Hulot wrote:
I can well understand that the Nikon interface is problematic for Canon users. Cameras are more like computer or smart phones these days. I have used a friends D800 for a couple of months now, when I ask him what he is doing with these funny Abcd menus he is just scratching his head
Your friend was either a complete novice or a person who shoots in "P" mode--and the the "P" isn't for professional. Unless you fit the above description, I'm certain you would have understood the menus had you entered into any of them. Canon's menus are not difficult to understand, even to a naive Nikon shooter.
krickett wrote:
The bokeh is too perfect? Well, maybe if you give me the lens, I can jam an aperture blade or two for you... and then the lens will have 'character.'
Yes, the 85 and 35 both have just about perfect bokeh. It doesn't have any outer rings (35L) or cutoffs (85L), and the way the 85 f/1.8 bokeh shrinks towards the edges doesn't project the same 3d effect as I get with and the 85L (probably because the aperture really doesn't go quite wide enough to make larger blur circles)...so the suggestion someone made about trying the 85 f/1.4 is something I am considering. I think the f/1.4 vs f/1.8 might be the difference for the 3d effect, but not sure about other things...
form wrote:
Yes, the 85 and 35 both have just about perfect bokeh. It doesn't have any outer rings (35L) or cutoffs (85L), and the way the 85 f/1.8 bokeh shrinks towards the edges doesn't project the same 3d effect as I get with and the 85L (probably because the aperture really doesn't go quite wide enough to make larger blur circles)...so the suggestion someone made about trying the 85 f/1.4 is something I am considering. I think the f/1.4 vs f/1.8 might be the difference for the 3d effect, but not sure about other things...
Have you tried the Sigma 35 yet?? You seem to have specific tastes so I don't think you would know what you prefer unless your try them all.
I avoid sigma for everything except ultrawide fisheye. I don't find their focus system reliable at all, their tracking always seems to be unable to keep up with the subject, and they tend to have a reddish fringing effect near wide open (shows on the whites of eyes). Of course, this is based on fairly limited experience (I owned a 50 f/1.4 for a while and 10-20 f/4-5.6 back in the day) and lots of other reports of some similar AF inconsistencies. Pretty much any work lens that needs to have good AF stays name brand for me...
form wrote:
I thought it was big stuff. I bought my first Nikon partly out of frustration with Canon's autofocus, partly because of the desirable Nikon sensor, and partly out of spite against Canon's $3500 price tag on the 5d3 whose only major improvement over the 5d2 is the autofocus system...the D800 seemed like a comparatively good value as a camera.
Biggest stuff was autofocus, I wanted something more reliable where I could depend on outer points for tracking processionals and dances. Second biggest was the frequency with which I was shooting in bright daylight and faces would be in the darkest shadows possible and needing to be pushed in post. That's when the worst banding and shadow noise became visible....Show more →
again, I don't think you can be knocking the lenses. Before the D800 came out there was the talk on the nikon literature about how it is recommended to be on a tripod due to the MP count. A camera with 36mp & a lens at 1.8 or 1.4 is going to have trouble nailing focus consistently.
Try it on a lower MP full frame camera before you knock the lenses. Yes the 35 isn't as fast as a 24-70, nikon primes are known to be slower than the pro zooms but whack it on a D4 & its zippy enough.
Best thing I can do is suggest the OP try out a 5D3 if you're sticking with Canon. It pretty much b-slaps the 5D2 into submission on just about every category but current price.
cputeq wrote:
Best thing I can do is suggest the OP try out a 5D3 if you're sticking with Canon. It pretty much b-slaps the 5D2 into submission on just about every category but current price.
It's a very, very good "do it all" camera.
Except in raising shadows. Try not to do that
Yes that's a serious consideration, but first I have to sell the D800 and lenses before I can make any new purchases.
Quite honestly, it's Canon marketing at its very best. They have somehow instilled into all Canon users that "L" lenses stand above all lenses out there. I have used Canon 35L for a long period of time and I can assure its bokeh sucks especially for a 1200 dollar lens but it focuses really fast. On the other hand, Nikon's 35G sucks at focusing but it's has a much smoother bokeh. I can bet if we replace Canon with Nikon and mark the 35G as 35L, we would hear Canon users say that Nikon's bokeh sucks :P
Now coming to 85L, how many 5d2 users can use it wide open without using the center point? I would say very few, yet 85L has to be the best 85mm out there because it's an "L" lens and has a 1.2 aperture so no other 85mm can come close right, not even the might Zeiss? Don't get me wrong, I have used 85L extensively and as much as I hated it's slow speed, I still tried using it but quite frankly Nikon's 85 1.8g is not bad at all. Amazing sharpness wide open and good bokeh.
Also, and I am being honest, but is Live View that big of a deal? I have not used it with my D700, and I shoot landscapes. I have buddies that focus bracket 300 shots for one scene - didn't know it was a necessity for weddings and such.
snooked123 wrote:
Quite honestly, it's Canon marketing at its very best. They have somehow instilled into all Canon users that "L" lenses stand above all lenses out there. I have used Canon 35L for a long period of time and I can assure its bokeh sucks especially for a 1200 dollar lens but it focuses really fast. On the other hand, Nikon's 35G sucks at focusing but it's has a much smoother bokeh. I can bet if we replace Canon with Nikon and mark the 35G as 35L, we would hear Canon users say that Nikon's bokeh sucks :P
Now coming to 85L, how many 5d2 users can use it wide open without using the center point? I would say very few, yet 85L has to be the best 85mm out there because it's an "L" lens and has a 1.2 aperture so no other 85mm can come close right, not even the might Zeiss? Don't get me wrong, I have used 85L extensively and as much as I hated it's slow speed, I still tried using it but quite frankly Nikon's 85 1.8g is not bad at all. Amazing sharpness wide open and good bokeh....Show more →
Bokeh on 35L isn't technically great, I know this but I like the way it looks. I like many kinds of imperfect bokeh. Yes, focuses really fast and this is very appealing to me: Many times I tried to snap focus for a shot within a second and the 35g did not focus fast enough...and then other times I did the same thing with the 35L, suddenly trying to lock focus on something at the last moment and it snaps and bang right in focus...and I say to myself, damn that was pretty impressive...the 35L didn't always succeed in snapping to the perfect focus, but it did it fairly often...and the 35g basically never succeeded in those situations. Yes 35g bokeh is MUCH smoother, and it does have an overall nice effect, so I do like the 35g bokeh overall. I just don't like the slower autofocus and other mentioned focus issues (especially backlit subjects, it did me in too many times.
As for 85L, yes I've used center point since forever so it's become a major habit. Zeiss might be optically superior but they 1. don't come in at f/1.2 so they don't produce the same effect or gather as much light, and 2. they don't have autofocus. I need autofocus lenses because I shoot weddings with digital cameras that have viewfinders too small and imprecise to determine focus through analog measures. Nikon's 85 f/1.8g is pretty sharp wide open and has smooth bokeh, but I don't necessarily like that super smooth bokeh...and I also suspect that I like f/1.8 better on a faster-than-f/1.8 lens because I think it looks different than on a lens where f/1.8 is the fastest aperture...85L's primary weakness is slow AF speed, just like the 35 f/1.4g. And sometimes it is limiting. 35 and 85 are my most used focal lengths by a huge margin, and honestly 35 gets more use because it does just about everything. I tend to use 85 for more predictable moving subjects and static subjects because of the focal length (and possibly out of expectation of the lens' performance), while I often get up close and personal with 35 and shoot fast, erratic moving subjects as well as more predictable moving or static subjects.
I used to be all about the best optics I could afford...then my attention shifted to the best autofocus, then the best stylistic/artistically capable lenses (which is when I started using primes regularly). I'm still there in that last phase where absolute sharpness and minor lens defects are less important than the "look" of the photos.
And I was brought up with Canon since...2006?...so yes there's surely going to be some subconscious preferential treatment I don't know how to avoid. I remember when I didn't like the 50L's bokeh at all...I preferred the Sigma 50's bokeh (in other peoples' images, not mine). Now I have seen (and even produced a select few) images with the 50L that make me think, "this lens can produce a really nice effect when used a certain way." I admit subconscious bias, but admission doesn't change how I feel.
Now, those leica noctilux 50 f/0.95...I wouldn't mind having one of those. Talk about a dream maker.
Wow... ! Try reading this entire thread without blinking... very, very difficult, although perhaps doing it the "Alex" way, (as in Kubrick's Clockwork Orange,) with the eyedrop person at hand throughout the effort, it might be possible.
Oh, by the way, just a thought... stick with Canon. There, that should solve that. You like the ergonomics, the quirks... so it's a no-brainer. I prefer Fords over Chevy's, Subarus over Nissans, and Hondas over Hyandais... and Nikon over Canon, but I could get there with any of them. It's all how you prefer to work... or drive. The one thing I've agonized over, though, is which vacuum cleaner I like the most, but that's going to have to wait for another day, since my eyes are dry and irritated at the moment.
Good luck with your search for the perfect, imperfect camera/lens setups. Cheers!
form wrote:
I don't really love Nikon colors, something about the skin tones looks off to me...a little more like clay.
Can you follow up on this "skin like clay" bit? I think I may have seen what you're talking about here but want to be sure. Is the skin in reference like a very light gray tone? A slightly unnatural absence of color, as if it's de-saturated?
, there were a "few" edits. 