What matters more for autofocus, the lens or the body

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, JohnT said:

No worries! I was trying to figure out what's going on. Sometimes I'm crazy.

 

For sure then. The article is not misleading. Sigma's auto focus is expected to be faster... that's definitely not reflected in the price though 

Yeah , as far as I've read sigma 85mm art is one heck of a lens for its price .

[johnt]

29 minutes ago, SarthakDhonchak said:

Yeah , as far as I've read sigma 85mm art is one heck of a lens for its price .

It's shockingly more expensive than previous Sigma lenses (the 85mm that is), but it's a great bargain compared to the primes from Canon and Nikon

 

Are you going to get one? I've been debating ever since they announced it. I have a Nikon 85mm f/1.8D and it's a solid performer. I don't know if the extra 2/3 of a stop is going to make a big impact. f/1.4 can be quite unusable in my opinion 

[AkiraDaarkst]

14 minutes ago, JohnT said:

It's shockingly more expensive than previous Sigma lenses (the 85mm that is), but it's a great bargain compared to the primes from Canon and Nikon

 

Are you going to get one? I've been debating ever since they announced it. I have a Nikon 85mm f/1.8D and it's a solid performer. I don't know if the extra 2/3 of a stop is going to make a big impact. f/1.4 can be quite unusable in my opinion 

Nikon (and I think Canon) prices depends on a few factors:

• Are the lenses really manufactured in Japan or outside Japan (i.e. China, Thailand, etc.)
• Brand name
• Quality control, though this doesn't mean that Nikon and Canon are always superb.  Sometimes the laws of Murphy just works and you might get a lens that's been badly calibrated.
• Build materials

Sigma used to be less than spectacular with most of their lenses and only a few of them managed to match or on very rare occasions surpass the quality of Nikon (I'm talking about the previous Sigma 50mm 1.4 DG lens that was way better than the Nikon 50mm 1.4G, but it was also bigger) and Canon lenses until they started producing the Art, Contemporary and Sports series of lenses.

 

Lastly I want to mention is Nikon and Canon's professional services to qualified registered members.  They're global but only with Nikon or Canon gear.  NPS and CPS won't touch your camera if you used a Nikon D5 with a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and something goes wrong.  You might never see a Sigma Professional Service team during events like the Olympics or the World Cup.

[johnt]

1 hour ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Sigma used to be less than spectacular with most of their lenses and only a few of them managed to match or on very rare occasions surpass the quality of Nikon (I'm talking about the previous Sigma 50mm 1.4 DG lens that was way better than the Nikon 50mm 1.4G, but it was also bigger) and Canon lenses until they started producing the Art, Contemporary and Sports series of lenses

You're right

 

1 hour ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Lastly I want to mention is Nikon and Canon's professional services to qualified registered members.  They're global but only with Nikon or Canon gear.  NPS and CPS won't touch your camera if you used a Nikon D5 with a Sigma 70-200 2.8 and something goes wrong.  You might never see a Sigma Professional Service team during events like the Olympics or the World Cup.

I don't quite understand your point. I don't think Sigma appeals to the press or professionals who are shooting those types of events. I think Sigma is targeting hobbyists/home based pros.

[AkiraDaarkst]

4 hours ago, JohnT said:

I don't quite understand your point. I don't think Sigma appeals to the press or professionals who are shooting those types of events. I think Sigma is targeting hobbyists/home based pros.

I meant, in order to have these NPS service centers around the world and the people to staff them Nikon has to add some markup to their lenses and bodies...

[peabody505]

A lens with horrid AF is going to be much better on a body with good AF than a good AF lens on a terrible AF body.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, JohnT said:

It's shockingly more expensive than previous Sigma lenses (the 85mm that is), but it's a great bargain compared to the primes from Canon and Nikon

 

Are you going to get one? I've been debating ever since they announced it. I have a Nikon 85mm f/1.8D and it's a solid performer. I don't know if the extra 2/3 of a stop is going to make a big impact. f/1.4 can be quite unusable in my opinion 

No , i can't really afford one. I am a student just about to complete high school this month.(I'm from india) .

But I love to read and know about tech be it cameras or computers.

Maybe in future but right now i have to do with the camera on my phone!

 

P.S. maybe the extra 2/3 stop isn't worth it , but looking at the pictures from the lens, the sharpness that you'll gain at f1.8 or even at f1.4 from the sigma  compared to your nikon may definitely be!

[cc143]

How fast an 85mm lens focuses is not a big deal, theoretically, your subject will be relatively still and you should probably be locking focus on an eye or something anyway 90% of the time. 

 

Now sure, a cheaper lens will consist of cheaper materials, motors etc that may well affect its focusing speed. There is after all something that needs to physically rearrange the glass inside the lens to attain focus. It stands to reason that those parts will be of better quality and thus more durable and efficient when you are paying more. The case between the 85 1.2L and Sigma 85 art is not representative of that as mentioned above, there are other factors there affecting price. 

 

Lets also not forget that the 85mm 1.2L is an 11 year old lens right now, the 85 1.2L I was made back in 1989 and would still be great for what it is intended to do and may well be used by many people today. 

 

What you should also consider when looking at these lenses is that (applies to Nikon as well). 

 

The 85 1.8 is sharp enough for most functions, and I would personally rather have the cheaper and significantly lighter and smaller lens in my bag rather than the behemoth sigma 85 or Canon 85 1.2. So the tradeoff in the end may actually be worth it. Sure if you do portraits in weddings and that sort of a setting, the 85 1.2/1.4 is irreplaceable by the 85 1.8, although I assume many will prefer to use the 70-200 in those cases anyway. But for travelling with? The 85 1.8 is much more practical. 

[randomhkkid]

Also worth noting that not all autofocus motors are equal in terms of noise produces. Some lenses like Fuji's Linear Motor series are completely silent when focussing making them for suitable for situations where discreteness is required/desired.