![]() ![]() However, consider this 100% crop of the Sigma at f/8 and the Nikkor at f/5.6. That also can’t entirely explain the difference in sharpness at the edges of the frame where Nikon has a visible advantage. That is not to say that Nikon is cheating – we’re talking about less than a stop difference. The Sigma actually has a larger aperture than the Nikon at f/1.8! Reviewing my images, I saw evidence of that again and again: Shallower depth of field, larger bokeh and faster shutter speeds. Now it’s clear why I preferred the rendering of the Sigma in some cases. More than a stop difference! Nikon at f/2.8 vs. See how the Sigma bokeh balls are larger?Compare the bokeh from the Nikkor at f/1.8 vs. Now it was all clear.Īt the beginning of this review, I showed you the difference in Bokeh between the two lenses. (Basically, you lose a little light as it passes through multiple glass elements) But in fact, the opposite was true! The Sigma, at the same aperture as the Nikkor had almost always a faster shutter speed.įrustrated, I reviewed the images from the previous night and I had my “AHA!” moment. Now, the Sigma is a much more complicated lens, so I expected that the transmission would be lower. Then I started looking at the shutter speeds. But sometimes (and always at large apertures) I still preferred the Sigma. It was obvious that the Sigma was as sharp as the Nikon in the centre of the frame at the same aperture but the Nikkor was really ruling around the edges. I had a long walk home to think about the results, but I wanted to review them on the computer before jumping to any conclusion. I was only able to review the images on the back of my D800 until that point, but even then I was seeing something strange. Somehow, I quite liked the Sigma image here, although the Nikkor was nearly identical. What’s going on?Ĭonfused, I headed to one of my favourite spots. Even though the Nikkor is sharper, I prefer the rendering of the Sigma. Nikon at f/1.8 Sigma at f/1.8 Nikkor sharper, but Sigma more pleasing at f/1.8 Nikon at f/1.8 Sigma at f/1.8 Nicer rendering from the Sigmaĭon’t ask me what is it about Swiss people and stacking stones, but I quite like the look of this mini cairn against the wet foliage. Ok, I thought, I didn’t buy these primes to shoot landscapes, so let’s go find some more interesting subjects where I can shoot with a narrower depth-of-field. I’ll save you the effort of clicking through, but even at f/11, Nikon wins in an obvious way at near distances and at the edges of the frame. So, using a stable tripod on my nearly-trusty D800, I a couple of landscapes as I’m wandering around the area. Out I go! You can’t shoot just charts and boxes I thought. Then suddenly, there was a break in the weather. Then, the next morning, I woke up bright and early to a poring rainstorm like just about every day in April in Switzerland. So what did I do then? Drank a beer and went to bed. Things aren’t looking good for Sigma at this point, it must be said. So I focused with live view (like almost all of the samples here) and placed a new focus target towards the edges. It may even be an advantage if you focus-and-recompose. Field curvature isn’t always bad unless you shoot brick walls for a living. So, why is the Nikkor so much sharper? I thought it must be field curvature. This is not at all uncommon for highly corrected lenses like these. Neither of them are going to win an award. Comparison at f/2.8 (Nikon is on the left) The Nikkor spanks the Sigma!Įven at f/2.8, the Nikkor is showing a dramatic, visible difference over the Sigma. But something is going on at the edges of the frame. While you can click through to examine to your hearts’ content, I’ll save you some pixel peeping: in the center, they are effectively identical. Allow me to introduce Green, my willing subject. The results may surprise you.įirst off, I started out in my darkened apartment to test for both sharpness and bokeh. ![]() So this weekend, I set out to find out once and for all, what’s the best fast 35mm autofocus prime in the world on a D800. What makes the rendering of a certain lens special? I even spent some time on the Leica forums asking what made a lens “pop”. I liked the weight from the Nikon, but the “pop” of the Sigma. The Sigma also just had that “wow” factor that I couldn’t seem to get from the Nikkor, even though the Nikkor was seen to be sharper in some cases, the Sigma in other cases. In my earlier test, it was shown that the bokeh from the Sigma was dramatically different. I had seen some things that just made me wonder. I, like many photographers, have been going back and forth trying to decide which of these are better. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |