Elijah wrote:
Profile pictures are deceiving. I'm much uglier than Beckham. The truth is out
But it's a really nice portrait of you! I hate being in front of the camera, every time I do a headshot because I need a current photo of me I take like 200 shots to get an acceptable one...
Elijah wrote:
I honestly appreciate this lens more and more now. I do not understand why people opt out for sigma; the 35G is very sharp at f/1.4!
I don't shoot as much as most of you but every time I use any of my Nikon 1.4 lenses (24,35,58) I appreciate them more and more.
In my opinion too many are getting their attention on getting the sharpest possible lens but overlook the rendering side of their lenses. When I look at images from some Sigma lenses I see sharpness, yes, but also nervous rendering. It may be others taste but it's not what I am looking for.
I use both D810 and D750. All my lenses needed quite serious AF fine tuning on the D810 for sure. May be the camera is the culprit but if someone judges the lenses before any fine tuning I would understand their disappointment. At 1.4 precise tuning makes all the difference.
Elijah wrote:
Wife overlooking the city side of Miami South Beach.
I honestly appreciate this lens more and more now. I do not understand why people opt out for sigma; the 35G is very sharp at f/1.4!
Elijah, love these shots of your wife
The 35G is a great lens and it is often overlooked on pricing particularly in Australia. Personally I would have preferred the 35G, but I found an excellent copy of the 35 Art. The Sigma's still have some batches of Art lenses that have quirkish AF, but if you test fully there are no real issues. I will keep looking for a good copy of the 35 G
gpelpel wrote:
I don't shoot as much as most of you but every time I use any of my Nikon 1.4 lenses (24,35,58) I appreciate them more and more.
In my opinion too many are getting their attention on getting the sharpest possible lens but overlook the rendering side of their lenses. When I look at images from some Sigma lenses I see sharpness, yes, but also nervous rendering. It may be others taste but it's not what I am looking for.
I use both D810 and D750. All my lenses needed quite serious AF fine tuning on the D810 for sure. May be the camera is the culprit but if someone judges the lenses before any fine tuning I would understand their disappointment. At 1.4 precise tuning makes all the difference....Show more →
Completely second (or third) that. I have the three you noted and the 105mm f1.4, and always enjoy using them.
Please excuse my intrusion on this thread, but I can't resist......
I own both a Sigma 'Art' 35mm and, more recently, the Nikkor 35 f/1.8 G. Both of these lenses have been used on my D800e and D750
The Sigma focuses and performs as advertised pretty consistently on the D800e. But the Sigma 35 'Art' gives inconsistent focus on the D750. And, yeah, I've used the Sigma dock tuner in this process.
Long story short: More recently tried and bot the Nikkor 35 1.8G (OK, so it's not the f/1.4) on both above cams. And I'm a 'happy camper' ever since plus absent the huge bulk of the Sigma.
Historically I'm a zoom shooter. But lately I'm getting more use out of 3 primes: Nikkor 35mm 1.8G, Nikkor 50mm 1.4g and Nikkor 85mm 1.8G.
gpelpel wrote:
In my opinion too many are getting their attention on getting the sharpest possible lens but overlook the rendering side of their lenses. When I look at images from some Sigma lenses I see sharpness, yes, but also nervous rendering. It may be others taste but it's not what I am looking for.
+1!
I had the Sigma Art 35, and yes it was sharp, but somehow the pictures had a "clinical" look to them. Bought the 35G used and haven't regretted it. I love the rendering. And the bokeh is different, the 35G being creamier. There's quite some CA but nothing that can't be fixed easily in post.
A lot of people chose the Sigma because of price, and to be fair, I have seen some amazing images through them.
I am a little confused about the frequent use of the term "rendering". I always kinda thought it meant overall feel to the final output, but I see descriptions used like "nervous rendoring" and I guess maybe I dont have any real idea what that means. I see great images in this thread as well as the Sigma thread as well, can somebidy give me a better idea of what they mean by rendering?
The rendition of the 35/14G is very reminiscent of classic Leicas like the gen-4 and other Mandler design Leica Summicrons (f/2) and Summiluxes (f/1.4). It performs very well wide open in the center area where a subject is likely to be located, at least wide open. Stopped down it performs very well across the field. It's really nice to have a lens like this on a competent P-AF body since solid, critical focus is a significant factor for real-world performance. It's a very good lens! The drawback, if there is one, would be its size - and perhaps price. But to me its a "buy once hurt once" kind of thing and I'm very happy to have one, can't see ever parting with it either. Had it for maybe 5 years now.
!
