I'm finally starting to get a grasp on how the lenses render different things after looking through everything that's been shared. The Sigma really seems to excel at portraiture and really bold simple graphical images with large swathes of simple shapes in the background. Like this: http://flickr.com/photos/smackbox/3093980532/
The only shots that really nail down bokeh are the ones with OOF lights. So...thank you for finally posting some shots that show this. The Sigma looks great too; low spherical abs and nice, round light sources.
This is interesting a fellow posted up some 100% crops of a resolution target with center and edge portions at various apertures using the 50G. His methodology could be flawed but the results aren't particularly encouraging below f/2.8 or so, I've got a feeling it could be a case of mis-focus because of low light or just mis-adjustment.
Again, not trying to detract from the Sigma here... but why would you expect anything different from a lens at f/1.4 at those distances? A lot of what you're seeing in the first stream is just a combination of those two factors.
@ Sam what I'm seeing at 1.4 from the Sigma is very different from what I'm seeing at f/1.2 from the old Nikkors, 1.4 from the Zeiss 50ZF, or any other 50mm for that matter. Its a matter of edge definition and subtle OOF effects dealing with shape retention in those areas. If your not seeing it, I'm not really sure of a better way to explain it than that.
It could be that I simply find the blur characteristics of the Sigma too gaussian like for some subjects, compared to a lens that has a lot of interesting shape retention in the OOf areas like the ZF 50. Two shots I just found that are similar to the Sigma shots for comparison, taken with the ZF 50 Planar. What I'm looking at are the way OOF edges are rendered and defined as compared to the Sigma (which I believe is unique in this regard). ZF shots: http://flickr.com/photos/sohingpong/384663479/ http://flickr.com/photos/rondd5/2681540890/
This is like counting fairies on the head of a pin, so feel free to ignore me
Jammy Straub wrote:
@ Sam what I'm seeing at 1.4 from the Sigma is very different from what I'm seeing at f/1.2 from the old Nikkors, 1.4 from the Zeiss 50ZF, or any other 50mm for that matter. Its a matter of edge definition and subtle OOF effects dealing with shape retention in those areas. If your not seeing it, I'm not really sure of a better way to explain it than that.
There's no denying how smooth the Sigma's bokeh is. But this is a 50G thread, so I would have to assume that you're saying the 50G isn't as smooth. It may well not be, but so far I haven't seen a back-to-back test to illustrate the point. The "obliteration factor" here in the examples you gave seems more due to the usage than the characterstics of the lens, imo.
Once I have my Sigma in hand, I will be sure to do the sorts of tests that'll settle this once and for all.
Alright, here's some minimum-focusing at f/1.4 shots. I typically never do this sort of thing because frankly I think it's gimmicky and boring. When people say the bokeh is great in these sorts of shots, it's usually because they're used to shooting with slow glass from far distances. The "wow" factor, again, is more the usage than anything else. Click on the images for full-rez versions. As usual, by aware of Flickr's sharpening. Also, if you see "flecks" in the images, it's the light rain I was shooting in.
Gregory.Rotter wrote:
o/t what's wrong with shots wide open and at minimum focusing distance? Am I missing something>?
There's nothing "wrong" with it - I just get tired of people using that sort of shot as an example of "good bokeh" when really it's the least challenging bokeh situation possible, in my experience. Usually it's not really "good bokeh", simply "lots of blur". The amount of blur is not bokeh - a point a lot of people seem to miss. Bokeh is the subjective quality of the OOF area, not the amount.
Sam, judging from your flickr image comments I think you've misconstrued what I was getting at. There's no question in my mind that technically the Sigma 50 is one of best lenses for 'technically perfect' boke out there in the 50mm range (short of maybe rangefinder lenses)
It's just that it's so perfect I tend to find it boring. There's a big difference between what I find boring and something being 'horrible', I mean lots of people really enjoy bowling...
There's a big difference between what I find boring and something being 'horrible', I mean lots of people really enjoy bowling... 