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
2

Stacey_K wrote:

Gareth Bourne wrote:

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.

Clearly it's not useful to you, but that doesn't mean it's not for someone else. It appears earlier you were basically saying the 50 sigma is too heavy and so the 50mm f1.8G replaces it in a way no "real person" would ever notice?

Yes, that's right. I've only taken a few images with the 50mm f1.8G but I can't really tell the difference in any meaningful way between those and similar images I took with the Sigma. The really important thing is I don't have both lenses and, even if I did, I'd never shoot the exact same image with both lenses anyway, so how do you ever really know? You shoot some completely artificial test charts / studio set ups?

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.

I guess it depends on what your threshold of a "wow" image is.

And I'm sure some people have made some great images of landscape type stuff stopped down to f11 or so where the lens flaws are negated. But those aren't the type of images I produce most of the time or what I am looking for in a 50mm lens, so for me "I never got any wow images from it".

Of course the response was that basically I'm a bad photographer and that is the reason. Whatever

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.

Well maybe some people know how to do all this stuff -and- know what look they want the image to have and know that how a lens renders plays a part into that look. The lens character IS part of the "feel" of the image. You are ruling out the lens character as being a subjective part of this process. I think the character of the 80-200 plays a lot into how this shot turned out.

Firstly, I don't think the lens "character" (whatever that means, exactly) had any real impact on that shot at all, certainly not beyond the impact of any other technical aspect. Why do you think it did?

Secondly, how do you know? Did you take that shot with 4 different lenses and choose that one? I'm guessing not. So, what difference does it make? That is the photo you took with the camera and lens you had at the time. People will either like, dislike, or be ambivalent to the photo as it is, and without consideration of whatever "character" you think the lens added to the shot.

Lens comparisons don't happen in the real world minds of ordinary people.

That's very true, most "ordinary people" are fine with the kit lens, a point and shoot or even a cell phone. I never said I was ordinary

BTW I'd love to be proven wrong, lets see some of these stunning images you have been capturing with this lens??

You're very defensive.

-- 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