Which lens would make the sharpest image in low light? (Page 3): Lens distortion...supposedly 135mm gives the most realistic results...These portraits—taken by Stephen Eastwood

SkyKing Loc: Thompson Ridge, NY

Tronjo wrote:

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...

Lens distortion...supposedly 135mm gives the most realistic results...These portraits—taken by Stephen Eastwood—show how this works.

chkeith83

Well, to get into this in detail, you have to look at MTF curves, which are pretty technical for some, but extremely informative b/c they tell you how the lens performs at all apertures. Most lenses perform best near the middle of their aperture range. Wide open and stopped down introduce different problems.

Traditionally, microscope objectives of 1.2-1.4 NA deliver resolution in the range of .2 microns, but they require immersion fluid in order to do it. With lenses, at distance, 1 micron is about the best!

chkeith83

Of course, depends on target size!

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

SkyKing wrote:

...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...

Sigma 50mm 1.4 is one of the sharpest lenses ever produced at that price point.
(Zeiss notwithstanding). Focus is iffy but low light resolution and sharpness is excellent.

BebuLamar

Red Sky At Night wrote:

Okay, so I have watched tutorials and have found varying opinions. I am shooting with a D850 and want to add a lens. I've seen glowing reports on the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 especially for the money. For those of you who have used both this lens and the AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm F2.8G ED in LOW LIGHT, which has given the sharpest image? Please note that I am asking specifically about LOW LIGHT situations. Thank you.

It would make no different to me in low light or in bright light. In both cases I would use f/5.6 to f/8.0.

Tronjo Loc: Canada, BC

SkyKing wrote:

Lens distortion...supposedly 135mm gives the most realistic results...These portraits—taken by Stephen Eastwood—show how this works.

Oh, I know this quite well. Usually I don't take portraits with less than 70mm FL. I was talking not about shape distortion (it is actually perspective, not distortion per se), but about something in the "texture" of the image which I cannot catch for now.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Tronjo wrote:

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...

I am not surprised as I would consider any 35mm to be too wide for a face(s), even on a DX. I would prefer something in the 85mm to 135mm range for that type of work. I recently used the Sigma 135/1.8 ART for a dog portrait and I loved it! Best of luck.

Tronjo Loc: Canada, BC

cjc2 wrote:

I am not surprised as I would consider any 35mm to be too wide for a face(s), even on a DX. I would prefer something in the 85mm to 135mm range for that type of work. I recently used the Sigma 135/1.8 ART for a dog portrait and I loved it! Best of luck.

Again, I was not talking about perspective effects, but about the "texture" of the image. This was the reason I used the word "harsh" in the original text. BTW, 35mm is excellent for group shots, particularly in small to medium rooms. And when you shoot groups you shoot faces, correct?

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Tronjo wrote:

Again, I was not talking about perspective effects, but about the "texture" of the image. This was the reason I used the word "harsh" in the original text. BTW, 35mm is excellent for group shots, particularly in small to medium rooms. And when you shoot groups you shoot faces, correct?

There's a big difference between shooting a face or two and a group shot if you really want to argue the semantics of what I said. I would agree that a 35mm might be a good choice for a group, but it would be hard to tell without more facts. I've used a 14-24, 24 to 70 and even a 70-200 for group shots. The 70-200 was most likely used in panorama. Now that I know exactly what you were referring to by the term 'harsh', I can agree that I too like the results of some lenses better than others for whatever I happen to be shooting. One of my very favorite lenses, for everything, is the newest Nikon 70-200/2.8E FL VR, which I find gives amazing results. YMMV. Best of luck.

Tronjo Loc: Canada, BC

cjc2 wrote:

There's a big difference between shooting a face o... (show quote)

Mutual understanding makes me happy

Not very often in our crazy world though

Cheers

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Red Sky At Night wrote:

Okay, so I have watched tutorials and have found varying opinions. I am shooting with a D850 and want to add a lens. I've seen glowing reports on the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 especially for the money. For those of you who have used both this lens and the AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm F2.8G ED in LOW LIGHT, which has given the sharpest image? Please note that I am asking specifically about LOW LIGHT situations. Thank you.

My advice would be to pick up a NIKON 50 AF 1.8.

Cheap and possibly the sharpest camera lens mass market ever.

With a nifty 50 if you want 24 or 70 just take a few steps forward or backwards.

chkeith83

Given your camera, and future trade-in, I would totally concur on the 50 mm f1.8, but make it the AF-S, which has the "Silent Wave Motor". Excellent lens, and, as I said, very compact. With my D5500, it is about point-and-shoot size, but with a lot more control. (Although, to be totally honest, I haven't even come close to fully taking advantage of my Sony RSC-DX100 III!)

tomglass Loc: Yorktown, VA

How 'bout renting both and see what you think?

Novicus Loc: north and east

When it does not have to be a Zoom..Nikkor 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 manual/auto focus models can handle lowlight extremely well....I do also have the nikkor 55mmf1.2 , which gives a pleasant image under lowlight conditions , yet does not rival the aforementioned manual focus nikkors , the autofocus models are even a tad " sharper".

Novicus Loc: north and east

When it does not have to be a Zoom..Nikkor 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 manual/auto focus models can handle lowlight extremely well....I do also have the nikkor 55mmf1.2 , which gives a pleasant image under lowlight conditions , yet does not rival the aforementioned manual focus nikkors , the autofocus models are even a tad " sharper".