I'm assuming sharpness is your biggest priority if your not even considering the 50mm f/1.2L over the 50 Art?
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.
4th time I've ever shot bikes, here's a selection of the results from the slightly difficult conditions at Silverstone.
All from spectator areas through the good'ol catch fencing with a 5d iii and the 400mm f5.6, I'd welcome your feedback and opinions.
It seems a few people doubt the 5D iii's ability to handle sports, what do you think?
Thanks for taking the time to look
Great series. Well done.
Although more luminous and more expensive Canon 50mm F1.2 does not reach the level of sharpness of the Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art, even when both are compared at F1.4.Canon 50mm F1.2L at this time is more expensive, and worse sharpness than the Sigma Art.Sigma 50mm Art 1.2?
Look at this comparison between Sigma 50mm Art, and Canon 50mm L:
When friends ask me about Canon 50mm lenses I answer the following:
The 50mm F1.2 model only has decent sharpness when used at F1.4.
The model 50mm F1.4 only has decent sharpness when used in F1.8.
The 50mm F1.8 model only has decent sharpness when used in F2.5.
The 50mm F2.5 model only has decent sharpness when used in F2.8
That seems rather ironic, but that's what I see.
Moreover, Sigma 50mm Art can be used at F1.4 with optimum picture quality and the bokeh is beautiful.
Canon 50mm F1.2L at this time is more expensive, and worse sharpness than the Sigma Art.
I only made this account to see what people thought about the review
I have yet to see a modifier that can fake being bigger than it is.
I've seen modifiers that are more effective than others, aka how much light comes out, but never seen a small light give softness like a big light from the same distance. Only marketing can rule the laws of physics.
I went for "No" rather than "Never will" because I'm a never say never type of person, but I have no intention of switching.
I don't like the idea of renting/subscribing to software, and have never done it so far; I want to pay once and know it's mine to use, end of.
More specifically, for PS subscribing is definitely not a good deal for me. For one thing, I already own CS 6, so I'd be paying those $10 for the additional features from CC onwards only. More to the point, though, I use PS in fits and starts - sometimes every day, sometimes not for weeks or months. So I'd either be paying to rent it for a whole lot of time when I'm not actually using it, or I'd be driving myself nuts trying to decide if it's worth taking out a subscription today or better to wait until I'm sure I'll have time to work through some images (and short-term subscriptions were more expensive per month last time I looked, which was admittedly a while ago).
I can see how the subscription model might work better for professionals and heavy users, but I don't understand why Adobe can't figure out some way to offer both - subscriptions for regular updates (and maybe include some extra support options or something to make it a better package), but release regular updates to buy (which would simply contain the accumulated updates subscribers get instantly) every two years or so, as before. That way, everyone's happy, no?