Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

All the more reason why starting with a lens that is sharp wide open would be even more important. Not a waste of time at all.

Sharpness is a subjective quality of a lens. It is a balance between contrast and acuity - a lens that has high acuity but poor contrast is almost always perceived as being "less sharp" when compared to one that has lower acuity and higher contrast. And the differences change as you increase the size of a print, implying that you are viewing it from a greater distance. Even a mediocre lens will produce a sharp-looking image when blown up to poster size, as long as there is enough contrast to define the edges - the changes you describe apply to both color AND tone transitions. In fact, I often "sharpen" my images by changing color mode to Lab color and directly applying sharpening to the Luminosity or black and white channel - then converting back - it often results in a superior image with a lot less color noise. But that is the subject of a different thread.

Sometimes you don't have a choice but to work in low light conditions without the option to add your own lighting - have you ever had to photograph a stage production where a scene is done with low-key lighting? I am not sure what you mean by being a waste of time. You do the best with what you have - and having a lens that has good contrast and acuity when used wide open is a lot better than one that isn't as good.

So, do you avoid shooting when you can't control the lighting?

bcrawf

Well, the sharpest lens is the sharpest, but the lens with the larger maximum aperture has the best chance of focusing accurately (i.e., on the chosen point).

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

First thing first, I have not used the D850 or the Tamron 24-70 f2.8. I have used the old Nikon 24-70 f2.8, a very good professional lens.
Working with a sharp lens in low light is a tossed up. As has been already mentioned lighting and contrast defines sharpness and sharpness depends more on the operator than in the lens itself.
If you bought or plan to buy the Tamron lens it should do well in low light, like most lenses with a f2.8 aperture but understand that noise is a possibility depending on the ISO speed in use and that will obviously have an effect on the quality of the images, regardless of the lens in use.

Brent Rowlett Loc: Atlanta, GA

No I do not avoid shooting in low light, but I don't get anal about sharpness. I am more concerned with noise. When composing and setting up shots in low light especially with models and real estate decor, the mood is more important than tack sharp images.

Red Sky At Night

I do understand the difference in light. BUT sometimes it isn’t there. In THAT instance I was wondering from the experience of those that have USED both lenses if there was any significant difference in these lenses.

SkyKing Loc: Thompson Ridge, NY

...if you are shooting indoors than the AF-S NIKKOR 50mm F1.4G or
AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G...the 85mm 1.4 is Nikon’s highest rated prime lens...according to DxOMark...
That said, both the Sigma 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 are rated higher for Nikon FX full frame bodies...

Tronjo Loc: Canada, BC

I was in the same situation as you couple of weeks ago. The VR would be very helpful for low light (depending on your subject of course), so the dilemma was Tamron 24-70 G2 or Nikon 24-70 E VR. Went to the store and tried both on Nikon 850, handheld with VR On, at different subject distances (2m, 5m, infinity) and focal distances 24, 35, 50, 70 - the way I intended to use the lens in most situations. At each distance / FL combination I took three shots always manually defocusing the lens first. Same for conditions for both lenses. Went home and evaluated the raw files: Sharpness wise (I admit that fine tuning Tamron may have given different results):
A) at the center Tamron had a slight edge only at 50mm in the center for short working distances, at infinity Nikon was better;
B) at the edges Nikon was always better except at 50mm / 4m working distance where the two were equal.
Focus breathing: At short working distances (2 - 3m) Tamron max FL was more like 60mm instead of 70mm. At infinity both lens had the same FOV.
AF:
A) Nikon was much faster and consistent (there are small differences in Tamron focusing between the 3 shots)
B)Tamron refused to AF on several occasions (I had to slightly move the focus ring to make it AF again);
Other considerations:
A) Nikon is heavier by ~170g and longer;
B) Nikon is significantly more expensive.
C) Here, in Canada, Nikon has 5 years warranty vs. Tamron 10 Years.
I ended up with Nikon. All this perspective of fiddling with Tamron AF fine tune and the fact that it refuses to AF at all at certain moments played a role in the decision. Also, Nikon sharpness is amazingly uniform through the whole field at all F# and particularly at 2.8, which may be important for you, depending on what you will be shooting. Looking at Nikon MTFs it becomes clear that the designer sacrificed some central sharpness to get uniform field with minimum curvature. At the end of the day though, sharpness in not the ultimate parameter that makes a lens a good lens. You probably will be happy with either choice.

Red Sky At Night

Thank you. Such a great response. I so appreciate it.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I agree. No one is getting anal about anything I think. But how would you characterize your statement about shooting in low light being a waste of time?

Red Sky At Night

Thanks for taking the time to find this for me. I had not seen it and it was helpful.

chkeith83

So, you might also want to consider the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. I have the older version, not the new ART series, and it is a really sweet, tack-sharp imager! I was also very impressed with Sigma because, even though it was about a month out of warranty, they did a firmware upgrade for free when I went from my D90 to my (current) D5500.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Personally I own and regularly use Nikon's previous version of the 24-70, the version without VR, and I've never been disappointed by it and dont feel I need the VR version. Although I've never met a Sigma ART series lens I don't like, my upgrade path, if there is one, will be the Nikon version. I am not at the point that I consider Tamron to be a contender, but that is my decision which is based only upon personal preference. Best of luck.

Red Sky At Night

Thank you.

Silverman Loc: Michigan

I would guess, from my limited DSLR knowledge that any Nikon lens with as aperture of 1.2 would produce the best images in LOW LIGHT.

Tronjo Loc: Canada, BC

I have Sigma 35 F1.4 art. It is a great lens: sharp, fast and consistent AF, etc. Sometimes though, especially when shooting faces, the images look somewhat harsh compare to let say my Nikon 50/1.8 in similar illumination conditions (and it is not difference in the sharpness). I was unable to put a finger on what exactly I don't like in such cases, but there is something in the overall appearance in the image...