Found my old gear list from 2012. Ya'll are behind in terms of my gear, get with the program I stopped updating since then...
Geez, I cannot believe I owned so many Stigma lenses
"Bodies: Nikon D800 + MB-D12
Nikon D200
Nikon 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 G
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG A1
Nikon 50mm f/1.8G Nikon
85mm f/1.8G
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 G VR II
Strobist:
Nikon SB-900 Phottix Odin Transceiver
Phottix Odin receiver (4)
Sanford & Davis tripod w/ FM18 fluid head
Gitzo 6x systematic 4-section tripod
RRS BH-55 ballhead with LR & L-Plate
Fotodiox filter system for Nikon 14-24mm
22” Kacey Beauty Dish with grid and a sock
Other stuff: Apple iMac 27"
Apple Macbook Pro 13"
Apple iPhone 5
Shure SE535 IEM headphones
RPG speedkeys for Lightroom
Nikon WU-1B wireless mobile adapter
Previous owned Equipment:
Nikon D90
Nikon D300s
Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4.0 Macro
Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 Dx VR
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D
Nikon 85mm f/1.8D
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I
Nikon SB-600
Canon 1Ds Mark III
Canon 5D mark II x2
Canon 60D
Canon 580EX II x2
Canon 430EX II
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5.5.6 DG II
Tokina 12-24mm f/4
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
Bower 14mm f/2.8
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II
Canon 17-40mm f/4L
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 x2
Canon 35mm f/1.4L
Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 28mm f/1.8
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon 85mm f/1.2L II
Sigma 85mm f/1.4
Canon 135mm f/2.0L
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II"...Show more →
In my view this lens is outstanding and comes quality wise very close to the Nikon AF-S 105mm f1.4E ED. Most of my subjects are not in the centre, like on some samples shown here, and it delivers off centre results which are not possible to achieve with the 35mm 1.4G and the 24mm 1.4G ED with the aperture wide open. I had it now for 2 weeks on loan from NPS, so enough time to try it out and I was completely blown away by the quality that this lens delivers, like the 105mm I really use it only wide open. It made me sell the 24mm and the 35mm and I've ordered my own copy of it. One wide angle prime is enough for me and I do really like 28mm as a focal length. It is expensive, but it is also worth it as I know that my clients will absolutely love the unique look that this lens creates.
Elijah wrote:
I'm beginning to miss the hell out of this lens already... Need four more days to get it back
Sometimes "good enough" just doesn't feel "good enough" ... which forces you to go back and re-acquire the best you can do.
It's not the ordinary photos, where photos from both lenses "look the same" which matter ... it's the extraordinary photos, where the exceptional quality of the 28 f/1.4E stands out, which matter
It always feels better to know you kept that ability rather than knowing you got rid of it.
After checking all the wonderful shots in this thread... (kudos to all!) I think I have concluded that I'd hold on to my 28D.
Other than some better CA suppression and a bit more sharpness, not much else is missing on the old 28D. In fact, I prefer the rendition on the 28D much better than 28E. The difference is subtle, but it's there.
azenis wrote:
After checking all the wonderful shots in this thread... (kudos to all!) I think I have concluded that I'd hold on to my 28D.
Other than some better CA suppression and a bit more sharpness, not much else is missing on the old 28D. In fact, I prefer the rendition on the 28D much better than 28E. The difference is subtle, but it's there.
Other than the fact the 28 f/1.4E is faster, sharper, has light-years better bokeh, less CA, and less vignetting ... you're "going to stick with the 28 D"?
You might want to really analyze that thought process ...
You say, "Not much else is missing," but in reality the 28D has 'not much to justify its existence' by comparison ...
JohnK007 wrote:
Other than the fact the 28 f/1.4E is faster, sharper, has light-years better bokeh, less CA, and less vignetting ... you're "going to stick with the 28 D"?
You might want to really analyze that thought process ...
You say, "Not much else is missing," but in reality the 28D has 'not much to justify its existence' by comparison ...
Faster: tried both in store on a D4, speed difference? yes, but nowhere near in truly fast focusing primes like big teles vs. their AF counterparts or AF-D vs. sth like 24-70mm AF-S.
Sharper: Yes, I mentioned that but 28D is sharp enough for my needs.
Bokeh: light year better? please enlight me because I haven't seen anything that suggests that. Horatio at streetsilhouettes did a test on both and I find the bokeh more pleasing to my eyes on the 28D, but bokeh can be a subjective matter. To say "light year better", please do let me know what qualifies as a truly excellent bokeh on a wide angle lens before anything else.
Less vignetting/CA... etc: this is the same reason why I got rid of my Otus. Sure, they are sharper and have less optical deficiencies than most of the classic lenses. But at what cost? sterile images or "character". I have extremely hard time to tell apart a pic taken by Otus 55mm vs. another taken by Sigma 50mm Art. They are very close sharpness-wise and lacks any signature look or rendition.
By your definition of a better lens, no one should bother with 28E either... why not go Otus and get the "best" 28mm out there? Except for the lack of AF, it's better in pretty much every measurable optical term than the 28E.
My point is, 28E is no doubt an excellent lens. But not enough for me to give up the character of a 28D. I'm saying this as a 28D owner. 28E is not a viable upgrade... but rather tradeoffs I have to make.
Now, if I were to go out there and buy a 28mm today... the normal me would still pick 28D because it's a lens with character. If it's optical performance that I'm after, then I'd go for an Otus.
azenis wrote:
Faster: tried both in store on a D4, speed difference? yes, but nowhere near in truly fast focusing primes like big teles vs. their AF counterparts or AF-D vs. sth like 24-70mm AF-S.
But faster nonetheless, right?
azenis wrote:
Sharper: Yes, I mentioned that but 28D is sharp enough for my needs.
The 2nd step in your compromising.
You've admitted to two of the points already.
azenis wrote:
Bokeh: light year better? please enlight me because I haven't seen anything that suggests that. Horatio at streetsilhouettes did a test on both and I find the bokeh more pleasing to my eyes on the 28D, but bokeh can be a subjective matter. To say "light year better", please do let me know what qualifies as a truly excellent bokeh on a wide angle lens before anything else.
The Nikkor 28 f/1.4 E has better bokeh than the Sigma 24 Arts and equal quality bokeh to the Otus. Please see these reference quotes:
"The Nikkor AF-S 28 mm f/1.4E ED ... during our test it proved that it is able to compete on equal terms with the Otus 1.4/28, an instrument not only physically bigger but also much more expensive; apart from that the new Nikkor prevailed over the slower AF-S 28 mm f/1.8G model in practically all testing categories.." LensTip
"The Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art ... cannot match the excellent center resolution or the Bokeh of the 28mm."
"The Nikon 28mm f1.4E is a high quality wide lens that fills the gap between their 24/1.4G and 35/1.4G lenses for full-frame bodies. It delivers very good image quality coming close to or even surpassing the Zeiss Otus 28/1.4 in my tests ... all-in-all the new Nikon 28/1.4E decidedly looks like the better choice for everyday use.." Camera Labs
azenis wrote:
Less vignetting/CA... etc: this is the same reason why I got rid of my Otus. Sure, they are sharper and have less optical deficiencies than most of the classic lenses. But at what cost? sterile images or "character". I have extremely hard time to tell apart a pic taken by Otus 55mm vs. another taken by Sigma 50mm Art. They are very close sharpness-wise and lacks any signature look or rendition.
You shift gears to other lenses. The Sigma 50 Art is *not* the Nikkor 28mm D. (I never understood why people, when cornered with facts and logic ... instead of admitting the truth ... they "switch to something else" to keep talking.)
So let's come back to the subject lenses
The vignetting in your posted image is awful. Every image I've seen of the 28 f/1.4E shows both quality of bokeh as well as character.
azenis wrote:
By your definition of a better lens, no one should bother with 28E either... why not go Otus and get the "best" 28mm out there? Except for the lack of AF, it's better in pretty much every measurable optical term than the 28E.
You're wrong.
The Nikkor 28 E has bokeh as good as the Otus 28. It is sharper in the center, not so in the corners, but this only makes the Zeiss a better landscape lens. For humans (or food) a slight softening in the corners will only enhance its superior center-sharpness, and equal-quality bokeh effect, leaving a more compelling portrait/food/product image. The fact that the Nikkor is half the price, half the weight, and also AF means it blows the Zeiss out of the water as an overall tool for the money.
azenis wrote:
My point is, 28E is no doubt an excellent lens. But not enough for me to give up the character of a 28D. I'm saying this as a 28D owner. 28E is not a viable upgrade... but rather tradeoffs I have to make.
We disagree as to character.
Ultimately, it sounds like the only 'tradeoff' is selling your old lens, and trading extra money, to get the superior option.
azenis wrote:
Now, if I were to go out there and buy a 28mm today... the normal me would still pick 28D because it's a lens with character. If it's optical performance that I'm after, then I'd go for an Otus.
If you don't need AF, and need corner-to-corner sharpness, the Otus may be justified in spending more than twice as much, and carrying twice the weight.
If you shoot people or products, need AF, and appreciate center-sharpness ... with graduated bokeh-blur outward ... the Nikkor 28 f/1/4 E is the best lens period.
azenis wrote:
Faster: tried both in store on a D4, speed difference? yes, but nowhere near in truly fast focusing primes like big teles vs. their AF counterparts or AF-D vs. sth like 24-70mm AF-S.
Sharper: Yes, I mentioned that but 28D is sharp enough for my needs.
Bokeh: light year better? please enlight me because I haven't seen anything that suggests that. Horatio at streetsilhouettes did a test on both and I find the bokeh more pleasing to my eyes on the 28D, but bokeh can be a subjective matter. To say "light year better", please do let me know what qualifies as a truly excellent bokeh on a wide angle lens before anything else.
Less vignetting/CA... etc: this is the same reason why I got rid of my Otus. Sure, they are sharper and have less optical deficiencies than most of the classic lenses. But at what cost? sterile images or "character". I have extremely hard time to tell apart a pic taken by Otus 55mm vs. another taken by Sigma 50mm Art. They are very close sharpness-wise and lacks any signature look or rendition.
By your definition of a better lens, no one should bother with 28E either... why not go Otus and get the "best" 28mm out there? Except for the lack of AF, it's better in pretty much every measurable optical term than the 28E.
My point is, 28E is no doubt an excellent lens. But not enough for me to give up the character of a 28D. I'm saying this as a 28D owner. 28E is not a viable upgrade... but rather tradeoffs I have to make.
Now, if I were to go out there and buy a 28mm today... the normal me would still pick 28D because it's a lens with character. If it's optical performance that I'm after, then I'd go for an Otus....Show more →
JohnK007 wrote:
If you shoot people or products, need AF, and appreciate center-sharpness ... with graduated bokeh-blur outward ... the Nikkor 28 f/1/4 E is the best lens period.
I don't want to argue useless points.
You are free to think that 28E is superior, but I am not convinced. Both lenses have their pros and cons, no argument on that. You prefer 28E's pros and think its cons are justifiable. I don't. I'm very picky when it comes to lens purchases and I only keep a lens if I feel it's worth the money. Even if it's a very very small point.
To give you an idea, take another Nikon lens for example, I got the 58G on day 1, believing that I was finally fulfilling my dream of having an AF Noct. Sold it after a month. Yes it has AF. It renders probably 98% of a Noct (I did a test between Noct, 58G and Noctilux a while back here), all the modern bells and whistles... But it wasn't a noct. It didn't feel as one and yes I was paying AF and their price difference for Noct's name and the mere 0.2 aperture difference. I found it justifiable.
So, let's just agree to disagree, and so no, 28E is NOT the best lens, period.
The Nikon 28 1.4e has quite a bit of LoCA, which is one of the strengths of the Otus 28 and is achieved by all the special super low low dispersion elements in it which obviously add significantly to the price. This APO performance may or may not be important to you. Everyone weights all these things differently so hard to say it's the best period for everyone. Bokeh and rendering is subjective and a complex subject. Some like the undercorrected SA smoother, background obliterating bokeh type lenses like the 28d which will not be as sharp wide open as the .ore fully corrected SA lenses like the 28e. The shape of subjects in the OOF areas will retain their shape better which some like and seems to be what the Otus lenses were designed for.
I think the newer lenses are mostly designed this way for video.
I can appreciate both bokeh rendering styles and lots of times get different lenses in same FL to be able to choose which style I want for a particular situation. We should really be thankful there are so many choices.
azenis wrote:
I don't want to argue useless points.
Then don't. Argue useful ones.
azenis wrote:
You are free to think that 28E is superior, but I am not convinced. Both lenses have their pros and cons, no argument on that. You prefer 28E's pros and think its cons are justifiable. I don't. I'm very picky when it comes to lens purchases and I only keep a lens if I feel it's worth the money. Even if it's a very very small point.
Same here. I don't think the 28D has a single 'pro' over the 28E.
The Otus may have a few, which it should at that price point, but I don't think the 28D does ... or, at least, have yet to be convinced.
azenis wrote:
To give you an idea, take another Nikon lens for example, I got the 58G on day 1, believing that I was finally fulfilling my dream of having an AF Noct. Sold it after a month. Yes it has AF. It renders probably 98% of a Noct (I did a test between Noct, 58G and Noctilux a while back here), all the modern bells and whistles... But it wasn't a noct. It didn't feel as one and yes I was paying AF and their price difference for Noct's name and the mere 0.2 aperture difference. I found it justifiable.
Good point. However, this would be a good (and comparable) argument for favoring the twice-as-much, both optically-superior *Otus 28* over the Nikkor 28E ... but there is no 'superior edge' like this that the 28D enjoys.
azenis wrote:
So, let's just agree to disagree, and so no, 28E is NOT the best lens, period.
Okay, we can agree to disagree. However, at least quote me correctly. I didn't call the 28E 'the best lens,' period; I called it the best AF 28mm lens, and that spills into the 24mm Sigma Art territory, as well as into 35mm territory. But your point about, the 28mm Otus would probably fall into the Noct analogy you describe above.
Just a friendly suggestion that you may want to consider. Rather than arguing what lens is best, maybe let people know what lens you prefer and for what reasons. There really is no "best" lens at anything unless you clearly define what you are comparing. (ie, sharpness, af speed, build quality, price etc) If you add multiple variables to define what is the best, then that muddies the water further and for subjective qualities like bokeh, you can't define "best". Add too many variables for comparison and it quickly becomes an argument of semantics.
Interesting thought. Perhaps apply it to yourself.
You chastised the guy for bringing in other lenses into the 28E vs 28D debate, but you've repeatedly tried comparing the 28E's bokeh to that of wider and tighter lenses like the 24mm and 35mm, when even an amateur would know that even 4mm of extra compression on the wide end is quite significant (see Elijah's recent take on why he returned the 28E for the 35G).
My interactions with you in the 135mm Art thread have shown you have a very pointed tongue when discussing lenses you've neither seen nor touched, much less used. Especially confusing is the matter-of-fact pseudo-scientific tone you take when picking apart another person's preferences.
Perhaps reconsider your approach, or justify it by acquiring the lenses you have such strong opinions about and conducting your own tests.It will garner a good bit more respect for your opinion - at least from me.
eke2k6 wrote:
Interesting thought. Perhaps apply it to yourself.
You chastised the guy for bringing in other lenses into the 28E vs 28D debate, but you've repeatedly tried comparing the 28E's bokeh to that of wider and tighter lenses like the 24mm and 35mm, when even an amateur would know that even 4mm of extra compression on the wide end is quite significant (see Elijah's recent take on why he returned the 28E for the 35G).
My interactions with you in the 135mm Art thread have shown you have a very pointed tongue when discussing lenses you've neither seen nor touched, much less used. Especially confusing is the matter-of-fact pseudo-scientific tone you take when picking apart another person's preferences.
Perhaps reconsider your approach, or justify it by acquiring the lenses you have such strong opinions about and conducting your own tests.It will garner a good bit more respect for your opinion - at least from me.
I stopped updating since then...
