The question that shouldn't be asked: 5D MKIII or D800 for me

D.P. said:
The Nikon 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 are better than the sigma, same at 85mm (but the the Nikon 85mm f1.8 is better optically than the f1.4G anyway).
Click to expand...

No they're not. The 50 1.8G is sharper yes. The 1.8 primes, sharp though they may be, have 7 bladed apertures which means bokeh is about as awful any modern prime gets. The 50 1.4G is sharper stopped down but softer wide open.

Both new Nikon 85s are sharper, yes, but the 85 1.8G again has a 7 bladed aperture which again gives some of the worst bokeh from any modern 85. All that work on the optical design and performance and then they go and put the wrong bits of plastic in as the aperture... Right shame but it's there nonetheless.
 
D.P. said:
Can't remember the last time I ever touched this ISO button on my camera since I control ISO through the second dial without ever taking my eyes from the viewfinder.
Click to expand...

Front dial is aperture, rear dial is exposure comp for me. Until I have a metering system I can fully trust (the D800's isn't it) then I can't shoot any other way.
 
An Exception said:
The blades are rounded to there is barely any difference in bokeh from what I'v seen.
Click to expand...

They're not actually /that/ rounded though is the problem. I've seen too many sample images with really horrible bokeh to want to risk it. My usual research test of a lens is going into the flickr group for the lens and looking at the "most interesting" images on a search for something like "a". On the 85 1.8G in particular the bokeh always looks very busy in most cases and it's just the impression I got when I was looking around to decide between the 1.8G, 1.4D and Sigma 1.4.

Raymond Lin said:
-
Click to expand...

EX:
120-300mm f/2.8
105mm OS macro
150mm OS macro
180mm OS macro
85mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.4
50mm-500mm OS Bigma
70-200 2.8 Macro

A:
35mm f/1.4

S:
120-300mm f/2.8

All of the above Sigma are lenses that go up to and toe to toe with first party equivalents on price and quality. I may be overestimating Sigma but you're certainly underestimating them. I'm sure I've forgotten some as well.
 
Last edited:
Ksanti said:
Front dial is aperture, rear dial is exposure comp for me. Until I have a metering system I can fully trust (the D800's isn't it) then I can't shoot any other way.
Click to expand...

No offence but I can, and get nice and consistent exposures. Of course I have calibrated the metering system to allow another 0.6 stops of highlight headroom.
Not sure how you have your cam/metering setup. I barely ever touch exposure compensation.
 
Ksanti said:
No they're not. The 50 1.8G is sharper yes. The 1.8 primes, sharp though they may be, have 7 bladed apertures which means bokeh is about as awful any modern prime gets. The 50 1.4G is sharper stopped down but softer wide open.

Both new Nikon 85s are sharper, yes, but the 85 1.8G again has a 7 bladed aperture which again gives some of the worst bokeh from any modern 85. All that work on the optical design and performance and then they go and put the wrong bits of plastic in as the aperture... Right shame but it's there nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Show me these examples of bad bokeh, the 1.8G in general have very good Bokeh, not the best no, but barely any different to other fast 35mm primes. If you want to see a lens with bad Bokeh then the Canon 85mm L is pretty horrible, the aperture is too wide for the mount which causes heavily asymmetric bokeh shot wide open.
 
Yeah I'll get used to it, I meant the D800 isn't it yet. I'm still learning the camera's behaviour so I'd rather leave as much manual as possible and gradually start moving back towards normal aperture priority as I become more familiar with the camera's response to certain situations.
 
Ksanti said:
Front dial is aperture, rear dial is exposure comp for me. Until I have a metering system I can fully trust (the D800's isn't it) then I can't shoot any other way.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you don't have a faulty camera? The metering on the D800 is supposedly very good, I have never had any issues with any other Nikon DSLR so I would be surprised if the D800 is somehow worse than entry level models from 2005.

EDIT: Reading the above, probably just experience. Every metering system has its own behaviour, you have to learn what it tries to do in each situation. But if you are constantly using EC then I assume you already know when the meter will under/over expose? Or you you chimp and check? If the latter then I would simply assign the ISo to the second control dial.
 
Last edited:
Ksanti said:
Yeah I'll get used to it, I meant the D800 isn't it yet. I'm still learning the camera's behaviour so I'd rather leave as much manual as possible and gradually start moving back towards normal aperture priority as I become more familiar with the camera's response to certain situations.
Click to expand...

What I'm wondering is if your using the 'right' metering modes etc. I don't know how you shoot.
 
The flickr pages generally don't allow people to get the image links. It's a combination of the bokeh quality which I didn't like when I was looking through the samples and the fact that 1.8 just isn't enough half the time for my usage.

For example here http://www.flickr.com/photos/aslier/7625587542/sizes/c/in/photostream/

Even with the toddler depth of field advantage, there's a lot of strong tonal shifts in the bokeh and that gives it a bit of a muddy quality that I really don't like. Maybe it's just a personal thing but I still don't like it.
 
I don't really see what the issue is in that example TBH, looks very smooth.

A lot depends on how you shoot, the Canon 85L actually gives veyr ugly Bokeh:
e.g. , look at the asymmetry due to mechanical vignetting of the mount:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/teamluong/317689506/sizes/z/in/photostream/

Very clear here, bottom is cut right off: http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthewbelcher/3539368090/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lylevincent/2087354627/sizes/o/in/photostream/


It also has very bad longitudinal Chromatic abberations/bpkeh fringing, ringing (onion peel) concentric circles and double outlining. Yet people still swear by the 85L...


As for 1.8 vs 1.4, that is really a DoF question only. The best Bokeh is never achieved wide open, you have to stop down a little. Furthermore, modern sensors don't work well with wide aperture lenses. When the aperture foes beyond around f2.2 there is a strong fall off in the light gathering capability because the sensors reflect strongly non-perpendicular light.The cameras actually compensate by increasing the native ISO such that the exposure times are decreased as expected and the image remains well exposed. The camera doesn't report this but the noise measurements support this.

So the difference is really down to DoF between f1.8 and f1.4, but the difference is really quite small. On a full frame camera an 85mm f1.4 lens with a subject 3m away form the sensor plane has a DoF of around 10cm, the 85mm f1.8 as a DoF of 13cm, a mere additional 1.5cm front and back.
 
D.P I appreciate you like the technical aspects but there are times when just looking at the images are enough. I can obviously see that the 85L produces poor highlights in bokeh, whatever the actual term is, but when it's all soft and diffuse, with the 85L it's wonderfully so.

I appreciate that you can run a focal length through a DoF calculator or even do the math yourself. But in the example of the 3m away, "a mere additional 1.5 cm front and back" also then translates to an additional 30cm front and back when talking about a 2m focal plane. It's not whether stuff is out of focus or not, it's how far out of focus they are. You might not notice the difference in the strands of hair around someone's face between f/1.4 and f/1.8, but you're more than likely to see a big difference in the background separation.
 
Ksanti said:
Are you talking about the new OS model or the old one? The new OS one is meant to be a stunner. Also I don't get the whole issue of colour rendition - nothing is done by a lens that can't be made up for in post and they're all pretty much identical unless you start using multiple lenses for a single series/video etc.
Click to expand...


I'm talking about the older 105, but what I'm referring to is the look of the images. You can clearly see a difference in bokeh, and the look and colour of an image. Sigma lenses give a butter like effect while Canon gives more of a contrasty look to the image. As you can tell, I'm far too tired to explain this properly :D

I spent a long time looking at macro lenses and bought the Sigma 105 a while ago as it was cheaper with rave reviews. I upgraded to the Canon 100L as it was enough to warrant the move overall, including weather sealing.

As I say, there's not much in it, but the 100L is definitely the better lens from everything I've seen. There isn't anything in the non OS/OS and non IS/IS versions either from what I read when buying each lens.

I gave the Sigma to my dad, and he's really pleased with it :)
 
Last edited:
The 105 OS is meant to be every bit as good if not better than the 1st party c. 100mm macros from what I've read? There was a lot of talk of the old Sigma 105 being an absolute dog to focus with iffy build quality and so-so sharpness, while the only negative I've heard about the new one has been that it does cost so much "for a Sigma".

I haven't looked into the lenses too much as I ended up sticking at the cheaper end as I don't need VR or snappy AF on my macro lenses so I'm just waiting until I see a Tokina 100 somewhere or a really good deal on the old Tamron. If Sigma update the 105 to the new style I don't know if I'd be able to resist though. There's something about the coldness of a metal lens barrel which has made me hate the 85 and the D800 :P

Speaking of, are there any risks associated with storing lenses in a mildly refrigerated climate for the sake of them being cold every time I get them out? (I'm on 2 hours sleep and 1.5L of Monster so I'm thinking incredibly sensibly)
 
Why on earth would you want to refrigerate your gear?
Yes there are risks. What happens to a can of coke you get out of the fridge?
Water condenses around the tin, wouldn't want that happening in my camera and lenses tbh.
I often have trouble with AF for a few minutes when it's really cold outside, and I then walk into a warm room.

Don't store gear in the dark in less than super dry conditions. Fungas can/will start to grow inside lenses and is a pita. Light kills fungus, so either use the gear or show it the light.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom