NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: PeterN on November 26, 2015, 16:54:33
-
After having used Fuji's 16mm for a while, I've become attached to the 24mm focal length. So I will probably add a 24mm lens to the collection.
Has anyone compared the 24mm 1.4G and 1.8G lenses already? What about the Sigma 24mm art lens?
Thank you!
-
Interesting topic. Michael Erlewine has done the comparsion betwen Art and 24G/1.4. The Sigma is better
-
Interesting topic. Michael Erlewine has done the comparsion between Art and 24G/1.4. The Sigma is better
Thanks Frank. I assume you refer to this post?
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,117.0.html
I saw the Sigma Art yesterday and it is surprisingly lightweight. The ability to focus close is nice too. However, I am not sure if I need 1.4 for that focal length. I am not in concert photography or alike so low light performance is less important than center to corner sharpness and well controlled CA, distortion and vignetting. On the other hand, I would have never thought that I would use 1.4 with the 35mm either.... I guess I am somewhat of a OOF snob.
I also may look at the zeiss 25mm f2 and the samyang 24mm (I used a samyang 12mm with my Fuji X-T1 and was highly impressed by its performance).
Anyway, I am still curious about "real life" comparison between Nikon 1.4G and 1.8G. I am always somewhat suspicious about test charts. ;-)
-
When I bought the 1.4 there was no 1.8 yet. It is a very new arrival. Generally the current 1.8-series did show no weakness, so I guess the 1.8/24 will be no exception.
As the Sigma ist 100 Euro cheaper thank the 1.8/24G and proven to be better than the 1.4/24G Nikkor even, I would go for the Sigma Art.
PS: Samyang and Zeiss do not have AF
PPS: The 1.4/24 is able to separate single people from a crowd fully open. This is very nice for candid/street shots.
-
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/10/16/nikon-24mm-f-1.8g-lens-review-wide-fast-and-sharp-and-much-more-affordable
also follow the link to: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1812
-
Thank you, Frank.
The Sigma is here 50 euros more than the 1.8. The wonderful world of gear pricing. ;-)
regarding zeiss-samyang. Manual focusing should be less problematic with wide angle lenses but you're right. I did sell my 135mm zeiss apo sonnar lens for that reason. Something I still regret everyday I must add.
-
Nikkor 24mm 1.4 AFS G is a really nice lens, I use it for many different types of images and it always delivers.
I believe the coating is better than on the 1.8
-
Interesting topic. Michael Erlewine has done the comparsion betwen Art and 24G/1.4. The Sigma is better
I do not seem to be able to find where Michael did a comparison between the Art and 24G/1.4.
More so, that he established that the Sigma is better.
Could you direct me to your reference?
-
I do not seem to be able to find where Michael did a comparison between the Art and 24G/1.4.
More so, that he established that the Sigma is better.
Could you direct me to your reference?
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,117.0.html
I think Frank refers to this post. Although no direct comparison, Michael says that the art lens is his favorite wide angle for now
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,117.0.html
-
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,117.0.html
I think Frank refers to this post. Although no direct comparison, Michael says that the art lens is his favorite wide angle for now
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,117.0.html
Michael never ever did a Sigma Art 24/1.4 v Nikkor 24/1.4G and if he did, I never saw that.
Quote:
I have not had a great deal of time to work it and I still find myself just using Zeiss APOs because I love them, but I managed to squeeze out a little time with the Sigma 24mm ART lens. And the shot posted here was taken in a bit of a hurry for someone who requested it, so I make no claims. Still, the Sigma 24mm does a decent job. It is quite well corrected, sharp enough, and well made. If it lacks anything, it is the superb color the Zeiss APO lenses offer, but I am still chewing on that one.
I have not returned it, which for me says a lot. I believe I will keep it and use it as my wide-angle of choice until Zeiss gets around to producing what I imagine will be a jaw-dropping wide-angle Otus APO.
Unquote
To state otherwise is misleading. Michael does not even talk about the Nikkor 24/1.4G.
-
Frank may have referred to another comparison. This was the only one I could find. So he may well refer to another -to me unknown- article. Perhaps it's best that Frank jumps in,
From the article one may conclude that Michael indirectly says that it's a better lens but that remains an interpretation until an other article pops up or Michael clarifies.
My question was about the 1.4 and 1.8 nikon lenses.
-
I have the 24 Art and 35 Art lenses as well as the old 28/1.4D. (Yes, I am a fast lens junkie 8)). Can't help answering your questions and I have only had the 24 Art for a short time, but I'll keep a keen eye on this thread.
-
Only disadvantage I can see on these 1.4 G lenses is the slow AFS gearbox design, so tracking and general acquiring focus is slow compared to for instance the 24-70 or 28-70 AFS 2.8
Michael has some special feature with lenses he likes, APO is one of them sharpness wide open is another, for focus stacking.
Frank stated in the other thread his 24mm 1.4 was not sharp, so must be defective.
Nano coating is really a big difference in many situations, so highly recommended IMHO.
-
Only disadvantage I can see on these 1.4 G lenses is the slow AFS gearbox design, so tracking and general acquiring focus is slow compared to for instance the 24-70 or 28-70 AFS 2.8
Michael has some special feature with lenses he likes, APO is one of them sharpness wide open is another, for focus stacking.
Frank stated in the other thread his 24mm 1.4 was not sharp, so must be defective.
Nano coating is really a big difference in many situations, so highly recommended IMHO.
I assume you are referring to Sigma lenses?
It is true that this is my main beef with Sigma Art series.
I concede that the Sigmas Art are sharp and even very sharp and Ughhh....that's about it.
Sigma Art lenses are unusable under certain conditions which are crucial to my type of photography.
1- Acquiring focus sucks.
2- Acquiring focus in low light.....fogetaboutit. This sucks big time.
3- I also have mega problems using Sigma Art lenses with Speedlights and Profoto. The reverse engineering of Sigma fails miserably.
Try shooting strobes in low light or any kind of light and you will walk away with disgust.
Of course, the cyberspace alleged reviewers sing songs of praise for Sigma. They do not tell you that Sigma Art is a one trick pony.
-
No, I'm referring to Nikkor lenses - I have no clue to Sigma lenses
Thanks for you sharing ;) about Sigma
-
No, I'm referring to Nikkor lenses - I have no clue to Sigma lenses
Thanks for you sharing ;) about Sigma
Excellent choice. You saved yourself wasted time and money.
We are still waiting for Frank to advise where did he see Micheal. E elusive post on testing Sigma Art 24 v the Nikkor 24/1.4G.
-
I did contact Michael and he wrote the following in the PM (quote endorsed by Michael):
"The Sigma to me is just a stopgap measure until the new Zeiss Otus 28mm APO lens is released. I never owned the Nikon f/1.4 24mm G, but I did study the specs and photos, and I had the 35mm f/1.4.
Unfortunately, for my work most of Nikon's better lenses are not corrected highly enough for me (non APO), and I am probably too particular. My comments on many close-up lenses can be found at my site MacroStop.com, under free e-books or videos."
I hope that clarifies Michael's opinions.
-
Thank you Almass for your insights / experipence from a studio pro perspective!
Thank you PeterN for contacting MichaelE. So his remark was a general one concerning the correction of current Nikkors not the 1.4/24mm in particular.
From my experience with the 1.4/24G I could never acquire the bitingly sharp detail rendering I have seen with many examples from the Sigma 1.4/24Art. As I used the same technique I use with the Micro Nikkor 60G or the 4.0/200mm Micro or diverse incarnations of the 85mm Prortait Nikkors which all deliver on any promise I feel it has to do with the 24mm-Nikkor not with me.
Frank
I have used the 1.4/24mm since I bought it shortly after it appeared with the following cameras: D7000, D3, D600, D800E, D750, D810.
-
Thankyou, Frank for sharing your experience. Much appreciated!
I am still interested in learning more about the experience w.r.t use of nikon 24mm 1.4 and 1.8g.
So I wait with buying a 24mm for now.
Which is a good thing for my bank account. ;-)
-
The center sharpness of the 24mm 1.4 G is the same at 1.4 as 60mm G at 2.8!!! and same center sharpness as one of the sharpest Nikkors around the 85mm 1.4 G
Sure the 24mm lack behind in the corners wide open but catches up.
Read any review with MTF or what ever, It's an outstanding lens.
Start with Lensrentals.
-
Umm, not according to lenstip, not even close
John
The center sharpness of the 24mm 1.4 G is the same at 1.4 as 60mm G at 2.8!!! and same center sharpness as one of the sharpest Nikkors around the 85mm 1.4 G
Sure the 24mm lack behind in the corners wide open but catches up.
Read any review with MTF or what ever, It's an outstanding lens.
Start with Lensrentals.
-
LensRentals has a comparison of the Nikon and Sigma at the bottom of the post here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/measuring-lens-variance
-
Bruno: Thanks for the link, which is very very interesting in many respects and of course I did not stop to read after this new test setup description, but read through a lot of stuff on this site to find the measurements of the "no one was able to do this before" lens SIGMA ART 1.4/20mm. Impressed. Thank you again.
-
It is an interesting read indeed. I've never been a big reader of MTF charts but having some data on lens variation is very interesting indeed!
Thanks, Bruno.
-
This subject is interesting to me because I have loved the 24 1.4G since I bought it five years ago: the color, the sufficient sharpness when needed, the out of focus rendering. It has therefore been with some dismay I have been reading about the Sigma 24 1.4 and how it blows away the Nikon for half the price. I haven't seen any examples from the Sigma but I wonder what I am missing with my beloved Nikon? Since this thread has no examples as yet, for discussion's sake, let me post one of my own. It is cropped for composition purposes so that may defeat my effort to defend the lens I have and give ammunition to the lens I have not.
This photo was shot an hour or so ago of my Crown of Thorns at a window which looks onto my porch and beyond to the yard and woods. It is wide open at 100 iso handheld and while the sharpness does not skirt along the razor's edge it has a pleasing softness (at least to me). No sharpening was done to it. Its inherent characteristics that draw me to the lens are here reflected as best as I can render them. No claims of art are made (unlike the Sigma!), I just think this thread needs a picture or two.
As for the Nikon 24 1.8G, I know nothing about it.
-
I can see why you love it
-
That's a lovely image Tom!
You keep that lens and keep on shooting, no doubt about it!
The rendering of the out of focus areas is adorable.
I agree, photos are most welcome to this topic :)
-
Not to be misunderstood: I will keep my 1.4/24G lens. It is a great piece of glass.
I took many lovely shots with it, but I still do not feel competent in 24mm like I feel at home with 50 or 85...
... or 35 ... (which was in effect the 24s on my DX-Bodies)
-
That's a lovely image Tom!
+1
I agree, photos are most welcome to this topic :)
Especially when they show the differences between the lenses, which I am so curious about. ;-)
-
D3S + Sigma 24 Art.
Making preparations for the Finnish independence day festivities that are tomorrow, December 6th. I shot a few frames during the day. My daughter is making cookies (with her Santa hat on, of course) for the youngsters, and I have prepared something for the grown ups.
Sorry, cannot provide any comparison shots as I only have the Sigma. It is plenty sharp and the bokeh is bearable.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/622/23171686709_15617aa750_o.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5832/23166082319_ed7decb874_o.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5785/23425556512_a941f63c25_o.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/717/23425556672_c51a2e3dff_o.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5821/22911394774_dab2895e81_o.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/773/23513571066_8fff9e284d_o.jpg)
-
I see nothing wrong with the bokeh!
Of course, the first image is my favorite :)
-
I agree. It looks pretty good!
I now have the Sigma 24 as well. Haven't used it yet. If I don't like I can return it for the Nikon.
I could 't find a good argument to spend 1000 euros more on the nikon 24/1.4.
I don't use it in studio/multiple strobe setting so I took the risk. It seems an acceptable risk ;-)
-
Quick update after quick test sigma 24mm. My copy has the following characteristics:
1. It hunts more/focuses (much) slower than the 35mm art lens in low light.
2. suffers from front-focusing
3. heavy vignetting up to f/4 (but 35mm has that as well)
4. sharpness comparable to (or a bit less than) 35mm art lens.
5. and, most surprisingly, no (let me be carefully: hardly any) CA.
6. pleasing (or acceptable, depending on your preference) color and bokeh rendering although the "bubbles" are not perfectly round.
7. did not check distortion.
I am still hesitating if I should trade it for one of the Nikon 24mm's because of the focusing. But the lack of CA may offset that disadvantage.
-
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-24mm-f-1.8G-ED-Review-High-quality-wide-angle-lens-for-landscape-and-architecture-photography
-
You just beat me with posting the link. ;-)
DxO tests are not everything but I am really going to think hard about replacing the sigma by the 1.8
-
f/1.8 is lighter and you will have well over $1000 left over for other purposes. I have the 28mm f/1.8 and like it a lot. However, I don't try to use it for thin DOF shots at all. That is so much easier to do with a 50mm. Do what you like, but the wide angle perspective does not seem to be there (for me) when going in close and wide open. Some famous photographers are really in love with a 24/50 combo.
-
It seems that the Nikon 24/1.8G trounces both the Nikon 24/1.4G and the Sigma 24/1.4
You should read this Dxo test:
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-24mm-f-1.8G-ED-Review-High-quality-wide-angle-lens-for-landscape-and-architecture-photography
That's if you believe Dxo..... 8)
-
It seems that the Nikon 24/1.8G trounces both the Nikon 24/1.4G and the Sigma 24/1.4
You should read this Dxo test:
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-24mm-f-1.8G-ED-Review-High-quality-wide-angle-lens-for-landscape-and-architecture-photography
That's if you believe Dxo..... 8)
I am somewhat suspicious of DxO mark and don't understand MTF charts (more specifically, I find them limiting). I prefer to see how a lens performs in real shooting for my style of photography. Nevertheless, I can never resist the temptation to look at the charts. ;-)
Based on a brief test I did with the sigma 24mm 1.4 lens, I brought it back. What I liked was the OOF rendering and especially the lack of CA. Sharpness was fine but not stellar. What I did not like was the focus speed in low light. Since it also suffered from a severe frontfocusing, I would have been easy to correct that but I began to think my copy did not belong to the best ones out there. The DxO test took the final 5% of my hesitation away.
I am now waiting for the Nikon 1.8G to arrive. I don't need the 1.4 for this focal length so I did not want to spend the extra 1000 euros/dollars. If it would be my bread and butter lens, the situation may have been different. I am really curious how the 1.8G performs.
-
I'm following this thread with interest. Please report back when the lens arrives.
-
I got to capture a few "test-shots" yesterday, comparing the Nikkor 24/1.8G and Sigma 24/1.4A. Will post some pictures soon.
Initial thoughts: I'd get the Nikkor over the Sigma. I think the bokeh is just as good and sharpness towards the perimeter seemingly better.
-
Do that, Sten. I'm curious as to the results. The 24/1.8 Nikkor is on my short list.
-
I think you will prefer the Nikon 24/1.8G.
The Sigma is too iffy AF and many missed shots......when I tried it and similar to all Sigma new lenses....it it is the reverse engineering fail.
If I did not have the Nikon 24/1.4G glued on my camera. I would get the Nikon 24/1.8G
No distortion with my 24/1.4G with the Tuareg people.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/Duke_1/_DSC9458_zpsytarmkrn.jpg)
-
Then I am happy I switched to the Nikon 24mm 1.8G. ;-)
Perhaps I was lucky with the 35mm art lens. My copy focuses fast, also in low light, does not have issues with flash and I like the output. So I definitely intend to keep that one.
-
Not to drag third partier down but I have shot thousands of shots with the Tamron 24-70/2.8VC in low light (typically ISO 8000, f/3.2, 1/250s) and there is something a liiiiittle bit nervous about its AF behaviour. Will see if I can test the Nikkor/Sigma in low light as well.
-
Not to drag third partier down but I have shot thousands of shots with the Tamron 24-70/2.8VC in low light (typically ISO 8000, f/3.2, 1/250s) and there is something a liiiiittle bit nervous about its AF behaviour. Will see if I can test the Nikkor/Sigma in low light as well.
Looking forward to seeing the results!
-
Ok, have started to compare the pics I've taken with the Nikkor 24/1.8G and Sigma 24/1.4Art.
First I wanted to check field of focus at near range. From the images I conclude that both lenses have a close to flat field of curvature.
The darker images are high pass filtered versions of the originals and then I use the darken color layer option on a copy of the first one. This emphasizes the LoCa (albeit in reverse due to the color mix process). From this I can assess the field of curvature where line of focus sits where the LoCa turns over from magenta to green.
The white dots are placed at the line of focus and the diagonal helps the eye see negative-flat-positive field of curvature.
(Note that the slight off symmetry of the white dots relative to the diagonal is most likely due to my imperfect aiming of the camera...the Df in case someone wonders)
-
Bokeh - the Nikkor wins due to cats eyes which I like (but then again, bokeh is a personal taste)
Note the flare burst in the upper right corner in the Sigma shot. The Nikkor manages to depress it. I have seen it in other shots as well.
-
Another scene showing the flare issue:
-
Chromatic abberations: Both are about equal stopped down to f/5.0. Beware that focus is on the upper corner of the far building.
-
Distortion: Sigma is slightly better corrected with barrel type vs. Nikkor's moustache'ish.
-
And since it's soon Christmas and all...how about some stars :)
Btw, the Sigma needs about 0.55EV lift to match the Nikkor.
(Shot at ISO 4000 with the D750)
-
What I haven't found time for is some decent landscaping. I hope to get access to these lenses one more time and with the right weather I am ready to do further testing.
-
Apparently the Nanocoating of the Nikkor does its job pretty well.
I'm getting more tempted by the minute.
-
Sten, thanks for the detailed tests.
Now I am curious to know how the Nikon 24mm 1.4G would compare with these two lenses?
May I ask on a side note, why is the Nikon 24mm 1.8G more expensive than the 20mm 1.8G?
-
Sten, you are teaching me how to test a lens. I have always wanted to do a bit of that but without shooting brick walls. Now I know some good tests to do!! Thank you.
I have the 24/1.8G on order from B&H.
Still have my AIS-oldies but goodies: 24/2.0, 28/2.0, 35/1.4, 50/1.8, 50/1.2. They are nice over 16MP but I like them less these days over 36MP. So decided to restock primes for the D810. But I didn't really want the big heavy jobbies. These 1.8 lenses seem so darned sharp and are so light. Rare for me to say that as I don't mind toting around my 24-70/2.8AFS zoomer. But I like primes to be lighter. I got the 35/1.8G and love it.
-
I have the 28 f/1.8 and like it a lot. 28 is wide enough for crowded places, but can still be used as a walk around lens. The availability of cameras with a fixed 28mm FOV attests to that. My only recent experience @ 24mm FOV is the wide end of my 24-120. I do a lot of landscapes that way, but strongly suspect the prime would clobber the zoom at 24mm. Some photographers say 24mm is the limit before distortion gets excessive. My personal feeling is a 24mm feels more like a long 20 than a short 28. One thing about very wide lenses is you can stand between two people who are a couple of feet part and shoot right down the middle without either one thinking they are in the photo.
-
Sten, thanks for the detailed tests.
Now I am curious to know how the Nikon 24mm 1.4G would compare with these two lenses?
May I ask on a side note, why is the Nikon 24mm 1.8G more expensive than the 20mm 1.8G?
Sorry Jakov but I don't have the 24/1.4G available to me. But I believe I did a similar test of field of curvature a good while ago. Will search to try and find it.
The 24 is more expensive than the 20...at least here in noggieland.
-
Another bokeh scene. The Nikkor wins in my eyes. The molded aspherical elements in the Sigma spreads out its onion rings. To counter that the Nikkor exhibits a slight blurball edge.
-
One thing I haven't really evaluated is coma (gullwings from point light sources). I believe I have some pictures I can have a look at and present here.
-
Another bokeh scene. The Nikkor wins in my eyes. The molded aspherical elements in the Sigma spreads out its onion rings. To counter that the Nikkor exhibits a slight blurball edge.
Sigma bokeh in the peripheral area shows the cutouts apparently caoused by the mirrorbox. I have often observed these cutouts in the images by the lenses of f1.4 and faster on DSLRs, FX or DX.
-
Thanks Sten!
I was not aware that most of these new 1.8 lenses had Nano coating - Interesting!
It appears that only 35mm 1.8 is missing it's Nano...
Often I have had difficulties at making the 24mm 1.4 AFS do 'stars' from bright lights at night seems like the Nano coating is too effective suppressing the 'star' flare might not be the coating but the optics...
-
Thanks Sten!
I was not aware that most of these new 1.8 lenses had Nano coating - Interesting!
It appears that only 35mm 1.8 is missing it's Nano...
Often I have had difficulties at making the 24mm 1.4 AFS do 'stars' from bright lights at night seems like the Nano coating is too effective suppressing the 'star' flare might not be the coating but the optics...
The lower 3...20-24-28 are being looked after by the Nano. Wide ones need all the flare o'fighting they can I guess.
The Nano does what it's supposed to and stars are helped out by 7 blades (as far as I can tell).
-
Thank you, Sten for your evaluation! Very helpful indeed.
Regarding CA: I am quite impressed by the performance of my copy. Same for bokeh.
I can't wait to try the Nikon. It will arrive today so hopefully I can do some shooting this weekend.
-
Update: I now have the lenses until Monday so if there are any specific requests for tests I will try and do them.
-
Update: I now have the lenses until Monday so if there are any specific requests for tests I will try and do them.
In case you have some free time. It would be great to check:
1- AF in low light - keepers rate
2- Sigma compatibility with Nikon CLS system and or any other strobes (wireless)
I have issue with both above points.
-
In case you have some free time. It would be great to check:
1- AF in low light - keepers rate
2- Sigma compatibility with Nikon CLS system and or any other strobes (wireless)
I have issue with both above points.
Have still to do more testing but so far I'd say the teo lenses are about equal wrt. low light AF allowance. I am not a CLS person so cannot judge this...sorry.
-
I haven't gone through all test shots in detail bit browsing through them I think it's safe to say:
- The Nikkor is sharper towards the perimeter of the image circle.
- Coma is pretty much the same (i.e. not absent), and both lenses clean up around f/4 with the Sigma perhaps slightly better.
Update: Picture of coma test at f/1.8 attached.
-
Today, I had a weak moment and by a curious coincidence a 24/1.8 Nikkor made its way in to my bag. Oh well.
-
The mind is weak. The finger is strong.
Congratulations!
-
Today, I had a weak moment and by a curious coincidence a 24/1.8 Nikkor made its way in to my bag. Oh well.
That makes me concerned. Many of your photographic fields are not for the faint-hearted, if I remember correctly...
-
Today, I had a weak moment and by a curious coincidence a 24/1.8 Nikkor made its way in to my bag. Oh well.
Surprised and shocked at the same time :D
-
We should not be surprised. The Bear still has room in his house for a lens or two. Besides, he is known to supply us with his expert findings in the optical world.
-
I am sure Bjørn has a valid explanation as to why buy the 24/1.8G when you possess the 24/1.4G and numerous other 24mm lenses :D
But I agree with you Sten, we'll get to know how it works in the field thanks to our Bjørn!
-
Today, I had a weak moment and by a curious coincidence a 24/1.8 Nikkor made its way in to my bag. Oh well.
oh cool! Mine arrived yesterday. Looks like a nice lens. Did you get it at the usual place?(Cannot recall the name just now. But where I bought the rolling bag.)
-
Today, I had a weak moment and by a curious coincidence a 24/1.8 Nikkor made its way in to my bag. Oh well.
Could happen to me anytime. But I sure would fall for the 1.8/35mm
-
Today, I had a weak moment and by a curious coincidence a 24/1.8 Nikkor made its way in to my bag. Oh well.
oh cool! Mine arrived yesterday. Looks like a nice lens. Did you get it at the usual place?(Cannot recall the name just now. But where I bought the rolling bag.)
Yes. Same place (Interfoto). The lens has been tested and looks to be a fine performer. Sharp wide open too.
-
As a DX shooter I have been looking foreward to this. (Actually a DX 24mm would make a lot of sense, but thats not likely to happen).
Only thing that has stopped me so far, is doubt over 24mm vs 28mm. That got me so distracted that a new timepiece arrived at the household. So now I have time, and Bjørn can report his findings to fuel my NAS over the weeks to come. I see this lens in my future 8)
-frank-
-
Sigma 24/1.4 wide open. No corrections in PP, so you get the full CA, distortion, vignetting, etc. Pardon the shot, I got many better portraits of Madame ; this one should at least have been cropped on the upper part, but you should see the bokeh and highlights.
For one thing, the sharpness in the center would please any dermatologist.
For the rest, CA is barely perceptible (not perceptible at all on the downsampled version). Vignetting is considerable but useful when, precisely, f/1.4 is for subject isolation. Bokeh is nice, despite some "posterizing" (left edge) that is also a characteristic of the Nikkor 50/1.4 SC, but much stronger in the latter case.
Foreground bokeh shows some cat's eyes effect on the highlights. No big issue in the present shot because they match the glittery stuff on Madame's clothes, but this could become annoying in other cases.
Now, if the Nikkor 24/1.8 happens to be even better, I can only say : get one and enjoy ! these are incredible times. I tested a rather good copy of the Nikkor 24/2 AIS at a shop, recently. But these ones belong to another class.
-
Strange eyes on that cat ;)
Wonder how that happens, well it shows a hint to why the front Bokeh is like it is.
Looking forward to more on the Nikkor 24 1.8 ;)