matters410

<p></p> <p >You are right. I am a deeply disturbed and selfish individual and certainly not a nice person at all. That why I've worked with kids with cancer for the last decade. It's the perfect place to unleash my pathological wrath upon the earth. Due to my borderline personality disorder I can't be held to the same standards as Eric Arnold, paragon of human behavior on the internet, responsible for such mature and witty gems as the quote below. <br> Ironically I stumbled upon that on a Tamron review, and clicked your name to see if it was the same Eric Arnold. Sure enough, there you were. Communications Director of the CRP, huh? Seems a little sexist and degrading behavior for someone in that position. Since you seem so intent on having the last word, I'll leave the discussion with your own words and certainly won't be returning to it. Prattle on, if you like, or defend your absurdity but I have not the slightest interest in anything else you have to add. You've destroyed this thread thoroughly with your troll behavior and I doubt it will be of any more use.</p> <p > </p> <p ><a href="https://disqus.com/by/disqus_aiYOSkxr9L/">https://disqus.com/by/disqus_aiYOSkxr9L/</a></p> <blockquote> <p ><a href="https://disqus.com/by/disqus_aiYOSkxr9L/">Eric Arnold</a><a href="https://disqus.com/home/discussion/ewm/true_detective_recap_other_lives_ewcom_58/#comment-2147597819"> 3 months ago </a>i really wanted to see Jordan's t$&s after all that mushy build-up which didnt really seem to go anywhere, except establish a dichotomy between potential scrape job Paul and Jordan's three abortions. C'mon, HBO, dont be getting all prudish on us now, show us some M-I-L-F love!...</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p > </p> </blockquote> <p > </p> <p > </p>

<p>Alan- I'm glad your have good experience with your 35 after using the dock. There is some hope then.</p> <p>Eric- lol...did I hurt your feelings? I didn't realize you were so sensitive. Andy mentioned your fanboy tendencies at the same time I was writing my post. Was that coincidence or was it because you've acted like a <strong>complete fanboy</strong>? It seems you want to talk about all of the positives of the Sigma and none of the negatives. Your attitude towards any opinion contradictory to your own is completely and consistently condescending and disrespectful and it cheapens your opinion, which I originally mistook to be informative and helpful. </p> <blockquote> <p>(preferably not useless, muddy images from a nightclub that illustrate nothing)</p> </blockquote> <p>Crossed a line? I think not. Perhaps I got a bit snippy, but you were egging me on and thus inspired me to be honest. The nightclub shots <em>are</em> objectively muddy (80% clear off the histogram) and thus and don't display any of the groundbreaking characteristics of the Sigma lens, which makes them pretty useless in this discussion compared to say, Keith's images. Your dappled light portrait at least did a decent job of showing some characteristics of the lens. The keyboard shot is maybe only 50% useless. It at least made me wonder at the astonishing ability of the amputee-pianist. Focusing where his hand would be was genius. Makes you think of how good he could have been...</p> <p>To be fair, I quite like the shot of the flamenco dancers.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks Andy.<br> I think they look pretty good at a glance. The one shot with the concrete eagle that is pretty strongly backlit looks like it has some green fringing (?), but there are many other backlit shots that have none. Have to be pleased with their overall contrast and lack of flare on the shot that was right into the sun. Do you like 45mm more than 50, or do you feel like they are pretty similar? What do you think of the VR?</p>

<p>I haven't handled either, but there are at least two reviewers who compared the two (I do not care to go back and find which ones as I am busy at the moment) that held the Tamron slightly better in build quality. I don't think heavier means better build quality. I actually quite like the construction of light 1.8 Nikon primes. Also, Kai from Digitalrev complains about the build quality of the Sigma 50 1.4 Art in his review, which is nearly identical to the 35 from what I gather. Not all people are sycophantic sigma fanatics (not talking about you Robin).</p> <p>Furthermore, I would argue that good weather sealing is an indicator of attention to detail and build quality. It doesn't matter how thermallyDynamicallywhatever your material is, if you take a lens with no weather sealing into the dessert or the rain forest you are going to have issues (not that I intend to do either). Tamron has even weather sealed the focus ring and that attention to detail points toward quality construction. It seems like an obvious mistake not to have even included a ring by the mount in the Sigma. That along with the now clear AF issues (yet another thread about people having trouble on this forum's front page) makes me wary of the Sigma no matter how blown away people (and Fanboys like Eric) are by the sharpness. I'm fairly certain the Tamron will not be a slouch in the sharpness department, anyway. I'm done feeding the troll, I'll make my judgment when I can see both lenses in person. As I have said, they both seem like very nice products. This thread is more about which will be more useful to me, personally. If anyone ELSE has a new or interesting perspective to add or some sample images from any of the lenses mentioned (preferably not useless, muddy images from a nightclub that illustrate nothing) I'd love to see and hear from them.</p> <p> </p>

<p>"VC helpful for shooting moving subjects with a 35mm at 1/200? lol. only if you have extra-shaky hands or are shooting from a moving platform"</p> <p>Eric- I'm not entirely sure you are in a position to make this assessment, given your D3s has 1/2 the resolution of a D750, 1/3 the resolution of a D810 and 1/4 the resolution of a the new Canon 50 MP camera. We are talking about high resolution bodies, not the 12 megapixel D3s. This forum has many comments on the dangers of shooting a high resolution body handheld VS on a tripod (a fairly similar argument to using VC/VR) and how things that look sharp on a 12 MP sensor don't hold up under higher resolution. Obviously the VC is less of a factor at higher shutter speeds, but that doesn't mean the effect is negligible. I highly doubt your assertion that VC @35mm is pointless unless you are handholding at 1/15th. If I get the Tamron perhaps I'll do some testing with VC on and off at various shutter speeds. Until then I can hardly speak intelligently on the subject, merely speculate as to the possible benefits. </p> <p>On paper the Tamron has significant advantages: Price, video, weather sealing, VC, size/weight, build quality, close focusing ablility and according to several reviews even AF (not just live view... straight up phase detection AF). That's a sizable list of advantages over "unparalleled" sharpness and less purple/green fringing. The extra 2/3 stop seems less and less of a big deal. Either way, from sample images they both seem to be great lenses and I'm sure I'll love shooting with either one.<br> Aside from this discussion...what's with the "lol" habit? Do you have a fourteen year old daughter that texts you stuff like that? It's a bit condescending and immature.</p>

<p>Chip- I will report back with whatever I purchase and give you my impressions, though it may be a few months. </p> <p>I don't really do the nightclub style, but I did shoot at a charity concert in the last year with similar lighting. I'm more likely to shoot an evenly lit scene in low light at home or at work. I'm plenty steady, but photographing kids I have to engage them (e.i. not have the camera plastered to my face the whole time) which requires me to sometime move the camera up to my eye and acquire focus quickly to get a particular expression. I don't think I would typically try that at 1/15th of a second, but even at 1/100th to 1/200th I could see VC being pretty helpful (even at 35mm). The kids themselves can, of course, move where the VC would not help, but if you get their attention they will usually hold pretty still. The Tamron is looking pretty appealing now. I'm glad I posted here as I excluded it from my candidates prematurely. </p> <p>I would have likes someone who owns the Nikon 1.4 to comment, just out of curiosity, but it seems like not many people actually own it. I did meet a pro who had it and the 24mm 1.4 and he seemed to like them a lot. </p>

<p>Pete- I have now read a bunch of reviews on the Tamron and it does seem like a very compelling lens indeed. It's advantages over the Sigma (size, price, close focusing ability and VR) seem to outweigh the 2/3 stop loss in speed. After all, you have 3 stops of shutter speed advantage in some cases.</p> <p>I know I said that I like the idea of a prime without VR, but perhaps that is kind of silly. I suspect I'm really missing VR on these newer, higher resolution cameras. I recently posed about how I was worried about my 24-70 losing AF ability over time, but after a weekend of shooting in my house with bounce flash with very sharp results I'm pretty certain the problem is that shutter speeds that worked well on a 12MP D300 aren't adequate on a 24mp D7100 (now sold) or D750. While suspecting this, I have stepped up my shutter speeds significantly but that just results in shooting at higher and higher ISOs when I'm not using flash. While the D750 does high ISO very well lower is still cleaner.</p> <p>As far as Bokeh goes...I don't hang pretty pictures of bokeh without subjects in my house. My 105 has great bokeh, but I'm usually more than willing to stop down to get better DOF. It's not my end goal or anything, but at the same time I don't want OOF characteristics of a lens to be distracting. I just need some background separation and subject isolation.</p> <p>Corner sharpness, too, for what I shoot (people mostly) is not a big deal and If I shoot a landscape at smaller apertures with one of these lenses the corner sharpness would improve significantly. I probably would never notice any supposed lack of corner sharpness even if it was obvious (which certainly isn't with any of these lenses). </p> <p>I mostly photograph kids my own and my patients. I am a nurse in a pediatric cancer and blood disorder clinic. The clinic is not well lit at all. Some of our rooms have large windows but the light coming from them varies greatly depending on the time of day and weather. Backgrounds can be a bit distracting because of medical equipment, etc. so it's nice to be able to throw them a bit out of focus. Here is an example of a recent project I did at work and the kind of shooting I do. Sorry, it's a facebook link. I'm not sure of the legality (HIPPA) or hospital policy compliance of my posting the pictures online myself, but I am sure I can link my employers gallery. Some of the shots are at ISO 4000. Many are lit with off camera flash, bounce flash, umbrella or softbox but I still like to balance with the ambient. I think a fast 35 would lend itself well to this type of work.</p> <p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153669824302533.1073741916.84478217532&type=3&uploaded=31">https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153669824302533.1073741916.84478217532&type=3&uploaded=31</a></p> <p>I am just going to have to handle the Tamron and Sigma in a shop for a bit. The both seem like quite excellent options. </p> <div></div>

<p>Thanks for the input guys. <br> SIGMA- My only reason for saying he Nikon has slightly better IQ (not just sharpness, where the sigma clearly wins) is that a few reviews rated it's out of focus highlights better. The Sigma was said to have more "onion shaped" bokeh. Perhaps this is not noticeable in practical use. The weight would not bother me as I frequently "walk around" with a 24-70 or 105 (sometimes with a big flash attached) on my D750 and they are pretty hefty. I'm very glad to hear the AF issues are somewhat easily fixed and/or not as big of a problem as I thought. The internet can blow these things up a bit sometimes. I really want the sigma to win out, but the AF stuff frightened me a bit. It's price point, build quality and IQ all seem too good to be true. All my current lenses are Nikon. As far as my third party experience goes: I had the Tokina 11-16 when I shot DX which was great at what it did (again, I'm not a huge wide angle guy). I had the Tamron 70-300 for about 45 minutes before I took it back for the Nikon equivalent. I had a Sigma 85 1.4 (non-art) for a short time but the AF performance was unacceptable so I picked up (and thoroughly enjoy) the Nikkor 85 1.8 G but I usually stop down a bit with that one. I really want a 1.4 lens that I can use at 1.4 (probably because my fastest lenses are 1.8 and usually used at 2.2 or greater).<br> I have seen the Tamron review on this site, but haven't heard much else about it. The VC is a little compelling, but at 35mm I would value the 2/3 stop more than the VC. I figured if I wanted a 1.8 lens, I'd pick the Nikon. I <strong>DO UNDERSTAND</strong> the difference between Nikon 35mm DX and FX versions, BTW (I once owned the 35mm DX). The 1.8 FX ED can be had for under $500 used, which I consider cheap. Some of you have convinced me the Tamron does indeed deserve consideration. I really need to handle it, the Sigma and the Nikon 1.8 in a shop for a little while for comparison. The Nikon 1.4 may be off the table for me at this point.<br> Keith and Eric- Very nice photos. <br> On sharpness...I really think the difference in sharpness between the Nikkor 1.4 and Sigma Art would be negligible for portraits, at least. The Nikkor 1.8 ED is, by all accounts, extremely sharp, but exhibits other characteristics I'm trying to avoid. I'm not a pixel peeper, but I really want nice bokeh and that extra bit of undefinable IQ that really high quality glass provides. I owned the 20 1.8 G for a bit and it was freakishly sharp but still not quite as compelling as I had hoped. <br> I am definitely leaning toward the Sigma now. If I have troubles with AF I can always get the USB dock for another $60 bucks. If I'm using LV, I'm usually using MF so that's not really a bother. It really seems like a stellar lens that could stay in my collection for along time. Is it odd that the lack of VC, VR, IS is a little appealing to me? Maybe that is stupid, but I like the idea of a lens that is more lens than electronics. I do have a nice tripod, after all...<br> Any other examples of any of these lenses used in a low light, wide open, loosely composed environmental portrait fashion would be much appreciated. Maybe that's too specific. I'll take any examples with some shooting details.<br> I really appreciate your input and opinions. This is such a wonderful website. Thanks again.<br> Jon</p> <p> </p>

<p>I have been researching a few options for a fast 35mm. I need fast, good IQ wide open (good bokeh, contrast/color, lack of CA, flare or other bad characteristics), good autofocus and fairly sharp at large apertures. I will mostly shoot people with it but I would also use it as a walkaroud lens. The obvious choices are the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 G, Nikkor 35 1.8 ED, and Sigma 35 1.4 Art. I'd be open to other suggestions. Here are my impressions of each so far based on my recent research:<br> <strong>Nikkor 1.4 G</strong> - Most expensive, best overall IQ, probably my best bet if I can find a decent used one at a good price. Will not pay 2K for it.<br> <strong>Sigma Art</strong>- Great IQ (maybe not as smooth of bokeh as nikkor?), great sharpness, great build quality. I have read some AF issues and even suspicions that Nikon's firmware confounds AF. This gives me pause because I really need a lens that I shoot wide open to focus accurately. I took back a Sigma 85 1.4 a few years ago (Non ART) and got a Nikon 85 1.8 in favor of it's much more reliable AF.<br> <strong>Nikkor 1.8 ED</strong>- Cheap, extremely sharp (sharpest?), busy bokeh, more likely to have poor characteristics especially wide open. BUT ITS SO CHEAP....and light. I have mixed feelings on the 1.8 line up. Love my 85, don't really love my 50, was impressed (especially by sharpness) by the 20 1.8 while I had it but sold it because I didn't use it enough to justify the price (used the money to buy a used 70-200 F4, which is amazingly good and much more useful to me). <br> So there you have it. If anyone has impressions on these three or alternative suggestions that fit my needs please let me know. Thank you for your time.</p>

<p>Thank you Eric. What you say makes a lot of sense. The times it seems off are usually at higher ISO and does clear up when I stop down a bit as well (I didn't understand why I needed to, but your explanation fits). Like I said, on my deck in a non-backlit situation focus seemed to be dead on wide open. It has always been my fastest auto focusing lens, though the 70-200 f/4 is very snappy as well. I will give your procedure a shot sometime. I've pretty much always used AF-ON. I'll have to turn the beeping on. At any rate I feel better about the lens after discussing it here and testing it a bit at home. Handheld, High ISO, no VR, wide open is a risky proposition. Especially if you are shooting at 24mm and expecting the same eyelash counting ability as a lens with more magnification like the 70-200. I'll use a bit more bounce flash this winter when I'm indoors and should get some pretty sharp images.</p>

<p>Tim-I was lucky and paid only $1,600 in 2008,when the price dipped for some reason or other. I remember it costing several hundred more a month after I bought it.<br> I'm probably making a mountain of a mole hill here. Even the bit of zoom grit is not nearly as bad as some have described. The focus could very well be a technique issue. I shoot difficult subjects in very low light frequently. I will try the AF fine tune. Every time I put it on a tripod it seems pretty dead on. I tried various focal lengths while shooting my two year old daughter out on my deck (handheld) this evening and was unable to get it to miss focus. Wide open it is not quite as sharp as my 70-200 or 85, but it's definitely in focus. Maybe that's not a fair comparison. I will try the AF fine tune procedure sometime and live with the patina that years of use have given this lens. Thanks for your time guys.<br> Jon</p>

<p>Hi All.<br> I have had my 24-70 (aka "The Beast") since 2008 and it does show a some wear but generally functions fairly well. I feel like it maybe doesn't focus quite as accurately as before (especially noticeable when wide open). The zoom mechanism maybe is a bit grittier than out of the box. The rubber zoom ring is not perfectly seated anymore from me carrying it by the barrel. There is a great deal of dust visible in the rear elements (probably not a big deal). Anyway, I think it could benefit from a tune up. I went to the service section and clicked "focus not sharp" and "Zoom not smooth" and Nikon's robots gave me a $600 estimate. Just the focus is $420. I was hoping for a couple hundred. I would pay a few hundred to have my old beast be as reliably sharp as my 85 f/1.8 or 70-200 f/4, but $600 is nuts. I have not tried to AF fine tune. When stopped down a bit and shooting with lights it as brilliant as ever. Do I live with it, send it to Nikon or sell it and look at an alternative (or even another used or refurbished Nikkor 24-70)? Anyone with a similar situation want to weight in?</p>

<p>I generally agree with the above sentiments. On the other hand, I had a chance to play with my mother-in-laws D3200 and kit lenses (trying to teach her a little bit while I was visiting. I was pretty shocked at the quality of both the camera and the lenses. It's a great little camera. I have been recommending mirrorless to some casual shooters lately thinking the low end Nikons were little more than toys. Wrong. You can get very good stuff from them.</p>

<p>+1 for D810 in your situation</p>

<p>Well, that does make a difference.</p> <p>If I was OP <strong>on a budget</strong> I'd wait to see how capable the replacement is. Even if that one is not for you the price on the D7100 may drop when it comes out. OR get a refurbished D7100 now AND pick up the replacement when it comes out. Then you have a less expensive back up. I miss the days when I had 2 bodies. That is an extremely odd sentence out of context...</p> <p>If I was OP <strong>with money to burn</strong> I'd liquidate one D300 and DX lenses and get a D750, 24-105 F4, 16-35 F4 or whatever else and keep a D300 for back up and to one day preserve it in carbonite for eternity as a shrine to the golden days of Nikon DX cameras.</p> <p>He kind of sounds like he wants to spend some money and be very content for awhile rather than save some money and live with regret, but then again I don't really know him.</p>