Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Art vs. Otus?  (Read 11623 times)
MarkL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 332


« Reply #40 on: January 25, 2014, 12:55:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Isn't that exactly the thing Nikon provides with their f1.8 series?

Cheers,
Bernard

While very good value they don't outperform their 1.4 counterparts. Rather than make a slower lens and optimise sharpness due to less difficulty/complexity in the design they made are 2/3rd of a stop slower with plastic to come in at a low(er) price point.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #41 on: January 26, 2014, 03:31:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I have no quibbles with my manual 1.8/50mm Nikkor.

Whatever theories may abound, it gives me whatever I need from that focal length - the rest is breakfast fantasy for figure crunchers. Let's face it: how many times do we shoot more open that about f5.6? Of course, when we feel obliged to 'test' the goddam thing for some obscure, illusionary notion passing through our mind. In my entire career, the only times I felt a genuine cause to work wide open was with long lenses of around 200mm, and that purely for effect - shock value. As a normal practice? of course not - folks want to see both subject and context.

In today's reality of super-high, quite useable ISO, ultra-fast glass is only effect, not necessity.

But hey, if it turns you on, go for it.

Rob C
Logged

allegretto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 371


« Reply #42 on: January 26, 2014, 08:57:21 AM »
ReplyReply

at the other end, I do a lot of people and find myself working at f4 or less in many situations... to each their own...!
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #43 on: January 26, 2014, 10:06:39 AM »
ReplyReply

at the other end, I do a lot of people and find myself working at f4 or less in many situations... to each their own...!



I'm sure you do, and I too have had to go wider than f5.6. However, years ago when faced with my first 35mm Nikkor purchase, there were two options: f2.8 and f2. Apparently, according to the BJP lens-tester, Geoffrey Crawley, the 2.8 was better right through the range. I went with that, and never regretted it - it was my sharpest lens. Even at f2.8 there wasn't enough depth to show fashion well enough. That was in the days when folks would use a 35mm to shoot from the waist up; it was cool to have slightly elongated heads on the models... nope, I don't know why either, except that it was clever at the time. Perhaps it spelled modern.

;-)

Rob C
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 11:03:04 AM by Rob C » Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 766



« Reply #44 on: January 26, 2014, 01:37:42 PM »
ReplyReply

For me f/1.4 means extra handholding capability in low-light situations. In decent light I'll opt for f/2 if I want shallow DOF. With a fast 85–105mm lens I'll often use f/2.8. Mostly I like having some definition in OOF areas. Thus the Otus, as impressive a lens as it appears to be, misses my sweet spot...and besides it's just way too big.   Wink

-Dave-
Logged
Lee Roberts
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2014, 02:53:58 PM »
ReplyReply

This is an argumentative thread isn't it? BTW, is it fair to compare a 35mm lens (Sigma) to a 55mm lens?

Isn't it expected that wider FL primes tend to "fall short" of longer FLs in terms of bokeh ? For instance, would a Nikon 24/1.4G ever be expected to have more favorable/smooth bokeh than a Nikon 85/1.4G ?

I think the purpose of each respective lens is different. I don't use 50-60mm FLs much, therefore I've even considered selling my 50/1.8G because I never use it. I use the Sigma 35mm much more -- as I used the 35L more than my 50mm when I shot Canon.

That being said, I certainly hope the OTUS is the more refined, superior lens. Price aside, they've been in the business MUCH longer than Sigma has and German optics are akin to Japanese automotive engineering perfection. I think the Sigma will be a great, great, great lens and if it's completely better than my Sigma 35 -- and I can trade up completely free of charge -- I'll stick with my 35mm.

I almost bought Nikon's 35/1.4 but concluded that the Sigma was actually the better lens -- build quality, AF, bokeh, and sharpness of course. The problem I see is that of the elitist attitude ---> how many of us are keeping a lens for the next 40 years? 30 years? 20 years -- perhaps. Technology has evolved and as prices have dropped, so has the method in which we consume products. Precious metals, firearms, artwork -- these are all better investments surely. I'm not into photography for investment purposes. So therefore, I'll buy what I need. Price can sometimes be prohibitive. I could sell my new 70-200VRII, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4.0VR, 16-35VR -- and probably be able to afford the OTUS. Personally, I would rather not. Especially since 50-60mm FLs are not my cup 'o tea.

Logged
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 508


« Reply #46 on: February 11, 2014, 05:15:54 PM »
ReplyReply

This is an argumentative thread isn't it? BTW, is it fair to compare a 35mm lens (Sigma) to a 55mm lens?

Isn't it expected that wider FL primes tend to "fall short" of longer FLs in terms of bokeh ? For instance, would a Nikon 24/1.4G ever be expected to have more favorable/smooth bokeh than a Nikon 85/1.4G ?

I think the purpose of each respective lens is different. I don't use 50-60mm FLs much, therefore I've even considered selling my 50/1.8G because I never use it. I use the Sigma 35mm much more -- as I used the 35L more than my 50mm when I shot Canon.

That being said, I certainly hope the OTUS is the more refined, superior lens. Price aside, they've been in the business MUCH longer than Sigma has and German optics are akin to Japanese automotive engineering perfection. I think the Sigma will be a great, great, great lens and if it's completely better than my Sigma 35 -- and I can trade up completely free of charge -- I'll stick with my 35mm.

I almost bought Nikon's 35/1.4 but concluded that the Sigma was actually the better lens -- build quality, AF, bokeh, and sharpness of course. The problem I see is that of the elitist attitude ---> how many of us are keeping a lens for the next 40 years? 30 years? 20 years -- perhaps. Technology has evolved and as prices have dropped, so has the method in which we consume products. Precious metals, firearms, artwork -- these are all better investments surely. I'm not into photography for investment purposes. So therefore, I'll buy what I need. Price can sometimes be prohibitive. I could sell my new 70-200VRII, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4.0VR, 16-35VR -- and probably be able to afford the OTUS. Personally, I would rather not. Especially since 50-60mm FLs are not my cup 'o tea.


That's a good point…. Neither I use my 50mm much, nor most of the people I know… 35mm is also my most used FL, then 105 and then 24… those three would cover maybe 85% of my photography. All the rest of my lenses (from 14mm up to 300) are rarely used… In fact, I also have the 17-35mm f2.8 zoom which is my all purpose and most used lens. 
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7776



WWW
« Reply #47 on: February 11, 2014, 07:00:58 PM »
ReplyReply

That's a good point…. Neither I use my 50mm much, nor most of the people I know…

As a stitcher, the 50-60mm is my most used focal length range.  Wink

At some point of time, it did represent more than 80% of my shooting. I could pretty much live with 2 lenses, a 50mm and a 180mm.

New constraints have changed the way I shoot recently, and the Sigma 35mm f1.4 is spending a lot of time on my D800 these days.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Tiger1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #48 on: February 18, 2014, 04:51:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Camera Pro Australia are the first store in the world to set a price on the Art lens - Au $1499
http://www.camerapro.com.au/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-australian-stock.html
Logged
NancyP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 795


« Reply #49 on: February 18, 2014, 10:09:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I am skeptical about any price announced in advance of the manufacturer's official release.
Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 721


WWW
« Reply #50 on: February 18, 2014, 05:24:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I am skeptical about any price announced in advance of the manufacturer's official release.

Yes it is a bit early; the lens is scheduled for april-may...
I just tested the 58mm Nikkor, but i do not like it so much-
Nikon should have made what probably Sigma is doing now : a quality 50mm 1.4 for about 1000$ with good (nano)coatings that shows a clear sharp image at 1.4
A fast autofocus would also be much appreciated.


Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #51 on: February 18, 2014, 07:50:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

As far a I know the lens is not released yet, lets wait until someone has tested it. Some of the ART lenses are very impressive, but the latest 4/24-105 perhaps less so, according to tests. (I was considering replacing my Sony 24-70/2.8 with the A-series 24-105, but found that the 24-70/2.8 is better in a couple of tests).

Best regards
Erik


Yes it is a bit early; the lens is scheduled for april-may...
I just tested the 58mm Nikkor, but i do not like it so much-
Nikon should have made what probably Sigma is doing now : a quality 50mm 1.4 for about 1000$ with good (nano)coatings that shows a clear sharp image at 1.4
A fast autofocus would also be much appreciated.



Logged

Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 508


« Reply #52 on: February 21, 2014, 01:56:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

As far a I know the lens is not released yet, lets wait until someone has tested it. Some of the ART lenses are very impressive, but the latest 4/24-105 perhaps less so, according to tests. (I was considering replacing my Sony 24-70/2.8 with the A-series 24-105, but found that the 24-70/2.8 is better in a couple of tests).

Best regards
Erik


The 24-105 is not an Art lens Erik… the 50mm is!  Smiley
Logged
Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 508


« Reply #53 on: February 21, 2014, 03:46:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I know a good marketing move for Sigma to increase their market share considerably… Bring the aperture back on Nikon fit lenses!
Logged
NancyP
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 795


« Reply #54 on: February 21, 2014, 05:47:48 PM »
ReplyReply

tdascalos, the price of the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 is $900.00, the price of the new 24-70mm f/2.8 L II is $2,300.00. These are not comparable offerings. I would put the Sigma 24-105 f/4, Canon 24-105 f/4, and Canon 24-70 f/4 in the same grouping for comparison. According to several reports the Sigma is holding its own. I am considering one, but need to try it in person at my local store. Ergonomics and weight are also important, and 250 grams difference between the heaviest (Sigma) and lightest (Canon 24-70 f/4) becomes an issue if the owner hikes with it.
Logged
Robert DeCandido PhD
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


WWW
« Reply #55 on: February 21, 2014, 07:03:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Nancy - a good copy pf the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 with IS is very sharp (better than any Canon 24-105 F4 I have even owned). The key is getting a sharp copy...much variation from sample to sample..but Tamron will adjust a lens if you send it to them.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #56 on: February 21, 2014, 10:45:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Sigma home page says it is A-series and says it is "Art".

Best regards
Erik
The 24-105 is not an Art lens Erik… the 50mm is!  Smiley
Logged

Theodoros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 508


« Reply #57 on: February 22, 2014, 02:04:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Sigma home page says it is A-series and says it is "Art".

Best regards
Erik
Marketing… How can a more than 4x zoom (especially if it is WA to tele "walk around" FLs) be an "Art" lens is a mystery to me…
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


WWW
« Reply #58 on: February 22, 2014, 07:42:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Well,

I guess that 'art' is more about 'artist' than 'gear'.

Best regards
Erik

Marketing… How can a more than 4x zoom (especially if it is WA to tele "walk around" FLs) be an "Art" lens is a mystery to me…
Logged

AreBee
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105



WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 08, 2014, 02:32:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Folks,

Stumbled upon this recently while browsing. Figured you'd be interested if you haven't already seen it. Smiley

Cheers,
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad