October 31, 2014, 12:54:39 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - gigabellone

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Pulling the trigger on a 6D
« on: October 25, 2014, 09:31:57 PM »
I bought my 6D a year ago, and i love it. The AF is simple and not suitable to capture images of fast moving subjects, but everything else about this camera is just great. I'm sure you'll like it! :)

2
Lenses / Re: why there are no new L primes
« on: October 24, 2014, 09:00:36 AM »
I would ask the same question about non-L prime lens, esp. at 50mm and 85mm (and even the 100mm).  Supposedly IS versions (akin to the 24/28/35) have been due any minute now but that's been said for two years.  The "year of the lens" is running out of time and yet the standard/medium telephoto range seems to be ignored for primes.

All that said, I'm not worried about what eye charts show for the 50/1.2, if you look at real pictures it's an amazing lens and can still be very sharp at certain distances anyway.  And I've used the 24L (on a 7D) and thought it was perfectly good, liked the results. 

But the wait goes on for new primes in the standard/medium range....

The 85/1.8 is indeed a very old design, but i think it's good enough and doesn't need a replacement. The 50/1.4 could use a rework. My two cents.  ;)

3
Lenses / Re: why there are no new L primes
« on: October 24, 2014, 06:00:24 AM »
In the EOS system there's no competition for the Canon primes, except for the Sigma 35/1.4, that makes a lens with the same specs, but with better performance and price than the Canon counterpart. If you want the 1.2 aperture, you must get the Canon lenses; if you want a 24/1.4, you either get the Canon, get a completely manual lens from Samyang, or switch to Nikon. And i also think that the pro zooms, the big whites, and the cheap ef-s lenses are those who get the most sales (and revenues).

4
Thanks for the review, Dustin. :)

I'm on the market for a wide angle landscape lens that could double as an astro/starscape lens, and this filter holder would make the Samyang 14/2.8 a great candidate for it. Do you have any info about the pricing? I saw some for sale in Italy on ebay at 229€, which i think is just too much for just the filter holder.

5
Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.4 Canon vs. Sigma
« on: October 06, 2014, 03:33:03 AM »
The Canon 50mm 1.4 is just soft wide open and doesn't fully sharpen up until 2.8. The problem is even more acute on a crop-sensor body. An easy way to see this is as follows:

Put your camera & 50mm on a tripod in AV mode at f/1.4 and point it at something with a lot of fine detail (I used a semi-transparent curtain). Go to live-view and x10 and manual focus as well you can. Hold down DOF preview and watch what happens as you stop down to 2.8. On my copy, I see the image get steadily sharper until about f/2.8. After I did this, I mostly stopped using my 50mm except in extreme low-light situations.

I've been waiting for years for Canon to update the 50mm 1.4. I finally gave up and bought the Sigma Art.

How's your experience with it? I have a Sigma 35 art and i love it. From what i see, the 50 got more complaints than the 35 regarding the AF, and this is scaring me off a bit, even if the price now (710€) is really tempting.

6
Lenses / Re: wide angle needed
« on: October 03, 2014, 05:01:06 AM »
I would rate the 21mm above the 16-35 f4L IS at its focal length and you have the 2.8 over 4.0 advantage. There is also something special with the Zeiss glass that makes them stand out. Color and contrast are two.

But apart from that, the IQ from the 16-35 is so good that it even seems a bit pointless to hang on to the 21mm. And when you add the weather sealing advantage of the L-lens, it is even clearer. Since I got the 16-35 I have hardly used the 21mm at all. If I had to choose only one of the two, I´d go for the 16-35.

I don´t have any good images to serve as comparisons though.

Don't worry about comparison images, i trust your opinion as an informed user. :)

Weather sealing on the Canon is a nice plus, but not a game breaker in my typical use case scenarios. Same goes for the IS. I won't be needing the fast aperture either, since i mostly shoot long exposures. What appeals me about the Zeiss, other than the stunning image quality, is that it's built like a tank, and the fast aperture would allow me to get started in night photography: star trails are cool, but being able to take pictures of "still" stars would be great too. Not to mention that the infinty focus hard stop is really a life saver when composing shots in the dark. Now, if only it wasn't so freaking expensive... For the price of the Zeiss, i could buy the Canon and a Rokinon/Samyang prime for star fields, but i'm adding complexity, increased lens switches and weight. Or, i could get the Canon 24/1.4, use it stopped down at f/2.8 for star fields, wide open for low light/street photography, and stopped down for landscapes.... Ah, choices, choices..... :D

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why haven't you left canon?
« on: October 03, 2014, 04:08:13 AM »
Ergonomics: grip shape/size, buttons placement, menus and GUIs. When i got my first DSLR, i knew really nothing about the brand wars, i just wanted the best bang for the buck to get started in photography, so i stepped into the shop with the intention of getting a Nikon D3100. Right beside it, there was this shiny and sexy, yet slightly more expensive, EOS 550D. I handled them both, and asked to have them powered on. It was love at first sight with the Canon. :)

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: siggy 35 1.4 Art
« on: October 03, 2014, 03:56:35 AM »
I had literally zero problems with the AF on my Sigma 35/1.4, it didn't even need micro-adjustment. It's my favorite lens, love at first sight. I have a much easier time focusing on the center point on my 6D, but outer points aren't less accurate, just slower at catching focus.
I really hope you'll enjoy the lens as much as i do! :)

9
Lenses / Re: wide angle needed
« on: October 03, 2014, 03:50:23 AM »
I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.

Since you both own the 16-35/4 and the Zeiss 21/2.8, can you tell us how the two lenses compare regarding IQ at comparable focal lengths and apertures?

10
Lenses / Re: 50mm f/1.4 Canon vs. Sigma
« on: October 03, 2014, 03:47:20 AM »
Do you think Sigma will be able to fix the 50 1.4 Art forward focus with lateral edge focus points with software updates, or is that a permanent problem?

I think this is something that a well written firmware can fix, but since Canon doesn't disclose any details about their autofocus system, there's no way to tell if this ever gets done, and when.

11
Lenses / Re: What New Lens are You Most Excited About?
« on: October 02, 2014, 08:15:04 AM »
The 24-105. I usually shoot primes only, and put a lot of thought in any single picture. Having a cheap zoom with good IQ for vacations and casual shooting would be great.

12
I know those lens are much more different than they are alike, but i think they both excel at landscape photography. Is there any IQ difference at comparable focal lenghts and apertures? I would use either one of the lens for landscapes and long exposures, so IS isn't very appealing to me, and i already have the Sigma 35/1.4, which i love, so i don't need the zoom coverage at the longer focal lengths. Going ultra-wide at 16mm would be nice, though, but the faster Zeiss could get me started in night landscapes/starfields photography. Is there any of you that used/tried both?

13
Lenses / Re: Inexpensive standard walk around lens question
« on: September 24, 2014, 03:47:23 AM »
My walk around set up is a 6D with Sigma 35/1.4. It's kinda heavy, but 35mm makes an excellent "generic" focal length, imho, and the large aperture allows me to shoot handeld in very low light, or to creatively use the shallow DoF.
The 40/2.8 would be a great choice, but you say it doesn't offer any advantage other than weight and size over the zoom, but that's a lens costing 10 times the former. If you aren't satisfied with the small pancake, and want something cool to play with, i would try taking either a shorter focal length (24 or 28 IS), or biting the bullet and carry the heavier but fantastic 35/1.4. I wouldn't consider lens without USM or STM: i have a 50/1.8 II, and its AF motor is irritating.

14
Lenses / Re: Would you buy a hypothetical 85mm f/1.4L portrait lens if...
« on: September 18, 2014, 08:49:25 AM »
I have the Canon 85/1.8, and i don't see myself spending over 1500€ for 2/3 of f-stop advantage, weather sealing, and (slightly?) increased sharpness. Let's be honest: the old 85/1.8 is sharp enough, focuses with good accuracy and speed, its optical deficiencies are negligible, and its cost of 350$/€ makes it a no brainer for anyone except the most demanding pros, or the very rich amateurs.

15
Lenses / Re: The Sigma 35mm Art is Toasting Canon's?
« on: September 18, 2014, 08:42:39 AM »
I have the Sigma 35A, and can't stop singing it's praises. Maybe i was extremely lucky, but my sample hasn't got any problems focusing, with any AF point, on my 6D. Or maybe i'm not as picky as the average CR forums user. :D
Anyway, i was so positively impressed by the 35A that i was almost certain i would have got the Sigma 50A as well, but i must admit that it's getting a lot more "bad focus" reports from the user, and this scared me. It could be that on a 35mm long lens the DoF is higher, thus the focusing imperfections may pass undetected, contrary to the less forgiving longer focal length of the 50A.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5