[oogabooga]

Nice shots - the lens has great bokeh. Were the portraits at 1.4 or smaller? (they seem 2 or 2.8 ish)

 

[bigshot]

Believe it or not, they're all f1.4 at a 30th. This lens is super sharp, even wide open. I finally figured out the trick to focusing with such a narrow plane of focus. I set the camera for just one focus point and I focus and recompose. When I was using more than one focus point, it was all over the place. Check out the full size versions on my blog. It's neat how stuff goes in and out of focus with a smooth even gradation. That's the mark of really good bokeh.

 

[sawyer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Believe it or not, they're all f1.4 at a 30th. This lens is super sharp, even wide open. I finally figured out the trick to focusing with such a narrow plane of focus. I set the camera for just one focus point and I focus and recompose. When I was using more than one focus point, it was all over the place. Check out the full size versions on my blog. It's neat how stuff goes in and out of focus with a smooth even gradation. That's the mark of really good bokeh.

How much is the Sigma 50 1.4? I can't believe that you shot with f/1.4, my nikkor 50 1.4 is soft even at f/2.8

 

[dj_mocok]

That Nikon shouldn't be soft at f/2.8, no way. My 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 are sharp even wide open. Did you try it with tripod yet? If you did, you might have a bad copy.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sawyer /img/forum/go_quote.gif How much is the Sigma 50 1.4? I can't believe that you shot with f/1.4, my nikkor 50 1.4 is soft even at f/2.8

The Sigma definitely is a bit sharper at 1.4 than even the new Nikon 50mm 1.4. (See DPReview's Review of the Sigma 50 1.4 and the Nikon 50 1.4.) DX tends to be more demanding than FX when it comes to center sharpness. The Nikon needs to be stopped down a little more than the Sigma because the Nikon is an older spherical design, while the Sigma includes a modern aspherical element.

But there are a couple of other reasons you might not be getting sharp shots with your Nikon lens... It may be out of align, backfocusing or front focusing slightly; or it might be that you are focusing inaccurately. When you shoot wide open, the depth of field can be extremely tight. (See the dog picture with a depth of field of less than an inch.) It takes perfect calibration and some practice to get the technique of focusing where you intend to focus.

 

[john_jcb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...............John: Congrats on the new camera, it is a neat camera. Don't forget to post some pictures here.

I will when I get it. I am trying to be patient to save a few $ so I opted for free ground shipping. I fear that this small step into the digital realm may set me off again taking pictures. The new SLR's do look inviting.

My photography hobby was a little better than self sufficient years ago as I would take action and candid shots at kids sporting events and sell prints to the parents. It was easy then with my 2 kids in tow or playing but now with all the privacy concerns and such I might be looked at as a lecherous old man taking pictures. One thing that I always found funny when I was doing this was that the kids that took the best pictures had parents that never attended the games.

 

[dj_mocok]

By the way, how much did you pay for the FX35?
Who knows if you are happy with this little digital P&S you might be interested in getting Nikon DSLR too - especially considering how cheap they are nowadays (D80, D200).

 

[oogabooga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by john_jcb /img/forum/go_quote.gif My photography hobby was a little better than self sufficient years ago as I would take action and candid shots at kids sporting events and sell prints to the parents.

Also, with the proliferation of SLRs and consumer super-zooms, I'd dare say most of the parents attending the game (at least the tech-happy ones) are going to be snapping their own photos nowadays.

 

[john_jcb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif By the way, how much did you pay for the FX35? Who knows if you are happy with this little digital P&S you might be interested in getting Nikon DSLR too - especially considering how cheap they are nowadays (D80, D200).

$179

 

[john_jcb]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oogabooga /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also, with the proliferation of SLRs and consumer super-zooms, I'd dare say most of the parents attending the game (at least the tech-happy ones) are going to be snapping their own photos nowadays.

Or making a movie. Video gear is also so much better they probably record every move the kid makes for further analysis at home.

 

[sawyer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif That Nikon shouldn't be soft at f/2.8, no way. My 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 are sharp even wide open. Did you try it with tripod yet? If you did, you might have a bad copy.

I mean the details, not the blurry edge issue. Maybe the Sigma one is macro lens and it tends to be crisp, instead of being smooth like the normal 50mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4?

By the way, my favorite lens is 85mm 1.8, it's sharp, produces great bokeh and quite cheap. I mostly use it for outdoor shooting. Some photos taken by my 85mm 1.8 and D80

 

[dj_mocok]

You mean details as in f1/.8 focused to infinity or detail as in f/1.8 on the point of focus?
But the thing is, if you compare it with a macro lens (especially they are mostly 2.8) of course macro one is sharper. But 50mm 1.8 is sharp enough to get the job done.

I'll try posting some examples for you later if I am not lazy.

 

[sawyer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif You mean details as in f1/.8 focused to infinity or detail as in f/1.8 on the point of focus? But the thing is, if you compare it with a macro lens (especially they are mostly 2.8) of course macro one is sharper. But 50mm 1.8 is sharp enough to get the job done.

I mean the details of "in focus area". However sometimes sharper doesn't mean better

Cheers!

 

[dj_mocok]

Okay I just took some quick lazy shots, so please excuse the not so thoughtful object or composition.

The 2 sets of picture below were taken with my 50mm 1.4 @1.4, as you can see, it still gives perfectly enough detail (complete with minor fringing too!

) and sharpness even though the area of focus is very limited.

Resized for Web:

100 Crop of focus point:

Resized for Web:

100% Crop of focus point:

As you can see, it still makes up enough detail. So either my standard of sharp is much lower than you, or maybe either your object (or you) moved, or you just simply got a bad copy.

Mind you the 2 pictures above were taken handheld and at un-ideally low shutter speed (first one is 1/14 sec and second one is 1/25 sec) and my camera JPG sharpness setting is set at -2 (lowest), so even the pictures above still have plenty of room for improvement in sharpness.

But then again, if you after sharp, I still recommend Helios though,

 

[dj_mocok]

Just for fun shots:

The only thing that the Olympus wins is it has an optical viewfinder... oh yeah, and a built-in lens cap....

I was planning to make a shoot-out between the two, but that would be cruel...
By the way, Olympus was once very formidable in prosumer P&S (especially their C8080 Wide zoom - I am still excited by that one even now) market, but I am not sure which direction they are going now... They are sort of lost and just go along following the market like an old sheep...

PS: If you think what this got anything to do with Nikon thread, well, the pictures were taken by someone who used Nikon before (and still own a few Nikon lenses).