The "New Gear/Willy Waving" thread

James J said:
Its sharp but has crap bokeh. Also owned and used it myself :)
Click to expand...

Why is it crap? I liked it :) Yes it's not as good as 1.4 lenses, but I got some nice results bokeh wise. I also like the look of images taken with it. They generally have a nice contrasty look to them :) One of the first photos I took with it is framed on the wall behind me :)
 
50 1.8
Noisy inconsistent focus. Too soft for me at 1.8. Sharp enough at F2.
Sharp on a crop. Soft towards the edges on FF.
Nervous bokeh.

85 1.8
CA is an issue. 1.8 a little too soft. F2 ok. Not the most consistent focuser either.
 
Can't say I had any issues with sharpness. I've not used it on my FF as it's been with my sister and is now being shipped to my dad to use :)
 
ElDude said:
Why is it crap? I liked it :) Yes it's not as good as 1.4 lenses, but I got some nice results bokeh wise. I also like the look of images taken with it. They generally have a nice contrasty look to them :) One of the first photos I took with it is framed on the wall behind me :)
Click to expand...

Because wide open it produces pentagram bokeh "balls" due to its blade design. Thats the only major issue with the lens as far as I'm concerned as the plastic creaky body and noisy AF was a none issue considering the price. My copy was sharp wide open on FF, so theres probably just some rubbish copies out there if people notice any difference on a different combination, yet mine was great for sharpness.

Like I said, the bokeh is what I had a problem with. Try taken a photograph in a woodland with it to really see the worst of what the lens offers in terms of bokeh, due to the varying sizes and intensity of light that permeates through trees.
 
An Exception said:
50 1.8
Noisy inconsistent focus. Too soft for me at 1.8. Sharp enough at F2.
Sharp on a crop. Soft towards the edges on FF.
Nervous bokeh.

85 1.8
CA is an issue. 1.8 a little too soft. F2 ok. Not the most consistent focuser either.
Click to expand...

That the Nikon lenses?
 
The 50 1.8 II is a fine lens if you ignore the noisy AF and occasionally undecided AF :p

I've used it at 1.8 and acquired sharp results on a crop body but I do understand on FF it's softer at the edges (to a small degree)

The bokeh is actually quite fine, if you don't have light points in the BG then the bokeh can be pleasing and in other shots where there are, the hexagonal balls can look quite good although not good in others. it's one you have to adapt to. I had 2 copies of the lens for several years.

It wouldn't be my choice of lens on a 5D3 though, even though it can resolve quite well, that AF system and power should be coupled with the 1.4 at least!

Also I'd take the review site in lab tests with a pinch of salt. in the real world result do vary (usually in your favour) and your experience may well prove them not as valid as it would seem.
 
Last edited:
James J said:
Because wide open it produces pentagram bokeh "balls" due to its blade design. Thats the only major issue with the lens as far as I'm concerned as the plastic creaky body and noisy AF was a none issue considering the price. My copy was sharp wide open on FF, so theres probably just some rubbish copies out there if people notice any difference on a different combination, yet mine was great for sharpness.

Like I said, the bokeh is what I had a problem with. Try taken a photograph in a woodland with it to really see the worst of what the lens offers in terms of bokeh, due to the varying sizes and intensity of light that permeates through trees.
Click to expand...

It doesn't produce pentagon bokeh when shot wide open at all, that's just plain wrong. It does as you stop down.
 
Has anyone read anything about a release date for the Sigma 35 1.4? Or even any of the other new Sigma lenses?
 
James J said:
It does, its just more noticeable when you stop down.
Click to expand...

Not wide open it doesn't. I'm happy to be shown an example of pentagon bokeh on a wide open f1.8 shot, but I never ever saw one when I had the lens. Quick google:

94836643_464cf6053f_z.jpg

Looks like a blue circle in the middle to me, not a blue pentagon...

mrk said:
Has anyone read anything about a release date for the Sigma 35 1.4? Or even any of the other new Sigma lenses?
Click to expand...

No I can't say I've seen anything on it yet, nor anything concrete on price?
 
ElDude said:
Well snobbery aside, I used it for nigh on 6 years and never had a single issue with it. The ONLY reason I no longer use it is that I have the Sigma 50mm 1.4. People that say it's awful are talking out of their rear quite frankly. You only have to look at the images that it produces to see that. Yes it's cheap build wise, but it costs £90. When I got the nifty fifty it cost £70ish. It's a fantastic lens. If I was to be picky I'd say the only thing that marked it down was that it hunted in low light, but I don't consider that a negative on a cheap lens, just something to work around. If I spent £400-£1200 on a 50mm that hunted in low light then yes I'd be unhappy.

Still, this is the first lens I recommend to anyone that's asking about a first lens purchase. Along with the 85 1.8, it's ace :)
Click to expand...

this!

well said. people who say its crap are indeed talking out of there rear :)

The AF is fine on a 5d3. . its noisy yes and cheaply built but thats about it tbh. Bokeh is great, dont expect a "L" type bokeh and u will be fine.

I heard the 50mm L 1.2 is the worse 50mm canon makes a sit back and front focuses very badly due to its design.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom