Sigma 85mm/1.4 Art

PeachBlack

rmp said:

PeachBlack, if you could use only one lens, which lens would that be?

This is an extremely easy question for me to answer: the Sigma 50mm/1.4 Art. I use it in about 80% of my photography.

WestEndFoto

Luckily I don't have to make that choice because if I did it would be the 28-300 as that is the only lens that covers almost everything I shoot.

rmp

Thanks. I like the 50mm art. It is on my D400 90% of the time.

Ironheart

@rmp are you flying around on your unicorn taking yeti pictures in the snow with your D400?

heartyfisher

Yeti pictures with a 50mm lense ? .. unless you regularly meet up to do ice fishing together.

rmp

Sorry, I should have typed D4 instead of D400.

WestEndFoto

Can you tell the difference between your Art and a competing 50ml lens on a 16mp sensor?

rmp

I do not have a competing 50mm lens. I did test my 24-70 f2.8 lens at 50 mm against the Sigma 50mm on my D4. And, as you might expect, the sigma was significantly better.

I seem to standardizing to three setups.
D4 and Sigma 50 (for "I cannot risk failure assignments.")
D810 and 24-700 (for "travel and general assignments.")
D500 and 70-200 (for "bird and wildlife assignments.")

Believe it or not, I am taking the D810 and D500 pair as my "travel cameras" on a fishing trip to Costa Rica this month. Yes, I know they are crazy heavy for travel cameras. But, on these trips, I tend to get 1 to 5 "art shots" that someone in the family wants blown up to crazy sizes.

Remember, I am playing -- not earning a living.

PeachBlack

WestEndFoto said:

Can you tell the difference between your Art and a competing 50ml lens on a 16mp sensor?

There is still a very real difference. First, all of the lens qualities aside from sharpness still come into play (contrast, CA control, etc.)

Secondly, you still notice the sharpness. If you go to the DxO website, you can see the score it gives lenses on different cameras. The Nikon 50/1.4g scores a 26 on a D4 while the Sigma Art scores a 33. But the sharpness is less noticeably better on a D4 where the Sigma only gets 2 better on the sharpness score.

WestEndFoto

That is the answer I expected, though I don't have actual experience to test my hypothesis.

RMP, I don't think it is crazy to carry a heavy camera on a trip. To presume that it is crazy assumes that there is a purpose to the trip other than photography (I exaggerate, but I presume that my point is clear).

rmp

We call it a "fishing trip", but we actually spend more time screwing around with cameras than we do rods. And, when one person is fighting a fish, three people are chasing the action with cameras. In the end the real purpose is fun -- the fish and the pictures really do not matter very much. Thank goodness, because we release the fish and our pictures are pretty sad. :-)

Ironheart

If the fish are happy and the cameras are (mostly) dry, it sounds like a good trip!

Vipmediastar_JZ

I did two sessions this past weekend.
I ended up with more 85mm vs 105mm shots.
It was mostly because the 85mm had good working distance vs the 105 it was more tight.

nice detail shots of the eyes. I sometimes missed sharp eyes with my 85mm

decentrist

PeachBlack said:

Do your homework before getting the GFX. In order to keep costs down, the sensor doesn't use the cool technology of their X-Trans sensor used in their smaller format cameras (it's run-of-the-mill CMOS), it's nowhere near true medium format (less than 44x33--Phase One is 54x40, or a full centimeter larger on the long end), and the 1/125th shutter sync speed is just ridiculous. It's not a camera that any professional would take seriously, though it might appeal to some amateurs.

that's a stupid thought coming from you

PeachBlack

decentrist said:

PeachBlack said:

Do your homework before getting the GFX. In order to keep costs down, the sensor doesn't use the cool technology of their X-Trans sensor used in their smaller format cameras (it's run-of-the-mill CMOS), it's nowhere near true medium format (less than 44x33--Phase One is 54x40, or a full centimeter larger on the long end), and the 1/125th shutter sync speed is just ridiculous. It's not a camera that any professional would take seriously, though it might appeal to some amateurs.

that's a stupid thought coming from you

Care to expound upon that so I can defend myself or is Thursday Random-Ad-Hominem Day?

heartyfisher

LOL @PeachBlack .. this new guy seem to only make single "troll" like statements with no followup.. I would just ignore him :-) at least until he actually communicates.

donaldejose

Fuji GFX. Once it is out and some reviewers shoot with it we will better be able to evaluate it. Like many things in life the GFX II model may fix many of the initial model's weaknesses and be the better choice, if the price isn't too high. However, by that time I would expect Nikon, Canon and Sony to be offering a much greater than 50 mp sensor so the comparison will have to be between the highest mp DSLRs and the Fuji "small" medium format sensor and also between the complete systems each company offers in addition to the basic camera. Most likely the GFX will find its niche but also most likely it will not replace the high mp DSLR with all its legacy lenses.

vtc2002

@donaldejose I think Fuji and Hasselblad are listening to the consumers concerning the "small" medium format sensor. The movement to mirrorless is more about the camera being smaller and lighter than it is about the technology. I am not sure why MF camera manufacturers would create medium format mirrorless camera of the same size of the film or digital when people are wanting a smaller camera. The Fuji GFX has a sensor that is 70% larger than the D810. It will have a larger dynamic range and IQ.
@Peachblack I use a Phase One and you are absolutely correct that the autofocusing is slow and there are several other drawbacks. However, I do not use this camera for portraits unless the client ask for a medium format image. Several years ago I would say it was about 40 to 50% of my portrait but in the past 2 years I have only had two request. I believe the D8*0 had a lot to do with this. One of the major complaint when shooting with MF was that the person had to hold their pose too long. I had to take more shots because in many of the shots you could see that they were uncomfortable or had weird expressions on their face. I use the Phase One mostly for Landscapes. If Fuji takes their time and builds a game changer like the D800 was from Nikon they could pose a threat to Nikon, Canon etc. Time will tell.
@PeachBlack I would never consider this camera for the type of work that you do.

PeachBlack

This was shot literally minutes ago with a girl from Ford Models Miami. The sharpness is incredible, but what really impresses me is the complete lack of noticeable chromatic aberration at ƒ1.4 in bright sunlight. This is precisely the kind of shot where the 85/1.4g drives me nuts. The Sigma is just much, much better, even though it's got the heft of a 70-200/2.8g.

vtc2002

@PeachBlack Beautiful image. I ordered and received the Sigma Art 85mm 1.4. I have taken in the range of a 100 shots with the lens and I am glad I listened to you. The lens is incredibly sharp, color rendition is wonderful and lack of CA certainly makes this lens stand out from the two Nikon 85's that I have. I do not find the weight to be an issue and so far the focus has been fast and accurate. Personally, when switching from the 70-200 2.8 to the Nikon 85 or 50 my D810 always seemed off balance because they were so small and light. Now with the Sigma I barely notice the difference which is a good thing for me.

PeachBlack

@vtc2002: what the hell are you thinking listening to me?!?!?!

vtc2002

What did I have to lose? I have two Nikon 85's that rarely see the light of day. I like the 85 focal length for all of the reasons that you articulated on the other 85mm post. This one will be getting a lot of use. Good advice is good advice! Thanks again.

PeachBlack

Recipe for chromatic aberration: backlit & wide open. I noticed none.

[Deleted User]

Very nice work PB. Can you speak to the native color differences you see in the Sigma art lenses you use vs comparable FLs by Nikon? Take the Nikkor 58mm vs say the 50 Art as an example.

Others have commented that the Art lenses exhibit "grayer" (perhaps less saturation and more neutral) tonality. Less color contrast.

Do you set you camera or raw converter profile to modify the Sigma output?

My own experience with the 24mm Art confirms a different color output than the Nikkor 24 f1.4 and 24 f 1.8.

PeachBlack

I think people who say less than flattering things about colors or bokeh or whatever in the Sigma Art lenses are just making up reason why it's not good. I find the color contrast of all my Art lenses to be fantastic, and DxO agrees.

As an aside, I almost always desaturate my photos a little bit. It is my firm belief that the vast majority of non-professionals are far too fascinated by saturation and by and large abuse it even when it's not appropriate.