08-21-2010, 10:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-21-2010, 10:53 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='Bare' timestamp='1282428273' post='2015']
Nikkor is longer where that is importsant at long fosus disatnce, for short focus disatnces macron lens is much better choice and 70-200 is to long @200mm even for head shots.
Nop, Nikkor have less light fall-off.
Only @F2,8 and not for 200mm, starting from F4 Nikkor is betetr than Nikkor.
Yes, it's true.
Hmh, it's for discussion.
If you don't believe look at dpr, I trust them and their methods much more than photozone. According to pohotozone Sigma 50mm F1,4 sucks but dpr says ''Class-leading image quality''. Whom to believe?
[/quote]
So, that is what your opinion on backlight performance comes from, dpr. Well, as you can verify, dpr did NOT publish any comparable shots and did NOT say what you are saying.
Photozone does not say anywhere that the Sigma 50mm f1.4 "sucks". Photozone points out two weaknesses: its edge resolution performance and its nervous foreground bokeh.
And that is not contradicted by the dpr findings, at all (dpr also finds quite exceptionally low res edges on full frame).
So what is with this "believing" stuff? Just follow the measurements.
And if you want to take dpr for gospel, fine, by all means.
Then also just read their conclusion:
"Overall, then, the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II USM gains about as close as it gets to an unqualified recommendation, given the price. Its combination of exceptional optics and quirk-free design even manages to surpass Nikon's equivalent that we tested recently, stealing the crown of 'Best in Class' by a whisker. It's a significant improvement over what was already an accomplished lens, capable of consistently delivering results that will satisfy the most demanding of users, and you can't ask for much more than that."
About the Nikon having less light fall off, what do you base that on?
Photozone's tests clearly show the better edge resolution over the entire range.
About the bokeh, just LOOK at images. NO need to discuss anything.
The Nikon has higher light fall off, why do you say it has less?
And the Nikon is NOT longer at long focus distances. Not sure where you get that from.
These lenses are portrait zoom lenses, of course you use them at shorter focal lengths. And of course the focus breathing is an issue. Especially if you only compare the lenses and rate them.
Nikkor is longer where that is importsant at long fosus disatnce, for short focus disatnces macron lens is much better choice and 70-200 is to long @200mm even for head shots.
Nop, Nikkor have less light fall-off.
Only @F2,8 and not for 200mm, starting from F4 Nikkor is betetr than Nikkor.
Yes, it's true.
Hmh, it's for discussion.
If you don't believe look at dpr, I trust them and their methods much more than photozone. According to pohotozone Sigma 50mm F1,4 sucks but dpr says ''Class-leading image quality''. Whom to believe?
[/quote]
So, that is what your opinion on backlight performance comes from, dpr. Well, as you can verify, dpr did NOT publish any comparable shots and did NOT say what you are saying.
Photozone does not say anywhere that the Sigma 50mm f1.4 "sucks". Photozone points out two weaknesses: its edge resolution performance and its nervous foreground bokeh.
And that is not contradicted by the dpr findings, at all (dpr also finds quite exceptionally low res edges on full frame).
So what is with this "believing" stuff? Just follow the measurements.
And if you want to take dpr for gospel, fine, by all means.
Then also just read their conclusion:
"Overall, then, the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II USM gains about as close as it gets to an unqualified recommendation, given the price. Its combination of exceptional optics and quirk-free design even manages to surpass Nikon's equivalent that we tested recently, stealing the crown of 'Best in Class' by a whisker. It's a significant improvement over what was already an accomplished lens, capable of consistently delivering results that will satisfy the most demanding of users, and you can't ask for much more than that."
About the Nikon having less light fall off, what do you base that on?
Photozone's tests clearly show the better edge resolution over the entire range.
About the bokeh, just LOOK at images. NO need to discuss anything.
The Nikon has higher light fall off, why do you say it has less?
And the Nikon is NOT longer at long focus distances. Not sure where you get that from.
These lenses are portrait zoom lenses, of course you use them at shorter focal lengths. And of course the focus breathing is an issue. Especially if you only compare the lenses and rate them.