Sigma 24-35mm on Nikon D810

[Abitconfused]

I like this lens and am frequently impressed by it.



25mm, f/2.8, 1/60s, ISO: 2000

[xpatUSA]

I like this lens and am frequently impressed by it.



25mm, f/2.8, 1/60s, ISO: 2000

Better than your 18-35mm Art?

Just askin' . . .

As a Sigma camera owner, I look with envy at the results from ISO 2000!!

[Abitconfused]

The larger sensor and additional ISO capability of the D810 improves low light photography using the 24-35mm quite a bit. Given, also, the different crop factors, the two lenses have a different feel. They also seem to deliver colors differently. However, I love them both equally. Some have said that they doubt the versatility of these lenses given the narrow zoom range. I suspect the limited zoom range also allows for better optical construction. I find that moving a little to find the proper perspective while using the zoom range provided offers benefits for those who want a wider FOV within a relatively wide-angle distortion free zone.

[xpatUSA]

The larger sensor and additional ISO capability of the D810 improves low light photography using the 24-35mm quite a bit. Given, also, the different crop factors, the two lenses have a different feel. They also seem to deliver colors differently. However, I love them both equally. Some have said that they doubt the versatility of these lenses given the narrow zoom range. I suspect the limited zoom range also allows for better optical construction. I find that moving a little to find the proper perspective while using the zoom range provided offers benefits for those who want a wider FOV within a relatively wide-angle distortion free zone.

Second time I've made that mistake here in as many weeks, duh.

For some reason, I keep forgetting that the 18-35mm is a DC, not DG.

Oops!

[Abitconfused]

Well, I guess the question could be why do I like DX and FX when the D810 FX has a 16MP DX setting? Of course the DX gear has much less weight. But there is something else as well that is harder to define. I think each camera and lens combination leads down a different path. Do we love the process as much as the product? I bet we do.

[IzzieK]

Ed, Do you use DX lenses on your D810? OK the 24-35mm is a DG lens and I like the result of it here as you illustrated.

[Abitconfused]

I only use my DX for DX lenses as I am a resolution craving, pixel peeping, neurotic. Well, not entirely. I have settled into a Photoshop workflow that emphasizes light and shadow, lines and contrast. Now if I only had some talent and imagination! What's in the future? Experiment, experiment, experiment and push boundaries whenever possible. Progress is slow because photography can take us in so many different directions. I give away a lot of photographs to people I meet. It's hard to get a good photograph of the band while the band is playing and the band can't afford a photographer.

[Abitconfused]

Black & White...

[Manfred M]

Ed - I'm afraid I'm going to push back at your comments a tiny bit.

Unless you are making large prints, the effect of high end glass is not particularly noticeable over what less expensive lenses do for you (I own a lot of high-end Nikon lenses and do a fair number of large sized prints). Small images, posted on websites and the associated downsampling means you can't really see the difference.

Now, start making large prints where you get the full resolution out of camera and lens and get right up to the image, you will be able to tell (by large prints I'm looking at A2 format / 17" x 22" and larger). Look at it at normal viewing distances (print diagonal and further away), the effect is reduced as well.

One other caveat - you have better be shooting on a sturdy tripod that holds the camera rock steady, otherwise, with handheld shots at "normal" shutter speeds, the camera shake is going to soften what you are recording a fair bit. I suspect shooting at ludicrously high shutter speeds (1/2000th) at a moderate focal length would give you similar results. You would also need to be stopping down the lens a couple of stops to get into the the "sweet spot" to get the maximum sharpness out of the optics. Oh yes, and shoot at the camera's base ISO too.

The reason I say this is that your first shot (I assume it is hand-held), shows an aperture of f/2.8, shutter speed of 1/60th and ISO 2000 with a 25mm focal length. These are not parameters where I would expect your lens to really shine (even if we were looking at a large print).

Maximum image quality has a lot more drivers than just a sharp lens.

[Shadowman]

I like the B & W capture, the first image is a bit busy to see the qualities of the lens.

[Abitconfused]

The tripod IS our friend. I think I need a light but sturdy tripod that can easily reach to six feet. I am still somewhat confused about the sweet spot of the 24-35mm. I have shot the full spectrum without noticing much but I haven't been "scientific" about it either.

[IzzieK]

I like this last B/W shot, Ed..It will be nice if you can crop that white bit at the left hand side...

[Manfred M]

The tripod IS our friend. I think I need a light but sturdy tripod that can easily reach to six feet. I am still somewhat confused about the sweet spot of the 24-35mm. I have shot the full spectrum without noticing much but I haven't been "scientific" about it either.

You must be quite tall if you need a 6-ft tripod. Getting something that high eliminates a lot of the units out on the market, and the taller it is, the less rigid it will tend to be and of course, the heavier it will be. Carbon fibre is the lightest material, and this is what three of my tripods are made out of my video tripod and monopod are aluminum). Don't forget to include the column and ball head in your calculations, plus the location of the camera viewfinder, they all add to the height of where you will be looking, so depending on the specific setup, you can probably take 6" - 12" off to get the height of tripod you need to get the viewfinder to eye level. I just measured mine and the top of the tripod to the middle of the viewfinder in horizontal format is 11-1/2".

Allan Short (Polar01) and I both use the large Feisiol (I have the 3372LV Rapid) and he uses the 3472. The difference is mine has three segment legs and his has four. These are probably one of the more affordable, high quality carbon fibre ones (the legs are large diameter (max 37mm / 1.46") and with the column it goes up to over 76". I am 5'10" and usually don't extend the column or even have the legs all the way out to get the camera to eye level when shooting. Don't forget you need a ball head on top of that (I believe Allan has one of the Feisol ones and I use the RRS BH-55).

As for the "sweet spot" of your lens, that is likely between 2 and 3 stops down from wide open (that's where it tends to be on any lens I've ever used).

[Abitconfused]

That's a nice tripod. I will have to ask Santa.

[Manfred M]

That's a nice tripod. I will have to ask Santa.

Anyone who uses a tripod regularly will tell you that a good tripod is not cheap and neither are the good heads. On the other hand, neither your camera body nor your lens are cheap either, so putting them on a tripod that is not robust and sturdy is probably an unnecessary risk (and yes, I've had a camera topple over on a tripod, but fortunately I was on grass and neither the camera or lens got damaged).

Most people end up spending more by buying cheap tripods / heads, getting frustrated and then upgrading. In the end, the spend more money as they finally buy the gear they should have bought in the first place.

As I wrote before. I have three tripods. My small tripod is good to use with my mFT camera and works well as a travel tripod for the crop frame (DX) bodies. The medium tripod works well as a normal tripod for the DX bodies and I will use in when traveling light and am shooting the D800. The Feisol is my mainstay for the D800 and I have not problems throwing it in the car when traveling with it. I've taken it on a trip to Central America, and frankly it was a pain dragging it along and I should have taken the smaller tripod (lesson learned).