JR Magat Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Jammy - I think the Sigma is worth a shot! Someone asked about the 85D versus Sigma on flickr, and here was my (non-technical) response from my experience (with all 3):
Nikon 85 1.4 AF-D: still a great lens, still great for portraits. less contrast than the other 2 lenses, AF is noisier (screw drive lens), a bit slower, and AF tracking isn't as good. Sharp in the center, softer in the corners. Good build
Sigma 85 1.4: my first copy had focus issues, so I returned it and found a 85G in a local shop. From what I saw, bokeh was very nice and comparable to the AF-D, more contrast and warmer tone (which I don't prefer, but can easily fix in post), AF was silent and faster in low light. Sharp all around; when in focus. Good build, new coatings are a big improvement over old one
Nikon 85 1.4G AF-S: the best option out of the 3, but I also own a 70-200 VRII, so for me the Sigma for $800 less made more sense. The bokeh is comparable but has more contrast then the AF-D, AF is fast, IMO even more silent than the Sigma, tracking was very good. Sharp all around. Good build, I prefer the most out of the 3 (feels more "solid")
My conclusions... if money is not an issue, i'd go with the 85G, if money is an issue or you want a cheaper option, then i'm going with the Sigma 85 since the AF is silent & faster than the AF-D; if i get a bad copy then i'll exchange for a better one or send to Sigma (worst case). If used soley for portraits (more static), then the AF-D is a perfectly good choice.
NOTE: I currently have the Sigma 85, and this copy I have is working out great so far! I honestly haven't put it through a lot of work yet, since I've been using the 70-200 VRII more often. I think whatever flaws you might find in the Sigma, you'd probably find as well in the other options; so it's worth a shot
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5249/5262732080_e9fe435767_b.jpg
|