NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: John Koerner on February 05, 2017, 13:07:50
-
If you check out LenScore (http://), they updated 10 new Lens Performance Profiles since 2/1/17:
http://www.lenscore.org (http://www.lenscore.org)
- Sigma 500mm f/4.0 DG OS HSM S - 1286
- Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM - 1208
- Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED - 1044
- Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR - 946
- Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG HSM - 877
- Sigma 24-35mm f/2.0 DG HSM - 849
- Sigma 12-24mm f/4.0 DG HSM - 826
- Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM - 804
- Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM - 741
- Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM - 702
Each lens is rated in 10 categories, so with the caveat that a score of 1000 = an A-quality performance, only 1 Nikkor and 2 Sigmas are worthy of discussion ... while the new Sony 24-70 comes in last place with a score of 702.
I suppose the new Nikkor 70-200 FL ED VR deserves "honorable mention," with a score of 946, making it the #4 Zoom in the entire "zoom database" (behind only Canon's $12,000 200-400, Nikon's $7,000 200-400, ans Sigma's $3,400 120-300mm). With a "price vs. performance" perspective, the newest FL Nikkor seems like a bargain at $2800 ... except the fact 200mm is pretty useless for wildlife and sports compared to 300 and 400mm ... not to mention the other lenses rate 20-40% higher in their placements too.
The new Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED certainly achieved a worthy score, but was rather underwhelming compared to its accolades. Based on the reviews, I expected at least a 1200 placement ... which it almost got in Resolving Power (1198) and Bokeh (1102) ... but was not close to Otus-quality, in any category, ultimately.
On the other hand, 2 new Sigma offerings did approach Otus-quality: the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art and the Sigma 500mm f/4.0 Art, with scores of 1208 and 1286, respectively.
Considering that the brand new AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4.0E FL ED VR leads the class with a 1354 LenScore (for a whopping $10,300), the fact that this new Sigma 500mm f/4.0 Art achieves 95% the same score at 1286 (for a price of only $6,000), certainly makes the new Sigma the more attractive option.
And, finally, the new Sigma Art 85mm got reviewed by LenScore and it hit a home run. With Nikon's AF-S 85mm f/1.4G actually being LenScore's reference lens for quality (with a 1000 score across the board), and with Sony's new and vaulted FE 85mm f/1.4 GM barely edging this, with a 1035 score (compared to Canon's lagging score of 942 in its EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM), the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art blows these offerings away with an overall score of 1208.
While not quite the level of an 85mm Otus (1459), the fact that the new Sigma 85mm Art (at 1208) is an AF lens, and the fact it's only $1,200, makes it is 83% the lens of an Otus, at 26% the price (the Otus is $4,500). The new Sigma Art has to be considered by far the better value. Better still, the Sigma's highest scores were in Resolving Power (1395) and Bokeh (1330).
In other words, the new Sigma is a lot closer to being "Otus quality" and CaNikon is to being "Sigma Quality" :o
When considering that Canon's, Nikon's, and Sony's 85mm offerings are $1,900, $1,600, and $1,800 ... and that the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art is better in every single department ... while being $400 to $700 lower in price ... this makes the mainstream offerings (to quote LenScore) "look both underperforming and overpriced."
Jack
Moderation: Edit of language.
-
Yes, it's right and thanks for flagging it out.
No doubt Sigma is delivering fantastic products.
But, at least one thing is puzzling me, among others, is why then, are so many Art lenses on the classifieds?
-
Yes, it's right and thanks for flagging it out.
No doubt Sigma is delivering fantastic products.
But, at least one thing is puzzling me, among others, is why then, are so many Art lenses on the classifieds?
<... deleted ...>
If you read every review of the new Sigma 85mm Art ... the CaNikons cannot, in any way, compare ... the Otus is the only 85mm lens to talk about, if one is seeking something better than the Sigma (and is also prepared to spend 4x as much to get a 15% increase quality).
-
Yes, it's right and thanks for flagging it out.
No doubt Sigma is delivering fantastic products.
But, at least one thing is puzzling me, among others, is why then, are so many Art lenses on the classifieds?
I have yet to see one Sigma lens that focuses properly. I have the 24 Art and 35 Art and while the image quality is very good the autofocus experience as a whole is disgusting. The focus acquire time is too long, focusing accuracy is sporadical, tracking ability awful, contre-jour focusing impossible and the hesitating back-forth rattle of the last focusing steps just before locking are imbecile. Tested with D4S, D3X, D3S, D700, D2X, D2HS, D300, D1X, D1H.
Better to just consider Sigma lenses as manual focus, this is the way to avoid disappointments.
Quick review of 24 Art and 35 Art:
image quality: 4/5 stars
bulk and heft: 2/5 stars
Autofocus: fail
Price: low
Verdict: you get what you pay for. They suck.
-
I once used a Sigma 120-300 that very quickly shed almost all the external crinkle paint. Plus deposited black fluff inside the optics.
There are more to a lens than numbers.
-
I once used a Sigma 120-300 that very quickly shed almost all the external crinkle paint. Plus deposited black fluff inside the optics.
There are more to a lens than numbers.
Never heard that before ... and know a few long-time Sigma lens owners ... and have owned one myself.
I have heard of multiple instances of people being disappointed with AF ... usually those who don't make use of the dock (or didn't know how).
The Sigma I had was the 180mm Macro, and it was superb, with AF that worked as well as any Canon AF I had.
(Never used a Nikon macro, but the Sigma outperforms them all, was well-built, and I had none of the issues you claim.)
-
... to get a 15% increase quality....
When out of a random sample of 100 instead of 70 now 85 perform according to a given specification, that could be called an increase of 15% in quality ;) (however low the specification is set)
-
I use Sony, and Sony scores well on DXO, so I like the DXO tests. :D :D :D
LOL!
(This is what I posted on fredmiranda.com to the same topic, that was started there too.)
-
I once used a Sigma 120-300 that very quickly shed almost all the external crinkle paint. Plus deposited black fluff inside the optics.
There are more to a lens than numbers.
i hated that sigma rubber coating. glad that they stopped using it :o :o :o
-
I use Sony, and Sony scores well on DXO, so I like the DXO tests. :D :D :D
LOL!
(This is what I posted on fredmiranda.com to the same topic, that was started there too.)
We tend to prefer that which reinforces our preferences :)
However, the DxO Mark also scores the Sigma Art 85mm similarly.
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikkor-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-f14G-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Sony-FE-85mm-F14-GM-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sigma-85mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon__388_814_1680_1035_1777_0
-
As a final note, for those who prefer the DxO Mark, it actually rates the Sigma higher than the Otus:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-85mm-F14-GM-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sigma-85mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Apo-Planar-T-Star-Otus-85mm-F14-ZF2-Nikon__1680_1035_1777_814_1384_0
That is one of the reasons why I trust LenScore over DxO: its findings are better categorized and its results more realistic IMO, placing the Otus where it belongs, on the top (which is in alignment with virtually every photographer who's owned both).
Jack
-
Personally I would prefer if manufacturers stuck to classical size and weight for important lenses; I appreciate that Nikon was able to reduce the weight on the 70-200/2.8 E for example, compared to its predecessor, while better maintaining its focal length in close focus and improving many other aspects of the lens. This is excellent
With the Sigma and Zeiss 85/1.4's (Art, Milvus and Otus), they basically doubled the weight of the lens compared to traditional designs. If every lens is doubled in weight, the bag gets very heavy quickly when carrying everything that I may need or prefer to have with me. I guess if Sigma was able to make a 300/2.8 that is superior to Nikon and Canon lenses but 6kg in weight, Sigma fans would be exhilarated. I would not. To me this is not a practical direction. I don't mind heavy equipment but there are limits.
Additionally to me the 85/1.4 Art sample portraits are harsh and not at all flattering to the subject. I prefer lenses that render the subject in a beautiful and flattering way.
-
(Never used a Nikon macro, but the Sigma outperforms them all, was well-built, and I had none of the issues you claim.)
How do you know that the Sigma outperforms all Nikon macro lenses when you never used any?
-
How do you know that the Sigma outperforms all Nikon macro lenses when you never used any?
I owned and used virtually every Canon macro lens ever made, and the Sigma outperformed them, to the degree reflected in LenScore.
While the Nikkor macro lenses rate higher than their Canon equivalents, the Sigma 180 macro outshines the Nikkor macros tested.
Also, I read in multiple reviews how the Sigma 180 macro blew the rusty hinges off Nikon's 200mm equivalent.
Thus, while not owning any Nikkor macros, as somebody who's been almost entirely a macro shooter for 8 years, I am pretty hip on "what's what" concerning macro lenses.
The Nikkor 105 VR II is very, very close, however ... just shorter.
This is perhaps my favorite review on the Sigma 180:
https://gormteper.net/reviews/sigma-180mm-f2-8-os-macro
But there are others:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sigma/180mm-f2.8-ex-dg-os-hsm-apo-macro/review
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-180mm-f-2-8-apo-ex-dg-os-hsm-macro-lens-review-20912
http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=355
Jack
-
Personally I would prefer if manufacturers stuck to classical size and weight for important lenses;
Bag and Backpack manufacturers still design for the old lens dimensions or sometimes make their dividing parts even smaller (like Think Tank in some cases)
-
I have used the various Sigma 'macro' models on occasion. Good to excellent, but not outstanding.
The various Micro-Nikkors are equal or better, with the exception of the AFS 105/2.8 VR that delivered a disappointing performance and quickly was replaced by the APO-Lanthar 125/2.5. Thus this Nikkor has the dubious distinction of being the *only* F-mount Micro-Nikkor *not* in my possession.
Users should remember not to stop down the Micro-Nikkors beyond f/11 unless this is deemed unavoidable.
-
We tend to prefer that which reinforces our preferences :)
However, the DxO Mark also scores the Sigma Art 85mm similarly.
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikkor-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-f14G-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Sony-FE-85mm-F14-GM-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sigma-85mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon__388_814_1680_1035_1777_0
Did you notice all the smileys in my post?
Though I'm using Sony now, Nikon Nikkor macro lenses are a very happy memory, first rate, except for one the 105VR, same lens that Bjørn Rørslett mentioned, though not the same sample.
-
I owned and used virtually every Canon macro lens ever made, and the Sigma outperformed them, to the degree reflected in LenScore.
While the Nikkor macro lenses rate higher than their Canon equivalents, the Sigma 180 macro outshines the Nikkor macros tested.
Also, I read in multiple reviews how the Sigma 180 macro blew the rusty hinges off Nikon's 200mm equivalent.
Thus, while not owning any Nikkor macros, as somebody who's been almost entirely a macro shooter for 8 years, I am pretty hip on "what's what" concerning macro lenses.
The Nikkor 105 VR II is very, very close, however ... just shorter.
This is perhaps my favorite review on the Sigma 180:
https://gormteper.net/reviews/sigma-180mm-f2-8-os-macro
But there are others:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sigma/180mm-f2.8-ex-dg-os-hsm-apo-macro/review
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-180mm-f-2-8-apo-ex-dg-os-hsm-macro-lens-review-20912
http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=355
Jack
Thanks for further explaining
There are ratings and reviews that can give some orientation. There is the approach to give the most weight on those.
For me the practical experience the lens gives me is more important, showing the appearance and the "personality" of a lens as well, beyond raw numbers
-
I think I am completely screwed.
These scores over a thousand continue to diminish my existing lenses, most of which are up to 40 years old. Probably the best of them would reach 700 or so. Vignetting and the wide open haziness of my 35mm f/1.4 would limit it to maybe 600. Combine that with a camera which is a few years old and is probably a 75% or less as well as handholding vs. tripod (responsible for at least 24.3% quality loss) and we can all do the math together: lens * camera * technique = quality
(1430/600) * (0.75) * (0.757) = 23.8216783216783%
I'm so sad.
-
Fortunately, that metric has nothing to do with picture quality. A point sadly forgotten in so many cases.
-
I have used the various Sigma 'macro' models on occasion. Good to excellent, but not outstanding.
If you read the comparisons, the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS is significantly better then the Sigma 150mm as well as the Sigma 180 f/3.5 it replaced.
I have used the various Sigma 'macro' models on occasion. Good to excellent, but not outstanding.
As Nikon and Canon macros go, the Sigma 180 f/2.8 is outstanding.
As Nikon and Canon super-telephotos, the Otus lenses, etc. go, the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 macro is decent to pretty good.
The various Micro-Nikkors are equal or better, with the exception of the AFS 105/2.8 VR that delivered a disappointing performance and quickly was replaced by the APO-Lanthar 125/2.5. Thus this Nikkor has the dubious distinction of being the *only* F-mount Micro-Nikkor *not* in my possession.
This is true, based on the elder Sigma macros.
I don't think a single Nikkor macro equals the results of the particular Sigma 180mm to which I referred, as tested by a wide variety of sources.
I too went for the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 APO Macro, after reading the praise Michael Erlewine wrote about it, and why. (Apparently, he got his information from you and Eric.)
I used my Sigma 180mm macro as a telephoto also, so I liked the AF, and made use of it often (as well as the reach).
However, after upgrading to the Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II (a lens with better specs than either macro), I no longer needed the fast AF of the Sigma, and use my 300mm as both a telephoto and a macro on "fast" or "flighty" objects.
For static macro shots, where I have the time to compose, I really enjoy the Voigtländer and can't see parting with it, ever. Also use it for short telephoto on still subjects, such as basking lizards, or portraits.
-
Fortunately, that metric has nothing to do with picture quality. A point sadly forgotten in so many cases.
Depends on what you're shooting, and why.
To say a score of 600 in resolution has "nothing" to do with clarity is erroneous: it can have everything to do with quality.
While I get your point, the simple fact is ... if you take a man with optimal technique ... if he uses a low-end macro lens, over a low-end sensor, he will NOT get the same-quality results as applying that same technique using a high-end lens over a high-end sensor.
Not a chance.
Same with a bird photographer ... using a "budget" lens and camera will never yield the same results as that same technique applied to the very finest gear.
Your point *only* has to do with 'creative art' type photography, where vision and mood are conveyed, not for highly-specialized efforts that require the best in resolution/bokeh/color/CA and (therefore) equipment to achieve.
-
Did you notice all the smileys in my post?
I hope you noticed mine :)
-
If photography only was about getting [technically] perfect images, it would be a very boring pastime. With little to show for it.
-
True, Bjørn, although (again) some people are artistic photographers, whilst others are scientific.
With regard to performance, and back on topic (Sigma's strong showing) ... I am not sure if anyone noticed, but DPReview also made its own comments on a recent post regarding the Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art A New King is Crowned (https://www.dpreview.com/news/4310712992/sigma-85mm-f1-4-art-dxo-results-a-new-king-is-crowned):
"DxO just published its score for the Nikon mount Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG HSM A. Drumroll please: it received the highest score ever for a lens on DxO, a 50 when mounted to a D810 and a 51 when mounted to the D800E. What's even more impressive is that it actually scored a perfect 36 P-Mpix for image sharpness on a D810, which has a 36MP sensor."
LensRentals comes up with a similar conclusion (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/mtf-tests-for-the-sigma-bbl-the-big-beautiful-85mm-art-lens):
"From an MTF standpoint, it’s better than any other 85 except the Otus, and it makes a very respectable showing against that fine lens."
-
In the end, it is the photographer who makes the picture. A good photographer can make excellent stuff with modest gear, a mediocre photographer cannot even with top equipment. I would wish that universal truth be more acknowledged.
-
In the end, it is the photographer who makes the picture. A good photographer can make excellent stuff with modest gear, a mediocre photographer cannot even with top equipment. I would wish that universal truth be more acknowledged.
I think it's a "chicken and the egg" dilemma.
A good photographer will make better images with better equipment than he will with so-so equipment.
Also, it is impossible to get certain images without certain equipment.
Can you take a 3:1 macro image without the proper equipment? No.
Can you photograph a bird 300 yds (metres) away without the proper equipment? No.
Depending on your goals, equipment matters. From there, it then becomes a matter of scrutinizing equipment capable of producing the goals.
Because, regardless of goals, the better a photographer gets, the better gear he tends to desire for himself.
Hence these "gear threads" on this website (lenses / cameras) being the most-read/most-posted to.
Or, dare I say?, hence the title for the forum itself: NikonGEAR (not Nikon philosophy/technique ;))
-
I'm not on that debate... I don't care what every other uses, as long as it serves well and allows some fun...
Life throw me a lot of friends that are a much better photographers than me. I was never great on art, but did very well in science.
I did in my time much work on medicine macro, and one thing not well documented in those "numbered" tests is color reproduction. Skin tones are hard, very hard to reproduce, and in medicine macro work, skin tones are a must have. To reach that goal, no Sigma was there, neither all Nikon did. And yes, both the 150 and the 180 were tested...
And still, no one gave me yet the answer to my quiz... why, being so good to outstanding, are so many Art lenses on the second-hand market?
From my experience, and again, gained with long talks and hours with my friends, the Art ones have a definitive good to great IQ, no doubt, but they bring within the bag, a very downside feature, named, boring factor. That could be the greatest reasons why, after some time, they go away from previous proud owners.
-
Fact of the matter is that Zeiss is taking a beating and has to contend with small pie.
There is no contest with the 85mm as Sigma beats Zeiss hand down if not only for the AF.
The Nikon 105/1.4E trounced the Zeiss 135 if not only for the AF.
Zeiss does show on paper better CA/CL and sharpness. But I need a lens to use and not to look at.
Bye Bye Zeiss. you're screwed and this is just the beginning until Canon starts playing catch up1
-
The choice of 'Nikongear' as a site name is based on history, not gear preference as such.
Our community includes top photographers and gear heads in a healthy mixture. Most members in either group, or intermediately positioned, understand only too well they cannot buy gear to become better photographers. Manufacturers and photo dealers are very grateful to those who don't.
-
What I like about this group is that people are very willing to experiment with equipment, making the best out of what they have and using it towards many different goals. I can't even tell what people are doing sometimes. For example, is it really so dark in Norway that only IR photography can be done all winter? ;)
Diversity and the unexpected are what keeps it from being boring.
Equipment should expand possibilities, not constrict them.
This is why words like "new king is crowned" are irritating and nonsensical to me.
For some, high resolution ultra precise, ultra heavy lenses allow possibilities they care about. I'm more interested in color and light and pattern so even strong vignetting and distortion cause me no pain.
-
"is it really so dark in Norway that only IR photography can be done all winter?"
No, not really. But tripods rapidly become indispensable.
-
For some, high resolution ultra precise, ultra heavy lenses allow possibilities they care about. I'm more interested in color and light and pattern so even strong vignetting and distortion cause me no pain.
For me, that is why LenScore is such a valuable tool.
If color, CA, and bokeh are more important to you, you can select each category hierarchically.
The proffered "LenScore" is only the totality brought to a mean quotient.
But each of the categories (Resolution, Bokeh, Color Transmission, LonCA/LaCA, etc.) can be hierarchically-analyzed individually, based on which one(s) are important to you.
It's worth a closer look rather than making a reflexive proclamation ...
-
Either one firmly believe in agglomerated indices and their value for understanding a product. Or one does not.
My feeling is this is about as far as such a debate can advance before everything starts to go in circles.
-
I looked.
No lens I own is tested there.
I am content with lenses I can afford to drop.
There is some fun in fitting a 105mm P.C Auto on the front of the camera. I like photography to be fun.
-
No circling intended.
-
Lenscore has some quite accurate estimates for values for a lot of lenses.
It is a nice tool for a 'first look' when looking for a new lens, but blindly looking at the total score can IMHO give a very wrong impression,,,
They have geometrical distortion, yes that is important but not all encompassing I believe, it is not stated how the value is estimated. So I wonder if flat field is checked,,, some lens tests do refocus for checking the sharpness as they approach the corners and does so in four directions 90 deg apart.
Very important point for a lot of photography is how the depth of focus behaves.
Flat field is very often a huge advantage or even a must in some cases! in other situation a spherical field is desirable,,, problem is;
Many/most lenses have a very wavy depth of field so very unreliable if uniform sharpness is required.
Lensretals does a thorough check for most key details on a large population of lenses to check how consistent the lenses are, there one can see that most third party lenses are much less consistent in performance, often due to the lack of possibility to fine tune the optics after they are assembled.
The Sigma Art lenses seems to have come far but I have never tried one so I don't know first hand, I have been put off by the many reports on bad performance from all around over the years,,,
The reports on issues with using the docking station for fine tuning AF being one of them,,, getting reliable performance seems to be hit and miss,,,,
-
There is no totality IMHO in Lenscore (although i do not deny that these charts can give valuable insights) I see it is just as a more in-depth analysis covering specific technical parameters. its a first look as Eric said (or confirmation) but it cant replace the personal experience with a lens and the impression one gets to derive the conclusion for ones personal work.
In the end its the image that counts, for instance does it raise emotions when watched? Good IQ is not bad but we are not talking just about technical feasibility studies here. (Rich tonality is also important but getting the perfect histogram does not alone guarantee the image nore does it to use the highest ranked lens
One can read all the numbers, but who can tell after watching a foto which lens that is or must have been? Rarely a rendering appears to be that unique that this is possible (200/2 VR, CV125, 35/1,4 come to my mind) .
After having detected Lenscore I found that a some of my lenses actually are on the list, and it is good to have and use them often but sometimes it is more favorable for me to take those not (highly) ranked at Lenscore, though nothaving the best quality with me leading to otherwise increased chances (better handling, robustness, size weight and such)
-
LenScore / SensScore has always given results which are close to my personal (subjective) experiences.
-
Fortunately, that metric has nothing to do with picture quality. A point sadly forgotten in so many cases.
Yes, and, as I pointed out in the posts over on FM, boiled down/single number metrics (mysteriously computed) for all those lens characteristics are virtually useless to many of us because it's impossible to really compare two lenses against each other when you care about things like, for example, sharpness uniformity, sharpness at a particular aperture, rendering, etc. etc. etc.
DXO, for all it's issues at least gives you field profiles to look at for things like MTF, etc. so you can judge for yourself sharpness across the frame, some sense of astigmatism, etc.
I guess some people don't want to be bothered with details and prefer a single boiled down mystery performance number when they go lens shopping.
:)
-
Lens sharpness, resolution and acutance, is easy to check off in reviews but in practical shooting if the subject lacks contrast or its texture is not reveiled by the light the photograph will not appear sharp to the viewer. It's up to the photographer to make the most of what a lens offers. A good lens in the right hands can out perform an excellent lens in the wrong hands. Then there are many aspects to a lens besides sharpness.
Dave Hartman
Now I'm looking at my hands and I'm worried they may be the wrong hands...
-
Yes, and, as I pointed out in the posts over on FM, boiled down/single number metrics (mysteriously computed) for all those lens characteristics are virtually useless to many of us because it's impossible to really compare two lenses against each other when you care about things like, for example, sharpness uniformity, sharpness at a particular aperture, rendering, etc. etc. etc.
And as I pointed out there too, the LenScore idividually-rates over 10 categories, rather than just 1.
DXO, for all it's issues at least gives you field profiles to look at for things like MTF, etc. so you can judge for yourself sharpness across the frame, some sense of astigmatism, etc.
Again as I pointed out, each system has its strengths and weaknesses.
I guess some people don't want to be bothered with details and prefer a single boiled down mystery performance number when they go lens shopping.
:)
Perhaps ... or, some people make assumptions about what other do and don't do in their decision-making.
Moderation: I have removed a - in that last sentence.
-
And if somebody wants to make his own aggregate scoring system, nothing is easier to download the matrix into a spreadsheet, and apply his own weightings.
The overall score ( = LenScore™ ) is a weighted average of the following 10 scores:
Resolving Power
Amount of detail a lens is able to project onto the 24x36mm square within the image circle used by full frame cameras. weight = 7
Contrast
Microcontrast performance. weight = 5
Color
Color fastness. weight = 3
Bokeh
Rendering of out-of-focus areas in front of and behind the focal plane. weight = 5
How to rate bokeh?
Star
Rendering of direct light sources at small apertures. weight = 1
Distortion
Geometrical distortions. weight = 5
Falloff
Light falloff from center to the edges (vignetting). weight = 3
How to rate falloff?
Flare
Amount of contrast reduction and ghosting caused by direct light sources within and ouside the field of view. weight = 5
LaCA
Lateral chromatic aberrations. weight = 3
LoCA
Longitudinal chromatic aberrations. weight = 5
-
Moderation remark: I have asked the other moderators what they think about the tone in this thread and what action to take. As a side note I can inform you that we have used quite some time already to clean up/delete foul language among other things,,,
-
I am content with lenses I can afford to drop.
I like this.
-
Personally, I do look at numerical scores for lenses from time to time. They can be be useful up to a point in considering lens purchase decisions. But they can't tell you alone whether a given lens will serve you best for a particular photographic use or is a good acquisition for you personally.
One issue is that the level of abstraction of these numbers needs to be considered. Raw numbers for things like resolution at the center vs. the edges at different stops should be evaluated in consideration of how one is likely to use the lens. For instance, if a lens intended for portrait use is sharp at wide apertures primarily in the middle 2/3 while the edges are a bit on the soft side, that may be quite acceptable. Conversely, when considering a lens for landscape use you may want more consistent resolution performance across the image, perhaps even at the expense of maximizing center resolution. Alternately, you may be willing to work with issues that affect measured resolution (such as field curvature) if the lens has other advantages. The same is true for other measures of optical performance. Particular 'shortcomings' may or may not be important for your intended use of a particular lens.
There is no way to reduce all these considerations to a single number for resolution (or any other lens attribute) that works for everyone, or even for one person doing different things photographically at different times. That's why I'd rather see the raw numbers for performance at different lens settings and for different photographic conditions. To reduce each measured lens attribute to a single score is a shortcut that doesn't tell you how the lens will perform on that attribute when you actually use it in a particular way.
To further abstract optical performance to a single overall score for lens performance reduces the value of the resulting number to only a very rough aid to consider among other advice. Take, for instance, the issue of coma. This is an aberration that can harm peripheral resolution and contrast but is of special concern for astrophotography due to its particularly harmful effects there. Thus the weight you put on this measure of performance will depend considerably on how you intend to use the lens. Yes, you can do a spreadsheet and weight the performance numbers to your heart's content, but I keep seeing the single overall performance score touted by some here as being highly significant in evaluating the photographic value of lenses. That approach doesn't consider the vastly differing optical needs of different kinds of photography.
Personally, aside from looking at test scores I also read up on the impressions of photographers I consider to be knowledgeable regarding lens behavior to get a sense of those lens attributes that are not measurable in the lab. I then consider both sets of information, along with size, weight, etc. in light of my expectations for the range of uses I will likely put that lens to. Of course, cost also enters into the decision.
So I just can't get too excited about these numbers at LenScore. I want to be able to evaluate the data in a way relevant to what I'm doing rather than getting a mathematically digested and synthesized score that's been homogenized for 'average' photographic use. I also want to have people more knowledgeable and experienced than I am add their subjective evaluations before I make a purchase decision.
-
Scores and test results don't interest me at all. I want a certain kind of look in my images and that requirement changes day from day and subject from subject. That's why I have several almost similar lenses for different occasions.
Don't get me wrong, I have some wicked sharp lenses like 300VR, 400VR and 200VR2, but I never bought those for sharpness or some score. I also have some that have mediocre scores but deliver images that 'talk' to me, like AIS 35/1.4 and AF 28/1.4D.
I rather listen to fellow photographers and look at their work and try to distill the essence of the lens rendering out of that. Then I try to think whether that rendering fancies me. Scores? Meaningless to me, because they don't test the things I consider important, and because I never trust a commercial operators integrity and/or ulterior motives.
-
I think optically the new generation of Sigma lenses are superb. Single score numbers are one dimensional but are at least a starting point to confirm good results in practice.
Their Achilles heel is still the backward engineering they have to do for the autofocus protocols.
I used to own the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and was very happy with its optical performance. Unfortunately the autofocus on the outer points was off, even after calibration. For a lens I can and want to use wide open that is leading to a lot of frustration. So I sold it and now use the Nikkor 20/1.8. Not as sharp wide open, but reliable in autofocus on all points, so a more satisfying tool for me.
I know one photographer who send back his Sigma Art 85/1.4 for the same reason, autofocus off on the outer points to the right.
-
Scores and test results don't interest me at all. I want a certain kind of look in my images and that requirement changes day from day and subject from subject. That's why I have several almost similar lenses for different occasions.
Don't get me wrong, I have some wicked sharp lenses like 300VR, 400VR and 200VR2, but I never bought those for sharpness or some score. I also have some that have mediocre scores but deliver images that 'talk' to me, like AIS 35/1.4 and AF 28/1.4D.
I rather listen to fellow photographers and look at their work and try to distill the essence of the lens rendering out of that. Then I try to think whether that rendering fancies me. Scores? Meaningless to me, because they don't test the things I consider important, and because I never trust a commercial operators integrity and/or ulterior motives.
I agree with you, Peter! I use lots of shitty optics, lenses that some people wouldnt touch with a fire poker, but they give satisfaction, and do what I want them to do. Nothing more or nothing less. Pictures speak to me, not numbers or brands :)
-
To wit, one of my most successful images was taken with the poorly regarded 35-105 Nikkor zoom ...
-
Hmmm, no micro-nikkor is able to compare to the Sigma 180mm/2.8 macro?
How does the micro-nikkor 200mm f/4D compare to the 180mm f/2.8 sigma macro? I'm currently in a dilemma between the two. Both are pretty expensive in my opinion! I should search a bit online.
-
Hmmm, no micro-nikkor is able to compare to the Sigma 180mm/2.8 macro?
How does the micro-nikkor 200mm f/4D compare to the 180mm f/2.8 sigma macro? I'm currently in a dilemma between the two. Both are pretty expensive in my opinion! I should search a bit online.
If you look under the FAQ of LenScore, the Nikkor 200mm f/4.0D IF-ED Micro is in the bull-pen waiting to be examined and placed in their prime categories.
That said, I owned the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO Macro EX DG OS HSM, for about a year, and it blew my Canon 180mm out of the water. (Also owned the Canon 100, 100L, and MP-E65mm.
Have not seen the Sigma directly compared to the ancient Nikkor 200.
The elder Nikon does not have as fast AF, does not have VR, and only goes to f/4 (where the Sigma gets as wide as f/2.8 ).
I expect the Nikkor 200 f/4 to equal or, possibly, surpass the Sigma in sharpness, but the Sigma ranks strong across the board (for a macro). We'll see.
From personal experience, the Sigma 180 f/2.8 is a great lens, and surpasses every other commercial macro there is, including prior Sigmas (105mm, 150mm, 180 f/3.5, etc.) are all inferior to the newer 180 f/2.8.
Only the Zeiss and Schneider lenses edge it out ... and they are NOT true 1:1 lenses, but 1:2 and 1:4, respectively. Also, the Zeiss and Schneider don't have AF, VR, or the working distance the Sigma provides.
That said, I too will be very interested in seeing LenScore's results of the Nikkor 200 f/4 compared to the Sigma. Most "reviews" I have seen of the Micro-Nikor 200 have not come from actual Macro shooters, but were simply "opinions" from non-macro shooters, and most have not come with any formal testing results either.
I would like to see LenScore's actual testing results so I can provide my own opinions as to whether or not to get it.
-
It is worth noting the Sigma 180/2.8 macro is a huge lens:
- 86mm filter size
- 1.63 kg
- 204mm long
In other words it is bigger and heavier than 70-200/2.8 zooms.
The Nikon AF 200/4 micro by comparison:
- 62mm filter
- 1.19 kg
- 193mm long
Not exactly a small lens and quite dense (partly due to solid tripod mount), but much more manageable than the Sigma, and a more practical filter size. Even if the Sigma is sharper, it's not much use if it's too big to be carried into the field. I also question the benefit of VR in a macro lens of this focal length, it really needs a tripod for accurate framing, which is very important for macro - just a few mm off could throw the composition out.
Bjørn's review notes the AF 200/4 micro has excellent sharpness in the macro range, not so good at distance, although I heard from one photographer who felt his was sharper at distance than his AFS 300/4.
-
I used the 200/4 AFD for my stay in New Zealand many years ago, but only used it at f/11 for landscapes. Previous testing had indicated this was the optimum for remote subjects.
Not repeated the procedure for digital cameras so not certain whether the rule-of-thumb is still valid in the digital era.
-
Our culture seems to want to rank everything. There are statistical rankings for just about everything under the moon, sports is a good example. For consumers there are Top Ten lists for every product imaginable, even nose hair trimmers: http://groomandstyle.com/art-of-shaving/top-5-best-ear-and-nose-hair-trimmer-list-for-men/ (although sadly this is only a top 5 list). And so here it is with lenses as well. Now it is part of the process to check all these rankings and articles prior to any purchase decision, as if to provide some kind of reassurance that the product is good, or perhaps even more so: It's Number 1 on the ranking list!
I won't lie, I read the rankings like everyone else, but like the majority of comments in this thread I take them with a grain of salt because I have my own criteria for lenses (i.e. I prefer lightweight primes). And then there is this: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-zoom-lenses/
And well, we should not forget the desire that has evolved in our culture for perfection and the best in products, which leads to having these ranking lists in the first place. What a world of worry and anxiety is generated.
I find that when I stumble down this path that if I put on an old manual focus lens on my camera and go out and shoot a few photos that it's all disarmed and I remember: I just want to have fun and I forget the idea of perfection and the angst it generates. Anyhow, aren't most all modern lenses pretty darn good? At the end of the day we should choose lenses based on what we do, or what we want to do. And have fun doing it! ;D
Ah well, life is good with all these amazing lenses.
-
It is worth noting the Sigma 180/2.8 macro is a huge lens:
- 86mm filter size
- 1.63 kg
- 204mm long
In other words it is bigger and heavier than 70-200/2.8 zooms.
The Nikon AF 200/4 micro by comparison:
- 62mm filter
- 1.19 kg
- 193mm long
Not exactly a small lens and quite dense (partly due to solid tripod mount), but much more manageable than the Sigma, and a more practical filter size. Even if the Sigma is sharper, it's not much use if it's too big to be carried into the field. I also question the benefit of VR in a macro lens of this focal length, it really needs a tripod for accurate framing, which is very important for macro - just a few mm off could throw the composition out.
Roland, it sounds to me like you're "imagining" rather than speaking from actual field use. A difference of .44kg (less than 1 lb) isn't much for most folks.
I replaced my 180mm Sigma with a Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II, which (with a simple extension tube ring) close-focuses wonderfully. And, because the optics are uber-quality, the images from a 300 f/2.8 with an extension (or even straight crops) are still equal or superior to any macro lens.
At 2.9kg however, the 300 f/2.8 makes the 180mm Sigma feel like a vacation :D
There are birders who shoot 600/800mm lenses who swear my 300mm is a "toy" ... so it's all relative, I suppose ;D
My point is, while the Sigma is heavy compared to a 100mm macro, and it is the heaviest of the 180/200mm macros, it is pretty light compared to Super-Tele lenses.
Having actually used the Sigma in the field, for more than a year, as well as the Canon 180mm (for many years), I can absolutely refute your statement the Sigma "is too big to be used" in the field. My take, from actual field use and an obsession for macro in general, is the Sigma is much more "professional" than the Canon 180mm, with multiple adjustment switches on the side (like top-notch bird glass) that made the Canon 180 macro feel primitive and outdated by comparison.
The VR on the Sigma comes into play nicely, when hand-holding. On a tripod, it's moot of course.
The AF is also much faster than the Canon (and, I suspect, the Nikkor). The AF comes into play trying to follow butterflies, for instance, which land, then take-off, land, then take-off, etc.
My Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 has taken the place of the Sigma 180, for "long distance macro," and merely upped the professionalism and the quality to a degree no macro offers, but at 3x the price it ought to.
As far as pure long-range macro lens class goes, the Sigma is a terrific tool and numero uno by every single direct comparison you will find.
Bjørn's review notes the AF 200/4 micro has excellent sharpness in the macro range, not so good at distance, although I heard from one photographer who felt his was sharper at distance than his AFS 300/4.
I am not sure about the 300 f/4, but the 300 VR II f/2.8 takes better images than the Sigma (or any other macro), even with an extension tube on.
I am right now comparing the 300 VR II, with an extension, to the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar, and will post the results one of these days.
Jack
-
You're right about "imagining" :o I haven't used either lens. But I strongly prefer more compact lenses, and based on the specs alone I would rule out the Sigma.
-
You're right about "imagining" :o I haven't used either lens. But I strongly prefer more compact lenses, and based on the specs alone I would rule out the Sigma.
It really depends on your goals.
And, I agree, specs tell us all we need to know, to apply the data and determine if they fit our goals.
For very close macro, the specs for smaller lenses (or reverse lenses) are better than the Sigma ... as they allow for close approach and to enjoy the full-effects of diffused flash use.
However, for long-range macro, especially of "easily-spooked" subjects (butterflies, lizards, and such), the specs of the Sigma 180 f/2.8 say it is a great tool, and my own usage confirmed this.
-
Using long extension tubes on lenses that has IF and/or CRC always leads to disappointment,,, much better to use a good TC,,,
-
Using long extension tubes on lenses that has IF and/or CRC always leads to disappointment,,, much better to use a good TC,,,
I use a good TC for birds.
The full set of extension tubes, for long range macro, is too flimsy to take the massive lens.
However, just a tiny extension tube changed my minimal focus distance on the 300 VR II from 7.2 feet away (too far) to about 2-3' away.
This is perfect for flowers, and butterflies on flowers, while the image quality remains superb.
Since a picture's worth a thousand words, I will post the images when I get around to doing an actual comparison.
-
I have used both the AF Micro Nikkor 200/4 as well as a 70-200/2.8, and I can say from experience that the AF Micro Nikkor 200/4 handles much better than the zoom. So, I would choose the old AF Micro Nikkor 200/4 over the Sigma 180/2.8 at 1.63 kg. Indeed, the Micro Nikkors I liked the best are the 85/2.8 PC Micro Nikkor and the AF Micro Nikkor 200/4.
I suppose that the AF Micro Nikkor 200/4 needs to have the AF/MF collar taped down, but the AF is so slow that leaving the lens in MF mode is no loss at all.
The tripod socket of the AF Micro Nikkor 200/4 is from the time before the bean counters completely took over the design of tripod collars.
-
Yes, as proved here by a lot of images a short amount of extension, say 10- 25mm extension can be masked by stopping down and give satisfactory IQ, however that is not a lot of extension for a 300mm lens, and when adding 50mm of extension IQ falls apart resulting in heavily curved field curvature and corners washing out. Usable in some cases of course,,,
When you add extension to an IF design, all of the finely calculated movements of the individual lens elements, IF CRC gets messed up,,, That's why unit focusing lenses are by far preferred for use with extension!
-
I use a good TC for birds.
The full set of extension tubes, for long range macro, is too flimsy to take the massive lens.
However, just a tiny extension tube changed my minimal focus distance on the 300 VR II from 7.2 feet away (too far) to about 2-3' away.
This is perfect for flowers, and butterflies on flowers, while the image quality remains superb.
Since a picture's worth a thousand words, I will post the images when I get around to doing an actual comparison.
Awesome! I look forward to such a comparison. I've tried my 300/4D with extension tubes to get closer to birds, and had barely any success. Not bad though!
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5335/31231026525_c58e1b7f4f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/PzMb7z)Cockatoo (https://flic.kr/p/PzMb7z) by Daniel Han (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/), on Flickr
I personally don't care about AF accuracy and VR on a macro lens. I am buying the lens for macro only. For anything else, I have my 70-200 FL ready. The Sigma seems massive, but the Nikkor isn't exactly light weight either. The difference between f2.8 and f4 isn't a deal-breaker for me either, I'll be shooting macros at an f-stop of 8 and above anyway. Not looking for something to double as a portrait lens. Would be great if I can get both out and have a play myself, but I don't know anyone with either of the 2 lenses mentioned.
-
The choice of 'Nikongear' as a site name is based on history, not gear preference as such.
Our community includes top photographers and gear heads in a healthy mixture. Most members in either group, or intermediately positioned, understand only too well they cannot buy gear to become better photographers. Manufacturers and photo dealers are very grateful to those who don't.
I should get this tattooed to me somewhere.
-
I should get this tattooed to me somewhere.
Those are a lot of words to get tattooed ... especially when they're not entirely correct.
Don't believe me? Consider these two truths:
1. Some kind of gear is required in order to be "a photographer" at all;
2. Once you have that part down, certain enhanced gear is required to enter certain photographic subsets at all.
If you doubt that, try to take a single photo without "the gear" to do so.
After you admit that you need a camera, and some basic lenses (or a cell phone) to take photos at all ... then try to take an up-close image of a fly's eye, without macro gear, or try to take a photo of a bird 200 yds away, without a telephoto lens.
The truth is, gear is required to take photos.
The other truth is, no matter how good your technique, certain photographic pursuits cannot be accomplished at all without the required gear to do so.
The final truth is, as technique progresses, so too does the desire for better gear ... to match that better technique.
Can you name a single, successful photographer who operates with "the first lenses he bought" as a beginner?
-
It is possible to take a photograph without a lens. It is an entertaining exercise. I know from personal experience.
Shooting birds with ultra wide angles has been done many times. Perhaps it takes a bit more ingenuity than just train a long lens on the subject, but that is besides the point.
I agree having appropriate tools makes any task simpler, but "better"? Now, that concept stands entirely on its own. Otherwise we wouldn't have the concept of art.
-
It is possible to take a photograph without a lens. It is an entertaining exercise. I know from personal experience.
Shooting birds with ultra wide angles has been done many times. Perhaps it takes a bit more ingenuity than just train a long lens on the subject, but that is besides the point.
I agree having appropriate tools makes any task simpler, but "better"? Now, that concept stands entirely on its own. Otherwise we wouldn't have the concept of art.
<chuckle>
It is entertaining to guess the ages of members who feel strongly about the superiority of glass in one's sack. Mr. Bear must have an opinion on which type of pin holed body cap renders the best images. (Did you ever line the inside with reflective foil?)
-
It is indeed possible to take a photograph even without a pinhole.
Pinhole size and geometry have been well studied and modelled, so no big surprises there. Go to some of the pinhole resource sites and explore the stuff they provide.
-
It is possible to take a photograph without a lens. It is an entertaining exercise. I know from personal experience.
Okay, to split hairs ... a good photograph ...
Shooting birds with ultra wide angles has been done many times. Perhaps it takes a bit more ingenuity than just train a long lens on the subject, but that is besides the point.
Show me a single, highly-detailed photograph of a bird in flight, using a wide-angle ...
I agree having appropriate tools makes any task simpler, but "better"? Now, that concept stands entirely on its own.
Not really. If you want to cover yourself in grass, lay is a field, and put "bird food" in front of you ... that would be one way of bridging the "long lens" need for detailed bird photographs :D
But it's still not a nature shot; it's a staged "bait" shot.
In order to get authentic bird shots "in situ," you need to spend some $$ on the gear that will enable you to do so.
Otherwise we wouldn't have the concept of art.
Mmmm, that is "art," is subjective ... (one man's trash is another man's treasure ...)
I do agree, that (with a great eye, and photographic skill) an artist will make art, even with mediocre lenses ... providing his desires are within common (24-100mm) focal ranges.
But a man with specialized desires (very long range and/or very close-up) needs the specialized gear to achieve his goals.
-
You are entitled your views. I don't share them. Let it be with that.
NG is not a place to for rebuttals however tempting they might be.
-
You are entitled your views. I don't share them. Let it be with that.
Fair enough.
NG is not a place to for rebuttals however tempting they might be.
You can rebut ... but I should "agree or be quiet," is that it? :o
-
Is it important to twist everything? Is this a battle you cannot afford to lose? I could have argued against all your points in the earlier post, with examples, but to what end? Serves no purpose and only poisons the communication. So I let it slide.
You have had many opportunities on this site to bring forth your views. As long as you stay within our Guide Lines, that situation will not change. You are not treated differently to other members.
Any further contribution to this thread has to deal with the topic at hand, please. Also try to read contributions from non-native English speakers with an open mind.
-
The thing about "the truth" is that it contains paradox.
On the one hand, you're right: better equipment doesn't give better skill.
On the other hand, better equipment (in particular, ultra-long or ultra-close) will allow you to take photos that cannot be taken with skill alone.
It's easy to argue one side, or the other, but both in fact are correct. Cheers.
-
I think all your disagreements stem from the fact that you are competing in very different markets and therefore have different premises on which you base your arguments. Therefore, you will never reach a consensus. IMHO both Bjørn and John make valid points based on their individual premises, but neither can be generally applied to all types of photography or photographers.
Back to the question of standardized tests: I think an important thing is to consider that lenses are not a random collection of elements, but they are being designed to optimize certain things. It behooves us to check whether they reach the performance that is advertised, and for certain applications, these parameters are exactly what one is looking for. Or, put, differently, we can try to understand what were the parameters that had the most priority in lens design.
-
Those are a lot of words to get tattooed ... especially when they're not entirely correct.
Don't believe me? Consider these two truths:
1. Some kind of gear is required in order to be "a photographer" at all;
2. Once you have that part down, certain enhanced gear is required to enter certain photographic subsets at all.
If you doubt that, try to take a single photo without "the gear" to do so.
After you admit that you need a camera, and some basic lenses (or a cell phone) to take photos at all ... then try to take an up-close image of a fly's eye, without macro gear, or try to take a photo of a bird 200 yds away, without a telephoto lens.
The truth is, gear is required to take photos.
The other truth is, no matter how good your technique, certain photographic pursuits cannot be accomplished at all without the required gear to do so.
The final truth is, as technique progresses, so too does the desire for better gear ... to match that better technique.
Can you name a single, successful photographer who operates with "the first lenses he bought" as a beginner?
I understand where you're coming from, John. I agree with you, as well. I think you're missing what I'm saying, though. I see folks here and other places that get beautiful pictures and then try to find the lens that they got those pictures with. It's led to a few purchases (most of which I don't actually regret). What I was getting at is that owning a lens that has good qualities doesn't guarantee that it will render gorgeous images no matter where you point it. Buying an 85 1.4 won't turn me into a pro portrait photographer.
Macro is one place where a few purchases have helped me a lot (BR2A, extension tubes, etc etc).
interesting discussion, folks. thank you for it!
Brent
-
I understand where you're coming from, John. I agree with you, as well. I think you're missing what I'm saying, though. I see folks here and other places that get beautiful pictures and then try to find the lens that they got those pictures with. It's led to a few purchases (most of which I don't actually regret). What I was getting at is that owning a lens that has good qualities doesn't guarantee that it will render gorgeous images no matter where you point it. Buying an 85 1.4 won't turn me into a pro portrait photographer.
Macro is one place where a few purchases have helped me a lot (BR2A, extension tubes, etc etc).
interesting discussion, folks. thank you for it!
Brent
Hi Brent. We agree.
Buying expensive gear won't turn me into Ansel Adams ... but even Ansel Adams would have to pony-up the cash, and buy some A-level gear, to capture competitive, crisp images of birds in flight.
In fact, back in the day, Adams didn't buy trash or "budget" gear either; he used the sharpest lenses he could find for his cameras, experimenting with a number of them to discover the best ones for his work (e.g., a 70-year-old, 12-inch Voigtlander, as well as (for him) a contemporary 121mm Schneider Super Angulon, for his large format cameras.
Similarly, renowned German screenwriter, Werner Herzog, is said to buy TEN of every top-level lens he is interested in, test them all, and only keep the very best of each. He is reputed to have an awesome collection and to be quite the lensman.
It is very important for us all to keep learning, experimenting, and trying to improve our technique, but it is equally-important to make sure the gear matches the seriousness of our efforts.
A person may go out in his backyard with a cheapo lens, and fart around to see how it does ... but if he is traveling to Africa on a $10,000 safari, or trying to operate professionally, it is vital that he aim for the better-end of the quality spectrum, if he wants to be successful.
-
Sigma as a company are on a Progression and I would assume are chipping away at the market share of the Top Brands.
The fact they are at present releasing models that are being compared side by side to Top Brand Models and being reported as offering a great optical performance is a very good thing for Sigma.
There recent succes might just lead to new models offering a near performance clone of their competitors models.
I wish them the best in their advancements.
-
Personally I would prefer if manufacturers stuck to classical size and weight for important lenses; I appreciate that Nikon was able to reduce the weight on the 70-200/2.8 E for example, compared to its predecessor, while better maintaining its focal length in close focus and improving many other aspects of the lens. This is excellent
With the Sigma and Zeiss 85/1.4's (Art, Milvus and Otus), they basically doubled the weight of the lens compared to traditional designs. If every lens is doubled in weight, the bag gets very heavy quickly when carrying everything that I may need or prefer to have with me. I guess if Sigma was able to make a 300/2.8 that is superior to Nikon and Canon lenses but 6kg in weight, Sigma fans would be exhilarated. I would not. To me this is not a practical direction. I don't mind heavy equipment but there are limits.
Additionally to me the 85/1.4 Art sample portraits are harsh and not at all flattering to the subject. I prefer lenses that render the subject in a beautiful and flattering way.
I agree entirely about the size and weight of the latest Sigma lenses - I have one of the 24-35 f/2 zooms, a great lens in a class of one wrt aperture, but seriously big and heavy. I like the look of the new 14mm, but it looks like it dwarfs my existing one, and that's hardly a lightweight.
I'm trying to imagine a bag full of Sigma primes .. . .
John
-
For what it's worth, here's a danish review of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art: https://fotomalia.dk/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-test/
He's using Canon gear, including the Canon EOS 5DS R (50,6 Mpix FF sensor). He gives the lens quite high scores. A downside is that it's a quite big and heavy lens, but it delivers in sharpness, AF, bokeh, etc.
-
Bokeh? Hmmmm Not sure it is the right word :o
-
A bokeh of the nervous inclination ... ??
Test images that either are bad or overcooked make for difficult comparisons.
-
again a very interesting discussion.
As a student long time ago I owned several sigma lenses, because a photo shop closed and soled these Sigma lenses for nearly nothing.
I had time and enjoyed taking photos and got for sure some keepers.
Today I still love taking photos in my rare free time and I only use Nikkors, mostly manual focus primes chipped.
No Sigma, Tokina or whatever will touch the bayonet of my Nikon DSLRs.
I take photos for my pleasure and do not waste my time with none premium products.
You understand maybe what I mean if you repair a Nikon lens or a Sigma. At least in former times Sigma had absolutely no good quality inside compared with Nikon. Even if some optical measurements at the new lens might be ok.
Maybe there are some opticaly good SigmaTokinawhatever lenses but I will mount only the famous Nikkors like 105/2.5 AI, 35/1.4 AI, the micro Nikkors and so on for my pleasure.
If I shoot stuff like wedding or so for friends I use the D800 and the new AFS lenses, they are "good enough" ;)
-
I just took another look at the LenScore site and I'm left unimpressed. There are numbers for various categories it gives me no feel for how the lens might perform in the real world. It's a standardized bench test on a custom built machine but how does the lens perform on a real world camera? LenScores appears to be an exacting test the resulting number give but a vague idea of what the lens might do on my cameras.
Dave Hartman
-
Well, the 200MP sensor gives an idea of which lenses will likely benefit the user the most from future sensor development. It shows that many of the fast superteles have extra resolution which makes these lenses good purchases in the sense that one will be able to crop and still get good detail and more so in the future than today. Since few of us can carry multiple of those lenses at one time, the extra croppability is particularly useful can provide us with the ability to shoot a subject at varying ranges. I guess this is obvious but the 200MP sensor used by lenscore highlights their capability and my guess is that in 10 years some cameras that are available at reasonable prices will provide this level of detail.
In general, no numerical test can tell us how images shot with a particular lens will affect us or how they feel. For that, real world testing provides the answers. But if a lens does really well on lenscore, it would be quite surprising if it lead to a disappointment in practical use. For example the Nikon VR 200/2 II is right up there with the best of them and few of us would disagree that it is a special lens. However, I would take any individual test with a grain of salt, and consider all the information available from various sources before making a purchase.
-
One of the many wonders of Bluffography.
What exactly are such tests achieving IMA and OMA and Brick Wall and BS?
Seriously, do people buy a lens based on a bench test?
Any photographer worth his/her salt would simply test or borrow or rent the lens and few pertinent shots well analysed would tell if it is a lens to buy or not. Or ask Roger Cigala.
Different standards for different type of photography. I do not care for corners, I only care for the centre and how the lens renders color - Bouquet and DoP. Reversly, landscapist and architecture and others very much care about corners and Coma and other stuff.
Lens scores! I rather read a Lasagna recipe.
-
Lens scores! I rather read a Lasagna recipe.
I'd rather eat the lasagna. :)
What exactly are such tests achieving IMA and OMA and Brick Wall and BS?
One can learn a lot about a lens from properly conducted lens tests. Where lens tests fail is where a test is unlike a real world shooting situation. It easy to photograph a small chart to determine lens distortion but that won't result in an understanding of this property when a lens is use at a common shooting distance for that lens, e.g. a 50/1.4 or 50/1.2 will indicate greater barrel distortion at minimum focus distance than a subject at 3 meters or greater. The brick wall can show distortion at a common shooting distance. It can show field curve