stevez32 wrote:
Just get a Sigma 50 non-art for 300 or less used. I don't think I'll be able to pick out my 58mm shots from the sigma 50 when I go back and look at them later in life.
Non-art over the Art or even the Nikon 50 1.4? Just price wise or do you prefer the bokeh, focus, etc. on the non-art?
Pack12 wrote:
Non-art over the Art or even the Nikon 50 1.4? Just price wise or do you prefer the bokeh, focus, etc. on the non-art?
I haven't used the Art, so I can't compare, but I bet the Art is good, as it should be for the price. I have been happy with the non-art. As far as sharpness, bokeh, value, I think its a great all-rounder and never leaves me wanting, you should at least try and pick one up used to play around with it as your starting point for comparison. This summer I will be shooting with them side by side to get some more direct comparisons in the same light, but I anticipate the sigma to hold its own quite nicely. I also have the Nikon 1.8G which is ok, but I think the Sigma renders much better overall. I haven't used the Nikon 1.4G. Asides from saving weight, and $100 I wouldn't recommend the 50 1.8G over the Sigma personally. Not sure if you already saw my various samples that I've blogged here: www.bokehsnob.com
Elijah wrote:
You're too rich. RRS legs and BH-40? #Jelly.
I had to sell my $700 Gitzo legs and BH-55 Back when I was saving money for my wedding
Anyways, here's one more before bed. I'm quickly skimming through pictures and just editing a handful that I like for now, getting them ready for my blog.
The 58G seriously keeps impressing me... Makes me wanna go medium format...
:
Great shot Elijah - I know where those legs came from and I actually miss them
Great shot Elijah - I know where those legs came from and I actually miss them
I've been putting it to good use John. I'm such a fan of quality tripods that it is becoming a bit of a fetish Added your tqc-14 to my tvc-33s. I used the tqc-14 the other day though for some long exposure shots and it did amazingly well even in strong wind.
I'm surprised you guys use this lens so much for weddings. Maybe I haven't gotten mine dialed in perfectly yet but my miss rate with this lens is high and I would be afraid to shoot a wedding and look on my computer and find half of the shots soft.
I don't shoot weddings anyways but if I did I would be afraid to relay on this lens. I have a lot of missed focus shots with it under 1.8. Over 1.8 it is reliable for me but that sort of defeats the purpose of the lens
mysh wrote:
I'm surprised you guys use this lens so much for weddings. Maybe I haven't gotten mine dialed in perfectly yet but my miss rate with this lens is high and I would be afraid to shoot a wedding and look on my computer and find half of the shots soft.
I don't shoot weddings anyways but if I did I would be afraid to relay on this lens. I have a lot of missed focus shots with it under 1.8. Over 1.8 it is reliable for me but that sort of defeats the purpose of the lens
Hmm, that seems strange, is it at particular distances or across the board? Do you have any problems with other 1.4 lenses?
Not like I do with this lens. Of course shooting at 1.4 can lead to some missed shots due to the narrow DOF but I have never struggled with a lens like I do with this one. I get a lot of soft shots at 1.4 or 1.6 and have tried to play with AF fine tune and have not found a setting that really improves this.
I need to sit down and really try to dial in the AF fine tune
stevez32 wrote:
Hmm, that seems strange, is it at particular distances or across the board? Do you have any problems with other 1.4 lenses?
mysh wrote:
Not like I do with this lens. Of course shooting at 1.4 can lead to some missed shots due to the narrow DOF but I have never struggled with a lens like I do with this one. I get a lot of soft shots at 1.4 or 1.6 and have tried to play with AF fine tune and have not found a setting that really improves this.
I need to sit down and really try to dial in the AF fine tune
When you say soft shots are they misfocused or soft across the board? When focusing closely wide open it seems like this lens can be soft across the board, but there should always be a sharp plane if your focus point is beyond 10 feet or so. If it is mis-focusing not due to user error then you just have a bad lens and should send it in for repair. Shouldn't be something you should have to struggle with if you don't have problems with other 1.4 lenses.
mysh wrote:
Not like I do with this lens. Of course shooting at 1.4 can lead to some missed shots due to the narrow DOF but I have never struggled with a lens like I do with this one. I get a lot of soft shots at 1.4 or 1.6 and have tried to play with AF fine tune and have not found a setting that really improves this.
I need to sit down and really try to dial in the AF fine tune
You have to AF tune it at 1.4 and then adjust to the odd field curvature of this lens. In my experience the closer you are to your subject the more you need to frame whatever your trying to focus on in the middle of the viewfinder. As you move away the sweet spot gets bigger and bigger.
For the most part it seems like a good deal of the pictures on this thread that were shot at 1.4 are from a good distance away and with the subject in the center of the frame.
Hardcore wrote:
I've been putting it to good use John. I'm such a fan of quality tripods that it is becoming a bit of a fetish Added your tqc-14 to my tvc-33s. I used the tqc-14 the other day though for some long exposure shots and it did amazingly well even in strong wind.
I know once you get the RRS sticks everything else is just a let down the tqc-14 is amazing for it's size I've had the 23, 33 and the 14's the 14's were by far my favorite I'm sure I will buy a new set down the road.......Just no time for tripod stuff at the moment and I know you will use them!!
Great shot Elijah - I know where those legs came from and I actually miss them
---------------------------------------------
johnmondy wrote:
I know once you get the RRS sticks everything else is just a let down the tqc-14 is amazing for it's size I've had the 23, 33 and the 14's the 14's were by far my favorite I'm sure I will buy a new set down the road.......Just no time for tripod stuff at the moment and I know you will use them!!
Thanks! I haven't tried RRS legs but I'm a HUGE fan of BH-55 with LR. Best ballhead I have ever owned.
Man, I'm a sucker for WO shots... There's no way i'm shooting things like these at f/2.0 or something. D3s focusing system is a HUGE help.
Great shots Elijah! Ya, wide open this lens really rocks. Best environmental portrait lens you can buy imo. The 200mm F2 + This lens would cover 99.9% of my portrait needs. I just need a reason to buy the 200mm f2 now lol
Hardcore wrote:
Great shots Elijah! Ya, wide open this lens really rocks. Best environmental portrait lens you can buy imo. The 200mm F2 + This lens would cover 99.9% of my portrait needs. I just need a reason to buy the 200mm f2 now lol
Thanks Corey. I've been lusting over the 200 for a while as well but I don't think I will be getting one. My 70-200 is sufficient enough, only because I need it for weddings. As a hobby, I'd own a 20mm, 58mm and 200mm (something like Joseph had)
Who am I kidding... 
