Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Theodoros on January 06, 2014, 07:18:13 pm
-
Sigma announced a 50mm f1.4 new lens for their Art series…
http://nikonrumors.com/2014/01/06/the-new-sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-is-here.aspx/
The lens is absolutely huge! :o It has 77mm filter diameter and (judging from the pictures with respect to the filter thread) is close to 5 inches long! :o It's almost as big as the Otus! Imagine the look on a camera with the hood on? :o
With such characteristics, they seem to aim the lens beyond the camera makers prime series lenses! I wonder if the Otus will be under threat from its throne… It looks that Sigma aims higher than their 35mm f1.4 with this one. I wonder what the price will be, it looks like nothing that one would expect from Sigma….
-
Sigma announced a 50mm f1.4 new lens for their Art series…
http://nikonrumors.com/2014/01/06/the-new-sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-is-here.aspx/
The lens is absolutely huge! :o It has 77mm filter diameter and (judging from the pictures with respect to the filter thread) is close to 5 inches long! :o It's bigger than the Otus! Imagine the look on a camera with the hood on? :o
With such characteristics, they seem to aim the lens beyond the camera makers prime series lenses! I wonder if the Otus will be under threat from its throne… It looks that Sigma aims higher than their 35mm f1.4 with this one. I wonder what the price will be, it looks like nothing that one would expect from Sigma….
We live very interesting times!
Considering how good the 35mm f1.4 is, my bet would be that this lens will be brilliant.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"...I expect this new 50mm to be the best price/performance option available today..."
Yes, whoever is the second owner (or third owner for that matter) will get a very good deal...
-
We live very interesting times!
Considering how good the 35mm f1.4 is, my bet would be that this lens will be brilliant.
Cheers,
Bernard
13 elements in 8 groups too! It looks like retrofocal design as is Otus… I can see some sweat from some Nikon and Canon boys with respect to their lenses. I don't think the Nikkor 58mm f1.4G will feel as comfortable as it looked up to now, neither the Canon 50mm f1.2 L should.
-
It was just a matter of time this lens would come and i am pleased it has come soon...
I think Nikon has had there chances making a good 50mm with nanocoating under 1000€ but they did not.; Zeiss made a stellar manual focus for 3500€ (over my budget + manual focus)
Now possibly i will be buying this Sigma lens. It is only that i think the coatings of Nikon (Nano) and Zeiss ( t*) are still my favourite.
-
Well, I am not going to plunk out $3,500.00 for the Otus. For me, the Sigma is an interesting option.
-
Quality has it's price… but it also has advantages. Someone here on one of the threads posted his ART 35mm shots vs. his new Otus. It was no contest to my eye. Done at the jump. And it wasn't image size, it was obvious clarity and detail.
Now before everyone talks about price, go to eBay and see what a 85mm or 50mm 1.2 Canon sells for used and look it up at B&H. Then the same exercise on the 35mm ART. In most cases the loss from using, then selling the item ends up being pretty even money, and you had the real deal. Bet the Otus ends up the same. It's killer good!
Not sure that some "know" the 50mm ART was so good. Compared to the Otus it (35mm) really was disappointing. Don't think the Canon or Nikon folks are sweating that much. In terms of value of the cycle…. the Big Brands fare very well. Time will work in the branded name's favor too. Is any 10 yr old Sigma worth very much? Maybe some are… but there are a lot of other branded lenses that are worth far more than the Sigmas.
In the end, you DO get what you pay for… you may want to rent any lens and compare it to any other lens before you buy, Especially when you want the "good one". I suspect that most folks looking at the ART or the Otus already have a 50mm something, so no rush… make sure it's what you think it is.
As always, YMMV... :)
-
Sigma announced a 50mm f1.4 new lens for their Art series…
http://nikonrumors.com/2014/01/06/the-new-sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-is-here.aspx/
The lens is absolutely huge! :o It has 77mm filter diameter and (judging from the pictures with respect to the filter thread) is close to 5 inches long! :o It's almost as big as the Otus! Imagine the look on a camera with the hood on? :o
With such characteristics, they seem to aim the lens beyond the camera makers prime series lenses! I wonder if the Otus will be under threat from its throne… It looks that Sigma aims higher than their 35mm f1.4 with this one. I wonder what the price will be, it looks like nothing that one would expect from Sigma….
the Otus will not be under threat but all other 50 ... yes. The design is complex, totally new. My little finger say that it will be VERY well corrected (on par with the Otus), very sharp yet pleasing WO and a very nice bokeh. The perfect 50 for the high MP dslr. All that under 1000$ ... mmmm (It is a wild guess but I do not think I'm wrong on the price).
-
Not sure that some "know" the 50mm ART was so good. Compared to the Otus it (35mm) really was disappointing. Don't think the Canon or Nikon folks are sweating that much. In terms of value of the cycle…. the Big Brands fare very well. Time will work in the branded name's favor too. Is any 10 yr old Sigma worth very much? Maybe some are… but there are a lot of other branded lenses that are worth far more than the Sigmas.
I am not sure I share that view.
I own both the Otus and the Sigma 35mm f1.4. Yes, the Otus is better on the D800 in terms of micro detail and lack of color aberrations, but the Sigma does incredibly well in absolute terms, even forgetting that it is 4 times cheaper...
I don't expect the 50mm Sigma to be quite as good as the Otus, but it is likely to be the second best 50mm on the market from a technical standpoint. The Nikon 58mm f1.4 may still be ahead in terms of look though.
Regards,
Bernard
-
In terms of value of the cycle…. the Big Brands fare very well. Time will work in the branded name's favor too. Is any 10 yr old Sigma worth very much? Maybe some are… but there are a lot of other branded lenses that are worth far more than the Sigmas.
In the end, you DO get what you pay for…
As always, YMMV... :)
It's not just about how much money you spend or lose though is it?
If you have a Canon or Nikon (or some other...) camera you'll have very few AF options at each focal length and a few more MF options. If you want an AF lens (and many do) your choice could be between a couple of mediocre and aging Canon 50mm lenses (for exemple) and a best in class (against the Canon...) Sigma. Looking at it like that the Sigma is pretty much a no brainer even if in 5 years time it's worth less than the uninspiring camera brand lens.
-
Price/performance is always an issue for most of us. I own both the Zeiss 135mm APO and the new Otus 55mm APO and a number of other highly-corrected APO lenses. The quality of these APO lenses can be plotted on an exponential curve, with our paying the big bucks for those last few percentage points of the curve.
Unless your work demands that kind of clarity and high correction, why get the new Zeiss lenses or lenses of similar quality? For me there was no real choice. I have a great number of really fine lenses that I just don't use, most of them because they are not well corrected and that lack of correction degrades the IQ of the lens to my eyes. The arrival of the new Zeiss APO lenses offered me an opportunity that did not exist before they appeared. For my work, these new Zeiss lenses beat out my Leicas, Voigtlanders, Zeiss Makro-Planars, Coastal Optics, etc. in a flash. What were my favorite lenses quickly became those lenses I no longer choose most of the time.
I am seriously considering selling dozens of those lenses I never use. Why keep them? They might as well be a museum for the amount of use they get. For my work, unless the forthcoming lenses from Sigma or any other manufacture are more highly corrected (or of equal quality) than the new Zeiss, I would not be interested. I realize that I probably represent a very small minority of users who feel they need and can use these magnificent APO lenses.
If I think about the investment I have in lenses I don't use, the new Zeiss an inexpensive in comparison.
-
Yes, exactly my point. Why keep the VW when you have a Porsche? Sell the VW's and get a Porsche.
However I see folks who invested in D800e's and then want to put a Sigma on it and feel just fine. Well fine, but keep in mind that a Sigma ART has already lost 33% of its value the moment you break the seal, and it will never deliver what the Zeiss will.
Buy the Sigma if you want, but it's not the great deal many think it is when comparing cycle costs. Initial costs are not being overlooked but you can buy the good one, enjoy it for as long as you like and get a far more significant amount back. Even it you lose a few hundred more over a couple of years you have used the best ~50mm lens in das Weld.
Tell you what. When the noise dies down will rent a Sigma 50 and compare it with my Otus (it has to come in by then) and the current ultra-cheapo Canon 50mm 1.8 I currently use. And if you think the 50 f1.8 is a slouch. borrow/rent one and try it. Go pixel peeping for sure. It is a cheap lens and it has flaws. But unless one is doing your kind of work or enjoys a great lens… it will surprise you!
Price/performance is always an issue for most of us. I own both the Zeiss 135mm APO and the new Otus 55mm APO and a number of other highly-corrected APO lenses. The quality of these APO lenses can be plotted on an exponential curve, with our paying the big bucks for those last few percentage points of the curve.
Unless your work demands that kind of clarity and high correction, why get the new Zeiss lenses or lenses of similar quality? For me there was no real choice. I have a great number of really fine lenses that I just don't use, most of them because they are not well corrected and that lack of correction degrades the IQ of the lens to my eyes. The arrival of the new Zeiss APO lenses offered me an opportunity that did not exist before they appeared. For my work, these new Zeiss lenses beat out my Leicas, Voigtlanders, Zeiss Makro-Planars, Coastal Optics, etc. in a flash. What were my favorite lenses quickly became those lenses I no longer choose most of the time.
I am seriously considering selling dozens of those lenses I never use. Why keep them? They might as well be a museum for the amount of use they get. For my work, unless the forthcoming lenses from Sigma or any other manufacture are more highly corrected (or of equal quality) than the new Zeiss, I would not be interested. I realize that I probably represent a very small minority of users who feel they need and can use these magnificent APO lenses.
If I think about the investment I have in lenses I don't use, the new Zeiss an inexpensive in comparison.
-
I fully expect the Otus 55mm to outclass every other normal lens out there, including previous Zeisses. I would be happy to have "second best". While I appreciate fine lenses and their premier image quality, my livelihood doesn't depend on them. Second best (if that is what the Sigma turns out) ought to be pretty good, given that the existing options are good. The Plastic Fantastic (Canon 50mm f/1.8 II) is surprisingly good for the money, ~$120.00 without discount, and it is tiny, for those who want to stay inconspicuous. There is an option for everyone. And I am still using legacy lenses on my 6D, for example, Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AIS (with adapter), quite sharp when stopped down to f/2.8. I am the local depository for unwanted film cameras and glass, whenever family clean house.
By the way, if you continue to use a lens, it holds its value FOR YOU.
Right now I am in the midst of buying a large format camera and need to buy or dig up a starter lens for it, a meter, a film-loading tent, find my old cable releases, a black/white cloth.....
-
agree on all counts!
I fully expect the Otus 55mm to outclass every other normal lens out there, including previous Zeisses. I would be happy to have "second best". While I appreciate fine lenses and their premier image quality, my livelihood doesn't depend on them. Second best (if that is what the Sigma turns out) ought to be pretty good, given that the existing options are good. The Plastic Fantastic (Canon 50mm f/1.8 II) is surprisingly good for the money, ~$120.00 without discount, and it is tiny, for those who want to stay inconspicuous. There is an option for everyone. And I am still using legacy lenses on my 6D, for example, Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AIS (with adapter), quite sharp when stopped down to f/2.8. I am the local depository for unwanted film cameras and glass, whenever family clean house.
By the way, if you continue to use a lens, it holds its value FOR YOU.
Right now I am in the midst of buying a large format camera and need to buy or dig up a starter lens for it, a meter, a film-loading tent, find my old cable releases, a black/white cloth.....
-
My pic-taking doesn't require ultra resolution so my interest in the Otus, and lenses that aspire to a similar standard, is about admiration for the technology & design involved rather than a desire to own. For the same reason I admire Porsches but drive a VW. :D
I really like the 55/58mm focal length on 135 format cameras and own several, none of which are really suitable for what Michael Erlewine does with the Otus but which give me a variety of looks to choose from. I think it's great there are so many options available! The upcoming Sigma 50mm doesn't have to be Otus-level to be a valid & useful lens.
-Dave-
-
Yes, exactly my point. Why keep the VW when you have a Porsche? Sell the VW's and get a Porsche.
However I see folks who invested in D800e's and then want to put a Sigma on it and feel just fine. Well fine, but keep in mind that a Sigma ART has already lost 33% of its value the moment you break the seal, and it will never deliver what the Zeiss will.
Buy the Sigma if you want, but it's not the great deal many think it is when comparing cycle costs. Initial costs are not being overlooked but you can buy the good one, enjoy it for as long as you like and get a far more significant amount back. Even it you lose a few hundred more over a couple of years you have used the best ~50mm lens in das Weld.
The thing is that, today, there is no 35mm bettering the Sigma 35mm f1.4. Neither on Nikon and certainly not on Canon side, so I am unclear how the VW vs Porsche analogy is relevant here.
If you buy lenses to take photograph, as opposed to buying them as an investment (high end wines of 3D pinting companies stock seem like a better bet... but I disgress), and are on a non unlimited budget, the Sigma is a total no brainer in the 35mm focal range and I am pretty certain the 50mm will end up being positioned similarly. I do not intend to sell my Otus but I may very well add the Sigma to my line up because AF is useful for many applications.
Like it or not, based on the quality level reached by the Art series, Sigma may be today the second best lens designer quality wise, only second to Zeiss, and is simply in a class of its own from a price/performance ratio standpoint.
They obviously only offer a few of those, fortunately for Canon and Nikon, but the small Fukushima company is IMHO simply putting the big guys to shame from a lens technical performance standpoint. Now, Nikon has publicly stated with the release of the 58mm f1.4 that their focus was going to be lens rendering, which puts them in a nice niche.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"but keep in mind that a Sigma ART has already lost 33% of its value the moment you break the seal, and it will never deliver what the Zeiss will."
i'm in the business of making images not selling second hand barely used lenses.
losing value on a piece of equipment that is likely to have a long usable life like a lens is not a big deal for a business.
its about how quickly the investment in equipment is paid back and does that investment help you make money.
the sigma is the kind of lens i want to buy (i reserve the right to change my mind if the reviews are not good) it will make me money not cost me money.
-
One of the nice things about photography is that between the images and equipment it's enough to keep many of us experimenting and smiling just about all the time. There is satisfaction to be found all over the landscape.
There are products that spin one person's wheel but not another's. The point is that one lens is clearly the "Best" in terms of image quality. Deciding which is "second best" often gets into secondary criteria. For example, you completely omitted the very fine line of Leica lenses. Which contains several very choice 35 and 50mm examples that are so desirable that they often are picked up on the "previously owned" market. And often the seller can sell them for more than what they initially paid. Not saying you have to turn your lenses over in X-number of years, just saying that they can and IMHO think that the "investment grade" of a lens is not something to be overlooked. Even if one must finance a lens purchase over a year or two, financially they would be better off in many cases by "buying up". Amortize it over as much time as you like. The special lenses hold value FOR YOU even better than "second best".
The VW/Porsche comparison could just as easily be applied to just about any commodity. Do you want one example of the finest, or several examples of the lesser item. And, perhaps the Sigma is "second best" on image basis (and maybe not) but it's not Canon or Nikon and not made of the same materials as the top-line examples from those marques. Perhaps that's not important to you, but to another it might be.
Not to steal your thread once again, true that 3D printing will indeed lead to some fortunes, but picking the next Xerox is dicey at this point. Don't use EtOH except very rarely so don't know much about fine wine. There are several, but not many investment types that can be consistently managed into very rewarding positions. But enough…
That someone sees these factors about lenses differently is no problem and I respect other approaches.
May all your images be in focus...
h
The thing is that, today, there is no 35mm bettering the Sigma 35mm f1.4. Neither on Nikon and certainly not on Canon side, so I am unclear how the VW vs Porsche analogy is relevant here.
If you buy lenses to take photograph, as opposed to buying them as an investment (high end wines of 3D pinting companies stock seem like a better bet... but I disgress), and are on a non unlimited budget, the Sigma is a total no brainer in the 35mm focal range and I am pretty certain the 50mm will end up being positioned similarly. I do not intend to sell my Otus but I may very well add the Sigma to my line up because AF is useful for many applications.
Like it or not, based on the quality level reached by the Art series, Sigma may be today the second best lens designer quality wise, only second to Zeiss, and is simply in a class of its own from a price/performance ratio standpoint.
They obviously only offer a few of those, fortunately for Canon and Nikon, but the small Fukushima company is IMHO simply putting the big guys to shame from a lens technical performance standpoint. Now, Nikon has publicly stated with the release of the 58mm f1.4 that their focus was going to be lens rendering, which puts them in a nice niche.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
I mostly shoot at f/8, which is often a good balance between diffraction and DoF. I would believe that using a medium aperture is a great equaliser. The reason that Zeiss has used the Distagon design is probably to keep down vignetting at full aperture. That adds a lot of weight and complexity. One area that also shines is the elimination of longitudional color aberration often causing green/mangenta fringing in out of focus areas at large apertures.
My guess is that a well designed conventional lens would perform pretty close at medium apertures.
I enclose DxO data (acutance across the field) for the Otus and Sigma 50/1.4 (not the art series) and the new Sigma 24-105/4 A series zoom at 50 mm.
Three diagrams, full aperture, f/8 and optimum aperture. As a side note, stopping down the Otus to f/11 and leaving the others at f/8 virtually eliminates the advantage of the Otus.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, exactly my point. Why keep the VW when you have a Porsche? Sell the VW's and get a Porsche.
However I see folks who invested in D800e's and then want to put a Sigma on it and feel just fine. Well fine, but keep in mind that a Sigma ART has already lost 33% of its value the moment you break the seal, and it will never deliver what the Zeiss will.
Buy the Sigma if you want, but it's not the great deal many think it is when comparing cycle costs. Initial costs are not being overlooked but you can buy the good one, enjoy it for as long as you like and get a far more significant amount back. Even it you lose a few hundred more over a couple of years you have used the best ~50mm lens in das Weld.
Tell you what. When the noise dies down will rent a Sigma 50 and compare it with my Otus (it has to come in by then) and the current ultra-cheapo Canon 50mm 1.8 I currently use. And if you think the 50 f1.8 is a slouch. borrow/rent one and try it. Go pixel peeping for sure. It is a cheap lens and it has flaws. But unless one is doing your kind of work or enjoys a great lens… it will surprise you!
-
I was very impressed with the Sigma 35mmf1.4 optically however the AF was disappointing to a point where at one stage I considered selling it. I hope they do a better job with the new 50mm.
The bokeh and rendering in my opinion isnt as nice is my Zeiss 35mm f1.4. This maybe due to the fact the Sigma is so well corrected.
I think the new Otus is a marvel, so sharp yet renders so beautifully. No other lens that I am aware of comes close at doing both.
-
Well, reading this thread, I can only assume two things: you are all much wealthier than I; you always use a tripod. If not, you're delusional.
I would own neither Porche nor VW; the Porche because it would drain my account pretty rapidly and any VW other than, perhaps, the Scirocco, because the rest of them share the glamour of a walnut.
When I was in business I always bought new, mainly because as, with cars, I felt buying used meant you simply took on board somebody else's problems. As it was all written off against tax anyhow, it made no sense to buy the cheapest and take on the risks. Now, long retired, I'm more careful with my pennies and have bought my last three lenses second-hand; three Nikkors: 2/35mm, 2.8/105mm Micro and 8/500mm reflex. All of them are non-af and feel as solid as a rock. I have absolutely no quibble with either physical state or delivery. They give what I expected from them and what else matters? I never look at any lens charts because I don't honestly understand what they are all about, and even if I did, they would have zero influence in how I make pictures. Any regrets? Yes, I'd had all of these focal lengths for years, but sold them off in an absolute change to 6x7. I wish I hadn't done that, ever. I was delusional, too.
;-)
Rob C
-
I was very impressed with the Sigma 35mmf1.4 optically however the AF was disappointing to a point where at one stage I considered selling it. I hope they do a better job with the new 50mm.
The bokeh and rendering in my opinion isnt as nice is my Zeiss 35mm f1.4. This maybe due to the fact the Sigma is so well corrected.
I think the new Otus is a marvel, so sharp yet renders so beautifully. No other lens that I am aware of comes close at doing both.
If one judges from architectural specification and bulk, it looks like the new ART 50 from Sigma, is going to be a more expensive lens than the ART 35mm… In addition, primes are usually better performing than WAs… As far as I know, the only other "standard" prime that has 77mm filter thread for f1.4 of aperture is the Otus, the Otus is also the only longer "standard" than the ART… The length and the number of groups and elements also suggests that the ART is a retrofocal design, which again (if it is) only the Otus is. Hence on paper, it can be concluded that: 1.Sigma aims higher than the usual makers lenses and 2.It will be a more expensive lens than the 35 and unusually expensive for Sigma… I think if its performance is close to Otus and given that the Sigma is AF, even with a price around 1000 it will be a major success… Of course all this is pure speculation for the moment, but… what is imagination for?
-
"what is imagination for?"
for me taking interesting photographs that reflect your view of the world rather than speculating on photographic gear prices ::)
(sorry i couldn't resist ;D )
-
Hi,
Sigma has much larger production capacity than Zeiss and they have some cutting edge technology. They can produce plastic parts with 1 my precision, what they say.
It is probable that Sigma can produce lenses at lower cost than Zeiss, because they can produce larger numbers. The downsize is that manufacturing tolerances at Sigma are probably less tight than at Zeiss, but who knows.
Best regards
Erik
quote author=T.Dascalos link=topic=85847.msg696751#msg696751 date=1389285991]
If one judges from architectural specification and bulk, it looks like the new ART 50 from Sigma, is going to be a more expensive lens than the ART 35mm… In addition, primes are usually better performing than WAs… As far as I know, the only other "standard" prime that has 77mm filter thread for f1.4 of aperture is the Otus, the Otus is also the only longer "standard" than the ART… The length and the number of groups and elements also suggests that the ART is a retrofocal design, which again (if it is) only the Otus is. Hence on paper, it can be concluded that: 1.Sigma aims higher than the usual makers lenses and 2.It will be a more expensive lens than the 35 and unusually expensive for Sigma… I think if its performance is close to Otus and given that the Sigma is AF, even with a price around 1000 it will be a major success… Of course all this is pure speculation for the moment, but… what is imagination for?
[/quote]
-
"what is imagination for?"
for me taking interesting photographs that reflect your view of the world rather than speculating on photographic gear prices ::)
(sorry i couldn't resist ;D )
There is no "instead" on imagination… That (what you describe) is called "visualisation".
-
A few years ago, who would've thought we'd be saying that a SIGMA lens might be second best, next to a top-of-the-line newly designed "BEST LENS IN THE WORLD" Zeiss?
How things have changed... and bravo Sigma. Now let's get going on that full-frame high-megapixel Foveon DSLR, eh?
-
There's nothing wrong with second-hand or legacy lenses, I use them myself. I don't have many full frame lenses yet. I am using my own ancient manual M42 mount lenses and my father's no-longer-used manual Nikkor primes, including some with "the letters" (Q for 4 elements, P for 5 elements, etc) for normal and short telephoto. The lens that you have on your camera is the best lens, whatever its optical characteristics, because you are taking that picture and not saying, "can't do it, MTF is not good enough to bother shooting".
-
I think you're mixing up third-party lenses with legacy lenses. I still have Contax Zeiss lenses that I've used for years that I will never sell. With regards to third-party lenses, if you're implying that Sigma has always produced great lenses, then I strongly disagree with you.
The new lenses, however are in a different league. The 18-35 1.8 is going to be legendary in the amateur/prosumer/cinematography/motion picture/super35mm world, then there's the 35 1.4 and the lenses on the DP Merrill cameras that are world-class. They are moving up.
-
This is a very interesting lens, and potentially will be a top quality 50mm lens for FF DSLRs. The Zeiss Otus is another quality level up, maybe, but one has to pay a lot of dough to get that extra bit of performance. But it is sure good that there are options for all requirements.
I am a more pragmatic type of guy, so for my travel photography I like smaller 50mm lenses. Canon's 50 1.4 suits me fine; I know that there are better 50mm lenses out there, but so what? I don't want to lug around a heavy 50mm lens when I travel.
What I would like very much is for Canon to update their 50s 1.4 and 1.8 with the new designs and IS, like they did for the 24, 28, and 35mm lenses. Just improve the wide open image quality a little bit, and add IS.
Finally, once you run the 50 1,4 images through the lens correction profile say in LR, the lens is truly a bargain:)
-
I didn't mean to imply that my legacy manual focus manual aperture lenses, which by necessity are third party lenses fit to the 6D by adapters, were going to equal the Zeiss. I am still enjoying shooting with them for the time being. Nikkor 50mm f/1.2, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 are probably the cream of my closet selection, along with a very pleasant Mamiya-Sekor 60mm f/2.8 1:1 macro and several other M42 and Nikkor AI/AIS vintage lenses. The aberrations of the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 at f/1.2 are positively heroic in size, but it is fun to play with the aberrations wide open, and the lens is excellent at f/2.8 to f/8. It is very possible that the Canon Nifty Fifty or Shorty Forty could beat the MTFs of the old Nikkor, but those incredibly inexpensive lenses aren't really designed for manual focus.
-
The discussions keeps revolving around resolution and other optical matters. I think equal concern should be paid to build quality and mechanics.
-
Hi,
It is very hard to know about build quality and mechanics without actually picking apart a lens. I got the impression that the new Sigma A-series lenses are well built.
I have little doubt that the Otus are well built, and I guess that Zeiss has tighter limits on sample variations compared to pretty much everyone else.
This article by Roger Ciala is readworthy: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts
One observation is that they sometimes replace plastic parts, and that is no big deal, when metal parts are broken a lot more damage is done and the whole assembly is need of readjustment.
Best regards
Erik
The discussions keeps revolving around resolution and other optical matters. I think equal concern should be paid to build quality and mechanics.
-
Little bit offtopic but at least I want to be the very first seeing an Otus 85 1,4 at photokina 2014. Maybe ;D sweet dreams
-
For fun, I looked up the optical designs, and the 35mm Sigma looks more complex and has one more "non-standard" element (4 exotic glass, 1 aspherical) than the 50mm Sigma (3 exotic glass, 1 aspherical). The Otus 55 mm is chock full of special elements (6 exotic glass, 1 aspherical). Retrofocus design on Sigma 50 and Otus 55 accounts for extra elements, length, weight vs. usual Planar-type 50-ish lenses.
-
My Sigma ART 35mm F/1.4 is an exceptional lens though it's easily beaten at F/2.8 by the cheap Canon 40mm pancake.
-
My Sigma ART 35mm F/1.4 is an exceptional lens though it's easily beaten at F/2.8 by the cheap Canon 40mm pancake.
In what ways? And I'm not trying to be argumentative (I have one of those 40s myself, and find it very sharp); just interested in your observations here.
-
Hi,
Just a general observation, it is possible to build a good f/2.8 lens with fewer elements. Those elements are also smaller, so there is more degree of freedom in positioning. So there is a lot of design compromise involved in making a large aperture lens. If antireflex coating is equal, a lens with more air/glass surfaces will have more flare compared with a simple design of equal quality.
Best regards
Erik
In what ways? And I'm not trying to be argumentative (I have one of those 40s myself, and find it very sharp); just interested in your observations here.
-
I'd love to se a line of super sharp f/2 or even f/2.8 primes. The market seems obsessed with super fast lenses though.
Hi,
Just a general observation, it is possible to build a good f/2.8 lens with fewer elements. Those elements are also smaller, so there is more degree of freedom in positioning. So there is a lot of design compromise involved in making a large aperture lens. If antireflex coating is equal, a lens with more air/glass surfaces will have more flare compared with a simple design of equal quality.
Best regards
Erik
-
One thing Sigma did that the other manufacturers didn't is that $60 docking station that allows you to fine tune the AF to your camera body. That should be an option with Canon, and more so with Nikon since Nikon only allows for one fine tuning point on their zooms where Canon has two.
Nice to see Sigma sort of understands the AF issues and sometimes the need to upgrade the firmware, rather than mail it in, wait, and pray they did it right. Factory techs often rush and get sloppy, or don't care.
SG
-
I'd love to se a line of super sharp f/2 or even f/2.8 primes. The market seems obsessed with super fast lenses though.
Isn't that exactly the thing Nikon provides with their f1.8 series?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
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.
-
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
-
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...!
-
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
-
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. ;)
-Dave-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
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
-
Camera Pro Australia are the first store in the world to set a price on the Art lens - Au $1499
http://www.camerapro.com.au/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-australian-stock.html
-
I am skeptical about any price announced in advance of the manufacturer's official release.
-
I am skeptical about any price announced in advance of the manufacturer's official release.
Yes it is a bit early; the lens is scheduled for april-may...
I just tested the 58mm Nikkor, but i do not like it so much-
Nikon should have made what probably Sigma is doing now : a quality 50mm 1.4 for about 1000$ with good (nano)coatings that shows a clear sharp image at 1.4
A fast autofocus would also be much appreciated.
-
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.
-
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! :)
-
I know a good marketing move for Sigma to increase their market share considerably… Bring the aperture back on Nikon fit lenses!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! :)
-
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…
-
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…
-
Folks,
Stumbled upon this (http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-art-gets-tested-for-the-first-time/) recently while browsing. Figured you'd be interested if you haven't already seen it. :)
Cheers,
-
Folks,
Stumbled upon this (http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-art-gets-tested-for-the-first-time/) recently while browsing. Figured you'd be interested if you haven't already seen it. :)
Very impressive performance from the Sigma on the chart. Very.
-
Yes, in terms of pure optical performance, Sigma seems currently superior to both Canon and Nikon, and very close to Zeiss.
In terms of price performance ratio, they are very very far ahead of everybody else.
Now, there are othet parameters like durability, environmental resistance,... where we do no know where Sigma stands. I know for a fact that those have an important impact on, at least, Nikon's designs, so are we really comparing apple to apple?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Now, there are othet parameters like durability, environmental resistance ... I know for a fact that those have an important impact on, at least, Nikon's designs, so are we really comparing apple to apple?
An 'impact' in what way, Bernard, apart from durability - could you be more specific ?
M
-
An 'impact' in what way, Bernard, apart from durability - could you be more specific ?
M
An impact on the design of the lens.
You don't make the same design choices if you want your lens to keep 97% io the time 95% of its image quality after a 80cm fall as you do if you completely ignore this aspect.
Same for cold/hot weathet, humidity,...
Designers make design choices to optimize the full set of parameters that the lens will be validated against. I don't know the extend of the negative impact on image quality resulting from to need to factor in durability as a design goal, but my guess is that it is not zero.
How does Sigma manage this, I don't know. All I am saying is that we don't really know the enveloppe for the Sigma recent lenses but we have more visibility on Canon/Nikon designs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I won't answer for Bernard, but I know that I've hesitated to buy Sigma optics in the past because of a perceived reputation for lower quality control and durability as the trade for lower-priced lenses. Sigma has been remaking their image as an innovative producer of high performing products, and one isn't sure just yet whether all of the elements of quality itself are in place just yet. Time will tell. But the optics in the new Art series are looking great.
And last but not least, Nikon has certainly not given information about its autofocus system to any third party lens maker, which means that Sigma's AF system is based on reverse engineering Nikon's. This could be a problem.
-
Same for cold/hot weathet, humidity,...
Well I know what you're referring to there, unfortunately. I hope you got a satisfactory response from Zeiss.
You don't make the same design choices if you want your lens to keep 97% io the time 95% of its image quality after a 80cm fall as you do if you completely ignore this aspect.
OK, I understand now what you're referring to. I haven't seen or held any Sigma yet but I would be very surprised if they matched Nikon in terms of durable construction and motors in any way and certainly neither Zeiss nor Leitz. My suspicion is that Sigma build to a cost, sacrificing the quality of the externals and longevity, to reach a certain price point.
I know that I've hesitated to buy Sigma optics in the past because of a perceived reputation for lower quality control and durability as the trade for lower-priced lenses. ... But the optics in the new Art series are looking great.
Yes, they're an attractive 3rd part alternative - part performance, part price. I doubt that they'll hold their residual value over the long term until the market perception of their products changes. So being 'cheaper' today is only one part of the equation.
-
On the other hand, Sigma has not sacrificed the quality feel of the Art series.
My 35mm f1.4 feels very well built.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, I did say 'suspicion'. I haven't tried it so I'm not going to knock it!
On thing I now do, and it's probably a good indicator of the internals, is to switch the lens to M instead of AF. Lenses that have good focus dampening AND DISCONNECT from the AF mechanism are OK to manual focus with. Not great, but OK and probably more resilient to accidental damage.
But I'm just prejudiced, still prefer the Zeiss and Leica manual lenses. Old habits die hard ..
All best
M
[smiley]
-
Hi,
That is a guess. I guess construction in Sigma lenses and Zeiss is quite difference. It seems for instance that Sigma has the capability to mould plastic parts with very high precision, higher than what may be feasible with machined metal parts. They talk about one micron. If you produce something in large numbers you can have more advanced machinery and the costs for the machinery can be distributed over a larger number of devices sold.
Roger Ciala over at lens rentals says that metal parts are not really preferable. Plastic parts are easy to replace. If a metal part breaks the whole assembly needs to be readjusted.
"When a plastic mount does break, people tend to freak out a bit because the lens is so obviously broken. From a repair standpoint, though, we love them. It takes 15 minutes to replace a broken plastic mount and the lens is as good as new. Metal mount lenses don’t break like that. Instead internal components and lens elements get shifted and bent. It can take several hours to return one of those to optical alignment."
link: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts
Sigma used to make affordable lenses and they now move up the scale. I don't have an idea about durability and stuff. The Zeiss lenses are of course manual focus, so they only have little electronics while the Sigma lenses are AF.
Best regards
Erik
Well I know what you're referring to there, unfortunately. I hope you got a satisfactory response from Zeiss.
OK, I understand now what you're referring to. I haven't seen or held any Sigma yet but I would be very surprised if they matched Nikon in terms of durable construction and motors in any way and certainly neither Zeiss nor Leitz. My suspicion is that Sigma build to a cost, sacrificing the quality of the externals and longevity, to reach a certain price point.
Yes, they're an attractive 3rd part alternative - part performance, part price. I doubt that they'll hold their residual value over the long term until the market perception of their products changes. So being 'cheaper' today is only one part of the equation.
-
Eric,
That is a guess.
It would help if you read my post in full. I said 'suspicion' . Suspicion is, by definition, a guess.
It seems for instance that Sigma has the capability to mould plastic parts with very high precision, higher than what may be feasible with machined metal parts. They talk about one micron.
And not just Sigma. Furthermore, you seem to interpret, from my post, that 'plastic' is inferior. Far from it. By choice, many manufacturers prefer it, not just on cost. Aircraft, for example, are now built using composites - at least in part. Tripods are using carbon fibre (good torsional strength), not so good on impact resistance, . Kevlar has good impact resistance, not so good on rigidity etc etc.
If you produce something in large numbers you can have more advanced machinery and the costs for the machinery can be distributed over a larger number of devices sold.
Usually referred to as 'economy of scale'.
Roger Ciala over at lens rentals says that metal parts are not really preferable. Plastic parts are easy to replace.
Yup, from a repair perspective. I prefer to avoid having to send my lenses for repair – if possible. Not to be construed as meaning that 'plastic' is necessarily inferior to metal. It's not.
The Zeiss lenses are of course manual focus, so they only have little electronics while the Sigma lenses are AF.
Not all - the Zeiss Touit series are AF.
I don't have an idea about durability and stuff.
Which is what the recent posts above were referring to.
All best
M
-
Hi M,
It was not my intention to be aggressive. I just feel that Sigma seems to make an all out effort to make top grade lenses. Also they are a relatively small company, producing in Japan, with only photographic equipment in focus. They seem to have a great focus on making excellent lenses at fair prices. I feel that approach deserves some respect.
Also, I see lenses as tools, not investments objects. Nice if I can sell a lens not any more needed, but I am more interested in solving my problems today than selling the lenses tomorrow.
Just to say, I have seven Zeiss lenses and two from Sigma, I am not exactly a Sigma fan.
Best regards
Erik
Eric,
It would help if you read my post in full. I said 'suspicion' . Suspicion is, by definition, a guess.
And not just Sigma. Furthermore, you seem to interpret, from my post, that 'plastic' is inferior. Far from it. By choice, many manufacturers prefer it, not just on cost. Aircraft, for example, are now built using composites - at least in part. Tripods are using carbon fibre (good torsional strength), not so good on impact resistance, . Kevlar has good impact resistance, not so good on rigidity etc etc.
Usually referred to as 'economy of scale'.
Yup, from a repair perspective. I prefer to avoid having to send my lenses for repair – if possible. Not to be construed as meaning that 'plastic' is necessarily inferior to metal. It's not.
Not all - the Zeiss Touit series are AF.
Which is what the recent posts above were referring to.
All best
M
-
I echo Erik's remarks in post #70, that many of us don't care who makes it, if it works to our needs. I have many really good lenses available to me, and I seldom use any of the many Nikons, with the exception of some of their exotic industrials. I do close-up and macro work for the most part.
I have been corresponding with Zeiss technicians for months asking after an Otus macro lens. What they tell me is they have to be able to sell 10,000 of them to make it worthwhile, not in their opinion likely with a macro. Perhaps they will change their mind now that they see the demand for the Otus 55mm.
Small companies, like Voigtlander, make excellent lenses. In fact, Voigtlander lenses are made in the same building as most Zeiss lenses, just in another area of the factory, I am told.
The Voigtlander 125mm F/2.5 APO-Lanthar is a wonderful lens, if you can find it, right up there (but not as corrected) with the Zeiss Otus 55mm. I have hoped for years that Nikon would get on the bandwagon and correct their lenses. It is not that they cannot do it.
I have three Printing Nikkors that are highly corrected, plus the El Nikkor APO 105mm lens that is very nice as well, and so on. They can do it if they want to.
I am open to whatever works for me. I tried out (and returned) both the Sigma Merrill DP3 and the Sony A7r cameras. Great strides forward, but still not all of what I need in one package. I would like a pro-Nikon body with a 54MP sensor, and superb EVF,and no AA filter.
-
It was not my intention to be aggressive. I just feel that Sigma seems to make an all out effort to make top grade lenses. Also they are a relatively small company, producing in Japan, with only photographic equipment in focus. They seem to have a great focus on making excellent lenses at fair prices. I feel that approach deserves some respect.
Also, I see lenses as tools, not investments objects. Nice if I can sell a lens not any more needed, but I am more interested in solving my problems today than selling the lenses tomorrow.
Just to say, I have seven Zeiss lenses and two from Sigma, I am not exactly a Sigma fan.
Eric,
Nor mine, though sometimes I feel that you misinterpret my posts! I agree with you, that Sigma are definitely upping the 'ante' - I just hope that the build quality will match. I bought the DP3m - great output from such a small package, but I did not enjoy the 'feel' of the camera or the lens. I hope the 'Art' series is a great success and not 'just' because of price.
All best,
Manoli
-
Hi,
Sorry, really not my intention. Thanks for making the point. I will try to keep it mind!
Have a nice day!
Erik
… though sometimes I feel that you misinterpret my posts! …
-
At less than a grand and the reviews claiming that it rivals (and in some respects beats) the Otus... http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30 , it looks like a game changer for standard hi-end performance lenses.
-
Currently there is only 1 annual source of lens frequency repair/failure data that is from Lens Rental Dot com. Every year that list is headed by the Nikon 70--200f 2.8 zoom closely followed by the similar Canon zoom. It is always interesting to me the many Nikon/Canon non exotic primes higher up on the list than they should be(especially the canon 50 f 1.4). So I'm not sure where all the posters here got their Ideas re: Nikon durability One of the only good reasons for the non purchase of the Sigma lenses in the past has been their awful resale value, but now as our site owner says "...the camera industry is in the dumpster..." and most used lenses are a glut on the market. Don't believe me just try and sell your Zeiss 35/2 or 35/1.4 or Canon or Nikon 35/1.4 or any zeiss Touitt. We now know(as of 6am this AM) the price on the Sigma 50 ART $1,300 / preorder price $949 from both sigma and BH Adorama. So like every other sheep I pre-ordered one.
-
There's no reason not to be a sheep if you aren't satisfied with your current 50mm option. Now that some bokeh pictures are coming out on the 50mm f/1.4 Art, and the bokeh looks pleasing to me, well, baaaaa (and H). Contrast looks excellent at f/1.4. See images here: http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-50mm-f14-dg-hsm-Art-Review
Of course, if you want stealth, go for the Shorty Forty Canon 40mm f/2.8 or equivalent pancake. The Sigma Art is a monster lens.
My current 50-60mm lens selections are all golden oldie manual lenses from 1960s, unearthed from the back of the closet: Mamiya-Sekor 55mm f/1.4, 60mm f/2.8 1:1 macro, Chinon 55mm f/1.4, Nikkor AIS 50mm f/1.2. They are all planar designs, and have beaucoups de chromatic aberration at f/1.2 to f.2.8. The Nikkor AIS 50mm f/1.2 is fun for the "dreamy" hazy look at f/1.2, and is a good sharp lens at f/4-f/8, so it will do a lot for me, but I admit that I want better wide open correction and better bokeh for some f/1.4 shots.
-
I must say I'm extremely happy with my Zeiss 55 1.4 (can't stand the Otus name, btw). I like the rendering and that is all that counts. So what if another company produces a competitor which is the equal or better? Don't care. I like the tactile handling of the Zeiss - reminds me of my Leica M lenses - there is a quality which transcends AF products (imo).
-
Hello,
Just ordered this new Sigma from B&H with a Nikon mount.
Cheers
Simon
-
I really don't see why some makers insist on making their "standard" lenses of 50mm FL... Clearly, 50mm being a little on the "tele" side of what "normal" should be, the 55-60mm focal length would change nothing on what people do with a 50mm prime, while at the same time, the lens would "bridge" much better the "gap" between a 35mm prime and the portrait lenses of the 85-105 range...
-
What with the Sony mirrorless offerings being so easy to use, I am VERY reluctant to buy any lens that does not have
f stops - tried to manage the adapter that supposedly allows f stop settings was not satisfactory. That said, my D800E is still the one that gets the "serious" work.
-
I'll probably get the sigma in canon mount to use mainly on my A7r. My clients would not be able to tell the difference between images shot on that or the otus and I would rather the money sat in the MrSmith comfort fund than those of Zeiss shareholders.
-
Aircraft, for example, are now built using composites - at least in part.
the real question is - does your camera/lens part using the same quality plastic as that part in "aircraft" or not... the assumption is that it is, but the devil is in the details... it is not a fact, plastics are different, even if you call 2 plastics by the same name (same class) they are not the same
-
I'll probably get the sigma in canon mount to use mainly on my A7r. My clients would not be able to tell the difference between images shot on that or the otus and I would rather the money sat in the MrSmith comfort fund than those of Zeiss shareholders.
Will your "clients" notice any difference at all with any other "standard" lens? ...I doubt it! ...in fact I doubt if "they" care for the existence of a lens rather than its nature...
-
Possibly if they looked in the corners of images shot with the zoom I'm using that covers 50mm focal length, I don't own a flat field high quality 50mm so the sigma will fill that gap.
-
Just ordered this new Sigma from B&H with a Nikon mount.
I'll bet this provides a nice boost for your D800E. Can't wait to see what you do with it on that camera.
So far, the only review I've seen uses the D3x.
If the lens is that good, I might return to 50-land.
-
I'll bet this provides a nice boost for your D800E. Can't wait to see what you do with it on that camera.
So far, the only review I've seen uses the D3x.
If the lens is that good, I might return to 50-land.
In this review http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30 they claim that they were told by Sigma that they sacrificed a bit of resolution in favour for contrast... This may mean that on D800/E Otus may appear considerably sharper that the ART, while on a lower resolution camera (like a D3X or Eos 5iii or even 1DX or D4/DF) the Sigma may appear visibly sharper than the Otus (with more micro contrast)... Just a thought for people that use more than one camera to take into account when testing the lens them selfs... An important factor that many reviewers don't take into account when testing a lens and sometimes many of the customers don't pay enough attention either.
-
vladimirovich, have you any idea how many different kinds of aluminum alloy there are, and how widely the properties of those alloys vary? Only certain alloys of aluminum are suitable for aircraft structural components - if you use other aluminum alloys, the plane is likely to break up into pieces. "Plastic" is as variable.
I for one am happy to use a good lens or a good camera even if it has plastic components the weight savings can be significant, and this can translate to less user fatigue. I shoot with a Canon 6D, and it performs to specifications. No, it isn't as sturdy as the 1D series. I am not taking the thing into war zones, though. It is Good Enough For Me. (At least, I preferred to buy a less expensive SLR and spend the difference on a really nice used lens for landscape, Zeiss 21mm f/2.8).
I am waiting for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art to show up in local shops. That will space out the expenditure a bit.
-
...
Canon non exotic primes higher up on the list than they should be(especially the canon 50 f 1.4).
...
My one of these needed to be repaired and when I took it in for service even the receptionist could tell exactly what was wrong with it when I handed it to her and was able to pull a line item from their service catalogue for costing without a technician looking at it.
Canon offer a 1 year warranty for all of their lenses for "defective parts or a defective Product."
Sigma offer:
"Beginning July 1, 2013, all brand new Sigma Products purchased from authorized Sigma dealers are covered under the 1 year America warranty (North and South America) and U.S.A. extended warranties for a period of four (4) years against defects in manufacturing and workmanship only."
So Canon will stand by their product for one year, Sigma four years.
-
My one of these needed to be repaired and when I took it in for service even the receptionist could tell exactly what was wrong with it when I handed it to her and was able to pull a line item from their service catalogue for costing without a technician looking at it.
Same thing happened to me. That lens must fail in a very predictable way. In their defense, mine was 9 years old when it croaked, and the service center had it back to me in about two days.
-
The DxO test for the Sigma Art 50 is up at DPR today.
Try using the comparison tool to compare the Sigma with the Otus. Though the MTF numbers don't tell the entire story, it does seem that the Sigma beats the Otus off center. Mind you, this is measured only on the 5DIII, which the test acknowledges is probably the limiting factor for some measurements. Nevertheless, it is interesting.
-
Mind you, this is measured only on the 5DIII, which the test acknowledges is probably the limiting factor for some measurements. Nevertheless, it is interesting.
Why would they test on the 5DIII?!
-
Why would they test on the 5DIII?!
Why indeed! Clearly the point of the Art/Otus is to be prepared for 36MP+ sensor resolutions.
-
Why indeed! Clearly the point of the Art/Otus is to be prepared for 36MP+ sensor resolutions.
Yet, all known lenses up to now have been tested on lesser resolution cameras... this gives an immediate real comparison of the improvement achieved and suggests that the difference can only be magnified if a higher resolution sensor is used... OTOH, many that are not using a 36mp sensor currently (or others that wouldn't care to get one), may would conclude that such a lens would be a worthless overkill if tested on a higher res. camera than what they use.
-
Why would they test on the 5DIII?!
Because the first copy they received was in Canon mount, and using an adapter on something like an A7R would introduce a testing variable. I'm sure they'll put one on a Nikon as soon as they get one in that mount.
I could be wrong, but that's my guess.
-
right you are, misirilou. Sigma brings out its lenses in order of mount popularity, so Canon is always first, Nikon second, then Sony A and Pentax K and Sigma A make up the third group. Sigma wants to move lots of the lenses in the early days and generate lots of buzz. Rest assured, someone will be slapping that EF-mount 50 1.4 Art on a Sony A7R soon enough and publishing the results.
-
Hi,
Thought I'd bump this up as I have been researching the Sigma 35mm 1.4 A lens. I read this entire thread and found it a wonderful discussion. I'm new here and have experience at other photo sites. I'm impressed by the way you guys can disagree and not flip out and keep on track. I like it here!
That said I'm posting as a number of the posts suggested the resale value of the Sigma may take a hit and some suggested 33% when the box is open.
Well as of Jan 19th I saw only one with Nikon F mount on ebay with bidding at $710 with 2 days left…
KEH has one for a Pentax at $728
BHPhoto one for $829
Seems to be holding its value quite well.
Since the OTUS is out of my league I can't comment on that.
I pulled the trigger this morning! Can't wait!
Thanks,
Aztex
-
You ought to be pretty happy. I love my Sigma Art 35 f/1.4, and may be getting its big brother (50) soon.
-
I have the 35mm ART and compared it to my Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G and it came out a little softer than the Nikon using the latest Reikan FoCal software.
My ART seems to have a shift of the AF in the Red, Blue, and Green when I did the FoCal AF test on it. The Red needs a -17, The Blue a -15, and the Green -10 in the body for AF tuning.
The Nikon sets around -14 with a two point spread in the RGB, vs. the Sigma 7 point spread above.
I dunno...
However, at least you can calibrate the lens AF tuning with their puck to a given body, just not the aberrations of the three colors though.
SG
-
I have the 35mm ART and compared it to my Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G and it came out a little softer than the Nikon using the latest Reikan FoCal software.
My ART seems to have a shift of the AF in the Red, Blue, and Green when I did the FoCal AF test on it. The Red needs a -17, The Blue a -15, and the Green -10 in the body for AF tuning.
The Nikon sets around -14 with a two point spread in the RGB, vs. the Sigma 7 point spread above.
I dunno...
However, at least you can calibrate the lens AF tuning with their puck to a given body, just not the aberrations of the three colors though.
SG
I try not to get too crazy about all this but certainly understand the analysis is important. I wonder how much it is camera dependent as I have read the opposite reports! Probably individual lenses having "issues"
I'm crossing fingers I get a good one on first try. Not sure if I should try a couple if poor results or invest in the USB puck…
This will be my first non-Nikkor lens for a Nikon ever! Never had CA issues in the film days but was mostly a B&W shooter. I use NX2 and it auto corrects flawlessly with Nikkor lenses. I doubt it does so with Sigma but we shall see what happens.
Thanks,
Aztex
-
I try not to get too crazy about all this but certainly understand the analysis is important. I wonder how much it is camera dependent as I have read the opposite reports! Probably individual lenses having "issues"
I'm crossing fingers I get a good one on first try. Not sure if I should try a couple if poor results or invest in the USB puck…
This will be my first non-Nikkor lens for a Nikon ever! Never had CA issues in the film days but was mostly a B&W shooter. I use NX2 and it auto corrects flawlessly with Nikkor lenses. I doubt it does so with Sigma but we shall see what happens.
Thanks,
Aztex
I like it much better than any 50mm nikkor i owned. 1.4 clear and sharp; 5.6 stellar. AF faster than the 50mm nikkors etc.. Bokeh is good. very neutral colours.
if you buy it - do a test to see if the sharpness is even ( left/right- top /down) - if not bring it back. Mine is very good.
I would buy the USB puck - if well tuned you shoot sharp AF @1.4. and as i showed the center has a resolution of about 100MP full frame.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=90563.0
-
The Otus lenses do not pose any issue to anyone due to cost. The Art lenses on the other hand, because of price, have the potential to bleed sales. Product decisions are made on the basis of profitability of that item alone or how it affects sales of other products.
I find it interesting how much play the 50mm focal length is getting. When I first started in middle 1980s, every consumer camera came with a 50mm f/1.8 lens. Then the focal length kinda fell out of favor for going wider. First 35mm, then 28, 24 and 20mm for rectilinear lenses. For a long time it was wide and 85mm and out. The 28-70mm f/2.8 lenses kinda held the middle. Now, all of a sudden, 50mm primes are back in vogue.
With respect to Nikon 50mm, other than the f/1.2 AI(s) NOCT their 50mm lenses have been spectacularly average. The new 58mm f/1.4G is very good and even the 50mm f/1.4G is pretty decent, but nothing to write home about.