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!
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.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.
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 ( ) 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 !
Sounds like a plan!!!Renting the 50 ART tomorrow
Got the 24 ART on back order from B+H.
Jack you can try it out when I get it in since your so close
Brutal but real.that's brutal
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 thoughTried 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.