Poohblah
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Posts
- 138
- Likes
- 0
sorry, read the thread a little too fast...
Originally Posted by Poohblah /img/forum/go_quote.gif that's why you pay $300 for the smaller, lighter nikon 50/1.4 |
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 |
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. |
Originally Posted by Iron_Dreamer /img/forum/go_quote.gif And it's still a bargain compared to that eye upgrade |
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 |
Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif LOL, "But, honey. It's so much cheaper than Lasik!" Think it will work? Heheh. -Ed |
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. |
Originally Posted by paulr /img/forum/go_quote.gif Any further guidance on my D200 idea would still be appreciated. |