brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked
|
 p.5 #22 · Sigma 50mm: Marmite Bokeh | |
CKrueger wrote:
mh2000 wrote:
I am completely baffled by the people claiming the Sigma has too smooth a bokeh... worried that somehow a background is going to magically be smeared completely away with a 50mm lens. Stop down to f2 or f2.8 if you think you are getting too much blur. Much easier to deal with smooth than a harsh and busy bokeh.
I think there is an anti-Sigma anti-nonalternative lens bias going on here (honestly, I probably suffer that a little myself... nothing sexy or cool about a Sigma 50/1.4, right?)
Wow, that's exactly what I was going to say. From what you hear here, I would expect if you shot a Canon 50/1.4 next to a Sigma 50/1.4 at f/11, the Sigma's background would like Monet threw up on the background, while the Canon would be razor sharp. Clearly this Sigma has some sort of dark magical power!
Some people here have spent the last few years (and untold thousands of dollars) buying and testing all varieties of exotic lenses to find The Perfect Bokeh. When they find a particularly good lens, they post images with some noisy background thrown out of focus, and other members coo "Look at the bokeh! It's so creamy! Better than that Canon crap the peasants use!"
Fast forward to today, as Sigma releases a 50 with perhaps the creamiest bokeh of all. Sigma!? Perhaps predictably, the nobility staggers for a moment, but quickly regains its composure and comes up with a plan of attack: "The bokeh is too smooth!"
TOO SMOOTH!?
I expected the exotic lens evangelists to find something on the Sigma to attack. Perhaps the "Sigma yellow"? Or Sigma's typical hyper-sensitive AF? Perhaps a build quality] criticism ("eek, I saw plastic!")? Or if all else fails, the old Sigma chipping horrors? But too smooth?
I understand that image quality is completely subjective, but I never expected the faithful to rally around the very quality that they praise in their own lenses. This is a baffling new height of snobbery. It's also a great litmus test to see who here is truly looking for high performance lenses, versus who is just looking for the most exclusive lenses to bring to show & tell.
Sigma should call up Zeiss and ask them if they would like to produce a rebranded version of this lens. They could sell it for $1000 to some folks here.
Sorry - can't resist feeding the dpreview trolls.
In my job of photographer I use Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Zeiss, Leica, and Minolta lenses. I would have no problems using a Sigma. Sigma make many excellent lenses. Most of the regulars on this forum are pretty much brand agnostic, and happy to assess any lens from any manufacturer. Luckily it's easy to do that these days. On the alt image thread you will see Soligors, Vivitars, Pentacons and just about every kind of lens being shown, with just about no trolling. However, most alt forum contributors are not quality agnostic; they prioritise certain lens qualities and features over others. Often this reflects the kind of pictures that they enjoy taking, whether that be landscape or macro or astro. Good lenses are good lenses, and bad ones are bad, and snobbery and brand loyalty have nothing to do with it.
Some people like smooth bokeh, some prefer 'perfect' bokeh, and some people even like it a bit harsh. Some people like catadioptric bokeh. Everyone's entitled to her own tastes, and she's entitled to discuss it here, regardless of those who come here to troll and insult.
Often the reason alt lenses are popular here isn't snobbery, but the reverse. Take the Rokkor 58 for example. It's very nearly as good as a Canon 50L but costs about one fifth as much. The Oly 28 f3.5 is another example of a lens which is popularly discussed here because although it only costs $40, it performs nearly as well as the very best lenses in that range. That's not snobbery, it's frugality.
Sigma lenses are often discussed here, and often highly praised. I have seen the 12-24 recommended hundreds of times.
> Perhaps predictably, the nobility staggers for a moment, but quickly regains its composure and comes up with a plan of attack: "The bokeh is too smooth!"
And yes, I don't like bokeh to be too smooth. This is nothing new. You will find posts by me going back about as far as when I became a member here, which discuss my preference for edges in bokeh. It's one reason why I am not generally a big fan of Leica lenses. Other people like it smooth, and why shouldn't they? The third sample in the group below is too smooth by my reckoning. You can disagree, as many will, but there's no need to call anyone here a snob.
What it boils down to is: you're barking up the wrong tree - go and pick a fight somewhere else.
Edited on Jul 07, 2008 at 09:50 AM
|
