The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.

[Salt Peanuts]

Tamron's optical stabilization took noticeably longer than the ones on Nikon, Canon, or IBIS on Olympus body to engage and lock down. This meant it took noticeably longer than it should to achieve focus if the optical stabilization wasn't already engaged (basically every time I took my finger off AF-On/shutter for few seconds). Not really a problem if shooting a static scene, but for that spur of the moment shot, it can throw your focus off or won't let you shoot at all (depending on your shutter setup).

Of course one could just keep the stabilization off unless you needed it but I wouldn't have remembered to turn it back off after turning it back on.

[crappyjones123]

I don't expect the image stabilization of a third party lens to compete with with of a lens made by the body manufacturer. Typically the cost savings were the only reason to go with a third party lens with sigma has offered better image quality with lower costs for the past few years at least compared to nikon lenses. I can't wait for an art series 85mm lens. The 85/1.8 is great but I can't use it under f/4 or f/5.6 as it is not sharp enough. Certainly can't use it wide open. The sigma art lenses are absurdly sharp wide open so it becomes an artistic choice as to how much depth of field one wants.

[dsavitsk]

 #3 looks like a shitty instagram filter was used. 

 

I'm sorry for your taste. I once drove 18 hours, each way, with a bad back, to see a Cindy Sherman exhibit at the MoMA. Worth every ounce of pain.

[crappyjones123]

Doug, her other work might be excellent and worth the drive (I am not familiar with her) but I wouldn't put that particular image anywhere close to the top of the best images I have ever seen. Assuming of course that I would pay the most of the best.

Ps. Looked at her work. I have to confess not seeing what you see. But that is the case with most all conceptual photographers. I find it very difficult to appreciate their work. Too cerebral for my little brain.

Edited December 26, 2014 by crappyjones123

[crappyjones123]

On a 70mm lens I probably don't care too much about image stabilization. i've seen that Tamron for under $800 in great condition, and it apparently is about as good as the Nikon, so I think I can swing both Sigma art lenses and the Tamron. I guess I should get a retrospective changer bag, or something similar. Regarding the Sigma 85 Art, I really like the 85mm focal length on 35mm, and I could see myself getting one down the road as I do most of my shooting pretty wide open when I can get away with it (I'm a total DoF whore).

Depends on what kind of light you are shooting in. The estimation I have seen most frequently has been 1/focal length for the slowest shutter speed you should be using. Even at f/2.8 and a reasonably high iso it is sometimes difficult to shoot at 1/80s in low light with a 70mm lens. To me the 24-70 is an event lens where walking farther or closer isn't always a possibility and you can just zoom in or out from where you are standing. People might use it as a walk about lens but I usually task that to a 35mm. If I am walking about a city, I am usually not in a hurry and can usually move about freely or at least with more freedom that I could, say on a yacht. Zooming with legs if you will. I'll take the bump in image quality over the convenience in that instance. Also, shooting with the d800 also allows for extreme crops so the prime as a walkabout lens becomes even more attractive. I'd suggest using just the prime before you buy the zoom to see if you find yourself wanting a zoom at all. Rent it as needed. As a rule now, if I don't use a lens in a month I sell it. The 35 art was sharper than any lens I've ever used but I didn't pick it up for almost 4 months. The 50 art did everything.

[Iron_Dreamer]

I don't expect the image stabilization of a third party lens to compete with with of a lens made by the body manufacturer. Typically the cost savings were the only reason to go with a third party lens with sigma has offered better image quality with lower costs for the past few years at least compared to nikon lenses. I can't wait for an art series 85mm lens. The 85/1.8 is great but I can't use it under f/4 or f/5.6 as it is not sharp enough. Certainly can't use it wide open. The sigma art lenses are absurdly sharp wide open so it becomes an artistic choice as to how much depth of field one wants.

 

Are you referring to the Nikon 85 1.8 D or G?  I have the latter, and while it's not a Sigma Art lens, it's far from useless under f/4, and I've had no real qualms about shooting it wide open, apart from a bit of bokeh fringing.  That said, an 85 Art is at the top of my wish list.  I've loved the 35 Art so far, and tried the 50, which seemed even a bit better, however, it's just too huge to justify in my bag, being that I use 35 and 85 more often, and the Nikon 50 1.8G is tiny, cheap, and far from a dog.

[Salt Peanuts]

I know crappy hated his multiple copies, but I really like my 85/1.8G.  I really need to use it more often.

 

On a separate note, flickr doen't like it when you try to make it deal with 3000+ photos all at once.

[crappyjones123]

I went through maybe 3 to 5 copies of the 85/1.8 G before I found a decent copy and it's ok. Certainly not one of the sharpest lenses in the world where dxo rates it. Can't afford the Nikon 85/1.4 and I remember Jeff saying he didn't find the build quality of the $1000 plus lens very good. The day sigma comes out with an 85 I'm getting it. Unless rokinon does something magical with their supposed 135.

[Salt Peanuts]

I went through maybe 3 to 5 copies of the 85/1.8 G before I found a decent copy and it's ok. Certainly not one of the sharpest lenses in the world where dxo rates it. Can't afford the Nikon 85/1.4 and I remember Jeff saying he didn't find the build quality of the $1000 plus lens very good. The day sigma comes out with an 85 I'm getting it. Unless rokinon does something magical with their supposed 135.

Regarding 85 1.8g, dxo would disagree with you, at least when compared to other lenses in 85mm to 105mm range on D800.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Which-lenses-for-your-Nikon-D800/Nikon-D800-and-standard-lens-choices

Edited December 27, 2014 by Salt Peanuts

[crappyjones123]

That's what I was trying to say but I guess I didn't clearly. I kept going after multiple copies of the 85G because of what dxo rated the lens at and well, what you had to say about yours. The samples I was getting certainly were not anywhere close to what the testing shows. Maybe I just have bad luck with that lens. The 35 art was supposed to have some issues as well but I got myself a super sharp copy in the first go. The same with the 50 art. Had to go through a couple of zeiss 135s to get a good copy. Just wish I could afford to keep that lens. Man that thing was gorgeous. Smoother and sharper wide open than the 85G at any f stop. 

[Salt Peanuts]

Ah, I see. I wonder how much UPS/FedEx/USPS contributes to lens sample variations. The two copies of 85 1.8g I've had were both bought from a local dealer.

[MexicanDragon]

I just know I always buy my gear from Adorama because crappy has such bad luck with them.

**BRENT**

[crappyjones123]

I buy exclusively from Fred Miranda forum now after that giant debacle with Adorama. BH has always been good to me but I can't justify new gear costs and Amazon charges sales tax now so they are out. Sticking to the forum has cured my impatience to a degree as often the gear I want isn't available and by the time it appears I realize I don't really need it in the first place. The only lenses I can see myself buying in the future are the rokinon 135, sigma 85 art and maybe an ultrawide Zeiss (I've stayed away from this mostly because I don't find myself travelling enough to where I can justify an $800-$1000 lens just sitting on the shelf. Might give the rokinon 14 a try again as it is around $250 used but they have such a big decentering issue that it almost isn't worth it. People swear by their good copies though.

[crappyjones123]

Alyson. 85/1.8G.

[agile_one]

CJ ... Beautiful woman, beautifully posed, but god awful light. What time of day was that? Did you have no choice but to shoot then?

[crappyjones123]

Thank you gene. I think it was around 9am perhaps. I can check the exif when I get home.

[crappyjones123]

Damn, exif says 6:41am. I don't remember it being that harsh but it was June so perhaps it was. 

[VPI]

Back in the market for a camera setup as I have to shoot a friend's wedding next year. Trying to decide if I can make a go of it with a Sony A7 II and lenses with my RX-1 as backup. Really do not want to buy a whole Canon setup again as I am not all that interested in using anything large after getting the RX-1. The 5d MKIII does not do much for me either.

Is the 750 worth looking at? I know I like the sensor more than the enormous D800 sensor already but the selection of good lenses kills me with Nikon.

Maybe Nikon with Sigma lenses but i know I will miss selection of L Glass.

[crappyjones123]

I think the big difference will most likely be af speed. Low light performance is probably the same these days. The loxia lenses are great but I think too slow for event photography like at a wedding where fast af locks are crucial. Then again, people are shooting weddings with fuji xt1s with great success which I thought was very slow compared to the d800.

[VPI]

Yeah you are probably right. Focus lock/speed will probably be more important than most other factors. The AF performance of the d750 does look very impressive as does the high ISO performance.

[crappyjones123]

The d750 is a popular body amongst wedding pros on Fred Miranda for what it's worth.

[crappyjones123]

85G @ f/2.2

[VPI]

I don't really see the need to carry a 35, 50 and a 24-70.  Whole lot of coverage of a narrow range that could be handled with a few steps most of the time.  I found traveling with 35 only to be pretty usable.  Sometimes a big zoom or an ultra-wide would have been nice but carrying two extra lenses to only get me out to 70 would not have been worth it for me.

[Salt Peanuts]

Jacob, do get a X100T and report back please. I've been pondering about replacing Sigma 35 with it (or whole rig for that matter), but reports on its af/responsiveness have been bit conflicting.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Salt Peanuts

[grawk]

Rent a leica?