p.2 #1 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
Steezus wrote:
The Monkey is right. The Sigma only beats the Nikon 200 f2 at FNOTHING. The rest is firmly won by the 200.
BUT.....we are comparing a nearly $6,000 lens to a $500 lens, and find they are virtually equal? Isn't that amazing in itself? I don't have any inside info of course, but it would not surprise me at all if Sigma has hired a few key people away from Nikon or Canon at some point in the past. Since lenses are mostly made by robots any more, isn't it completely possible that Sigma is now using the same machines that Nikon & Canon do? I own a Sigma lens and I'm not at all surprised they produce some truly superb lenses.
p.2 #2 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
I have the Sigma 70mm Macro for my Canon. It is very sharp but not as sharp as the 100L Macro, which is not as sharp as my Zeiss ZE Macro 100 which is not as sharp as my 200 2L.
But really who cares. All the lenses listed above are optically top notch.
p.2 #3 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
Two23 wrote:
BUT.....we are comparing a nearly $6,000 lens to a $500 lens, and find they are virtually equal? Isn't that amazing in itself? I don't have any inside info of course, but it would not surprise me at all if Sigma has hired a few key people away from Nikon or Canon at some point in the past. Since lenses are mostly made by robots any more, isn't it completely possible that Sigma is now using the same machines that Nikon & Canon do? I own a Sigma lens and I'm not at all surprised they produce some truly superb lenses.
His claim is wrong and I would bet Nikon makes a few more lenses that can best the Sigma. The 200 is actually quite a bit sharper in the center in a few cases. The 14-24 is only about a $2,000 lens and is sharper while being able to zoom, but yes, there are a lot of very sharp edge to edge lenses appearing lately. I've only owned one Sigma, the 10-20 and wasn't very impressed, but at the time there wasn't much of a choice for good UWA lenses anyways.
If I recall, Sigma was started by ex-Nikon engineers. I also would be surprised if machines make these higher tier lenses as the videos I have watched on lens manufacturing usually reserves a lot more hands on building. I would bet 99% of the sharpness comes from the design stage before a prototype is ever built. Would be interesting to know more about the entire process.
Oct 29, 2012 at 11:36 PM
mshi Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #4 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
at wide open, nothing beats Nikon 200 f/4 AF-D Micro.
p.2 #8 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
Sharpness was a huge deal with film before the digital age, today with digital sharpness is pretty much a given. From high-res sensors, sharp and contrasty lenses, not to mention image stabilization to the magic of post processing software, why still people care about sharpness IMHO is a sort of inherited fixation from the past.
p.2 #9 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
Exdsc wrote:
Sharpness was a huge deal with film before the digital age, today with digital sharpness is pretty much a given. From high-res sensors, sharp and contrasty lenses, not to mention image stabilization to the magic of post processing software, why still people care about sharpness IMHO is a sort of inherited fixation from the past.
I feel the complete opposite. Most lenses are sharp in the center and lend themselves to shooting with the subject in just the center, but when I shoot architecture or landscape, it completely annoys me to use any lens that is soft on the edges. It stands out like a sore thumb and I feel that if I pay x thousands of dollars for a body alone, I better be using a lens capable of sharpness from edge to edge. It was really bad once I started using the 14-24. The 16-35 is pretty good, but the edges annoyed the hell out of me after having perfect edges on the 14-24. Software cannot fix soft lenses and high res sensors only magnify the issue.
p.2 #10 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
Steezus wrote:
I feel the complete opposite. Most lenses are sharp in the center and lend themselves to shooting with the subject in just the center, but when I shoot architecture or landscape, it completely annoys me to use any lens that is soft on the edges. It stands out like a sore thumb and I feel that if I pay x thousands of dollars for a body alone, I better be using a lens capable of sharpness from edge to edge. It was really bad once I started using the 14-24. The 16-35 is pretty good, but the edges annoyed the hell out of me after having perfect edges on the 14-24. Software cannot fix soft lenses and high res sensors only magnify the issue. ...Show more →
I have never looked at an image that I found to be remarkable and thought "if only the corners were sharper".
Sharpness is overated, regardless of the subject IMO.
That's not to say it is never important. I just think it is OVER-rated. The subject and composition can overcome any lens shortcomings.
p.2 #11 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
I guess it is definitely an opinion thing. I personally have higher expectations for my expensive gear. Lucky for me, most people do as well and it drives these companies to design and manufacture better and better gear each year.
p.2 #12 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
Contrast and by extension color rendition are far more important in lens character than sharpness. But there are no easy tests for that.
For example the cheap Nikon 50mm 1.8D prime is very sharp but its contrast is anemic and that means its color rendition is also flat. On the other hand a $5000 Leica lens might not be very sharp but its contrast is just the right amount, which means its photos have 'pop' and a 3D look.
Of course its possible to shoot with 50mm 1.8D and then adjust the contrast later, but the color detail and texture that was lost with low contrast capture cannot be fixed... But that's why the 50 1.8 costs $100.
Similarly the cult cheap zoom DX 18-70mm might suffer from vignetting and lack sharp corners, its contrast is really good which means the images with it will look more pleasing and have better color rendition than even far more expensive lenses.
The benchmarking charts and so on are great for spec wars when it comes overclocking and PC gaming community, photography is different.
p.2 #13 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
Exdsc wrote:
The benchmarking charts and so on are great for spec wars when it comes overclocking and PC gaming community, photography is different.
You can try and write off sharpness values as something that does not pertain to photography, but you are solely speaking on opinion and these values are indeed a great indication of sharpness. You may prefer micro contrast for the 3d look or what have you, but I honestly don't know anyone that thinks that sharpness is not a desirable factor. Without a doubt you are the minority.
p.2 #14 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
To me, at the end of the day, it is all about the image.
All lens attributes are a means to an end.
IMO, too many people are worried about the quality of their gear, and not the quality of their photographs.
As long as you use your amazing lenses, cameras, tripods, etc etc etc to make amazing photos, or at least aspire to, and to continually find new ways to improve, or new ways to see the world around you, then we are on the same page.
p.2 #15 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
Yes, lots of people are more into gear than the photography, but neither are mutually exclusive and you can be devoted to taking great pictures, always improving your technique, and knowing your gear inside and out.
I really cringe when I hear the morons who talk like anyone who is talking about gear should just go out and take pictures as if anytime you get bored you should just go out and be taking shots because anything else would be dumb. That is just ignorant. Another thing I view as ignorant is people who drop thousands on camera gear without researching it first. That goes for anything a person spends money on!
Oct 30, 2012 at 02:47 PM
mshi Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #16 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
Steezus wrote:
Yes, lots of people are more into gear than the photography, but neither are mutually exclusive and you can be devoted to taking great pictures, always improving your technique, and knowing your gear inside and out.
I really cringe when I hear the morons who talk like anyone who is talking about gear should just go out and take pictures as if anytime you get bored you should just go out and be taking shots because anything else would be dumb. That is just ignorant. Another thing I view as ignorant is people who drop thousands on camera gear without researching it first. That goes for anything a person spends money on!...Show more →
+100
But I also understand the fact that there are photographers and testers. But many more people buy gear for testing purpose only.
p.2 #18 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
Steezus wrote:
You can try and write off sharpness values as something that does not pertain to photography, but you are solely speaking on opinion and these values are indeed a great indication of sharpness. You may prefer micro contrast for the 3d look or what have you, but I honestly don't know anyone that thinks that sharpness is not a desirable factor. Without a doubt you are the minority.
Sharpness is a basic feature in lenses. Today all lenses are sharp. If a lens is not sharp it won't be released (unless its a toy lens). Ironically, you're in minority if you're unaware of this fact in today's camera market.
p.2 #20 · The sharpest autofocus SLR lens ever is a Sigma?
Steezus wrote:
Another thing I view as ignorant is people who drop thousands on camera gear without researching it first. That goes for anything a person spends money on!
People do a lot different things for a lot of different reasons. Is it not being ignorant to say they should research something before buying it? Or perhaps, arrogant may be a better word than ignorant.
Steezus, I enjoyed looking through your www, very well done.
, per Photozone even the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G is sharper than that Sigma, at half the cost. The Nikon 60mm f/2.8 is sharper as well. But nice try.