Sam, thanks for sharing. One of the key things to note about this lens is how good the bokeh is stopped down. It's not unusual for even average lenses to have good bokeh wide open, since you're typically dealing with a circular opening. Lenses like the 50G and the Sigma 50/1.4 have particularly good bokeh in part because they're using 9 rounded aperture blades, versus something like the 50D which uses 7 straight aperture blades. Both the 50G and Sigma should be able to produce good bokeh even when stopped down a bit.
I agree that stopping down a bit really often can turn a pleasant bokeh of a lens upside down.
I value good bokeh but have noticed that it really is very subjective to the scene. I have some glass that can look good in some shots and fugly in others. Go figure.
I do have to sympathize though with Phillip that it must be frustrating that many put down the notion that sigma CAN build a lens that is better than the real thing.
btw ... all of my post are meant to be gently whispered. But I can't find a lighter font.
I don't really see who these mythical Sigma detractors are. I see nothing but praise for the lens. The only thing people like myself have brought up is the weight and the potential quality issues. Optically the Sigma looks great - who's denied this? I'm genuinely confused. Phillip appears to be fighting a strawman.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Phillip, give it a rest. We've all seen the dozens of threads you've started regarding the Sigma.
See....the thing is, Sam, is that Sam Obeid commented on this very image in my flickr stream, stating that he hoped his Nikkor G version was as sharp. So, before you go out and get your panties in a twist, perhaps you should consider other factors in my posts and not take them so personally. I'm sorry if I've offended your obvious sensitivities, but get the facts before you react. My post was meant as an inside joke to Sam because of what he posted on my flickr stream. Capiche?! Good, glad that's settled .
Nikon_RH50 wrote:
I am beginning to think you are a Sigma rep as you keep putting down the New Nikon 50 here and at the Cafe. I am not a big fan of Sigma mainly because of QC. I don't want to spend extra money for the more expensive Siggy 50 (Siggy?) BUT you are making it difficult for me to pull the trigger on Nikon. Sooo... I just got the Siggy 30 and the 50 will be here soon too.
Great decision! So I'm not the only one who is LOCO?
HansenTsang wrote:
Ok the obligatory bokeh image. This is with my new Siggy 50 that I got yesterday.
What was the shutter speed? Looks "busy". Maybe some lens blur, or maybe I just haven't had enough coffee yet this morning. Ya it's the coffee or lack of!
I dunno, the OOF areas in the flower image look anything but busy to me. The Sigma seems to render things in a similar way to the super telephotos with a very very smooth look. It's kinda of a little boring to me, looks really nice for portraits though!
If you shot that with a ZF 50 or 50D Nikkor things would look very different.
I agree with Jammy on this. As for an F-mount 50mm lens I think my choice would be either the new Nikon G 50mm, or the ZF 2/50 Makro despite it's a full stop slower, expensive, and even a manual focus lens.
For my taste the Sigma bokeh looks a tad too smooth, so smooth that it lacks character and there seems to be no signs of life left. I still want to be able to see a slight bit of drama or mystery left in the bokeh. I don't know how exactly to put it, but go take a look at this comparison. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/661966/0
.