Sample images - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 ART
Posted 12 February 2017 - 02:10 AM
I know how you think about portraits, but then why not giving lens and camera to somebody who likes taking pictures from people?
It's like testing a sportscar and show how it can be parked.
Posted 12 February 2017 - 03:19 AM
Seriously - what does a portrait tell about a lens which is not visible in those shots ?
Posted 12 February 2017 - 10:46 AM
Seriously: Rendering skin is nowhere visible in your shots. Dealing with CA at close distance is nowhere visible in your shots, Blurring back and foregrounds when subject is in portrait distance - nowhere. Structures like hair - nowhere.
Seriously Klaus, would you buy a macro lens by only seeing it's landscape shots? Fortunately there are already lots of portrait samples available, but your question alone shows a deep aversion against portraits. In that case it's better you stay away from them That's fine, I was making fun out of it, because it was to be expected this way.
Posted 13 February 2017 - 10:40 AM
For your pleasure I will add a portrait shot ... sort of.
Posted 14 February 2017 - 10:41 AM
I notice you said, sharp and decent portrait lens, and not, a decently sharp portrait lens?
I am not criticizing your wording. I just wonder if what you mean is that you are not convinced that it is an exceptional portrait lens? I am still struggling, in all seriousness, with something that I have heard. Namely, that the Sigma lenses appear better than they are because they test well, due to easily measurable sharpness. But somehow lack in this thing called "micro contrast". I'm not exactly sure what micro contrast is, or why it can't or just isn't tested for. Or is it just some buzzword that people use to justify their non-Sigma lenses?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users