Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

FM Forum Rules
Wedding Resource List
  

FM Forums | Wedding Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2016 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds
  
 
ahaug
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


I've been waiting for this lens for a long time. I have been expecting that the lens would best the current nikon and cannon lenses but I didn't expect it to be 2.5 pounds. I'm still going to test it out but I don't know if I'll be lugging that around all day. Anybody else thinking about passing on this lens due to the weight alone?


Oct 16, 2016 at 03:06 PM
Mike Veltri
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


Where did you read that?


Oct 16, 2016 at 03:23 PM
ahaug
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds



http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_85_14/specifications/

they initially didn't give that info and now I think I know why. Its the same weight as the otus. I bet that it is in fact a lot like the otus. Would love to shoot with it but that is a big lens for a prime. Its like a 24 70 in weight.



Oct 16, 2016 at 03:41 PM
MRomine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


ahaug wrote:
I've been waiting for this lens for a long time. I have been expecting that the lens would best the current nikon and cannon lenses but I didn't expect it to be 2.5 pounds. I'm still going to test it out but I don't know if I'll be lugging that around all day. Anybody else thinking about passing on this lens due to the weight alone?


This is the princple reason why I passed on it and other fast primes. The weight. Think aobut it, the improved lens quality and bokeh will be lost on wedding and protrait clients. They will never see the difference. Therefore the additional cost and weight are not worth the supposed gains when it comes to shooting weddings. In my mind, the f1.8 lens line that Nikon has created in recent years, with their superior AF speed and accuracy make for a very compelling value.



Oct 16, 2016 at 04:00 PM
ahaug
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


MRomine wrote:
This is the princple reason why I passed on it and other fast primes. The weight. Think aobut it, the improved lens quality and bokeh will be lost on wedding and protrait clients. They will never see the difference. Therefore the additional cost and weight are not worth the supposed gains when it comes to shooting weddings. In my mind, the f1.8 lens line that Nikon has created in recent years, with their superior AF speed and accuracy make for a very compelling value.


I agree with this. However, for me, the siggy 35a's iq is worth it for me over my 28g and the weight not that big of a deal. I use the 85 1.8g and love the quick and accurate autofocus. I never worry about hitting focus at 1.8. I confess that I don't really love the bokeh out of the lens though. I would jump to a 1.4 lens for a touch more iq and bokeh but the 85 1.8 is so light and works so well that I don't think that I want to carry 2.5 pounds all day for that bit extra.



Oct 16, 2016 at 04:10 PM
ahaug
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


If the 85 1.8g was any less of a lens ... this would be an easier decision.


Oct 16, 2016 at 04:10 PM
tgillespie
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


Heavier than the 1.2... ouch. I recently switched from the 1.2 to the 1.8 and won't ever go back for wedding days.


Oct 16, 2016 at 04:25 PM
BSPhotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


That is more than twice the weight of the 85mm f/1.4d. I don't even understand how that is possible.


Oct 16, 2016 at 04:41 PM
Mark_L
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


BSPhotog wrote:
That is more than twice the weight of the 85mm f/1.4d. I don't even understand how that is possible.


If it is otus grade levels of iq with af in it, I guess it is fathomable.

I bet the image circle is way bigger then 35mm to get very high performance over the frame


Edited on Oct 17, 2016 at 10:02 AM · View previous versions



Oct 16, 2016 at 05:35 PM
flash
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


Well, on the bright side, the Sony GM85 is now officially a small lens....

I actually do have a few primes this heavy. (Leica miniMF) and I have never considered carrying them in anything but a roller case. I don't see anyone carrying this thing plus a couple of big zooms in anything else.

Gordon



Oct 16, 2016 at 08:05 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



playerofwar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds




Mark_L wroteI bet the image circle is way bigger then 35mm to get very high performance over the frame
Maybe you can convert it to MF.



Oct 16, 2016 at 09:40 PM
level1photog
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


I saw a youtube interview with the president of Sigma where he said Art series is their best effort to making a lens where price and size is not a consideration. That's why they are aiming for Otus quality. They also said to favor bokeh than overall sharpness. 2.5 pound is the same weight as my Tamron 15-30 2.8 so I have no problem with the weight. Sure it's heavy compare to other 85 but if it can deliver Otus-like quality with beautiful bokeh, and fast/accurate focusing, $1200 is a great price.

I wish there are more samples and reviews of this before the release date. This would be perfect for 2 weddings I have coming up.



Oct 16, 2016 at 10:01 PM
MRomine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


ahaug wrote:
I agree with this. However, for me, the siggy 35a's iq is worth it for me over my 28g and the weight not that big of a deal.


This is what I dont't get about people wanting to own and shoot with lenses where the image quality, weight and cost will never be apprecaited or noticed by their clients. Why? In fact very few photographers would ever be able to tell you what lens captured an image unless it was put next to an image of the same subject, shot at the same time, and the same lens settings. Is it some kind of prestige thing, some kind of braging rights? I don't get it. Why spend the momey, why carry the weight and why give up the fater AF of the 1.8 lens line? It is constantly repeated here that great photographers can make great images with any gear including iPhones. So what is the argument fo these expensive lenses?



Oct 16, 2016 at 10:58 PM
ZachOly
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


level1photog wrote:
I saw a youtube interview with the president of Sigma where he said Art series is their best effort to making a lens where price and size is not a consideration.


Add quality control in there as well.



Oct 16, 2016 at 11:01 PM
JHerr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


What a bunch of pansies. Hit the gym. I've seen 90 year old grandma's handhold way heavier lenses all day and not cry about it.

*disclaimer: that was sarcasm, even though this is how a few people actually think about the subject of lens weight.*




Oct 16, 2016 at 11:12 PM
ohsnaphappy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


I feel the 70-200 (or similar) focal length is practically mandatory for many of our weddings. I'm serious. There are so many times throughout the day where no other lens will work because we need the range.

Given how much we shoot the 70-200, weight is never a consideration for us. There's really nothing bigger and heavier than a 70-200, so a heavy 85 or a D4... not a big deal.

I definitely feel for photographers who have aches and pains though. Fortunately, all of Nikon's plasticky 1.8G lenses are excellent, so I feel like everyone wins!



Oct 17, 2016 at 12:09 AM
ahaug
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


MRomine wrote:
This is what I dont't get about people wanting to own and shoot with lenses where the image quality, weight and cost will never be apprecaited or noticed by their clients. Why? In fact very few photographers would ever be able to tell you what lens captured an image unless it was put next to an image of the same subject, shot at the same time, and the same lens settings. Is it some kind of prestige thing, some kind of braging rights? I don't get it. Why spend the momey, why carry the weight and why give up the
...Show more

You may be right on all counts. maybe brides will never notice the difference. But ... I do and I have to spend the time looking at them for hours a week. It makes the process more enjoyable for me to like my gear and iq. Maybe when I've been doing this longer, I will care less about these little differences.



Oct 17, 2016 at 01:21 AM
joelconner
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


that is heeeeeeeeav. only .75lb heavier than the 70-200 II




Oct 17, 2016 at 01:41 AM
BSPhotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


joelconner wrote:
that is heeeeeeeeav. only .75lb heavier than the 70-200 II


Or 3 quarter pound cheeseburgers, if you prefer.



Oct 17, 2016 at 03:28 AM
nolaguy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


MRomine wrote:
This is what I don't get about people wanting to own and shoot with lenses where the image quality, weight and cost will never be appreciated or noticed by their clients. Why? In fact very few photographers would ever be able to tell you what lens captured an image unless it was put next to an image of the same subject, shot at the same time, and the same lens settings. Is it some kind of prestige thing, some kind of bragging rights? I don't get it. Why spend the money, why carry the weight and why give up the
...Show more

I hear you, Mark. And many of us incessantly puzzle over the question - it's a valid one. The following seems to get off on a branding tangent but I do bring it back around to your point and musings.

I've worked in luxury goods literally from childhood. Most of that time has been spent in merchandising and product development with one of the largest companies of its type in the country. As such, brand development has been at the center of my universe for longer than I care to remember. One particularly interesting element is that this company does business in several different market tiers so I've worked with many businesses functioning at every level from fairly low end, commercial product to the most elite companies on the planet.


First, let me say brand levels, market levels, however we might describe the matter - the concepts are not at all necessarily measures of financial affluence. They are all about perceptions and behavior patterns and what products/services/marketing messages they respond to.


At the lowest end, quality and attention to detail takes a severe backseat to price and the perception of value based on very modest consumer perspectives.

Somewhere in the middle to upper-middle, quality, durability, aesthetic refinement, etc becomes more important - but there is an intense focus on the law of diminishing returns and 70% of what is possible is not only good enough, but it's all most people are willing to pay for. Beyond that, each additional 5% of goodness costs 10%, 20% - or more - to achieve.

Then there's the upper market wherein yeah, it can be a prestige thing, bragging rights, etc - but sometimes folks just like owning or hiring the "best" almost as a celebration of what humans are capable of accomplishing.


In high end goods and services, yes, leaving no stone unturned (e.g. nicer glass) toward excellence is often overkill, but sometimes we do it out of a sheer sense of integrity given the market we're serving and the prices we're charging.

In other cases bringing the finest minds, talents, systems, tools and equipment to bear does in fact yield far superior results.

But it's rarely if ever really necessary.



Within the "middle area" level described above the more conservative, practical gear approach (you seem to be in favor of), is more than adequate and you're right, few if any will ever discern the "better" of anything beyond that.


Personally, I spend most of my time and money on gear that reflects your sensibilities and your point. I chose Elinchrom because I thought it was a cut above and that Profoto and Broncolor were, for my purposes, well into diminishing returns.


Then again, I went with the 35 Art and the 85 1.4 well after Nikon's 1.8's had become almost legendary in their value and benefits. Why? No good reason other than I can't afford a $5,000 portrait lens and when I step up to do a serious portrait, I like knowing I'm looking through one of the most serious primes Nikon makes (within my budget, anyway).

Will I see the difference. Doubtful. Do I feel good about bringing everything I could to bear - yeah, I do.

Is it a business decision? Yes and no. Sometimes that sense of integrity I mentioned above resonates through an organization's culture. Investing in better than is absolutely necessary can be inspiring and reinforce a company's sense of mission and ethos. Even if the corporation is a one man show. Sometimes especially so.

I do realize this is a wedding tool discussion and my example is portraiture, but for me at least, pretty much all the points still apply - though I do get that certain "adjustments" are more necessary or useful on the wedding battlefield than they are in more controlled, less exhausting genres.



Finally, few of us have the resources for stories like the following. But it may be useful nonetheless.

I was in Australia many years ago working with a brilliant company. A leader in their field and a really, really class act. Hugely accomplished but very humble, polite and generous. They were masters of understated branding. Everything about their ecosystem spoke of quality and responsibility. I saw many examples of overkill in their production methods and in their marketing. One example in particular I was discussing with the President asking about how they measured their ROI on that specific endeavor. It was probably twice as polished as it needed to be but they went very high end with it anyway.

He smiled and said: "Aww mate, no way to do that. We just decided it was a good thing. We just like doing things well. Probably pays off more in how we see ourselves than anything."



Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46 AM
1
       2       end






FM Forums | Wedding Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password