[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes. Way back in the late 70s. I had a 1.2 as well, but I sold that because it seemed to have low contrast wide open. They were all fine for printing 8x10 wide open, and they got sharp by the time you got to around 2.8 or 3.5 or so. But the larger apertures were more for convenience than for actual critical use. I'm willing to compromise sharpness a bit for convenience in a zoom. But in a prime, I want all of the stops to perform perfectly. When I pull out a lens like this, it's for a specific purpose- and in this case that's wide open with the subject in the center and lots of soft focus all around. My Tokina 11-16 is from another world IQ-wise. The stuff I'm getting from it are better than anything I ever got with 35mm. I'm hoping this 50mm will be in the same league. The shots I've seen on the web taken with it look great. Until recently, I didn't realize how significant the advances in lens design have been over the past couple of decades. See ya Steve

Thanks for the info. Hope you like the sigma.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulr /img/forum/go_quote.gif he 28-70/2.8 is of course a fabulous lens but costs more than a D3.

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.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here is an example shot of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 against the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 wide open at night... http://210.238.185.197/~maro/lens_te..._z_yoru_14.jpg The difference is less pronounced in daylight, and there is no difference at all stopped down a bit. See ya Steve

Wow, huge difference in those two pictures. Wonder what the zeiss does to portraits without stopping down much.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 28-70 F/2.8 should go for around 1100 used, and the 24-70 F/2.8 goes for around 1600$ new.

The 28-70 I have is the f3.5/4.5 AF-D. It cost me $80. It's the perfect lightweight walkaround beater lens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow, huge difference in those two pictures. Wonder what the zeiss does to portraits without stopping down much.

It performs a lot better in daylight. And if you notice, it's a lot better in the center than at the edges. With portraits all that edge messiness would be blur anyway.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Here is my prediction for the future...

Nikon hybrid HDvideo/DSLR cameras will be crop, not full frame. Don't sell off those DX lenses yet! Also, I bet a new classification of lenses will emerge with powered zooms.

See ya
Steve

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here is an example shot of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 against the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 wide open at night. http://210.238.185.197/~maro/lens_te..._z_yoru_14.jpg 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?

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

See ya
Steve

 

[milkpowder]

I heard that the ZF mount Zeiss aren't even manufactured by Zeiss themselves -> Cosina in Canada? Is the optical design Zeiss too?

 

[dj_mocok]

Bigshot,

Just wondering, what MF lenses have you got?

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

 

[dj_mocok]

I never felt un-serious holding my D80.

 

[paulr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

See ya
Steve

 

[FrederikS|TPU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.