Lenses for D800 - where's the weak link?

[stevesanacore]

Hello Enchanter,

I received the new sigma  35mm F1.4 lens Nikon mount a week or so ago and after some tests against my Nikon 35mm F1.4G I sent it back to the NZ distributor. Very soft in the corners at F5.6 and F8.0.

I would be interested in you thoughts when you have tested your version.

Cheers

Simon

I wonder if issues like this are really focus calibration issues and not optical defects? I think manually focus bracketing would be the only way to discount that problem. There was a white paper by lensrentals on the subject a while back.

[bjanes]

Hi Enchanter,

Good to read that you have a good copy.

Lloyd Chambers also has written on his website about lens skew he has encountered with the Sigma 35mm F1.4 lens.

I think I will wait a few months and then try a number of Sigma 35mm F1.4 lenses and compare them to my Nikon 35mm F1.4G lens to see if there is a good version out there.

Enjoy your new lens.

Cheers

Simon

As I read Mr Chambers' post, his current theory is that the lens flanges on his two D800s are slewed as he observed the defect not only with the Sigma 35 f/2.8 but also the new Zeiss 125 f/2 Apo and a couple of other lenses. The defect likely resides in the camera, not the lenses.

Regards,

Bilil

[NashvilleMike]

Hey Simon,

Another vote for the Sigma 35/1.4 here. I am generally not a fan of third party lenses (other than Carl Zeiss) but this one is a winner. I spent *considerable* time (somewhere north of 6 different testing sessions across many weeks) testing it against my other wide angles with my D800E (Zeiss 21, Nikon 24/1.4G, Nikon 28/1.8G, Nikon 35/1.4G and my 24-70/2.8G zoom) and it easily won the competition against the 35/1.4G in every aspect of performance EXCEPT flare resistance, where the Nikon was markedly superior, and if one were to get subjective, I thought the Nikon bokeh was a bit better. This included testing at every possible distance range I would ever see myself using the lens in, from studio work through infinity/landscape, all controlled, proper testing on a heavy tripod rig, remote release, focus bracketing via live view and so forth. Short answer: I just sold the Nikon 35/1.4G; in particular the distant corners/edges for landscape type targets were rendered better with the Sigma, and even in studio work, the sharpness advantage of the Sigma is noticeable. Only my Zeiss 21 is noticeably any better in the center, which is saying something. I even tested the Sigma against the Zeiss 35/2 and Zeiss 28/2 and preferred the Sigma.

So, to make a long story short, I hope you try another one; this is a truly state of the art lens if you find a good sample.

[HarperPhotos]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your critique on the Sigma F1.4 lens. I will definitely give it another go and I will test in on both of my Nikon D800s just to be sure.

Cheers

Simon

[xtranch]

I just got the Sigma 35 1.4 from B&H. Yesterday I went to a local airport where they have an old B17 bomber. Combined with my Nikon D800 I got excellent results. this lens is just the thing for crawling into a dark space where a tripod would not fit. It very sharp and has great colors, with a minimum of distortion. it is price at half what you would pay for a Zeiss, which is what I use for landscapes.

[Petrus]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for your critique on the Sigma F1.4 lens. I will definitely give it another go and I will test in on both of my Nikon D800s just to be sure.

Cheers

Simon

I got mine today and made a quick test against Nikon 35mm F:1.4. Sigma is clearly sharper both at full open and at f:8, and there is less color smearing. Camera was D800E. So it seems I was lucky to get a good specimen...  Sigma is slightly wider, by the way. Nikon image was linear 95.5% of the Sigma image in size. If Nikon is 35mm, then Sigma is actually 34mm.

[shadowblade]

The weak link is the tilt-shift lenses.

There is no 17mm tilt-shift lens, the 24mm PC-E lens has less shift than its Canon counterpart, and they don't quite match the Canons for image quality.

This is the only reason I'm still using Canon - their low-ISO image quality hasn't improved since the 5D2, and Nikon/Sony left them in the dust a long time ago. But I like to shift and stitch for landscapes...

[Fine_Art]

I'm with both of you, I would love to use the canon T/S.

I was planning to get the new Sony A58 but after consideration of the weak spot of my lenses - wides - I am about to go D600. The DxO review made me think the D600 will get most of what the lenses have to offer for $2k. I'm not paying $3k to go FF when the D600 has me really impressed with the low noise. I'm thinking Nikon 28 1.8G or Sigma 35 and the 85 1.8G

My Sig 20 1.8 EX DG on 1.5 crop is really pressed at infinity focus. There is a tearing effect on the fine detail. The lens seems fine at shorter distances. It's a fail for landscapes which is why I use the 50 macro stitched.

Since most review sites test the lenses in studio make sure you test your purchase at distance as well, you may have a rude surprise. This happened to me recently with a 180 degree pano at a national park using the Sig 20, my newest lens. Fortunately I had also done a copy with the 50 Macro or that trip would have been a bust.

[Fine_Art]

Hi Bob,

I use the Horseman VCC system using Rodenstock Rodagon and Apo Rodagon enlarging lenses for all my art reproduction, jewellery, food and drink photography  with excellent results. These Rodenstock lenses on my Nikon D800E are superb.

Cheers

Simon

I have to say your beer shot is really working, I want one. Actually a case. Really nice work.

[BernardLanguillier]

Agreed, whether future Nikon tilt-shift lenses can ever match those of Canon with the current Nikon lens mount is questionable. Then there's the advantage of the Canon dual axis rotation.

The rear optical element of all the T/S I know of is significantly smaller than the mounts and located fairly close to them. I don't believe that the F mount is the issue here.

Cheers,
Bernard

[HarperPhotos]

Hello,

Thanks Fine Art.

I took few shots of a bottle today for Jim Beam using my Horseman VCC adaptor with a Rodenstock Apo Rodagon 105mm lens and of course my Nikon D800E.

The bottle just looked awesome even thought I am not a bourbon drinker. I prefer Vodka and red wine but not in the same glass mind you.

Cheers

Simon

[Fine_Art]

I picked up the D600 with the 85 1.8G today. They are bringing in a Sigma 35 (the new version) for me at the end of the week. Finally after years of waiting I am full frame again without film.

The 85 is looking good BTW, I have to redo my resolution tests tomorrow from further away in case the chart printing is the weak link. A good sign. It seems the lens is near nyquist like my sony macros. A curious thing in the store was jpg wide open formed strong purple on a black and white street sign far away. When we swapped it for a different (the store demo) copy the color was green. My conversions at home from RAW look better. The resolution is great, there is a hint of purple which vanishes stopped down.

[HarperPhotos]

Hi Fine Art,

Glad to read about your new toys. The Nikon 85mm F1.8 has a very good reap. I have the Nikon 28mm F1.8 lens and I just love it. I have to try another Sigma 35mm F1.4 against my Nikon 35mm F1.4 lens in a few weeks as me and Lloyd Charmers can't be the only shooters to get dudes.

Cheers

Simon

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard, I bow to your greater knowledge of the Nikon system.

So, there's no real excuse? Nikon should be capable of producing T/S lenses that are as good or even better than the Canon offerings? They just need to get their act together?

Yes, I believe that's pretty much it.

Now, the current 24mm pce is an excellent lens already. It is seemingly not as good as the Canon 24mm ts when shifted, but it is very far from being the disaster some have described. At least my copy is.

So they would in fact not have to improve that much to come on top.

The rest is a matter of mgt priorities.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

It also doesn't shift as far (only a millimetre, but every millimetre counts when you're trying to make a huge panorama) and doesn't have independently-adjustable tilt and shift axes.

Hopefully the Samyang 24mm tilt-shift coming in May performs well optically, and Nikon goes ahead with the 17mm tilt-shift...

[BernardLanguillier]

It also doesn't shift as far (only a millimetre, but every millimetre counts when you're trying to make a huge panorama) and doesn't have independently-adjustable tilt and shift axes.

I am still not sure to understand the value of those shift lenses for panorama imaging.

The corners, even on the excellent Canon 24mm ts, are significantly weaker than the center section of a good prime, so why not do spherical panos?



Shot with a 85mm f1.4 AF-S on a monopod.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

I am still not sure to understand the value of those shift lenses for panorama imaging.

The corners, even on the excellent Canon 24mm ts, are significantly weaker than the center section of a good prime, so why not do spherical panos?

Cheers,
Bernard

1. Because finding nodal points, etc. is a pain, and because pano rigs tend to be big and cumbersome to set up.

2. Because sometimes the stitching process for a spherical pano just fails and you can't put the image together. I've never had a shifted pano fail to stitch.

3. Because you can't easily use filters with a spherical pano, since the lens moves. When doing a shifted pano, you can use graduated ND filters (useful if there's a moving object in one part of the scene) and polarisers.

4. Because, even if the centre of a prime is sharper than the corners of a tilt-shift lens, the distortion induced by correcting the spherical pano into a rectilinear projection will make the corners of the final image worse than the corners of a shifted image, when you're dealing with the wider focal lengths.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

You have a tripod mount on the lens and shift the camera? Else you get a parallax problem with shifted panos.

Best regards
Erik

1. Because finding nodal points, etc. is a pain, and because pano rigs tend to be big and cumbersome to set up.

2. Because sometimes the stitching process for a spherical pano just fails and you can't put the image together. I've never had a shifted pano fail to stitch.

3. Because you can't easily use filters with a spherical pano, since the lens moves. When doing a shifted pano, you can use graduated ND filters (useful if there's a moving object in one part of the scene) and polarisers.

4. Because, even if the centre of a prime is sharper than the corners of a tilt-shift lens, the distortion induced by correcting the spherical pano into a rectilinear projection will make the corners of the final image worse than the corners of a shifted image, when you're dealing with the wider focal lengths.

[MrSmith]

Hi,

You have a tripod mount on the lens and shift the camera? Else you get a parallax problem with shifted panos.

Best regards
Erik

i do, it's marked in mm so i can match the shift exactly in the opposite direction. but you only need to do that if there is something in the foreground. it's not always needed.
i thought about a nodal slide but i like to swap lenses around and switch from tripod to handheld and travel light so i have not bothered. if i had specific interiors to shoot i perhaps would get a slide for that occasion.

[shadowblade]

Hi,

You have a tripod mount on the lens and shift the camera? Else you get a parallax problem with shifted panos.

Best regards
Erik

Yep.