Nikon 1.8g's vs Sigma 1.4 Art Series

Started Aug 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,373
Re: 28, 35 and 85
4

Stujomo wrote:

Gareth Bourne wrote:

I do find the way these sort of discussions turn out to be rather disappointing. Last week I sold my Sigma 50mm f1.4 (old version) and bought the Nikon 50mm f1.8G. The simple reason was I found the Sigma to be too heavy and bulky, so I didn't use it very much.

I had a look on this thread, but it was quickly overtaken with comments about "nervous bokeh" and "transitions" and "3D" and other such microscopic nonsense. The question isn't whether these differences matter, it's whether they even actually exist in any real way. Oh, there are subtle changes in colour rendition between the lenses? Really? Nothing like how the colour changes with Aperture RAW conversion compared to the camera preview RAW conversion.

I don't even know what the people who talk about this actually want. If you care that much about technical details, then why not learn CG art where you can create everything exactly how you want it.

You know the problem with CG? It looks fake, because the world isn't perfect. Life isn't perfect. Cameras and lenses aren't perfect. And if they were, photos would look like weird fake CG.

I have never looked at an image and said "that's lovely, but I wish the bokeh had smoother transitions" or other such rubbish. Someone on here actually talked about "how a lens rendered a scene". Yeah, the lens actually moves the composition around!

Has anyone ever seen, heard, read an interview with Steve McCurry, or Don McCullin, where they talk about bokeh?

I've seen plenty of "wow" images taken with every camera and lens ever invented. Sadly, they are massively outnumbered by really, really boring images taken by people who are obsessed with something they think they can measure.

There is only one thing that I am absolutely certain about, and it's simply that I am the limit on the quality and "wowness" of the photos I take. I am in no way limited by my camera. It's been like that since I had a D40 and a kit lens, and it's exactly the same for every single person on here.

I would bet my house that Steve MCurry with a D40 and the 18-55mm kit lens will take better, more interesting, photos than anyone on here who moans about this utter garbage.

When I bought my 50mm f1.8G I went to Calumet in London, asked to see one, put in on my D800 and took a few snaps in the store. Looked pretty good to me, so I bought it. The nice chap who sold it to me didn't say "oh, well, it's got nervous bokeh". People would laugh at them if they did. I asked Greys of Westminster (old school Nikon only dealer) if the 50mm f1.8G was suitable for a D800 and their reply was "Yes, the latest G version – definitely :-)".

If you take a photo and you don't think it's very good because of "nervous bokeh" here's a hint: It's not about the bokeh; it's about you.

Really though people should choose their lenses based on what they want. It's not for you or me or anyone else to belittle their choices because they are based on characteristics that we don't find important.

For someone shooting portraits a smoother, nicer, prettier rendering may be important to them. Photographers have always considered what is in the background of their shots. Wedding photographers often look for nice backgrounds that don't distract from the subject.

Most photographers had a favorite lens. Portrait photographer were always well aware that some lenses gave distracting backgrounds and some didn't.

They may not have talked about bokeh or micro contrast or any of those things but many of them found that for instance a Nikon 105 f2.5 was a great lens for portraits so they used it. You can bet they realized it had a nice rendering and generally pleasing background blur.

I think you're somewhat missing the point I am making.

I moved from zooms to primes because I preferred the images the prime lenses produced. However, there's a limit, and beyond which it's just not useful to anyone.

There are people in this thread who don't think the 50mm f1.8G lens has ever produced any "wow" images. I honestly cannot mentally process that sort of comment.

What makes a "wow" images has absolutely nothing to do with the micro-contrast or bokeh transitions, or whatever nonsense is in vogue at that particular moment for any particular lens. It has to do with the subject, the composition, the timing, the moment, the feel of the image, and other factors. All of these are, to a greater and lesser extent, entirely subjective. And that's the point.

People obsess over characteristics of lenses and then use them to take pictures of flowers. And it doesn't matter how lovely the picture of that flower is, it's still a picture of a flower. Did you really need $10,000 worth of equipment to make me think that the flower is lovely? No. Would I think the flower was less lovely if there was a slightly harsher transition between the in focus and out of focus areas? I doubt it. I wouldn't even notice. 99.9999% of people, even photographers, wouldn't notice or care. Lens comparisons don't happen in the real world minds of ordinary people.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
9ck
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
xtm
9ck
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow