Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.7 #14 · Sigma 135mm f1.8 test shots | |
eke2k6 wrote:
Again, since apparently I am not equipped with the language skills to transmit a point.
1. The Sigma is a sharper lens.
2. The Sigma has autofocus that matches the speed of pro zooms
3. The Sigma has greater contrast.
4. The 105 is a great lens in its own right, but my initial comments were about 105E owners who tried to dismiss the 135 by comparing the bokeh of the two using the test shots on page 1. I stated that they were already close in rendering, and 2...the focal length was playing a part in the process.
5.the Sigma costs $800 less while being in a similar focal length vicinity.
I will AGAIN say that your whole argument is invalid, since you've taken my words and twisted them to suit your own.
I actually like the 105E. My comments were specifically about the likes of Elijah, who craps on Sigma lenses every chance he gets.
...Show more →
Fair enough. I'll also play:
1. The Nikon 400 f2.8E FL VR is a sharper lens
2. The AF speed of the 400 f2.8 *is* a pro zoom.
3. The 400 has greater contrast than both of them. Having said that, I do not see any real evidence that the 135 has greater or better contrast than the 105.
4. The bokeh on page 1 between the 105, 135 and 200 *is* a relevant comparison because you will be keeping your subject the same size, this is the *whole* reason why we have different focal lengths, otherwise we'd all just shoot with one lens for every scenario. I do not think 105E owners were "dismissing" the 135, just that they thought the 105 was slightly better as I do in this situation, but we are really splitting hairs here and it's not a definitive test. The 200 was the best of all in that particular scenario.
5. Price, This is the only area where the 400 f2.8 falls down. 
What does this prove. Well, *technically* the 400 is a better lens, but again, it is useless at 135mm or 105mm or even 300mm. That is my point.
Now, my arguments are *not* invalid because you use a focal length to suit the scenario. There is no "word twisting" going on.
If you are specifically having a go at Elijah, then say that and address his comments for supposedly being "unfair", just don't make a blanket statement that the Sigma is the best lens because it isn't. It is possibly arguably the best 135 lens ever made and on the face of it I would agree, it's a stunning lens and very tempting, but it is not a focal length I use very much at all thus why I doubt I will buy one. It has nothing to do with Sigma as a brand and I am not necessarily Nikon specific. I have the Sigma 35 f1.4 Art and I owned the Nikon 35 f1.4G at the same time and evaluated both of them over about 6 months back to back. Is the Sigma a better lens? Yes for *most* of *my* purposes it is a better lens, but there are times that the Nikon would be better, it has better bokeh but is not as sharp as the Sigma at the wider open apertures. However, for my purposes I felt the Sigma ticked more boxes than the Nikon. For others, the Nikon may be a better lens, it just depends on what you value most in each lens's results and what you specifically shoot.
I also own the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 and still own the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 and the Nikon 16-35, all of which are great for specific purposes. I think the Tamron is better for most of my purposes to the point I was thinking of selling off the two Nikons. However, there are times that I need 14mm and that is why I may keep at least the 14-24, but then again, the 16-35 is a light alternative for travel and can use filters, hence I haven't sold either Nikon yet.
In other words, I am not biased against other brands, I am willing to buy any brand that does the job that I want. However, I will choose Nikon over another brand where I feel there is no advantage to the other brand even if it means paying a little extra.
All I am saying is, do not deal in absolutes because when it comes to lenses and photography, there aren't any. That is why I say, lighten up we aren't talking about your mother or my mother here. People have opinions and biases and that will never change.
|
