The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)
Sep 13, 2008 at 4:10 PM Post #2,132 of 5,895

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,845
Likes
5,096
Location
A Secret Lab
Quote:

Originally Posted by Poohblah /img/forum/go_quote.gif
that's why you pay $300 for the smaller, lighter nikon 50/1.4


The Sigma is a totally different lens than that. It has a much quieter and faster focusing motor, a nine blade rounded diaphragm for much better bokeh, and an aspherical element for sharper images and better contrast wide open. What's the point of a fast lens that you have to stop down to f5.6 to get sharpness in the center? The Sigma is tack sharp at all stops. On full frame, the Nikon has even worse performance, adding vignetting and halation at wide apertures. The Nikon is basically the same design they was making back in the 70s, while the Sigma is a totally different animal. I bet Nikon refreshes their 50mm 1.4 soon with a design that incorporates aspherical elements, and it will probably cost even more than the Sigma.

I have a D200, and with this lens, my camera performs as well as the D300 with the Nikon 50mm 1.4 in low light, because I can use the wide apertures to compensate for narrower ISO without compromising image quality. I also get much better bokeh, which is the whole point of a lens like this.

See ya
Steve
 
Sep 13, 2008 at 11:53 PM Post #2,133 of 5,895

Poohblah

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
138
Likes
0
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The Sigma is a totally different lens than that. It has a much quieter and faster focusing motor, a nine blade rounded diaphragm for much better bokeh, and an aspherical element for sharper images and better contrast wide open. What's the point of a fast lens that you have to stop down to f5.6 to get sharpness in the center? The Sigma is tack sharp at all stops. On full frame, the Nikon has even worse performance, adding vignetting and halation at wide apertures. The Nikon is basically the same design they was making back in the 70s, while the Sigma is a totally different animal. I bet Nikon refreshes their 50mm 1.4 soon with a design that incorporates aspherical elements, and it will probably cost even more than the Sigma.

I have a D200, and with this lens, my camera performs as well as the D300 with the Nikon 50mm 1.4 in low light, because I can use the wide apertures to compensate for narrower ISO without compromising image quality. I also get much better bokeh, which is the whole point of a lens like this.

See ya
Steve



i don't know to what extent you're examining your images, but my nikkor 50/1.4 performs better than anything else i have seen at f/2. it easily outresolves most film and the sensor of the D200 at that aperture. it is very useable at f/1.4, good enough for 8x10 prints from both film and digital.
 
Sep 14, 2008 at 1:07 AM Post #2,134 of 5,895

dj_mocok

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Posts
5,635
Likes
14
I know on the paper The Sigma 50mm 1.4 may sound impressive, but from the sample pictures I've seen around, I personally don't see any benefit of this lens over the Nikon 50mm 1.4 that warrants the additional 200 bucks for it.
If it's pretty much in the same price range as the Nikon (or only a tad more), I'd consider it if I were in the market for one. But with that price, I'd rather get Nikon instead. But overall I'm perfectly fine with my old 50mm MF, it's a fun lens!
Actually the Sigma 30mm 1.4 interests me more than the 50mm.
 
Sep 14, 2008 at 2:02 AM Post #2,135 of 5,895

dj_mocok

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Posts
5,635
Likes
14
From last night: Stiegl is nice!
beer.jpg
 
Sep 14, 2008 at 5:52 AM Post #2,136 of 5,895

paulr

New Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Posts
45
Likes
0
Has anyone done a low light comparison of RAW pictures between the D200 and D300? I have the impression that the D300 makes better low light JPG's because it has more aggressive noise reduction in its firmware, but the basic sensor noise levels are about the same between the two cameras, so if you start with the raw sensor output, it's then just a matter of what your postprocessing software can do.

Maybe I should just hold out for a D700...
 
Sep 14, 2008 at 6:19 AM Post #2,137 of 5,895

Edwood

1/2 hamster, 1/2 Turkish∙ Blueteething
Joined
Nov 11, 2003
Posts
20,230
Likes
241
Location
Cage
If you shoot primarily in low light, and like to go without a flash, the D700 is well worth saving up for. Pricey, but so is pretty much anything amazing.

Another thing that is really nice, particularly glasses wearers like myself, is how much easier it is to see what you are shooting through the larger viewfinder. Yet another benefit for full frame.
 
Sep 14, 2008 at 6:31 AM Post #2,138 of 5,895

Iron_Dreamer

Sponsor: Audeze
Landscape-Photo-Fi
Organizer for Can Jam '09
Joined
Mar 28, 2003
Posts
9,542
Likes
140
Location
Los Angeles
Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you shoot primarily in low light, and like to go without a flash, the D700 is well worth saving up for. Pricey, but so is pretty much anything amazing.

Another thing that is really nice, particularly glasses wearers like myself, is how much easier it is to see what you are shooting through the larger viewfinder. Yet another benefit for full frame.



And it's still a bargain compared to that eye upgrade
wink.gif
 
Sep 14, 2008 at 11:30 AM Post #2,140 of 5,895

paulr

New Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Posts
45
Likes
0
The D700 is about 1.5x as expensive as the EOS-5D despite being several years newer. Costs of this stuff is supposed to be going down, not up. Of course I recognize that the D700 is a better camera in many ways, but the sensor performance is about the same as far as I can tell. So it makes more sense for me to wait for a "D500" or something like that.

Yes I'm into available light shooting (that's why I have those manual focus lenses, like the 180/2.8 and 35/1.4, and I barely missed getting a sensational deal on a 300/2.8) but I just don't shoot enough to justify buying the latest expensive stuff. I could imagine buying an FX camera with a D300 price tag on the theory that I'd never want to upgrade it, but that's about my limit. Any further guidance on my D200 idea would still be appreciated.

Thanks
 
Sep 14, 2008 at 12:58 PM Post #2,141 of 5,895

dj_mocok

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Posts
5,635
Likes
14
I'd probably just wait for D400 since D300 is almost due for replacement (I think). But to be honest, I don't see anything that I can't really shoot with my D80. Maybe only once in a blue moon when I am shooting at a ridiculously dark place without flash.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think D700 is the same price as Canon 5D. If I remember correctly, when 5D was released, it was around AUS$5,000 or more (and the Canon 1DMark range was more than AUD$10,000). Whereas D700 now in Australia is around AUD$3,600 and D3 is around AUD$5,400 range. So price is definitely better now.
They are selling 5D for AUS$2,600 here.
 
Sep 14, 2008 at 2:27 PM Post #2,142 of 5,895

Poohblah

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Posts
138
Likes
0
Quote:

Originally Posted by paulr /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The D700 is about 1.5x as expensive as the EOS-5D despite being several years newer. Costs of this stuff is supposed to be going down, not up. Of course I recognize that the D700 is a better camera in many ways, but the sensor performance is about the same as far as I can tell. So it makes more sense for me to wait for a "D500" or something like that.

Yes I'm into available light shooting (that's why I have those manual focus lenses, like the 180/2.8 and 35/1.4, and I barely missed getting a sensational deal on a 300/2.8) but I just don't shoot enough to justify buying the latest expensive stuff. I could imagine buying an FX camera with a D300 price tag on the theory that I'd never want to upgrade it, but that's about my limit. Any further guidance on my D200 idea would still be appreciated.

Thanks



the D700 blows the 5D out of the water in terms of ISO performance, of course we're still waiting on the 5D mkII
smily_headphones1.gif


i would guess based on skimming internet reviews that the D300 has ISO performance that is about a stop better than the D200 when shooting in RAW. by that i mean the D300's ISO 1600 looks similar to the D200's ISO 800, etc.
 
Sep 14, 2008 at 9:05 PM Post #2,144 of 5,895

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,845
Likes
5,096
Location
A Secret Lab
Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I know on the paper The Sigma 50mm 1.4 may sound impressive, but from the sample pictures I've seen around, I personally don't see any benefit of this lens over the Nikon 50mm 1.4 that warrants the additional 200 bucks for it.


The primary difference is center sharpness wide open. Corners don't matter so much, and vignetting is irritating, but not critical. But center sharpness is crucial. When you're using a wide aperture like this, the depth of focus is very narrow, which is great for portraits where the face in the middle of the frame is razor sharp while the head behind and background falls off into creamy bokeh. (I can find an example somewhere to link to if you want...) You only get this effect with a really wide aperture with a sharp center and excellent bokeh. The Nikon 1.4 is razor sharp when you get down to f4 and it's perfectly acceptable at 2.8, but that isn't the same as the Sigma. And the bokeh on the Nikon is just OK compared to absolutely perfect bokeh on the Sigma (like their 30mm 1.4).

The Nikon 50mm 1.4 is a fine walkaround normal lens for when you might occasionally run into low light situations, but it isn't specifically designed to be used primarily at the widest aperture. For me, the ideal walkaround lens would be an inexpensive lightweight short zoom with a normal aperture. I just got an old 28-70 f3.5/4.5 AF-D for that purpose.

The Sigma is a big, heavy lens with a very specific purpose. If you need what it does, it's more than worth the extra $200. It doesn't matter to me, because I'm using a D200, but on full frame, the difference between the Sigma and the Nikon is even more pronounced.

See ya
Steve
 
Sep 14, 2008 at 9:13 PM Post #2,145 of 5,895

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,845
Likes
5,096
Location
A Secret Lab
Quote:

Originally Posted by paulr /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Any further guidance on my D200 idea would still be appreciated.


I have a D200 that I bought a year or so ago. If I was buying a camera today instead of back then, I would seriously consider a D90 over the the D300. If money is an issue, my advice would be to go for lower in recent model rather than go higher in model with an older camera. But glass is always most important to me. I'd go for a lower model of body, but I wouldn't scrimp on the lenses.

See ya
Steve
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top