Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Walkaround

[subscuck]

I'm sure build is similar or better than their 30 and 50 1.4's. I own both of them and build quality is outstanding.

 

[Geaux]

Subscuck, you ever have issues with erratic AF (totally missing the subject) or rear/front focusing issues with your Sigma 1.4s? Ever dealt with their return policy or shipping anything back for calibration fixes?

Not saying this is the route I'm going to take, but if it's not up to snuff imo, I'll send it back to get calibrated lol

 

[subscuck]

Unscientificaly speaking, I would say I miss focus about as much as I do with my Canon lenses. I've never really tested them in any meaningful way, though. I have all of my prime lenses AF Microadjusted, and maybe that makes a difference? I'm not sure if your Nikon has that feature? I meant to post yesterday about one of the posts I read while looking through the link you provided. Seems someone on the Canon forum had the same issue with back focus as you. I believe they said from about 25' out. They sent it in for calibration and it works flawlessly now. Or at least as flawless as AF ever is. As far as dealing with them for returns/calibration, I have no experience, but I've never read or heard any horror stories about dealing with them.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I like the shots, but I feel the style does not suit the first 3. It looks like you are trying to make them too artsy ( you didn't go too overboard like some people though, so just hear me out ) They would be great journalism/documentary type shots. I feel that some of the processing on them though takes away from that. I think the scenes themselves can be impacting enough that you don't need everything else. Just a good angle, a good composition and a clean sharp shot. At most converted to B&W. Thats just my personal opinion though.

From the countless reviews I have read, the sigma 1.4 actually outperforms the nikon 1.4.

Until you start getting flakes of black on the inside of your lens. I am half kidding. I have heard these lenses are great too, but Sigmas Achilles heel has always been their build quality and their quality control. I have heard of paint/metal specs inside their 30mm f/1.4 as well as on the Bigma 50-500. I have heard about it on other lenses as well, but do not recall the models. Just food for thought, it doesn't take away from whether they produce quality shots. You don't however, typically hear of that kind of stuff with the Canon and Nikon equivalents.

 

[Geaux]

Goonies, thanks for the opinions. Out of the first 3, the only one I did more than some curves to was #3 (added vignette and converted to BW). What about the first two look over-edited? It's obvious i did more work on 4 and 5 though lol. I'm just interested in what you see in the first two that would be processed artsy. Thanks.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Goonies, thanks for the opinions. Out of the first 3, the only one I did more than some curves to was #3 (added vignette and converted to BW). What about the first two look over-edited? It's obvious i did more work on 4 and 5 though lol. I'm just interested in what you see in the first two that would be processed artsy. Thanks.

To be honest, the 3rd one is what really jumped out at me in that manner, and actually is my favorite shot of them all if the composition was just a little different and less effect. I think it is the best illustration of the storms effect given the playground as the subject matter. The first two, were more issues with composition ( especially the second one ) but they still looked lacking for some reason which I thought was from intentional editing but perhaps they didn't have enough editing? The exposures seem a little off and the WB in the first one could be a little off ( hard to tell on this screen ) but I assumed this was just tweaking everything in post. Many people seem to feel that EVERY pic needs something different added or tweaked instead of just a simple crisp image with good contrast and WB. My main gripe with the 2nd one is that its just too tight. It needs some more context. As it stands it just confuses you as to what the crap is on the ground other than the traffic barrel. I should have been more clear and thorough but I was in a hurry. apologies. Also, to be fair, I wouldn't have used this focal length for the first and third shots, but you were strictly stuck with that for the lens test, so for what you did capture; not bad.

For the record, lately I have been looking at a lot of documentary type stuff like Pete Souza's work, soo maybe I am just on too much of a "purity" kick right now.:lmao:

 

[Geaux]

Goonies, thanks for the opinions. Out of the first 3, the only one I did more than some curves to was #3 (added vignette and converted to BW). What about the first two look over-edited? It's obvious i did more work on 4 and 5 though lol. I'm just interested in what you see in the first two that would be processed artsy. Thanks.

To be honest, the 3rd one is what really jumped out at me in that manner, and actually is my favorite shot of them all if the composition was just a little different and less effect. I think it is the best illustration of the storms effect given the playground as the subject matter. The first two, were more issues with composition ( especially the second one ) but they still looked lacking for some reason which I thought was from intentional editing but perhaps they didn't have enough editing? The exposures seem a little off and the WB in the first one could be a little off ( hard to tell on this screen ) but I assumed this was just tweaking everything in post. Many people seem to feel that EVERY pic needs something different added or tweaked instead of just a simple crisp image with good contrast and WB. My main gripe with the 2nd one is that its just too tight. It needs some more context. As it stands it just confuses you as to what the crap is on the ground other than the traffic barrel. I should have been more clear and thorough but I was in a hurry. apologies. Also, to be fair, I wouldn't have used this focal length for the first and third shots, but you were strictly stuck with that for the lens test, so for what you did capture; not bad.

For the record, lately I have been looking at a lot of documentary type stuff like Pete Souza's work, soo maybe I am just on too much of a "purity" kick right now.:lmao:

Thanks for the embellishment lol. I'll take a look at the first two when I get home and not on my crappy work monitor. The 3rd one, the reason I went with the way I edited, was to add a darkness to the image. I can see where you are coming from though, and I don't disagree with it either. For #2, I guess, being from New Orleans, I assume everyone knows that the line is leftover debris (leaves, trash, palms)from the flood waters. Plus, I really wanted to shoot at f/1.4 :lmao:. The tightness on the other hand, it was as far back as I could stand without falling into the floodwaters behind me. I wouldn't have shot that with the 85 on a normal basis though, so I agree with your idea of not using that focal length on most of my shots.

I went out with all my lenses, but really wanted to put the 85 through the tests and strictly use that one. Thanks again for the input

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

The 3rd one, the reason I went with the way I edited, was to add a darkness to the image. I can see where you are coming from though, and I don't disagree with it either. For #2, I guess, being from New Orleans, I assume everyone knows that the line is leftover debris (leaves, trash, palms)from the flood waters.

Well. like I said, its all just my opinion. If you want the shot darker and whatnot, that's your choice as the artist, I can only speak for how I would have approached the shot or tried to approach the shot. As for #2, I always try to consider an image out of context. In the series of the storm, people would more easily grasp what they are looking at. However, if it was on its own, would people understand it, or just pretend to? That doesn't mean that you can't leave it in the series as is, but thinking in that way can sometimes help you to look for ways to strengthen the image even within the context of the series as well. Like you said, you were stuck at 85mm and couldn't back up more, so it is what it is.

Also, I think even with the 85mm, if you were willing to literally get your feet wet, it would have been an awesome shot to wade out closer to that main playground piece and get a nicely framed shot of just that with the water level up high. ( I probably wouldn't have gone that far if I wasn't prepared though haha )

 

[Geaux]

Yeah, no way I was walking out in that water lol. Who knows what kind of glass/needles/trash was in there :lmao: