The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Sigma 35 / 50 Art ... is it a must have?
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
Hulyss Bowman
Active member
Hello,
My personal opinion is "it is different". The charts are better but the drawing signatures of those lenses are not my cup of tee at all. Sharpness of the Sigma lenses is maxed out but imo they lack of personality.
My best 35 : the Zeiss (f2)
My best 50 : Not found yet.
Nikon now provide a big range of lenses. If your on a budget you have very serious alternatives to the expensive 1.4 line. 20f1.8G - 28f1.8G - 35f1.8g - 50f1.8G - 85f1.8G all are very good to excellent (period).
I never plugged third party lenses on my Nikon body's and, especially with today Nikkor choice, I do not see any reason to plug any third party lenses, at all.
My personal opinion is "it is different". The charts are better but the drawing signatures of those lenses are not my cup of tee at all. Sharpness of the Sigma lenses is maxed out but imo they lack of personality.
My best 35 : the Zeiss (f2)
My best 50 : Not found yet.
Nikon now provide a big range of lenses. If your on a budget you have very serious alternatives to the expensive 1.4 line. 20f1.8G - 28f1.8G - 35f1.8g - 50f1.8G - 85f1.8G all are very good to excellent (period).
I never plugged third party lenses on my Nikon body's and, especially with today Nikkor choice, I do not see any reason to plug any third party lenses, at all.
RVB
Member
I have the 35 & 50 in F mount,I think they're better than anything Nikon has to offer in these focal lengths,the 50 is very good and offers near Otus performance for a lot less,the nikon 35 1.4G is a good lens but not as good wide open as the Sigma which is sharp and contrasty at 1.4.
The rendering or draw of the lens is subjective,you won't know for sure unless you try them,the Zeiss glass is really nice but you won't have autofocus and for some of us thats a deal breaker.
The rendering or draw of the lens is subjective,you won't know for sure unless you try them,the Zeiss glass is really nice but you won't have autofocus and for some of us thats a deal breaker.
Speedgraphic
Member
The Sigma 35 is great, I like mine. The 50mm 1.4 is a great lens in a way, but it really depends on what you want out of a 50. I shoot a lot of portraits with that focal length so I went with the 58mm 1.4G. The 58mm has a lot of character to it and it's all about the rendering with a clear dip in the sharpness wide open. I think the 58 pairs with the 35 better than a 50 does too. But it's all about what you're going for.
My best 50 ever is my ART. I had a 50/1.2 Nikkor that was very nice, and I sold it as soon as I got the ART cause I knew I'd never use it again if the ART was nearby. It is a stunning lens. It is also a massively large lens -- it's main shortcoming. But the results it produces are well worth the size for me.
Hulyss Bowman
Active member
I completely agree, even thought there is a visual delta between the 35 Art and 58f1.4G probably because of the coating (at a rendering level I mean). It translate by a tonal tweaking in PP on the file taken with the Sigma.
Anyway, the SIGMA lenses are very good but they belong to a fashion I'm not sold for. This fashion is superduper clarity at 100%, PP for forums (only). In my professional point of view, this is waste of energy and money. Why ? Because clients never see the full res picture, ever. For weeding, clients buy a service based on HD photos (1920x1440) and prints who often never exceed A3. If they want bigger print they ask you, and if you have a minimal PP background you can print A0 with 12MP and even below (period).
So ok the A0 out of D810 will appear more detailed, appealing, but at the end you can't really sell a weeding based on this because clients freaking do not know nor care. They will when 4K will be common with screens and even then (
) 12MP are sufficient (it is 4K... see Sony Alpha 7S).Clients care about what tell the picture and this rely on the photographer eye, not the material.
Industrial clients ? They want pics for catalogues, web site ! If they want big files for billboard prints, 90% of the time they ask you on the negotiation or contract. Then you rent the proper tool and often you go direct MF's way.
So, apart if ppl really want it, there is no need of such tools in professional industry apart if you print big (over than A2) or lost the magic of composition (cropping). So at the end what really happen ? You shoot a weeding with D810, 37Mp, and furnish a file to the clients at HD or 4K size. Waste of time, money, energy and common sense. That mean that today, a guy with a D3 or a D4 is good for at least 5 to 8 years for almost all his work and can rent UHD camera IF needed/asked. On top of that, he do not need those lenses at all. The standard lens provided by Nikon are largely sufficient; largely.
I would understand this fashion if humans had bi-annual ocular mutation, unleashing new bizarre plans of perception ... but it is not the case.
There is no market evolution for those pixels. A print is a print. So either I'm very wrong and clients (weeding, portraits ...) start to ask for billboard prints and A0 photo albums, or either I'm right: this market have reached a climax. That mean that it is fixed almost forever, ruled by the size of the final media and the place you need to store this media, the print.
So, apart pleasure of owning a modern gear, I see only one reason of owning a more than 20 MP camera and superduper sharp lenses: Landscape photographers, architectural photographers who sell very big prints and make a leaving out of it. That's all, and they are not legion at all.
Friday ranting
This is why I would tell that the best 50 is the Nikkor 58 f1.4G and that most ppl failed to see why it is a superb lens. They judge lens only on sharpness and charts and this is VERY WRONG, VERY VERY WRONG AND BAD !
Just as the EF 50mm f1.2 L has excited me more than any other 50mm I have owned (including a black paint MP3 50mm Summilux asph). This is because it is gorgeous for people photos. It is not the sharpest, but its surprisingly good... but the images just have such a gentle, organic rendering.
I suppose it all depends on the look you want. The 50 ART is incredible, but not every portrait subject would thank you for it. Landscapes are another matter.
I suppose it all depends on the look you want. The 50 ART is incredible, but not every portrait subject would thank you for it. Landscapes are another matter.
I should add that I got to shoot Bob's 35 ART on our last workshop, and was all set to order one except for the 24 ART announcement. I personally do not use 35 all that often, and I have the Nikkor 28 ASPH (which I love) and which is also closer to about a 30mm true focal than it is 28 -- so pretty close to 35 already. A matching 24 would round me out nicely
Speedgraphic
Member
This is why I still shoot film and don't care that my film scans are anywhere from 6-15mp. And my dream camera is a 20mp 645z. I know there is a place for very high resolution, technically corrected images, but most people aren't actually looking for that, even though they think they are.I completely agree, even thought there is a visual delta between the 35 Art and 58f1.4G probably because of the coating (at a rendering level I mean). It translate by a tonal tweaking in PP on the file taken with the Sigma.
Anyway, the SIGMA lenses are very good but they belong to a fashion I'm not sold for. This fashion is superduper clarity at 100%, PP for forums (only). In my professional point of view, this is waste of energy and money. Why ? Because clients never see the full res picture, ever. For weeding, clients buy a service based on HD photos (1920x1440) and prints who often never exceed A3. If they want bigger print they ask you, and if you have a minimal PP background you can print A0 with 12MP and even below (period).
So ok the A0 out of D810 will appear more detailed, appealing, but at the end you can't really sell a weeding based on this because clients freaking do not know nor care. They will when 4K will be common with screens and even then (
Clients care about what tell the picture and this rely on the photographer eye, not the material.
Industrial clients ? They want pics for catalogues, web site ! If they want big files for billboard prints, 90% of the time they ask you on the negotiation or contract. Then you rent the proper tool and often you go direct MF's way.
So, apart if ppl really want it, there is no need of such tools in professional industry apart if you print big (over than A2) or lost the magic of composition (cropping). So at the end what really happen ? You shoot a weeding with D810, 37Mp, and furnish a file to the clients at HD or 4K size. Waste of time, money, energy and common sense. That mean that today, a guy with a D3 or a D4 is good for at least 5 to 8 years for almost all his work and can rent UHD camera IF needed/asked. On top of that, he do not need those lenses at all. The standard lens provided by Nikon are largely sufficient; largely.
I would understand this fashion if humans had bi-annual ocular mutation, unleashing new bizarre plans of perception ... but it is not the case.
There is no market evolution for those pixels. A print is a print. So either I'm very wrong and clients (weeding, portraits ...) start to ask for billboard prints and A0 photo albums, or either I'm right: this market have reached a climax. That mean that it is fixed almost forever, ruled by the size of the final media and the place you need to store this media, the print.
So, apart pleasure of owning a modern gear, I see only one reason of owning a more than 20 MP camera and superduper sharp lenses: Landscape photographers, architectural photographers who sell very big prints and make a leaving out of it. That's all, and they are not legion at all.
Friday ranting
This is why I would tell that the best 50 is the Nikkor 58 f1.4G and that most ppl failed to see why it is a superb lens. They judge lens only on sharpness and charts and this is VERY WRONG, VERY VERY WRONG AND BAD !
I have a an R3000 and my prints look spectacular, especially at viewing distance. I'm not making murals, and my clients hardly EVER ask for a giant sized image. Plus, the slight softening that the 58mm gives my subjects is to their advantage, same with a 400 speed film.
Side note - I've often wondered why product/architectural photographers don't gravitate toward smaller sensors like APS-C. Usually everything needs to be in focus and having the shorter lenses only helps maximize depth of field. They can keep their ISO down to keep resolution high. Seems to me like a mistake to go for the largest sensor possible, which just makes things more difficult.
I've got a Canon EF 24mm f1.4 L II, but if I did not would be very interested in the new 24mm ART. I'm also pondering whether the 35mm ART would be a better bet than the Canon 35mm f1.4 L II that seems likely to be released later this year. For people photos, the 35mm f2 IS looks interesting, as it is sharp but not scalpel sharp wide open, looks to have good bokeh and IS is never a bad thing.
Sounds like a plan!!!
Harry
Member
Tried out the Sigma 50 1.4 Art side by side with the Nikon 50 1.4
Both lenses
Similar resolution
Nikon
Fairly horrific barrel distortion...mostly corrected in lens correction
Color much better, especially in the green range.
Sigma
Virtually no distortion
Greens were toward the yellow side
Some loss in overall color resolution
1 Corner vignetting wide open
The color difference is enough for me to keep the Nikon and cancel my order on the Sigma 24 till I can rent one for further testing.
Both lenses
Similar resolution
Nikon
Fairly horrific barrel distortion...mostly corrected in lens correction
Color much better, especially in the green range.
Sigma
Virtually no distortion
Greens were toward the yellow side
Some loss in overall color resolution
1 Corner vignetting wide open
The color difference is enough for me to keep the Nikon and cancel my order on the Sigma 24 till I can rent one for further testing.
Hulyss Bowman
Active member
Brutal but real.
I am going to disagree re color. Are you sure you compared the 50 ART and not the older Sigma 50/1.4? I've owned both, and see good greens with my Art, though I did note yellow tints in the older Sigma 50. Or perhaps you use LR -- HORRID color and why I pass on it to this day -- and not C1 or NX? I've also owned the Nikon 50/1.4G and my copy was nowhere near as sharp as my ART -- why I sold it -- and had significantly "busier" bokeh than the ART. The Nikkor G was smaller though