Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: A Japanese headfier's monologue (Sasaki)
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
If you look at this dude's flickr page, that's pretty much how it performs wide open. But I suggest you not to visit the page though, or else you'd be tempted to get one but realise it's wayyy to expensive to get one and you'll be disappointed instead. Like me.
That's one hell of a photographer. Fortunately, they don't fit Nikon cameras, so I don't have to lose sleep lusting over it.
Originally Posted by bigshot
Here is an example shot of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 against the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 wide open at night.
The difference is less pronounced in daylight, and there is no difference at all stopped down a bit.
See ya
Steve
That's very interesting. The Zeiss photo looks brighter though and there's an odd (aperture) flare?... Can you please tell me what I should be looking for in that comparison?
That's very interesting. The Zeiss photo looks brighter though and there's an odd (aperture) flare?... Can you please tell me what I should be looking for in that comparison?
The brightness difference is actually contrast. The Sigma has a much snappier contrast wide open. The flare is the way the Zeiss lens reacts to sharp contrasts out at the edges. Compare the focus at different points in the shot.
The Zeiss lens isn't so bad in daylight at 1.4, and it matches the quality of the Sigma when it gets stopped down a few stops. What this tells you is that the Zeiss is a normal lens that just happens to have a fast aperture. The Sigma is a lens that is designed to be used wide open. It's sharp at all stops. The difference is the asymmetrical element in the lens.
That particular Zeiss lens was up to now, one of the best performing (and most expensive) 50mm f1.4 lenses on the market. Rumors are that it's about to be replaced by a new design... probably very much like the Sigma, but at a price much higher.
Headphoneus Supremus Landscape-Photo-Fi Organizer for Can Jam '09
Originally Posted by Edwood
I think I'm just too much in love with the big hunk of magnesium frames of the D200/300/700 series. It just feels so nice in my hands. My D80 just feels so wimpy now.
No kidding. Ever since I first picked up a D200, I knew I would have to have one somehow. Most other cameras just feel like toys by comparison. I know the D80 is very close, picture-wise, but if I'm going to shell out for a serious camera, I want it to feel like a serious camera, you know?
Plus, I feel a lot more at ease with the D200 hanging off my neck whilst scrambling up >45 degree rocky slopes than I would a plasticam.
Do you mean the D300?
The 28-70 F/2.8 should go for around 1100 used, and the 24-70 F/2.8 goes for around 1600$ new. Both cheaper than the 4500$ D3.
Yes, of course I meant D300, whoops! If I could get a D3 for $1600 I'd grab it .
I can't take the D90 seriously as a video camera unless it has first class digital audio recording to go with the video, with an external stereo mic input. I think red.com is leading the way in "affordable" (at least compared to the 6-figure Hollywood stuff) large-sensor HDTV cameras.
Bigshot, Just wondering, what MF lenses have you got?
I'd have to dig out those bags. I've got them buried right now. But off the top of my head... 125mm, 43-86mm, 24mm, 50 1.4, Vivitar 70-210, micro nikkor... there's more I can't think of right now, and I sold off a bunch along with an F2 and F3 body a year or so ago. I ended up with my own kit, along with my brother's and parents. Piles of equipment I'll probably never use again.
No kidding. Ever since I first picked up a D200, I knew I would have to have one somehow. Most other cameras just feel like toys by comparison. I know the D80 is very close, picture-wise, but if I'm going to shell out for a serious camera, I want it to feel like a serious camera, you know?
I know the feeling toyed around with one my mates D300, going back to my D80 afterwards it was clear why the D300 is much more expensive.
__________________ Portable rig:
Cowon D2 --> Silver mini to mini by N_maher --> RSA Tomahawk --> LiveWires T1 / Sleek-Audio SA6 / Yuin OK1. Home rig:
Marantz CD6002 --> Head-Direct EF1 --> AKG K701 / Sennheiser HD580 without foam, with HD600 grills, Dowin cable.
I'd have to dig out those bags. I've got them buried right now. But off the top of my head... 125mm, 43-86mm, 24mm, 50 1.4, Vivitar 70-210, micro nikkor... there's more I can't think of right now, and I sold off a bunch along with an F2 and F3 body a year or so ago. I ended up with my own kit, along with my brother's and parents. Piles of equipment I'll probably never use again.
See ya
Steve
That's a shame you got so many lenses there, especially you got 24mm and 50mm 1.4, those 2 are such a waste to be left somewhere in the dark storage room and never to be used again.
.
