« on: July 26, 2014, 03:33:34 PM »
The test shot at f2 on the Canon is clearly slightly back focused and therefore not a fair example. It makes the Canon look softer than it really is.
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.
Need to have: 85/1.4 (but no one else mentioned it, so I suppose Canon has little market for it...
Want to have: 135/1.8-2 IS (that will essentially lock my 70-200 II to non-travel use)
Would be nice to have: 12orwhatever-24/2.8
I am not sure any of these will come out this year though...
One more vote for the 14-24 f/2.8 and the 135 f1.8 IS
I think it depends on your needs. If you do portraits or weddings, you might need a fast 2.8 lens. If you do landscapes, travel or hiking/outdoor photography, the light-weight F4 lens would be a better choice for me.
I have a F2.8 and often wish I had instead purchased the F4.
A short update:
I got my 50A back from the shop, and lo and behold, the inconsistency was gone. Sigma representative said they adjusted the lens to a standard body, and then returned it. Now the lens was back focusing either when approached from INF or MFD, which is OK from my books as I've tools to correct that. So Sigma dock it is, and 20 mins of adjustments later, I was ready for real life testing.
In the 300 photos I took last evening, I didn't see focus errors, and got a very good keeper ratio. The lens is now working, and actually seems to be sharp enough that I actually need to decrease camera sharpening preset for JPEGs.
EDIT: I'll have to say that this lens rocks! The background blur stopped down is a definite improvement over Canon's 50/1.4!
I have owned both and I wouldn't choose between them based on IQ. I would make your decision on the following:
Is the big difference in size, weight, and price worth it for:
- 1 extra stop of light (do you shoot sports/wildlife in low light?)
- shallower DOF (both have great bokeh, but f/2.8 is better for subject isolation - though f/4 at 150-200mm provides plenty shallow DOF for most purposes including portraits)
- somewhat tougher (all metal vs. excellent engineering plastic) build quality
- a tripod ring in the box (though the f/4 IS + way overpriced Canon ring is still much cheaper than the f/2.8 IS II)
-AF with the 2xIII extender on all bodies
For me, it is, but if I traveled much at all or didn't need the low light speed of f/2.8, I'd go back to the f/4 IS.
Any one here having tested both the new 300mm F2.8 L IS II and the new Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 AF APO EX DG OS HSM and having an opinion on how these two said lenses compare in sharpness and general (real world) usability ... Some reviews Rate the sigma as sharper as the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS II so it should be really sharp ...
Yep, with my cards, I get only 5-6 bursts out of the SD card and I get about 10-12 from the CF card. Interestingly, if I have the Sd card slot enabled (regarlessly of having a card in there) I get the lower buffer / card write times. So when I need to shoot fast and long, I take out the SD card and use the Q button to write to the CF card only.
That's odd, I have noticed no such issue. My settings are set to record to both, and when either CF or SD isn't present, it'll give a warning when you turn on the camera, but I don't notice it negatively effecting speed.
No doubt, sigma 35mm 1.4 art is canon killer.
Check some reviews, many people compared the two lenses. Though I'm not quite sure about the build quality that Sigma provides — at first sight yes, it's very good, but will it last as canon 35mm does?
I'm not sure I'd call it a Canon killer....it's a little bit sharper but that's about it. Also bare in mind that I've been using my 35L for the last 8 years (and it's paid for itself time and time with great professional images) where as this Sigma is new to the market. I'm happy with my 35L and see very little reason to swap to the Sigma. My Canon 35L has provided great images and will continue to do so.
If you rate a lens by optics alone then sure the Sigma looks great. But I would wager in a comparison that few could tell from an A3 print which lens was which. The Canon is far better built, has a far more reliable AF system and will hold it's value on the second hand market over the long term. Sigma AF issues are well documented, even their 120-300 has af issues.
You're wrong about build quality, the Sigma is much better, all of my 35 L's has been squeaky when squeezing the sides of the barrel, and two of them had the small plastic pins that holds the af/mf switch in place broken, leaving an open hole right into the lens.
But color and contrast, build and ca correction needs a BIG update.
35mm is such a useful focal length for me, I hope Canon will weather-seal a mark-II version. That does give some peace-of-mind especially working outdoors and in humid areas.
I can say the 35 L II will be weather sealed 1000% certain.
The CF slot is significantly faster than the SD slot. Most new and expensive SD cards are significantly faster than the 5DmkIII's slot will allow writing to it.
You don't notice this all that much unless you are burst shooting. I just tested this for you, using M, 1/250, F/4.0, ISO 100, pre-focused. In a 30 second run, using my 1000x Lexar Professional CF card, 82 shots were recorded. Using a 95mb/s Sandisk Extreme Pro card, 27 images were recorded.
The CF card clears the camera's buffer much faster, and thus allows you take pictures more than three times as fast as an SD card. You could easily run the same test with your own cards, though they are different speeds, it is quite likely your CF cards will be faster. Note that the ratings on the cards are generally read speed, not write speed, so you actually need to test them instead of looking at the numbers.
FYI, it appears the SD card slot is limited to a speed of 133x, or +- 20mb/s.
Personally, unless I know I have to do heavy burst shooting, I have both CF and SD cards present in my 5DmkIII, and capture to both. Yes, it is slightly slower, but nothing is as slow as a card malfunction requiring you to re-do the shoot (or wedding, or holiday, etc)
I was hoping to see a new approach from Canon with their 50mm optical formulas, but these three patents look like the same old, same old. If any of these three lenses make it to the market place (and that's a big "IF") then i doubt we'll see much improvement over the old one...which makes me ask...why bother?
Canon's more clever than you think - buy sticking with the outdated 50/1.4 and the ultra-outdated 50/1.8 *any* improvement will be a biggie, and people will buy them as long as there's a Canon label on them... a "real" usm would be worth the upgrade alone no matter the iq.