p.4 #1 · Sigma 85mm vs Nikon 85mm 1.4D vs Nikon 85mm 1.4G - The good, the bad and the ugly.
Todd Adamson wrote:
Good point.
Curtis, that's a stellar portrait you've posted on the last page.
Thanks Todd. Amazingly, I was the only person who brought a camera to my friend's 60th birthday party, especially so since he and another attendee are both accomplished professional photographers whose work is regularly published. In fact, my friend so appreciated the photos I took that he asked to use one on his website. Needless to say, I was honored. The 85 f/1.4D yielded some very fine images that evening and I became an instant fan.
p.4 #2 · Sigma 85mm vs Nikon 85mm 1.4D vs Nikon 85mm 1.4G - The good, the bad and the ugly.
khphotography wrote:
I stick by what I say, the 85mm 1.4D is not worth more than $500 USED right now. I dont understand how anybody could justify paying more for it when for a couple hundred more the Sigma 85mm is right there and is an improvement in every way shape and form.
These are kinds of words from an over excited newbie, though I'm sure you are not. Have you considered Sigma's reputation of quality control? Owning a perfect 3rd party lens needs luck, but Nikon is a sure thing. I take 85/1.4D anytime over crappy reverse engineered Sigma.
p.4 #3 · Sigma 85mm vs Nikon 85mm 1.4D vs Nikon 85mm 1.4G - The good, the bad and the ugly.
My crappy reverse engineered Sigma is near identical in IQ to my Nikon 85G and therefore the 85 1.4D. Focuses as fast and better yet, focuses much more consistently and accurately than the 85 1.4 D both in AF-S and AF-C modes against still and moving targets.
Look ma....I can shoot a moving target at f1.4!
Not sure what that actually says about the 85 1.4D though...
Words from someone who wanted more out the the 85 1.4D and now has it in the Nikon 85G and the Sigma 85.
p.4 #4 · Sigma 85mm vs Nikon 85mm 1.4D vs Nikon 85mm 1.4G - The good, the bad and the ugly.
I have Sigma 85 and Nikon D5000.
I have noticed that the out of focus light circles with 1.4F are mostly very nice and round but in some cases they are not round but cut like moon by knife from the edge. This kind of half moons (normally the cutting is not half but only a fraction) appear in the border ares of the picture.
I browsed images in the Flickr groups "Sigma 85 1.4" and "Nikon 85 1.4" and it is easy to see that both Nikon and Sigma have these half moon OOF circles and those are more visible and disturbing with full frame cameras (both Canon and Nikon).
Has anybody tested which 85 lenses have more and which less half moons from small OOF light sources ?
What is this effect - why does these not circle OOF half moons appear?
p.4 #6 · Sigma 85mm vs Nikon 85mm 1.4D vs Nikon 85mm 1.4G - The good, the bad and the ugly.
visionguru wrote:
These are kinds of words from an over excited newbie, though I'm sure you are not. Have you considered Sigma's reputation of quality control? Owning a perfect 3rd party lens needs luck, but Nikon is a sure thing. I take 85/1.4D anytime over crappy reverse engineered Sigma.
"reputation" is hardly the right word. "overblown rumors on photoforums" is more correct. I have owned a large amount of sigma, nikon, canon, tokina and zeiss lenses, and in Sigma is so far the _best_ of them in terms of quality control. Even if there were realistic studies done, I suspect that any differences would be in the 1-3% range, so using the word "luck"....? _those_ are the words from an over zealous newbie... Though I'm sure you are not..?
p.4 #8 · Sigma 85mm vs Nikon 85mm 1.4D vs Nikon 85mm 1.4G - The good, the bad and the ugly.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
My crappy reverse engineered Sigma is near identical in IQ to my Nikon 85G and therefore the 85 1.4D. Focuses as fast and better yet, focuses much more consistently and accurately than the 85 1.4 D both in AF-S and AF-C modes against still and moving targets.
Look ma....I can shoot a moving target at f1.4!
Not sure what that actually says about the 85 1.4D though...
Words from someone who wanted more out the the 85 1.4D and now has it in the Nikon 85G and the Sigma 85.
Nick,
Do you plan on keeping them both? I have the G, and I'm tempted to give the Siggy a run too.
p.4 #9 · Sigma 85mm vs Nikon 85mm 1.4D vs Nikon 85mm 1.4G - The good, the bad and the ugly.
ulrikft2 wrote:
"reputation" is hardly the right word. "overblown rumors on photoforums" is more correct. I have owned a large amount of sigma, nikon, canon, tokina and zeiss lenses, and in Sigma is so far the _best_ of them in terms of quality control. Even if there were realistic studies done, I suspect that any differences would be in the 1-3% range, so using the word "luck"....? _those_ are the words from an over zealous newbie... Though I'm sure you are not..?
I respect your opinion. Frankly, your experience "Sigma is so far the _best_ of them in terms of quality control. " is likely in the minor minority, do a poll you will see. I've used enough recent Sigma lenses (more than 10) to know what kind of quality control Sigma has.
p.4 #11 · Sigma 85mm vs Nikon 85mm 1.4D vs Nikon 85mm 1.4G - The good, the bad and the ugly.
visionguru wrote:
Owning a perfect 3rd party lens needs luck, but Nikon is a sure thing.
Apparently you are lucky in not having experienced copy variation with Nikon lenses. I've gone through my share of Sigma copies to get an excellent one. Though not as prevalent with Nikon it does exist and hardly a "sure thing".
p.4 #12 · Sigma 85mm vs Nikon 85mm 1.4D vs Nikon 85mm 1.4G - The good, the bad and the ugly.
peteypie wrote:
Nick,
Do you plan on keeping them both? I have the G, and I'm tempted to give the Siggy a run too.
I don't plan on keeping both. Right now I am evaluating. They are very close. I haven't really done any formal testing and I will admit I am biased towards Nikon lenses, but they are VERY close. I like the Nikon build and feel better, but I am trying to decide whether I can ignore that given the cost of the Sigma. This will also allow me to use the remainder for funding a 35G.
p.4 #13 · Sigma 85mm vs Nikon 85mm 1.4D vs Nikon 85mm 1.4G - The good, the bad and the ugly.
lorac wrote:
Apparently you are lucky in not having experienced copy variation with Nikon lenses. I've gone through my share of Sigma copies to get an excellent one. Though not as prevalent with Nikon it does exist and hardly a "sure thing".
Lora
Agreed.
I switched to Nikon this year and:
-14-24 had to be calibrated. I need to send it in a 2nd time b/c it's still off.
-70-200VRII had to be sent in b/c something sounded loose inside.
-D700 had to sent in b/c the hot shoe needed to be replaced.
p.4 #14 · Sigma 85mm vs Nikon 85mm 1.4D vs Nikon 85mm 1.4G - The good, the bad and the ugly.
Do you plan on keeping them both? I have the G, and I'm tempted to give the Siggy a run too.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
I don't plan on keeping both. Right now I am evaluating. They are very close. I haven't really done any formal testing and I will admit I am biased towards Nikon lenses, but they are VERY close. I like the Nikon build and feel better, but I am trying to decide whether I can ignore that given the cost of the Sigma. This will also allow me to use the remainder for funding a 35G.
p.4 #15 · Sigma 85mm vs Nikon 85mm 1.4D vs Nikon 85mm 1.4G - The good, the bad and the ugly.
visionguru wrote:
I respect your opinion. Frankly, your experience "Sigma is so far the _best_ of them in terms of quality control. " is likely in the minor minority, do a poll you will see. I've used enough recent Sigma lenses (more than 10) to know what kind of quality control Sigma has.
You did not really understand my point and you don't really seem to understand what scientific process is all about.
You say "your anecdotal evidence is worthless, mine equals fact". I try to say "My experience is A, if we did a scientific study on this, I would expect B, but not the far worse E".
So again: stating that QC at Sigma is bad enough that getting a good lens is "luck"..? hardly very close to the truth I'm afraid.
