SIGMA 50 F/1.4 on a D200

[bill_keane2]

<p>I just received my Sigma 50 f/1.4. Geez, I hate the front cap... What a neat piece of glass!<br>

At 720mm there seems to be a consistent 10 mm back-focus.<br>

Here are two images, if I can post them, both taken at 800ISO at 1.4 on a tripod. The "Cross in my pocket" card is at the center of focus, and was 7 feet away. The enlargement was close to 100% </p><div></div>

[bill_keane2]

<p>And here's the 100%...</p><div></div>

[stephen_worth]

<p>The focus on the edge of the window sill seems sharper than on the paper. It might help in low light like this to reduce your number of focus points to one in the center. There appears to be a considerable amount of high ISO noise too. It's possible that noise reduction is affecting the image sharpness. Try shooting in daylight and force the aperture to 1.4 by upping the shutter speed.</p>

[photo5]

<p>Bill, that is remarkable resoultion for f1.4. Thanks for posting the example. I will be interested to hear more about the Nikon version in a shootout with the Sigma.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Ah, the D200 at ISO 800 (I know from whence I speak, Bill)!<br /><br />For these tests, just knock the ISO down to 100, and give in... use a strobe. Even the pop-up, for a few tests. This shot's a bit under-exposed across the board... and the D200's AF system may have been struggling a bit in a room dim enough to require ISO800, f/1.4, 1/60th. <br /><br />But more to the point, what <em>is</em> that black and white gimble-looking contraption on the kitchen counter?</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>Bill, the lens look fine. The image looked a little noisy. Try a lower ISIO setting and the image quality will be much better.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Well, I'm not stunned. I'd send it back and get a Nikkor.</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>Your technique is probably a big part of the reason that you aren't impressed. No improvement in optics can fix that.</p>

[bill_keane2]

<p>Stephen, what an ignorant expression! But for you, there's hope! An improvement in IQ is all you need! </p>

[bill_keane2]

<p>Thanks Hansen.<br>

I only chose the ISO because I was really rushed to see if I could post here quickly...<br>

Truth is, I am VERY impressed.</p>

 

[bill_keane2]

<p>"Bill, that is remarkable resolution for f1.4. Thanks for posting the example." -- Dave Lee</p>

<p>Dave, you are right. It's quite a lens.</p>

[andreas_manessinger]

<p>No need to hate the lens cap. The first thing I always do when I get a new Sigma lens, is replacing the completely unacceptable front cap with a Nikon :)</p>

<p>It's funny btw, Canon uses very similar caps that can also not used with the Lens hood attached. Nikon, Tokina, Zeiss and I believe Sony make acceptable lens caps, but the Nikon are really among the best.</p>

<p>Sigma back caps are trash as well, because they fit in only one position. So far I haven't replaced them though.</p>

<p>As to the image, yes, nice sharpness and probably how you expect to use the lens in low light.</p>

<p>Much fun with your new toy and happy holidays</p>

[bill_keane2]

<p>Yes Andreas, I think a Nikon cap needs to be a speedy acquisition... The Sigma one is real tempermental in terms of how it wants to go on...</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The caps for my Sigma 10-20 and 30/1.4 are being used to level out a desk on a crooked floor in our basement. Even the generic pinch-style caps, brand X, are more pleasant! I forgive Sigma this minor irritation because... I'm now used to the fact of it. It's just like the weather. There are always unpleasant days, and Sigma lenses always ship with annoying lens caps. A minor issue! The lenses either serve or they don't, and I've been consistently pleased with the two I mention above. I'm looking forward, Bill, to more samples with your new hunka glass.</p>

[bill_keane2]

<p>Here's one at 1.4...</p><div></div>

[seismiccwave]

<p>Yes, very pleasant bokeh. Tack sharp eye lashes! I am definitely keeping mine.;-)</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>From what I understand, the slight OoF highlight onioning goes away by even f/1.8, but is often rendered more apparent than it really is because of JPG artifacts. Color rendition really looks nice here, Bill (it's handling those freckles and skin tones beautifully!).</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>Sorry, I read Dan Brown as you. That latest shot is great.</p>

[bill_keane2]

<p>Apology accepted Stephen. I apologize for my response.</p>