Got a Nikon? Share your thoughts and photos here or ask a question!

peterbj7 wrote in post #10592372
That's butter??...!

oppss posted the same photo as above... YES that's butter...

here is another shot, the one on the side of the photo is already melting

nicksan wrote in post #10589187
While I like the Sigma 50 1.4 and feel that the AF is decent, it is no where near the AF speed/accuracy of the more recent top-of-the-line AF-S lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200VRII. Not even close.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #10590228
The other piece I agree with too, the Sigma 50 is not AFS speed by any means, however saying that I will say for me it has been AFS accurate.

Well that's both good and bad. I want a fast prime with really accurate AF for narrow DOF portraits, though I can tweak the AF a bit with MF if necessary. Is the Sigma 50 F1.4 a good choice?

I find it to be very accurate but the focus speed is not fast. It's probably as good as the Canon 50mm 1.4, speed wise. I find it to be more accurate than the Canon also.

Personally after much research, unless you go 100% manual with the Noct, the Sigma is the best 50 on Nikon hands down.

Ok great, i'll get one then. I don't mind MF for outside portraits, since on full frame MF is much easier than on crop, but having AF is really handy.

I've had the Canon 50 1.4, 50L, Nikon G, and Sigma 50. They aren't thoroughbreds, that's for sure.

nicksan wrote in post #10593424
I've had the Canon 50 1.4, 50L, Nikon G, and Sigma 50. They aren't thoroughbreds, that's for sure.

Is the Sigma the best Nikon mount 50mm prime?

tim wrote in post #10593500
Is the Sigma the best Nikon mount 50mm prime?

IMO, yes.

Compared to the 50 G, AF is slightly faster, the build Is more substantial, has better bokeh including more circular OOF highlights.

Sigma 50 came in an hour ago and nothing but testing it.
CA wide open is there but not as bad as my Canon 50 1.4. soft to about f2 then it's comparable to 24-70 as far as sharpness. my 24-70 copy is just one sharp lens from 2.8 on
have front focus so the last 30 min, I'm at +12 on AF fine tuning and it looks like this copy is not bad from there.
the af speed is fast, as you guys mention. not 24-70 fast but way beyond 70-300 vr fast.

now what do you guys think, just send it to sigma right away while it's still new and don't really need for the event til a month from now and get it calibrated or live with it?
I haven't send a lens back before nevertheless one that's an hour old.
When calibrated, does the CA usually improve or just the focus part?

ps, I love the balance with my d700 with or without grip.

edit: do you notice in your copy that it mounts really tight?

Up to you.
I told myself if the lens was reasonable close, I would just send it to Sigma.
Not sure about +12. That's not too close to being on.

I agree that this lens becomes nice and sharp around f2. It has that typical "ghostly" look to things wide open.

Not really....sometimes it's not consistent even when D700 said it has focus. Both shots with Focus priority, single AF point selection, 1/400sec, and f/5. The bird walked slowly.

OOF

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Mr. Clean wrote in post #10590228
I've said it a bunch of times but Nick you touched on one of the best aspects of shooting Nikon again. Locking on. When focus is acheived, it is in focus, your shot is in focus. Period. Is it frustraing when it hunts? Yes. BUT, I would MUCH rather shoot with a Nikon that hunts, then acheives reliable, predictable focus than to shoot Canon which hunts, then gives you less reliability because the camera has assumed the shot is in focus.

Monkey that first shot is magazine worthy, well done!

Trying to figure out if someone is having AF issues or not is an impossible task because there's just too many variables including bad gear and user error.

All I can do is judge for myself and according to what I have used with Canon and Nikon, I would say the D3 and D700 trumps all of them. Again, this is specific to my experience.

Mav, yes, I see some issues with the 2 photos you posted. Don't know what to tell you. I wasn't there. Don't know the EXIF. Don't know how it was shot. All I can say is that tracking a subject that is black is probably not going to be the easiest thing in the world to do.

I don't expect perfection out of my gear. I know that's not possible. But I expect reasonable consistency. Right now I happen to be getting that from Nikon gear.

BTW, I am supposed to shoot some baseball for a friend of mine.
This marks the first time I will be shooting action stuff with my Nikon gear. I'll have both bodies, the 200VR + TC's and maybe the 70-200VRII with me.

I will report back my findings...if I don't get hospitalized from heat exhaustion that is.

I had something similar where the object had a lot of contrast ....I'm not upset or anything...no gear is perfect. Regardless the camera gives a focus indication doesn't mean it will not ever give an OOF image.

nicksan wrote in post #10596654
Mav, yes, I see some issues with the 2 photos you posted. Don't know what to tell you. I wasn't there. Don't know the EXIF. Don't know how it was shot. All I can say is that tracking a subject that is black is probably not going to be the easiest thing in the world to do.

I don't expect perfection out of my gear. I know that's not possible. But I expect reasonable consistency. Right now I happen to be getting that from Nikon gear.

maverick678 wrote in post #10596693
I had something similar where the object had a lot of contrast ....I'm not upset or anything...no gear is perfect. Regardless the camera gives a focus indication doesn't mean it will not ever give an OOF image.

Aside from contrast, there are so many things that can affect the AF performance, it's difficult the judge.

For instance, many people get fooled into thinking something is wrong when tracking a fast moving subject at very high shutter speeds, where in fact the problem is that IS/VR is turned out. Something simple but very subtle.

Some folks also expect the camera to begin tracking correctly as soon as they press the AF/On or shutter button, where in fact it takes a second or two for the camera to figure things out.

Yet, others have bodies with fancy AF custom functions but they don't bother to understand them.

Maybe the lens is off.

Maybe the camera is off.

Just too many things to consider. That's why I do my own judging based on my own tests.

Yup...seen that a lot in POTN . My original post is only a response to another post. As I've said I realize gears do have limitations.

nicksan wrote in post #10596754
Aside from contrast, there are so many things that can affect the AF performance, it's difficult the judge.

For instance, many people get fooled into thinking something is wrong when tracking a fast moving subject at very high shutter speeds, where in fact the problem is that IS/VR is turned out. Something simple but very subtle.

Some folks also expect the camera to begin tracking correctly as soon as they press the AF/On or shutter button, where in fact it takes a second or two for the camera to figure things out.

Yet, others have bodies with fancy AF custom functions but they don't bother to understand them.

Maybe the lens is off.

Maybe the camera is off.

Just too many things to consider. That's why I do my own judging based on my own tests.