Upgrading from D90 to FX camera. What to buy?

[chip_chipowski]

<p>This is wide open in bright sunlight. Exposure is a little hot.</p><div></div>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Here's another one wide open. Resolution is good on my subject, and I'm not worried about edge sharpness with this composition. I like the OOF rendering on this lens.</p><div></div>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Another one to show how this lens handles somewhat busy foreground and background. Wide open.</p><div></div>

[steven_pink]

<p>Thank you for all the examples, Chip! I'm definitely considering the older version a bit more. I don't mind some edge softness wide open because I doubt I will shoot wide open a WHOLE lot. Especially considering I do most of my portrait sessions outdoors in bright conditions. How's the edge softness around f/2.8 to f/4?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i have the older sigma 30. the edges are soft, period, until 5.6. best apertures for that lens are 2.2-2.8 for shallow DoF with living subjects. for still lifes emphasizing bokeh, you can shoot wide open if need be. IMO this is a lens which is optimized for bokeh more than sharpness or edge acuity, although it's just 'sharp enough' for environmental portraits, which is where it excels. it beats out the nikon 35/1.8 for sharpness at wide apertures in my non-scientific tests and doesnt have the same fringing problem. if it focused a little closer it would have been a classic, as it is now it's a lens you need to wrangle with to eke out best results with. the used prices on it are pretty affordable right now, and if you're sticking to DX, you need speed, period.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the nikon 35/1.8 is certainly a good deal at $100 used but i think the sigma 30 will fit the OP's style better. the nikon's bokeh isnt as harsh as the 50/1.8 D, but not smooth and buttery by any means and any OOF highlights can take on weird shapes and/or colors. that said, it's decently sharp in the center at wide apertures and you do pick up some edges when stopping down. the sigma, however, has more going for it if you like bokeh and it gives you the 1.4 option which may come in handy on DX. i never really used it for landscape pics so the lack of edge sharpness wasnt really a problem, but the edge performance at 5.6 is as good as it gets. you wont see any improvement from stopping down further, but who cares with a 1.4 lens which is actually usable at 1.4? no question it has better foreground and background bokeh than the nikon, and $150 difference to gain the faster aperture is probably worth it unless your budget is so tight that you would risk missing meals if you got it.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Steven, I'll see if I can find any examples at 2.8 and 4. I think Eric is right - edge performance is just not what this lens is about. For me, that works just fine because I am generally using the lens with a limited DOF. Even at larger apertures like 2.8 to 5.6, you can really get good subject isolation. The closer your subject the better, obviously. I'm not talking about telephoto separation, I just mean that my edges are not usually in the focal plane. I would go so far as to say, the weak corners might give the lens some charm. I think the center sharpness really "pops" sometimes because it contrasts against the softer corners. </p>

<p>Just for your reference, I snapped a photo of my naked Sigma. If you go for the original version, keep an eye on the condition of the paint. If it has some chips/peels, they paint may start falling off. As I mentioned above, I decided to just strip the paint off and I like it this way better anyways.</p><div></div>

[steven_pink]

That actually looks pretty cool without the paint! I'm not really concerned about edge performance because a lot of the

time I lightly vignette the corners on portraits anyway. I found some examples on pixel-peeper of the sigma at f/5.6 and it

seems to deliver pretty reasonable edge sharpness there. However, I also noticed chromatic aberration being apparent in

a lot of images at the edges when at f/5.6 - is that common with the older sigma?

[eric_arnold]

<p>ive only shot with the 30/1.4 at 5.6 literally a handful of times. cant say it really stood out as far as CA, but it definitely has less LoCA than the nikon 35/1.8. the bigger issue is that it does tend to overexpose at 1.4-f/2. i usually dial in -0.3 to -0.7 EC as a workaround. not a perfect lens, but a good one for DX users, especially at current used prices. i moved up to the sigma 50/1.4 when i went to FX which is even more bokehlicious, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a better 'bokeh lens' at that focal length on DX.</p>

[steven_pink]

<p>With how helpful you all have been, I'd love your input on this as well... I was just contacted about shooting an event for a charity group and I'm a little confused on how to price/license things...</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/business-photography-forum/00cr0J</p>

[Two23]

<p>If you check DxO website, they have a test of both Sigma 30mm f1.4. Their tests show the lowest CA by far is the new Sigma 30mm f1.4. Wider angle lenses seem in general more prone to CA wide open than longer ones, I believe. If I did it right, here should be a DxO comparision of the Sigmas and the Nikon 35mm f1.8G on a D7100:<br>

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/30mm-f-1.4-DC-EX-Nikon-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-Sigma-30mm-F14-DC-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-35-mm-f-1.8G-on-Nikon-D7100___294_865_1099_865_313_865</p>

<p>As for edge sharpness, this is not necessarily a plus for portrait use. One of the reasons I love using old (and I mean OLD!) lenses is they are NOT sharp as you go away from the center. People spend extra money to get something like the Nikon 105mm DC and Rodenstock Imagon 250mm to get that soft transition like that.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[steven_pink]

<blockquote>

<p>As for edge sharpness, this is not necessarily a plus for portrait use. One of the reasons I love using old (and I mean OLD!) lenses is they are NOT sharp as you go away from the center. People spend extra money to get something like the Nikon 105mm DC and Rodenstock Imagon 250mm to get that soft transition like that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's exactly why I'm more and more drawn toward the older Sigma 30mm. It's half the cost of the new one and the soft edges are visually appealing in portrait photography. The fact that I <em>could</em> shoot a landscape with it by stopping down to f/5.6 is just an added bonus. My free time photography is mostly night shots and being creative with light.<br /> I took this last night:<br /> <img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2945/15169462270_9420de74e7_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="680" /></p>

[Two23]

<p>Steven--<br>

Nice shot. I too am an avid night shooter. You want something to try, just for fun? It's cheap too! Go on ebay and buy one of those pinhole body caps for about ten bucks. You need a tripod, of course. It is fun!</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<div></div>

[steven_pink]

<p>I was near Appleton, MN about a month ago! I was shooting pictures (and competing) at a dog dock diving competition.<br>

<img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3869/15160532069_4c718828e7_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="819" /></p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>all this talk about the sigma 30 made me dust mine off and take a shot with it. definitely a 'bokeh lens.'</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>^ SOOC jpeg, btw.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Steven - <a href="http://1drv.ms/1BltrMH">here</a> are some RAW files that show you comparisons in the 2.8 to 5.6 range. These are quick, hand held shots so don't rely on them for critical sharpness. But I think they tend to show how the resolution drops off towards the edges of the frame. Maybe you can see some CA behavior too, I don't know if the shampoo bottle is enough of a stress test. Btw, the files are uploading at the time of this post, so it may take 30-40 minutes for those RAW files to be available.</p>

[steven_pink]

Thank you so much, Chip! I'll download them all when I get back to my computer and check them out!

[steven_pink]

<p>Alright, everyone... I got a friend to loan me a D7000 for the past week. I absolutely loved it! It's <strong>SO </strong>much better than my D90! This raises one more question: For a $300+ price difference, does the D7100 offer that much more capability? The one FPS boost shooting in crop mode seems irrelevant to me and the 24 vs 16 MP doesn't seem to make that much of a difference since we're still recording on the same size APS-C sensor. Can I get your opinions on what makes the D7100 more valuable?</p>

[steven_pink]

<p>It's a bit late, but I wanted to thank everyone for their input! I ended up finding a D7000 a few weeks ago at a camera shop for $465 with a battery grip and couldn't pass up the deal. I also ended up winning a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 with the paint scratched off and a small scratch in the front element for only $100 on eBay. I absolutely love the new body and lens! Your recommendations were unbelievably helpful!</p>