...The Nikon G lenses only work on more modern Nikons that can electronically set aperture. ...
I got this Sigma 28mm 1.8 (aspherical) for cheap and i wonder how much edge in terms of AF speed, reliability and image quality am i losing out on compared to the Nikon AF-S 28mm 1.8 G, while shooting with a F100? Can this even be determined?
While we at it, can analog cameras also be sent in with their lenses for AF fine adjustment? I did this with my digital stuff and it made all of the difference so i wonder if this applies for analog as well?
Wise words. There are a few stinkers and a few stellar lenses, but most Japanese glass of equivalent focal length and maximum f-stop look more like each other than anything else. At 8 x 12" it's hard to tell any difference.This may be sacrilege this site...
35mm is a small format, it's not an high-resolution format for the most part. I've found that using off brand or 3rd party prime lenses have rarely made a difference. I really only use older lenses though, I can't tell you about modern lenses with AF and other bings and whistles. I do know however that the majority of zooms up until the 90's are terrible. If you must, stick with name brands or well known runs like the Vivitar 1 Series.
There are several models of the Sigma 28mm f/1.8. I own the last one, the 28mm f/1.8 EX DG, and these comments are based on that lens.
AF Speed and accuracy on an F100 -- The Sigma is at a disadvantage here for a couple of reasons. First, at least my version focuses more closely than the Nikkor, which means the AF system has to work harder over the common range. Second, it's a "screwdriver" lens instead of one with a built-in motor. Slightly OT, but since you mentioned "my digital stuff", you may find it interesting to know that my Sigma had to be rechipped for full compatibility with my dSLRs. Depending on which model you got, this may or may not be possible.
As for so-called "IQ", there's no gentle way to say this. On 35mm film, my copy is soft in the corners until you stop down about f/5.6, and somewhat soft in the center at f/1.8 to f/2.5 or so. By all accounts, the 28mm f/1.8G is a significantly better lens. I would attribute this less to brands than differences in price point and technology over time. More recently, Sigma's been putting out some very nice lenses that more than give Nikon a run for their money. But had I been able to sell my copy of the Sigma for $200 or so, I'd own the 28mm f/1.8G today.
The short answer is that in theory it's possible to adjust the Sigma for optimum performance with your F100 at a given distance. However, given that such adjustments are usually made by taking a series of shots and comparing the results, the cost could easily exceed what you paid for the lens, or even that of a new 28mm f/1.8G.
For a dissenting view, see (there was a url link here which no longer exists)This may be sacrilege this site...
35mm is a small format, it's not an high-resolution format for the most part. I've found that using off brand or 3rd party prime lenses have rarely made a difference. I really only use older lenses though, I can't tell you about modern lenses with AF and other bings and whistles. I do know however that the majority of zooms up until the 90's are terrible. If you must, stick with name brands or well known runs like the Vivitar 1 Series.
For a dissenting view, see (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Wise words. There are a few stinkers and a few stellar lenses, but most Japanese glass of equivalent focal length and maximum f-stop look more like each other than anything else. At 8 x 12" it's hard to tell any difference.
The OP is a leicanut, believes and has said here that E. Leitz made better taking lenses in the 1920s than any other firm has made since then. To him, all other brands including Nikon are off.I'm not sure whats going on in that post...
. . . . If you must, stick with name brands or well known runs like the Vivitar 1 Series.
My first Leica, a new IIIf in 1953, came with the renown Elmar f/3.5 Elmar. The five element 3 group 45mm f/2.8 lens from a Minolta rangefinder camera seemed sharper.The OP is a leicanut, believes and has said here that E. Leitz made better taking lenses in the 1920s than any other firm has made since then. To him, all other brands including Nikon are off.
I'm not sure whats going on in that post...
Tripe and kanga tail, that's what.
I'm talking about branded Japanese lenses. Some lenses do give a different look - I'm a big fan of triplets - but they're not usually Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, etc.I have on the other hand, gotten some very interesting looks out of cheap lenses. I like those interesting looks too. If I want sterile I'll shoot digital.
I'm talking about branded Japanese lenses. Some lenses do give a different look - I'm a big fan of triplets - but they're not usually Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, etc.
The Vito II had a Color Skopar 50mm 3.5, I can't recall the Skopar configuration, but it was probably well corrected for its era. The point I was making is Japanese lenses of the late 60s to the millennium usually had similar designs (e.g. double Gauss) which gave a similar look. Other manufacturers opted for Biotar or Tessar construction. Japanese lenses avoided some of the characteristics that are prized today. My old Taylor Hobsons were once considered a poor relation, now they sell for a premium. Three element triplets, especially ones from a good manufacturer like Cooke or Schneider, give an amazing appearance at the expense of uncorrected astigmatism. Such a look was anathema to a maker like Nikon.I have a Voigtlander Vito II. I'd assume that's a pretty good lens manufacturer. The lens on that camera is loaded with interesting stuff going on.
I have an early AF iteration of the Sigma 28mm 1.8. It got rave reviews when it came out, I always found it a bit soft but useable. Sigma build quality was always hit or miss. If you got it cheap and it works, don't blow your budget on the Nikon unless you consistently shoot wide open, and even then I'd want to see results before I parted with the cash. Best thing about the 1.8 is the bright screen for focussing in low light.I got this Sigma 28mm 1.8 (aspherical) for cheap and i wonder how much edge in terms of AF speed, reliability and image quality am i losing out on compared to the Nikon AF-S 28mm 1.8 G, while shooting with a F100? Can this even be determined?
While we at it, can analog cameras also be sent in with their lenses for AF fine adjustment? I did this with my digital stuff and it made all of the difference so i wonder if this applies for analog as well?
The Vito II had a Color Skopar 50mm 3.5, I can't recall the Skopar configuration, but it was probably well corrected for its era. The point I was making is Japanese lenses of the late 60s to the millennium usually had similar designs (e.g. double Gauss) which gave a similar look. Other manufacturers opted for Biotar or Tessar construction. Japanese lenses avoided some of the characteristics that are prized today. My old Taylor Hobsons were once considered a poor relation, now they sell for a premium. Three element triplets, especially ones from a good manufacturer like Cooke or Schneider, give an amazing appearance at the expense of uncorrected astigmatism. Such a look was anathema to a maker like Nikon.
The Vito II had a Color Skopar 50mm 3.5, I can't recall the Skopar configuration, but it was probably well corrected for its era.
...
My old Taylor Hobsons were once considered a poor relation, now they sell for a premium. Three element triplets, especially ones from a good manufacturer like Cooke or Schneider, give an amazing appearance at the expense of uncorrected astigmatism. Such a look was anathema to a maker like Nikon.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?