Nikon sloppy, can we trust it ?

<blockquote><blockquote>The Sigma 50mm is clearly designed for bokeh, but its sharpness is also targetted at DX shooting</blockquote>

 

andrew, do you own this lens? and have you used it on FX?</blockquote>

 

<p>A friend owns it. I've used it on my D700, and it was very useful in low light (I borrowed it for a wedding). It has good bokeh (by the standards of the 50mm competition) and it's plenty sharp... except in the corners on FX, where my brief analysis was "eww". Photozone agrees with me. There's a reason I don't own one. On the occasion I borrowed it, soft corners were acceptable; on other occasions I might find they wouldn't be, which means that - to me - the lens wouldn't be worth its considerable cost; I commend Sigma for producing a truly premium 50mm though (something that mostly Canon have worried about in recent years). I have the same opinion of the Sigma 85mm.</p>

 

<blockquote>i have on both counts and it's sharper at f/2 than the 24-70 is at 2.8. so i'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your analysis here.</blockquote>

 

<p>That's not what photozone reports, and the 24-70 seems to be weaker near the middle of the range than at the extremes, but I don't own a 24-70 either, so I'm not going to argue. I merely suggest that at wider apertures, the 50mm Sigma is appreciably softer in the corners of full frame than it is in the centre (or out to the borders of a DX frame), and that it's not pixel-sharp on the D700 (which doesn't make it useless, but is something to be aware of). I was just responding to Ilkka's assertion that most lenses outresolve the D700 at most apertures.</p>

 

<blockquote>it's just a good lens, period, on both FX and DX, and aimed at users who will be using it at open apertures. i prefer it on FX, because the shallow DoF is even shallower. i dont think i've ever shot it narrower than 5.6 and only then on rare occasions.</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm not going to claim it's not a good lens on FX; I'm also not going to claim that the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D is a bad lens. I would, however, suggest that neither gives especially sharp corners on FX. For a lot of shooting, this doesn't matter one bit (and the smooth bokeh is far more critical); for other styles, including the kind of subjects that I end up shooting, it rather does.</p>

 

<blockquote><blockquote>Whether or not the original poster was expressing genuine concern - and whether it was just trolling -</blockquote>

 

i think maurice was genuinely concerned...</blockquote>

 

<p>I agree; some other comments seemed to suggest that he may have been trolling, so I was just responding to the possibility. I tend to assume that posters have genuine concerns anyway - and even if the originator <i>is</i> trolling, the next person to read the thread might be genuine (so I prefer anything that looks like a "trolling" thread to be allowed to run - but then I'm not a forum admin). I'd like to think we covered the truth of the situation and might have set people's minds at rest. Money where my mouth is: I ordered a D800E this morning. If there are issues, I'm sure they won't be catastrophic, and I trust Nikon (even Nikon UK!) to fix them.<br />

<br />

Then again, I did the most paranoid thing possible last time: so much of the D700 was shared with the D3 and (to a lesser extent) D300, there was very little chance of there being much wrong with it. I'd like to think that the D5100 might be in this category, since its sensor had already been shaken down on the D7000 (and NEX-5, and K5...) This time I waited past the release date for some issues on the D800 to resolve themselves (and for some pay cheques), but I'm not exactly quaking in my boots.</p>

<p>This is my first post on this thread. First of all, Lex and I had discussed this. <a name="00acZk"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5562214">Maurice Orozco</a> the OP here is a regular contributor to this forum. Obviously I can't read his mind, but there is no reason for Lex and me to believe that he is trolling. I would appreciate if people can stop making that accusation. Lex has deleted a post that made that suggestion.</p>

<p>However, I do feel that there are many regular trolls on some other Nikon Forums outside of photo.net. I received my D800 test sample from Nikon early on, in late March. Everything was fine on that camera without any defects. Bob Atkins here on photo.net has also used that same camera and finds no issues. By April and May, I have read about tons of D800 AF issues, especially concerning left AF points, on DPReview forums, etc. Therefore, when I received my own D800E in mid June, I was concerned also. I immediately tested my new D800E like crazy and checked the left and right AF points. But just like the D800 I used earlier (and still had with me at that time), my D800E is perfectly fine. Of course, I only have experience with two samples, which is a very small number almong perhaps over 200K produced so far.</p>

<p>One thing I am absolutely sure about is that we will get to read about a lot of problems, especially AF problems, on the next three DSLRs Nikon introduces, regardless of which actual models they may be. Those trolls and sensational threads are completely predictable now.</p>

<p>Thank you for the (reassuring) information on your cameras, Shun. Maurice, apologies if any of my posts sounded as though they were accusing you; I'd meant to talk of threads in general for which the motivations of the instigator are unclear - I don't put this one in that category. I'll endeavour to report back with another sample point when I've had the chance to test my D800E.</p>

<p>I think the following should be axiomatic: "Just because a problem is real, doesn't mean you have it."</p>

<p>Maurice has made some valid criticisms of recently released Nikon cameras. One does not need to be an owner of a certain model, in order to follow other owner's experience's. To say otherwise, would negate the notion, and basis of an inter-net forum, which is to share ideas and experiences.<br /> This is my opinion on the D800 issue: Nikon over-reached themselves by introducing a camera packed with 36 MP, especially so soon after a devastating natural disaster, both in Japan and Thailand. They should have introduced a camera with 24 MP first, then released the 36 MP tour-de-force at Photo-Kina, in September.<br /> It was a poor management decision. I would not blame the engineers for this.</p>

<p><strong>Jerry: </strong>I believe the D800/800E is enjoying unprecedented <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=40880852">sales volume</a>. Please remember that people mostly go to internet forums to complain. Go to flickr.com and do a tag search on D800, and you will see lots of evidence--in the form of actual PICTURES at full resolution--to demonstrate that Nikon has NOT overreached itself.</p>

<p>Jerry: to be fair, the problems that people have seen with the D800 aren't, as far as I know, to do with the sensor resolution. I believe (an impression from what I've read) that, when the autofocus is off, it"s off by enough that you'd notice it on a lower resolution camera. 24MP isn't that much lower, after all.<br />

<br />

Nikon are selling D800s about as fast as they can make them, despite bumping the price (in some regions) - I've not seen it discounted much, either. For a premium product, that's a good thing; I assume Nikon are making a reasonable margin on them. If a 24(?)MP "D600" were to launch before the D800 had, I suspect Nikon would have lost a lot of D800 sales from people who had upgraded once and weren't prepared to do so again, or who felt that a D600 was "good enough". I might have been in this category myself (and I've not been alone in expecting a "D700x" with a D3x sensor for some time). By releasing the premium product first, Nikon encourages those who are borderline about which camera they want (and there are certainly those who were waiting for the D700 to be replaced with <i>something</i>) to jump on the high end - a cheaper D600 would then only pick up those who had waited and <i>really</i> didn't want a D800 (or who only started looking for an upgrade after the rush). The same thing happened with the D3/D700 - if the D700 had been launched first, I suspect Nikon would have sold far fewer D3 bodies.<br />

<br />

[Disclaimer: This paragraph is rampant speculation.] The problem with a 24(ish)MP "D600" is that it has to compete with the 5D3 without cannibalising the D800 or D4. Upping the frame rate to 7fps might impinge on D4 sales a bit (it would be a pretty viable sports camera, and some pro sports shooters might like the resolution) and tempt a number of people away from the D800. At a decent price, it would have to match the 5D3 on ISO performance as well, which means you can't just re-use the D3x's sensor - not a cheap proposition. I suspect Nikon could get away with a 24MP camera with the same(ish) 4-5fps as the D800, or 6-7 fps with the sensor from the D4; but to sell against the 5D3 I suspect they'd have to be cheap (not a bad thing for the consumer), and to avoid stealing sales from the expensive cameras they can't be more capable than that. There's a lot of call (and rumour) for a 24MP camera; I've no doubt that a D4 sensor would be cheaper for Nikon (they already have the sensors) and would have better low light handling, but I don't know how well it would compete with the 5D3 and the frame rate would have to be low enough not to steal D4 sales (but a <i>really</i> cheap FX camera with D4 noise handling might replace my D700 - Nikon, got any D3s sensors left?) A D3x ISO-1600-limited sensor <i>might</i> be competitive against the 5D3 if priced low enough; improving the sensor characteristics in a cheap camera without stealing sales from the D4 or D800 may be tricky, especially with a 5D3 frame rate. The problem here is competing with the used 5D2 market - and the D3200; there's no doubt that the 5D3 is a more general-purpose camera than a D800, and the problem with a general-purpose D600 is that it can't be too good. The 5D3 is appearing quite heavily discounted, presumably under pressure from the D800, so that raises the bar for a cheaper FX body. I doubt Nikon could take the route of differentiating by crippling the autofocus (looking worse than the D7000 or 5D3 again) either. I'll be interested to see what Nikon might eventually produce; I've been a mile off in the past, assuming that the 5D2 would have the 16MP sensor from the 1Ds II (not III) and that the D800 would inherit the D3x sensor...</p>

<p>For whatever its worth Andrew, think about this: Most people have come to understand "FX or Full Frame" is the "premium" DSLR format. If Nikon introduces a D7000 with a 24MP FX sensor, for $1500, then amateurs or budding professionals will jump on that, not because they wouldn't rather have the more professional D800 or D4, but because their budgets is sub $2000. What happens then? Nikon starts to get a whole bunch of budding professionals getting into the game who want FF but can't afford the 5DmkIII while the 5DmkII looks too old (a solid 24MP sensor camera with a D7000 AF and reasonable low light would probably be at least on par with the now old and soon discontinued 5DmkII). That way Nikon starts collecting all the beginners who will eventually upgrade to a D800 or D4 when they have the money. The reason I say this is because I know several photographers that got started in Canon and even though they acknowledge the benefits of Nikon, especially with as far as Nikon has come in the past few years, its very difficult for them to switch because they become very invested in a platform. If Nikon can start gathering those pros early, with a cheap FF body, then its really not about being a professional model competing with the D800\D4, its about offering new photographers, pros and amateurs alike a way to get into FF now inexpensively with a half pro\half prosumer body and having the options to upgrade to a nicer D800\D4 down the road when they can afford it.</p>

<p>I want to add to this thread because I really think the AF left sensor issue has been overblown to the point that we, all new owners, are kind of becoming obsessively paranoiac about the issue. And I include myself in this.</p>

<p>I first received my D800 on May 17th from Amazon after close to 2.5 months wait. After the first shot I noticed a very pronounced green cast on the LCD and thus returned the camera to Amazon.</p>

<p>On July 5th the replacement camera was delivered, the LCD was fine but after a quick test shooting a map of a wall it seemed to have the left AF problem. So much so that I placed another order at Amazon in case I decided to return this new one. Today I run a very precise test shooting books on a shelve so I could make an informed decision before shipping the unit back. I run my test using two lenses, a Nikon 24-70/2.8G at 24mm and a Nikon 16-35/4G at 16mm. All shots turned out to be perfectly focused using 3 different sensors; the extreme left, the central, and the extreme rights sensors.</p>

<p>Aside from these real (LCD on first unit) or perceived (AF on second unit) issues both bodies delivered outstanding pictures. Last week I shot a waterfall in the dark and got the expected amazing details but also an unbelievable dynamic range with very little or no noise. The D800 is the real thing.</p>

<p>I do not say that the AF issue is not real on some bodies, it's impossible to get a 100% perfect quality from any manufacturing facilities, there's always a few bad sheep. Can we trust Nikon? I emphatically say YES!</p>

<p>I have tried Nikon D800 with 70-200 F2.8 o<strong>n birds in flight.</strong> It gave excellent tresults . I mean<strong> birds in flight and in focus</strong>. I shot handheld ,This camera is not built for BIF, but studio. Still I tried on most erratic difficult subjects it worked. AF is not problem w D800. </p>

<p>Thank you Andrew for your fulsome explanation. The situation vis a vis the market and technology really is more complex than I imagined. <br>

I actually went with a Canon 5DMKII some time back, as my first, and only FF camera. I have no regrets so far. I had used the D1 series, the D2Xs and recently bought a lightly used D200. I will buy the 5DIII at some point in time, and a "D600". It is reassuring to have both systems to choose from.</p>

<p>Skyler: I agree, and I think Nikon will do well when/if they produce a D600 (wherever such a camera may lie in the range of possible specifications). I just think they did the right thing by releasing the D800 first - I suspect Nikon would prefer that people who were waiting for whatever replaced the D700 buy the more expensive camera. I'll be interested to see whether Canon feel the need to update the 1Ds series.</p>

<p>I'd expect a cheaper D600 to be an awfully popular back-up camera, too - I'll probably keep my D700 for sentimental reasons, but I'll certainly be wondering (as I wonder about a D3200 for distant subjects). I guess the question is how cheaply such a camera can be made - an FX sensor is still a big lump of silicon, no matter how Moore's law progresses. One thing I would like to know is whether the D3x sensor can be used with minimal development but produce a better high ISO performance (I believe the D3x is already pretty good on dynamic range, if not as good as the D800) if paired with a more modern off-sensor engine. I don't really have a feeling of how much the sensor itself is responsible for noise (and which silicon contains the ADCs) - or how much developing a completely new sensor would cost Nikon compared with continuing to use the D3x/A900 sensor. I look forward to finding out.</p>

<p>Jerry: don't take anything I say as authoritative! I'm not even an official industry analyst, let alone someone who knows what's going on. I switched from Canon to Nikon with the launch of the D700 (shortly before a holiday for which I wanted to upgrade my 300D) - but before I would have bought expensive EF lenses. I wasn't expecting the 5D2 to be as capable as it was, so I'm not as sure I made the right decision as I would have been if it had had the 1Ds2 sensor I expected, but I've had very few complaints about my D700 - except when running out of pixels, which the D800 solves nicely. As Skyler suggests, I'm now committed to Nikon, although I'll keep my few Canon bodies and cheaper EF lenses just in case. I envy you the ability to keep two systems on the go - my non-Nikon purchases are currently very different systems (GF2 and power 14-42 for portability, Pentax 645 for film area, looking at a 5x4).</p>

<blockquote>

<p> it was very useful in low light (I borrowed it for a wedding). It has good bokeh (by the standards of the 50mm competition) and it's plenty sharp... except in the corners on FX, where my brief analysis was "eww". Photozone agrees with me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Technically, you're agreeing with photozone since their statement came first, but in any event, photozone is notorious for underrating real-world usefulness of many lenses, since their tests are mainly lab. the sigma 50 is well-known for its bokeh, so you're not saying anything we dont already know... in <em>my</em> real-world usage, it's awesome on FX. obviously there's a tradeoff for sharper open aperture performance, but then again, i dont buy a 1.4 lens to use it at f/11. i think it's silly to be snobby about a lens which meets all the criteria its supposed to, at essentially the same price as less-capable competition (in that criteria) -- one really has to go out of one's way to turn ones nose up at this.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's not what photozone reports</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So? again, I own both lenses and that's been my experience. Obviously i'm going to rate that a bit higher than someone who has neither paraphrasing 3rd-party lab tests.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I don't own a 24-70 either, so I'm not going to argue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>thank you for "not" arguing about lenses you don't have. ;)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I merely suggest that at wider apertures, the 50mm Sigma is appreciably softer in the corners of full frame than it is in the centre</p>

</blockquote>

<p>again, tell us something we don't know. and couldnt this be said of any fast lens? or most lenses, for that matter. are there any non-obvious points you want to make? again, i dont buy 1.4 lenses to shoot them at f/11.</p>

<p>getting back to maurice's ?,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can we trust Nikon based on this lately behavior ?<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>i'm going to say this is a personal choice. if nikon's handling of the d800's QC situation has shattered your faith in humanity, you're more than welcome to not buy any more Nikon products and sell all your current gear. OTOH, you could wait for the situation to resolve itself. i think its silly to worry too much about issues with a camera you dont have, unless you're considering buying one. it's also silly to project that fear onto other products which arent even out yet. As shun said a while back, nikon has faced some extenuating circumstances in recent months. i tend to give them the beneft of the doubt, but i also agree with thom hogan that if a new purchaser does buy a lemon, the company should pay all costs incurred to fix the problem.</p>

 

<p>Well, apparently "<em>nikon's handling of the d800's QC situation has shattered</em>" Thom Hogan's confidence sufficiently enough as he just downgraded the D800/D800E in his review to "<strong>not recommended</strong>": http://bythom.com/nikond800review.htm because he now considers the "left AF" problem widespread enough and is also disappointed with Nikon's (non-) handling of the issue.</p>

<p>Dieter: Yes, I spotted that. Am I now concerned about the D800e that's in the post to me? Um, a bit. I hope such a high profile criticism might get Nikon to pull their finger out. (I'm quietly hopeful that I won't have a problem, but I'm not relying on it.)</p>

<p>That's the problem in today's world - it's easy to make a mountain out of a mole hill; but just sometimes, there really is a mountain to begin with. At least Thom seems to think so now (I am sure he wasn't making that decision lightly) and since he is fairly high profile - people sure will notice. And maybe he can achieve something similar as was achieved via internet not too long ago with adobe and the upgrade pricing policy and pricing.</p>

<p>Nikon seems to have handled the battery recall very well - so it is a bit of a surprise that this AF issue seems to be handled rather poorly. If it really is just a calibrator problem of one unit at the factory, this shouldn't be an issue IMO - but now I have doubts as to that indeed is the correct explanation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon seems to have handled the battery recall very well - so it is a bit of a surprise that this AF issue seems to be handled rather poorly. If it really is just a calibrator problem of one unit at the factory, this shouldn't be an issue IMO - but now I have doubts as to that indeed is the correct explanation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There was a different level of liability exposure for Nikon with batteries - personal injury and property damage. Nikon won't admit to manufacturing problems until it looks worse for them not to. Good for Thom, though I doubt any review sites will follow suit due to not wanting to risk the loaner body access for their reviews.</p>

<p>Eric, thank you for your advise but for next time, keep it for yourself. I know what to do and when I am going to do it. I don't need any personal advise from anybody unless I am requesting that. Personally, I don't trust the way Nikon is handling the issue with the D800 and this is my opinion and I won't change it regardless of all the inputs in this thread.<br>

I am sorry if some people were offended because some of them in this forum took it very personal and said too many things about my post that were beyond of any professionalism and respect. This was not against anybody but the company Nikon that I have been a customer with since 1988 when I bought my first Nikon, the N8008, SB-24 and two lenses : 35-70 and 70 to 200. So I am not new in the business my friends and even though I never had any problem ( so far ) with all the cameras and lenses that I bought since 1988, my concern was about the upcoming cameras D600 / D400 that I would like to buy and of course, based on the way Nikon is handling the issue with the D800, I have all the right as a customer, to be worry and express this in this forum. I wanted to hear from people who bought this camera and found this kind of issue, so probably Nikon is listening or reading and change their attitude toward this problem. <br>

To those that received a good camera, congratulations but in the future, be more professional when saying your opinion.<br>

Also, I am living in the United States. In this country, we are use to have an excellent customer service from companies. 20 years ago, it was much better than today. Nikon is not showing any concern by asking their customers to pay for shipping and handling to return the D800 which is already proved that it does have some issues with the AF left sensor.<br>

Here in this country, we want to pay for our products and when we open the box, we want them to work as expected right away. In this country we have Quality Control and Assurance with the products offered in any store. That's is why people from around the world, come here to buy stuff, because they know or expect, those products are going to be in good shape out of the box MOST of the time, perhaps, ALWAYS.<br>

I am not saying that 100% should work perfect but when you find a product with problems out of the box, the least the manufacturer should do is to pay for the shipping and handling and apologize for the mistake. I am used to this behavior not to the contrary. I don't know what's going on with Nikon but if somebody is going to excuse them due to the tsunami or any other natural disaster they have suffered, so be it. For me, it is not an excuse. A company with such a great reputation should wait a bit longer to come up with a camera perhaps instead rushing their market and bring something to our table that is not working for too many, in the way they expected and I don't care is Cannon also did it. I am a Nikon customer not Cannon. Again, thank you to those with a professional attitude and not necessarily those who agreed with me.</p>

<p>Best regards.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I don't trust the way Nikon is handling the issue with the D800 and this is my opinion and I won't change it regardless of all the inputs in this thread.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maurice, I wonder what is the basis for your comment? What is your personal experience with Nikon D800 issues and what is your personal experience with Nikon's handling, or not handling such issues?</p>

<p>I am well aware that there are a lot of discussions over on DPReview forums on the D800 (left) AF point issue. However, as I mentioned on the thread: <a href="00ae4R">Thom Hogan Declares D800 "Not Recommended"</a>, I have not been able to find a whole lot of personal complaints about D800 AF issues here on this very forum. There are posts where people repeat what they read else where, but those are not personal, first-hand experience.</p>

<p>Personally, I only have experience with one D800 and one D800E. That is a tiny sample among perhaps 200K D800/D800E sold so far. The two I have used are both perfect, but statistically that is a meaninglessly small sample.</p>

<p>Oops - sorry Eric, I'd not meant to ignore your post.</p>

 

<blockquote><blockquote>it was very useful in low light (I borrowed it for a wedding). It has good bokeh (by the standards of the 50mm competition) and it's plenty sharp... except in the corners on FX, where my brief analysis was "eww". Photozone agrees with me.</blockquote>

 

Technically, you're agreeing with photozone since their statement came first, but in any event, photozone is notorious for underrating real-world usefulness of many lenses, since their tests are mainly lab. the sigma 50 is well-known for its bokeh, so you're not saying anything we dont already know...</blockquote>

 

<p>Actually, I tried the 50mm before Photozone published their review, so they did, in fact, agree with me. As for not saying anything we don't know, you can't criticise me for mentioning a test result <i>and</i> for reporting a personal experience in the same post. I want to please, here!</p>

 

<blockquote>in my real-world usage, it's awesome on FX. obviously there's a tradeoff for sharper open aperture performance, but then again, i dont buy a 1.4 lens to use it at f/11. i think it's silly to be snobby about a lens which meets all the criteria its supposed to, at essentially the same price as less-capable competition (in that criteria) -- one really has to go out of one's way to turn ones nose up at this.</blockquote>

 

<p>In the context of the discussion, I was merely reporting that the Sigma was an example of a lens that doesn't out-resolve a D700 sensor, in the corners, at wide apertures. I personally choose to avoid lenses whose corners are this soft wide open - this wouldn't matter for many shots, but it would for the kind of shots I do. I don't claim that anyone who likes this lens is erroneous to do so, and I'm not ignoring its good points, merely pointing out a caveat. It <i>is</i> sharp to the limits of a DX frame, which is why I'm happy to recommend it to a DX shooter without reservation.</p>

 

<blockquote><blockquote>That's not what photozone reports</blockquote>

 

So? again, I own both lenses and that's been my experience. Obviously i'm going to rate that a bit higher than someone who has neither paraphrasing 3rd-party lab tests.</blockquote>

 

<p>That wasn't an attempt to argue, that was just an expression of surprise at the disparity. Photozone's report backs my own experience that the 50mm Sigma hasn't sharpened at the corners (or edges) by that point. The centre of the Sigma's images are extremely sharp, and I'm not going to criticise that at all. I'd never heard of, or seen in sample images, the 24-70 being as soft in the corners as the Sigma has been for me at f/2. No, the 24-70 isn't perfect either (by all reports) - which is <i>why</i> I don't own one.</p>

 

<blockquote><blockquote>I don't own a 24-70 either, so I'm not going to argue.</blockquote>

 

thank you for "not" arguing about lenses you don't have. ;)</blockquote>

 

<p>Apologies if I sounded like I was arguing. I was just noting that your experience doesn't seem to reflect what (multiple) reviewers have said, and it surprised me given my personal experience of the Sigma. I was hoping that you might be able to explain the difference - whether it's a particular way you're using it or because, perhaps, there's something wrong with your 24-70.</p>

 

<blockquote><blockquote>I merely suggest that at wider apertures, the 50mm Sigma is appreciably softer in the corners of full frame than it is in the centre</blockquote>

 

again, tell us something we don't know. and couldnt this be said of any fast lens? or most lenses, for that matter. are there any non-obvious points you want to make? again, i dont buy 1.4 lenses to shoot them at f/11.</blockquote>

 

<p>The point I was actually making was simply that the Sigma f/1.4 doesn't outresolve the D700's sensor in the corners at fast apertures, since this was what we were (at the time) discussing. Since my first post mentioning these lenses, I've been saying that this isn't necessarily a problem, though that doesn't stop it being a fact. But I can rephrase my comment on this lens:<br />

<br />

<i>Most lenses are appreciably softer in the corners than in the centre, especially so when shot at wide apertures, and I personally found the 50mm Sigma f/1.4 is an example in which the corners of the FX frame are especially soft at wide apertures.</i><br />

<br />

As Ilkka points out, this is partly because the lens was designed to give nice bokeh and a trade-off was made; I suspect part of that trade-off was noting that there are a lot more APS-C shooters out there than full-frame ones, and sharp FX corners was less of a priority than good bokeh and sharpness to the bounds of the APS-C frame. I'm not going to criticise Sigma for this.<br />

<br />

To paraphrase Galileo: <i>And yet, it's soft.</i> And, for me, that's a reason not to buy one.<br />

<br />

By all reports (no, I've not tried every lens that I don't think I'm going to want based on the reviews), the Nikkor is much sharper to the corners of FX but - from the images I've seen - has worse bokeh; I turned my nose up at both of them and decided I don't need a fast 50mm all that much. Instead I have an 85mm f/1.4 Samyang, which (being manual focus) cost less than either 50mm, is acceptably sharp to the corners, and has extremely nice bokeh. I don't expect others to make the same decision (especially if you really need a 50mm), but I don't see the harm in admitting what trade-offs have been made.<br />

<br />

I'd not meant this to turn into a review of the 50mm Sigma at all, otherwise I would have claimed only limited expertise - and no, I'm not expecting to tell anyone something new. Unless, of course, someone says "almost all good lenses basically saturate the D700 sensor with detail at most apertures" (note that I <i>do</i> consider the Sigma 50mm to be a "good lens"), or makes claims of the Sigma's performance that don't seem to correlate with what I - or anyone else I've heard of - have seen.<br />

<br />

I'm not suggesting that Ilkka or Eric don't know what they're talking about (I have a great deal of respect for both, more so than for my own experience), but I do think that the next potential purchaser of one of these lenses who stumbles across this thread deserves some balance.<br />

<br />

Maurice: I appreciate your concerns, especially given Thom Hogan's decision to put pressure on Nikon. I agree that Nikon should probably have handled this differently from a PR perspective. I hope they can regain your trust in the future; for now, I choose to believe that the problem is only affecting a minority of users (which doesn't excuse Nikon's behaviour towards them) and that most customers ought to be happy.<br />

<br />

My D800E turned up late last night (thanks, courier, for leaving a three grand package with a neighbour - glad I get on with them...) I've not had a chance to shoot with it yet, but I'll report back when I have, and hopefully one more sample point will be useful.</p>

<p>As reported in other threads, as far as I can tell, my D800E's autofocus seems okay. Whether I was lucky or whether it's new enough that the problem is fixed, I don't know. All is well so far.</p>