 10 days, 10 scenes, lots of parallel shooting as I tried to sort out the differences. The reason I bring up the location is that the color, texture, tonality, and hue of the sand layers in Bryce is very specific. I've been to Bryce a lot, and know the park pretty well. The Sigma was only lens I had with me that *accurately* reproduced the tonality and color subtleties of the sand, which lies in the lighter tones. The Nikon bunched up the tones and put a slight cast on it. The Zeiss 21 also gets the tones right. The 24/1.4G gets the tones pretty much right. The 200/2 and the Zeiss 135/2 certainly do as well. The 28/1.8G doesn't quite nail them, but it does better than the 35/1.8G. This rendition of finely spaced hues and tones in the sand was the primary difference maker for me in determining which lens I preferred - I knew what the real stuff looked like and I knew which lens did a better job of reproducing that. Doesn't of course mean you have to agree - but for me it was actually a very easy decision once I started looking at things on my good monitor back home (forget trying to evaluate anything on the garbage cheap laptop screens, right?).

I'll be curious what you think of the Sigma 50 art. It will be a few weeks before I get a chance to put that lens through the paces as right now I'm working on finishing up some printing jobs before the next phase of my season starts and things get busy again.

Hope you are well...

-m

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thelenspainter
Contributing MemberPosts: 921Gear list
Like?
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?
In reply to anotherMike, 3 months ago

Hey Mike, I really appreciate you allocating that much of your time just to respond to one of my posts! And your rational good-natured responses are what earn the respect of myself (and others I'm guessing), even though my post (reading it back now) came across a bit more critical than I meant it.

I do stand by my statements that some of your observations I have been completely unable to replicate, simply because the conditions are not the same and I don't know how you tested. I guess the take away from that is what you do frequently say - do your own testing. Everything posted by anyone on here is ultimately just an opinion, no matter how informed.

I've only been using Nikon gear for a few short years, but in that time I've already learned that I have to continuously reevaluate my own assessment of things. For example, the past few days I learned that under my specific testing conditions, the 28 1.8G has very similar performance to the 24-120 at 28mm! I never would have picked that. There really is no substitute for owning a lens and using it yourself. No amount of reviews, opinions, forum debates etc can take the place of that experience.

 thelenspainter's gear list:thelenspainter's gear list
Nikon D600 Sony a6000 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
draculr
Regular MemberPosts: 160Gear list
Like?
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?
In reply to thelenspainter, 3 months ago

thelenspainter wrote:

Hey Mike, I really appreciate you allocating that much of your time just to respond to one of my posts! And your rational good-natured responses are what earn the respect of myself (and others I'm guessing), even though my post (reading it back now) came across a bit more critical than I meant it.

I do stand by my statements that some of your observations I have been completely unable to replicate, simply because the conditions are not the same and I don't know how you tested. I guess the take away from that is what you do frequently say - do your own testing. Everything posted by anyone on here is ultimately just an opinion, no matter how informed.

I've only been using Nikon gear for a few short years, but in that time I've already learned that I have to continuously reevaluate my own assessment of things. For example, the past few days I learned that under my specific testing conditions, the 28 1.8G has very similar performance to the 24-120 at 28mm! I never would have picked that. There really is no substitute for owning a lens and using it yourself. No amount of reviews, opinions, forum debates etc can take the place of that experience.

Hey with the 28 1.8g, I've read in a few reviews that the focus ring has some "slack" in it? That you can move it around 2mm before anything happens.

Can you comment on how accurate the focus ring is compared to the 85 1.8g?

-- hide signature --
 draculr's gear list:draculr's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7S Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thelenspainter
Contributing MemberPosts: 921Gear list
Like?
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?
In reply to draculr, 3 months ago

draculr wrote:

Hey with the 28 1.8g, I've read in a few reviews that the focus ring has some "slack" in it? That you can move it around 2mm before anything happens.

Can you comment on how accurate the focus ring is compared to the 85 1.8g?

-- hide signature --

The rumor is true... the 28mm has a bit of slack in the focus ring while the 85 is nice and tight. There is a slight rattle if you shake the 28mm which I think is probably related. These two things are what, I think, contributes to the impression of 'cheapness' sometimes ascribed to the 28mm. The two lenses actually weigh about the same, but because of the nice taught focus ring the 85mm gives an impression of better quality.

 thelenspainter's gear list:thelenspainter's gear list
Nikon D600 Sony a6000 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
draculr
Regular MemberPosts: 160Gear list
Like?
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?
In reply to thelenspainter, 3 months ago

thelenspainter wrote:

draculr wrote:

Hey with the 28 1.8g, I've read in a few reviews that the focus ring has some "slack" in it? That you can move it around 2mm before anything happens.

Can you comment on how accurate the focus ring is compared to the 85 1.8g?

-- hide signature --

The rumor is true... the 28mm has a bit of slack in the focus ring while the 85 is nice and tight. There is a slight rattle if you shake the 28mm which I think is probably related. These two things are what, I think, contributes to the impression of 'cheapness' sometimes ascribed to the 28mm. The two lenses actually weigh about the same, but because of the nice taught focus ring the 85mm gives an impression of better quality.

Would it be difficult to focus for video with the 28 or is it more that it just would feel cheap?

-- hide signature --
 draculr's gear list:draculr's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha 7S Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thelenspainter
Contributing MemberPosts: 921Gear list
Like?
Re: 28, 35 and 85
In reply to Altruisto, 3 months ago

Altruisto wrote:

I think the best of the bunch at these focal lengths as regards bokeh is the old Sigma 50 f1.4, creamy bokeh and some charm to the shots.

Yes! Now that you mention it, the old Sigma 50mm shares many of the same attributes with the new 58 1.4G - silky smooth bokeh, not very sharp wide open at close distances, excessively large lens barrel, and low vignetting. If one needs a 50mm cream machine and can't or won't afford the new 58mm, the old Sigma is a great choice:

Doesn't get much silkier than that!

 thelenspainter's gear list:thelenspainter's gear list
Nikon D600 Sony a6000 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
thelenspainter
Contributing MemberPosts: 921Gear list
Like?
Re: Am I the only one who feels this way?
In reply to draculr, 3 months ago

I'm afraid I'm out of my depth on that one - I don't really do much video at all, and when I do I tend to use stabilized lenses like the 24-120 or 16-35.

 thelenspainter's gear list:thelenspainter's gear list
Nikon D600 Sony a6000 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads