kwalsh Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
gear-nut wrote:
Frankly, the biggest difference I see between the Sigma and Nikon is color cast, the Sigma being ever so slightly more warm-yellow, and even that is so subtle as to be almost irrelevant. Bokeh, at least rear, virtually identical; focus plane sharpness virtually identical; contrast, global and micro, virtually identical.
Disagree here. The difference in bokeh on the edges really jumps out at me at least in some of the comparisons. Sure, where the background is blurred to oblivion in both images (e.g. close-ups) the difference is minor. For distant shots I'd say the difference is far from subtle.
In the second pair the much busier bokeh of the Sigma in trees to the upper left definitely grabs the eye. The Nikon isn't perfect there either, but much less distracting.
Similar story in the sixth pair, the building on the upper left attracts the eye far more on the Sigma.
I'd never say in those two examples the background bokeh is "virtually identical" by any stretch. Very visibly different, to the point the eye explores the composition differently.
Again, in a lot of the other examples - sure, there just somewhat different shaped blobs. But bokeh depends a lot on shooting distance and at longer distances these two lenses show a notable difference. Not that the Sigma is bad of course, far from it, but the Nikon is notably better in that case. For head and shoulder portraits? I agree with you, minimal difference.
|