Reading mode: Light Dark

Sharpest 50mm prime for d750

Go to last post
D

dylan81

Leading Member
Messages
512
Reaction score
23
I am looking to get an opinion on the sharpest 50mm prime, which would be for the d750?

Also from anyone who has one, have you found that af fine tune was a neccessity when you ended up getting it? If you believe the 35mm to be sharper, if love any opinions as well

Thanks
 
Last edited:
They are all sharp. You need to decide if you want to spend extra money on other aspects such as rendition, bokeh, colour etc.
 
I shoot full body fashion, occasional portraits. I am happy with a 1.8 versus any 1.4.
 
I have the Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4.

Both are excellent for my requirements and budget. I personally prefer the 50mm.
 
iainlea said:
I have the Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4.

Both are excellent for my requirements and budget. I personally prefer the 50mm.
Click to expand...
 
Oh i didn;'t think about sigma, ive heard the art's are excellent. I guess the question is, is the quality that much more noticeable to get it for 3 x as much?
 
iainlea said:
barrym1966 said:
iainlea said:
I have the Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4.

Both are excellent for my requirements and budget. I personally prefer the 50mm.

--
Iain Lea
www.lightaffaire.com
Click to expand...
I have the Sigma 35mm F1.4 probably the sharpest 35mm lens (better than nikon and tamron)

much prefer the field of view compared to the 50mm
Click to expand...
Whatever. I prefer the realistic look of my models faces using the 50mm...

--
Iain Lea
www.lightaffaire.com
Click to expand...
Yes i think i'd get the 35mm for full body, and 50mm for portraits
 
romfordbluenose said:
They are all sharp. You need to decide if you want to spend extra money on other aspects such as rendition, bokeh, colour etc.
Click to expand...
You are refreshingly correct. The obsession with "sharpest" is sadly almost a disease and its very mindset deviates one from pursuing photography. Sharpest, lightest, smallest, etc., etc., etc. I wish, I really do, that our younger generation and not so young pursue the art of photography rather than checklist specifications. I worked as photographer for 5 decades and seriously, I don't recall any of my colleagues ever really discuss lens or camera specs, never. We discussed subject, composition, light & film. I'm not trying to lecture anyone but it really pains me to see how much money is spent by amateurs nowadays without any meaningful results. Most amateurs own far for gear than pros. Spend less time analyzing and more time practicing photography. Try it, you will like it.

Gator
 
Last edited:
Gatoraied said:
romfordbluenose said:
They are all sharp. You need to decide if you want to spend extra money on other aspects such as rendition, bokeh, colour etc.
Click to expand...
You are refreshingly correct. The obsession with "sharpest" is sadly almost a disease and its very mindset deviates one from pursuing photography. Sharpest, lightest, smallest, etc., etc., etc. I wish, I really do, that our younger generation and not so young pursue the art of photography rather than checklist specifications. I worked as photographer for 5 decades and seriously, I don't recall any of my colleagues ever really discuss lens or camera specs, never. We discussed subject, composition, light & film. I'm not trying to lecture anyone but it really pains me to see how much money is spent by amateurs nowadays without any meaningful results. Most amateurs own far for gear than pros. Spend less time analyzing and more time practicing photography. Try it, you will like it.

Gator
Click to expand...
While I agree that you are quite correct, I suspect that the reason for your observation is that this website is somewhat a subset of photographic interests. DPReview is a gear website rather than a photography website.

While there are occasionally some interesting photographs posted in this forum, that is not really the main area of interest. The subjects of "subject, composition, light & film" are more clearly addressed elsewhere and with a different audience.

Not that I'm criticizing anyone for having an interest in the equipment, I'm pretty much of a gear person myself. I thoroughly enjoy mucking about with fine equipment and sometimes tend more to that than making photographs. :)

Incidentally, much to my dismay I can no longer pretend to be part of the "younger generation". :)
 
Last edited:
I have both the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART, and the Nikon 50mm f/1.8g (also have an older E series, and the 50mm f/1.8D). I have found that the ART and the 1.8g run neck and neck at larger apertures, but as you stop down, the ART really holds its own, and makes for supremely sharp shots, more so than my G lens.

That being said, they are both very good lenses, and will produce terrific results. I do find that the color rendition is a bit more pleasing with the ART lens, not to mention a touch more contrasty.
 
too old for this said:
Gatoraied said:
romfordbluenose said:
They are all sharp. You need to decide if you want to spend extra money on other aspects such as rendition, bokeh, colour etc.
Click to expand...
You are refreshingly correct. The obsession with "sharpest" is sadly almost a disease and its very mindset deviates one from pursuing photography. Sharpest, lightest, smallest, etc., etc., etc. I wish, I really do, that our younger generation and not so young pursue the art of photography rather than checklist specifications. I worked as photographer for 5 decades and seriously, I don't recall any of my colleagues ever really discuss lens or camera specs, never. We discussed subject, composition, light & film. I'm not trying to lecture anyone but it really pains me to see how much money is spent by amateurs nowadays without any meaningful results. Most amateurs own far for gear than pros. Spend less time analyzing and more time practicing photography. Try it, you will like it.

Gator
Click to expand...
While I agree that you are quite correct, I suspect that the reason for your observation is that this website is somewhat a subset of photographic interests. DPReview is a gear website rather than a photography website.

While there are occasionally some interesting photographs posted in this forum, that is not really the main area of interest. The subjects of "subject, composition, light & film" are more clearly addressed elsewhere and with a different audience.

Not that I'm criticizing anyone for having an interest in the equipment, I'm pretty much of a gear person myself. I thoroughly enjoy mucking about with fine equipment and sometimes tend more to that than making photographs. :)

Incidentally, much to my dismay I can no longer pretend to be part of the "younger generation". :)
Click to expand...
I understand what this website is about and there's redeeming value in some posts, however, my aim was to point out the folly in chasing specs and hopefully change the mindset here, albeit, I know thats wishful thinking. My grandson introduced me to this site about 10 years ago and I've seen the obsession with specs and gear grow. My feeling is that many here have accepted as the norm, this obsession with specs and all Id like to do is to give a few who are willing to listen, an alternative to collecting gear. I know the art of photography may have become a dirty word around here but Im still hopeful.

Gator
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top