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
  
 
ashton lamont
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


I bought the Sigma 20mm f1.4 Art without appreciating how heavy it is. I put up with it because of its superb performance and in particular because of the fact it can do f1.4. But for that weight couldn't Sigma have gone just one step further and made this range weatherproof.

Pete



Oct 17, 2016 at 09:20 AM
Mark_L
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 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

I think it just comes down to the fact most photographers are gearwhores



Oct 17, 2016 at 10:05 AM
Jeff Simpson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


Damn, that's heavy if true. I just picked up a lens for landscape work and @ 2.6lbs, I was thinking about how I would not want to use it at weddings.


Oct 17, 2016 at 12:44 PM
MRomine
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


ahaug wrote:
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.


I get that and that is fine. For me my real enjoyment when editing a wedding is not looking at bokeh or discerning what f-stop I used to get the creamy background but the moment captured, the expression of the subject and having the image in FOCUS. In fact I almost never look to see what f-stop I shot at unless there was perhaps a technical issue with the image. In my younger days of photography I thought that fast glass was the real ticket to achieving success. And at one point in time it made more difference than it does today. For example in the film days when you were extremely limited by film ISOs of 800, having that extra full stop provided by fast glass really made the difference. Even in the early days of digital the ISO limits were much greater than they are today thus having the fast glass allowed you to capture images that was either not possible or much more difficult. Having fast glass at that time was more of a necessity for capturing anything than it was for achieving creamy backgrounds. That was a side benefit.

I have owed at one time or another much of the fast glass that is so cherished today. The vaunted Canon 85 f1.2 and 135 f2, the Nikon 85 f1.4D and G lenses. They were all lovely lenses and produced lovely results WHEN they got the subject in focus. But when it comes to fast shooting in low light they often failed me. They failed so much so that they made me angry and I sold all of them. Having creamy backgrounds is pointless if the main subject is not in focus, focus is king, not soft backgrounds. Therefore any lens that achieves a higher percentage of in focus keepers wins for ME. Now many shooters are willing to live with that trade-off, they are willing to give up a higher percentage of in-focus shots to get a creamier background. That is fine if you willing to live with paying more, carrying more weight and having less shots in focus. The Nikon f1.8 lens line beats all three of those limitations. They are much more cost effective, they weight less than half as much and I get many more keepers by having more images in focus and that can translate into making more money, having creamier backgrounds has never made me more money.

Keep in mind that the real difference makers in photography is not so much in the f-stop that you shoot at, f1.2/1.4 vs f1.8/2 so much as it is the lighting and the photographers' eye. Fast glass will rarely if ever make you more money. If anything, over time, they may actually prevent you from staying in business.



Oct 17, 2016 at 01:32 PM
MRomine
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


nolaguy wrote:
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.

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
...Show more

I understand but my argument over the whole fast glass topic is that in my mind it does not help me to deliver a product that will achieve the above goals that you outline for the clients that I want to cater to. It actually hinders my path to achieving those goals. The extra cost, the extra weight and the less than stellar percentage of in-focus keepers is a hindrance.



Oct 17, 2016 at 01:44 PM
nolaguy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


MRomine wrote:
I understand but my argument over the whole fast glass topic is that in my mind it does not help me to deliver a product that will achieve the above goals that you outline for the clients that I want to cater to. It actually hinders my path to achieving those goals. The extra cost, the extra weight and the less than stellar percentage of in-focus keepers is a hindrance.


I didn't think you were arguing, Mark. You seemed to be expressing curiosity. As I said, I largely agree with your point of view. The rest of my reply was offering possible answers to your question based on my personal experience.

Cheers buddy,

Chuck




Oct 17, 2016 at 01:54 PM
ahaug
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


MRomine wrote:
I get that and that is fine. For me my real enjoyment when editing a wedding is not looking at bokeh or discerning what f-stop I used to get the creamy background but the moment captured, the expression of the subject and having the image in FOCUS.

No doubt this is true. I heard that the motor in this lens is also overkill and very fast. What if this lens nails focus and with more accuracy than the 1.8s?



Oct 17, 2016 at 02:35 PM
level1photog
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


I agree with you. Having fast glass is part of the recipe to get beautiful pictures. Without proper lighting and editing, it's not enough to warrant expensive, heavy piece of glass. Sigma Art's series philosophy is making the best glass with great performance and that come with a price (expensive and heavy). Hopefully with so much time it took to release it, they figured how to get accurate and fast focusing with Otus quality. If not, all lens have its use during wedding day. I'll use appropriate lens to get the job done.

MRomine wrote:
I get that and that is fine. For me my real enjoyment when editing a wedding is not looking at bokeh or discerning what f-stop I used to get the creamy background but the moment captured, the expression of the subject and having the image in FOCUS. In fact I almost never look to see what f-stop I shot at unless there was perhaps a technical issue with the image. In my younger days of photography I thought that fast glass was the real ticket to achieving success. And at one point in time it made more difference than it
...Show more




Oct 17, 2016 at 03:23 PM
LeeSimms
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


I'm usually a weight snob, but I will try this and the Tamron back-to-back for a couple of weddings. Really curious how they both do.


Oct 17, 2016 at 03:24 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Mike Veltri
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


Ya, it said TBA I believe when I looked.
You would have to go to the gym to use that lens on a pro body. lol



Oct 17, 2016 at 03:47 PM
LeeSimms
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


Yikes it even looks like a monster, too ...

h ttp://petapixel.com/2016/10/17/review-sigmas-85mm-f1-4-art-lens-exceeds-expectations/



Oct 17, 2016 at 04:39 PM
level1photog
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


Thanks for the link. I've been waiting for some more sample images and hand on testing

LeeSimms wrote:
Yikes it even looks like a monster, too ...

h ttp://petapixel.com/2016/10/17/review-sigmas-85mm-f1-4-art-lens-exceeds-expectations/





Oct 17, 2016 at 04:49 PM
Michael Beard
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


Shew! I have no issue using heavy lenses, the only problem is this would create a situation where all of my gear doesn't fit into my Airport International v2- currently my 85 1.8 and 50 1.4 occupy a single compartment.


Oct 17, 2016 at 06:24 PM
level1photog
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


I want to see a portrait comparison vs Otus 85, Tamron 85 1.8, Canon 1.2L, and Nikon 105 1.4. I really need a fast prime lens to complement all my 2.8 lens. Weight is not an issue for me


Oct 17, 2016 at 06:32 PM
TMaG82
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


LeeSimms wrote:
Yikes it even looks like a monster, too ...

h ttp://petapixel.com/2016/10/17/review-sigmas-85mm-f1-4-art-lens-exceeds-expectations/


Saw that this morning, looks really large. Makes the Nikon 1.4 look like a m4/3 lens.

Interesting to see that it uses a 86mm filter as well, I can't say that I've ever seen those around, largest one that I've used was a 82mm on the Pentax 24-70 which was costly. Can't imagine what a set of 86mm filters would run.



Oct 17, 2016 at 07:57 PM
Tony Hoffer
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


Every other camera company in 2016...
http://d2rormqr1qwzpz.cloudfront.net/photos/2012/08/16/39711-4.jpg

Sigma in 2016...
https://waitingforison.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/068c9a24c570ca6c2cdbbc3fbd0b7741.jpg

Sigma don't care.



Oct 17, 2016 at 08:31 PM
LeeSimms
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · 85 Art 2.5 pounds


I know funny. That's funny.


Oct 18, 2016 at 01:28 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