It is strange that there are not more great nifty fifties around that are truly good AF versions...
Around the Sigma Art, there are a lot of detractors about it's bokeh........however to me, it renders much better than most...nicely enough IMO.
I just keep on hearing about "inconsistent" focus accuracy......not front or back-focus......just different each time.....the only reason for me to buy this lens, is to shoot from F1.4- F2.8 dead on the eye in portraiture ...exactly where the lens's reputation is in question.
Get a good mirrorless. If at all, there you get maximum precision. Btw. the recent firmare upgrade of Fuji X-T2 makes AF-C at least useful and not longer a "hunting season".
A 50 mm is either way not the best for portraiture. Meanwhile I know, my "always with me" lens is a 35 mm. A 50 mm to me is a bad halfway house between overview and real detail.
If even the D850 only guarantees around 95% hits in the center and gets with al other lenses wide open much less keepers in the outer AF point range, then one needs to aks if it's worth the trouble to fiddle around with AFMA.
The 50 mm's, if I daresay so, are legacies from the past when we had 50/1.7 as the cheap kit lens. Good or great 35 or 85 were always much more expensive around f/2 or even f/1.4.
Quote:check for yourself
at the same aperture the f1.4 is always the better lens only advantages of the f1.2 are the build quality autofocus motor and having f1.2
Like i said, if you what to believe that... fine.
An 85 mm lens is ideal for me, accompanied by the Sigma 150mm macro....though sometimes 50mm is useful for group-shots.
Now, I have changed from Pentax to Nikon......and that's where I going to stay, ML would mean for me the Sony A7R III, the only system that could interest me......
........add the rest of the lenses............
.......and you have davybaby going down the financial ubend, just waiting for the bailiffs to pull the chain!
BTW I just got "shafted" buying a Nikon AF-S50mm F1.8 G...........sent a cheque for 120 euros and have heard nothing, his messages are full, no emails nothing.
I have reported the swindle to the Police who are looking in to it, (portÃ©e plainte), the guy has a shop near Rouen, been trading for eight years.
The DPReview comparison between D850 and A7RIII at least doesn't tell me the Nikon wins in most categories.
But usability is an issue for me, and therefore I first would rent a Sony before I jump ship.
Your lens purchase: Shite, it should not be such a risk. You never know, even the "shops" occassionally have to close their doors. Hope it will go better.
Quote:With the weight you're right, it's absurd - but most of the Art lenses are hefty.
Back to the 50 Art. I will not exchange it for the much lighter 50/1.4G, in fact I got rid of that when the Sigma came out. Sharpness wide open still is incredible, so for me, if it has to be a 50 mm, i don't see a point in constantly thinking "neat, but with the Sigma it would have been really good" ^_^ I can't speak for any other 50 mm Art, but mine is close to perfect with center AF on PDAF.
Against the unreliable focus: I'm afraid the medicine's comes in a package with a big SONY logo and the number A7RIII on it.
Okay, neither the Sigma nor the Sony are something for toni's definition of "winning team", but others might find it useful to know.
With the lenses such as 135/1.8, 20/1.4 etc., I can tolerate that weight. It's a massive thing but it's supposed to be that way. And it lets me do things other lenses won't. The closest thing is Canon's still magnificent 135/2L and I'd seriously be thorn between that and Sigma. Actually, I'm still keeping an eye on Batis 135/2.8 too. I know it's hilariously expensive but the quality is there, the lens is compact and I'd rather have a native lens on my A7.
As demonstrated in my last sentence, lenses don't exist in vacuum, nor do the cameras. Since I'm already shooting Sony, I got the 55/1.8. That thing is a little gem and for all my intents and purposes, performs as good as Sigma. At about a quarter of the weight and size. And at the same price (I actually got it for quite a bit cheaper than a used Sigma).
Would I also get the Sigma if I were shooting Nikon? Not so sure. Maybe I'd go for the 50/1.8G. It's good enough for me as I'd probably have a 24MP body anyway. The intended budget and quality expectation for the Sigma would be focused somewhere else, maybe by getting the 105/1.4. To be honest, after a long time of shooting film, I'm not that much of a pixel peeper. The only time I need the absolute quality is when I'm doing the professional side of my work (architecture and interiors photography) and I don't really need a 50mm there.
If I were shooting Canon... I'd switch. Honestly, there wouldn't be any reason for me to stay in Canon. Except maybe if I were shooting birds.
When I said "I shot with the 50 mm about 1/3 less than with the 35 mm" I think I did so to justify the purchase. In 2014, there was an Otus and this Sigma getting as best as possible - and for a long while no 85 mm Art in sight which I had been jumping on.
These days are different. You mentioned the Sony 55/1.8. 3 years ago, Sony was just trying to walk FF mirorless without breaking a leg. Today I would no longer buy into Nikon (and therefore not knowing what I miss in terms of usability). I agree to all what you said and I know a bit about, I can't say anything about Canon as I have zero experience with their DSLRs.
The 50/1.8 G would have been the better purchase. I was concluding "in earlier days, the f/1.7 f/1.8 always were and behaved sometimes like the cheapos, so I better get a decent f/1.4" Really wrong idea... :unsure: It was light, yes and it doens't stand a chance against the Art.
Canon DSLR are not bad. The problem is that everything else is better at this point. Most of their lenses are still amazing though but at this point I'd also argue they are not as unique as they were a few years ago.
Except for their Tilt Shift range. Which make more sense on a Sony mirrorless anyway.
I do think that Canonâ€™s is making good moves to defend their dominant market position. Their new bodies tend not to be on cutting edge, but as said obove, they are far from being bad. Reality check, most cameras today are fantastic.
Instead Canon seems to invest heavily into lenses, delivering great updates to their already excelent offering. And lenses are what keeps people locked into the system.
The tricky part might come when they will need to move mirrorless. Long flange distance inherited from DSLR could then become an issue.
Canon won't come with a mirrorless camera with the DSLR flange distance.