71sbeetle wrote:
I was just actually reviewing pictures I took a few days ago in burst mode on the A7R5 with the model walking directly towards me, I only got about 60% in focus and her eyes were clearly visible the whole time, now I'm going to have to do some more testing
What shutter were you at
When a kid is toddling towards the camera, at 35/1.4 + A9iii, I use at least 1/500s. At 1/250s many shots will be blur.
The closer the subject is to MFD the more likely the shot will have motion blur
When a kid is toddling towards the camera, at 35/1.4 + A9iii, I use at least 1/500s. At 1/250s many shots will be blur.
The closer the subject is to MFD the more likely the shot will have motion blur
1/4000 to 1/8000, mid burst speed (tried hi same result) EFCS off, and nowhere near MFD started at more than full body and ended at waist level portrait, normal walking speed and no glasses or hat that could block eyes, plenty of sunlight. Got worse as she got closer (knee up to waist up)
71sbeetle wrote:
1/4000 to 1/8000, mid burst speed (tried hi same result) EFCS off, and nowhere near MFD started at more than full body and ended at waist level portrait, normal walking speed and no glasses or hat that could block eyes, plenty of sunlight. Got worse as she got closer (knee up to waist up)
FYI, I just did a burst of 21 shots of my kid running towards me with the A7R5. Shot at 1/3200 with EFCS on (I always forget to turn it off) in bright daylight and I got 19 out of 21 in-focus shots.
First frame
ILCE-7RM5200mm F2 DG OS | Sports 025 lens200mmf/2.01/3200s100 ISO0.0 EV
Last frame
ILCE-7RM5200mm F2 DG OS | Sports 025 lens200mmf/2.01/3200s100 ISO0.0 EV
Hodie wrote:
FYI, I just did a burst of 21 shots of my kid running towards me with the A7R5. Shot at 1/3200 with EFCS on (I always forget to turn it off) in bright daylight and I got 19 out of 21 in-focus shots.
That's pretty good! Better than my result for sure. I've been pretty busy but hopefully this week I get to take it out to test it again, I wonder if the EFCS has anything to do with it I keep mine off 100% of the time
cambyses wrote:
If I manage to get my hands on this lens, I’d love to shoot a few frames alongside my old Nikon 200/2 for a direct comparison. I suspect the Sigma will edge out in sharpness, but what really interests me is the overall character and rendering, especially in the out-of-focus areas. I realize that’s more subjective, but I have a clear idea of what I’m looking for. From some of the sample shots already shared in this thread, all fantastic captures, by the way, I feel the background rendering looks a little less smooth. Of course, I could be wrong, and I cannot draw any real conclusions without testing both lenses side by side....Show more →
I presently have the Nikon 200 f2 VR II and will be making a comparison. The MAIN - perhaps sole - reason for the lens for me is sports. The Nikkor is 6.5lbs and a beast to navigate sidelines and courts with it. I always field it with a monopod for both carry and shoot stability plus keep the weight distribution reasonable for carry.
The rendering on the D850 with the Nikkor really matters to me plus that extra stop beyond f2.8 matters greatly.
But - the weight is horrible. It's part of the reason I've never chosen anything larger than a 300mm f2.8. Yes, I've grown accustomed to the right way to handle these large beasts and resigned myself to that.
However, when Sigma launched their version, I was immediately drawn to it. I find shooting at the 200mm focal length is ideal for me when combined with the background separation and extra f-stop of f2.
I should have the Sigma this week and in time to take it to Friday night lights. I shoot sports for my newspaper several times a week so this is a true workhorse decision. Carving off 2.5lbs of lens weight is going to make a huge difference for me.
It is a bit of a disappointment to get the lower burst rate. But it's more than the 9fps I'm getting with the Nikkor.
Ultimately, the weight, the compatibility with my Sony system A1 with its superior focus tracking - swayed my decision. Moments matter the most and agility - the ability to move around quickly with the gear - is part of the sports photography consideration.
For portraits? I wouldn't chose the Sigma 200 f2 for that. I already have the wonderful 135GM for that purpose.
Picture This! wrote:
Not sure I like the images coming out of this lens. Technically great I am sure. I prefer the look of the Canon/Nikon 200 f/2 anyday. Goes to show that newer is not necessarily better.
I love the color rendering of my D850 more than the Sony bodies. The A1 is sort of getting there. But I never have to color adjust the D850 files.
@ Alphonsus thanks for posting the shots with a Z8 ! The colors look so much nicer than what I've seen from the other brand's bodies Looks like a nice lens but after trying out a friend's Sigma 200, I've decided to stick with my Canon and Nikon 200/2. Sigma is very sharp but so are the other 200s and I like the colors from the Canikon better.
Picture This! wrote:
@ Alphonsus thanks for posting the shots with a Z8 ! The colors look so much nicer than what I've seen from the other brand's bodies Looks like a nice lens but after trying out a friend's Sigma 200, I've decided to stick with my Canon and Nikon 200/2. Sigma is very sharp but so are the other 200s and I like the colors from the Canikon better.
Gee, I wonder how much is the color rendition is more a matter of PP rather than the lens and/or the camera. I am just putting it our there but I don't feel like turning this into another endless color science thread though...
I definitely dont want to turn this into an endless anything can be processed into anything thread. Having shot both brands extensively, I prefer the out of box color of the Nikons anyday. Yeah I know you can calibrate with a gray card and create a custom profile yada yada. Realistically, I dont have the time to do all that when I am running around shooting clients and switching locations, lighting conditions etc. I really had to futz with the Sony files to get it to my liking. The Nikon has cut down my color work time significantly. Again, ymmv. Shoot what you love, love what you shoot
I think there’s some credit that can be given to post processing but I’ve shot with just about every brand and color rendition out of the box is a real thing. There are multiple factors also. I couldn’t believe it until I experienced it first hand but boy howdy, exceptional lenses also play a role. The Nikkor 200 f2 is just a very exceptional lens that renders incredibly well when coupled with a D850. Will clients notice? IDK. But it’s a true pleasure to not have to fix files in post.
AGeoJO wrote:
Gee, I wonder how much is the color rendition is more a matter of PP rather than the lens and/or the camera. I am just putting it our there but I don't feel like turning this into another endless color science thread though...
pasblues wrote:
I think there’s some credit that can be given to post processing but I’ve shot with just about every brand and color rendition out of the box is a real thing. There are multiple factors also. I couldn’t believe it until I experienced it first hand but boy howdy, exceptional lenses also play a role. The Nikkor 200 f2 is just a very exceptional lens that renders incredibly well when coupled with a D850. Will clients notice? IDK. But it’s a true pleasure to not have to fix files in post.
FYI, I had the Nikkor 200mm f/2.0 and yes, on the D800E and later, D850. I also had both the Canon 200mm f/2.0 as well its predecessor, the f/1.8. In my humble opinion they are all great lenses with excellent colors. None stands out more than the others and it seems to me that the new Sigma's color rendition is approximately in the same neighborhood. To be able to tell the difference, not necessarily better or more to your liking, since it is highly subjective, just the difference, the lenses in question will have to be compared under controlled conditions, the same lighting conditions, the same camera and the same PP, be it straight from the camera. Such a comparison in color rendition of these lenses would be more meaningful rather than images posted here that were taken under different lighting conditions, using different camera and for all we know, edited using various PP workflows. I am referring ONLY to the color rendition of those lenses. We could throw the new Laowa into the mix, too. Again, just my opinion and your opinion may differ.
Alex Phan wrote:
IMO, Nikon 200VR ii still the top choice. Sigma has that modern sharpness which I’m not a fan off. Laowa is also another alternative
The weight difference will change your mind. I have both lenses and shoot sports and I don't see that the Sigma "has that modern sharpness" you're referring to. Both the Nikon and Sigma are great lenses as long as you have them on bodies with similar fps to compare. I do prefer Nikon but the Sigma is very, very good and surpasses for my purposes due to its much lighter weight.
I have a wedding to cover in November. Unfortunately, as much as I’d love to take the Sigma 200, the wedding timeline and locations don’t lend themselves to such a long lens.
Looks like a nice lens but after trying out a friend's Sigma 200, I've decided to stick with my Canon and Nikon 200/2. Sigma is very sharp but so are the other 200s and I like the colors from the Canikon better.
