Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D & EOS 7D Mark II

« on: May 16, 2013, 11:04:19 AM »

Canon would surprise a whole lot of people if they announced a non-18Mp aps-c sized sensor..

2

Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]

« on: December 24, 2012, 01:55:24 PM »

As a prev. owner of 28mm f1.8 and 50 f1.4, I know both of these lenses well. None of these lenses can be shot at wide open, especially the 28mm. Both lenses need to stop down at least 1stop before you can see the sharpness.

What is the point of buying a prime with f1.ish and shoot at f2ish. Just FYI...both 35L and 50L are sharp at wide open... and yes, I have real life pictures if you want to see.

i´m on F-mount (used to own a 7D - still have the habit of coming here), the 28mm 1.8 is rather new and is not that bad when it is paired with the 16Mp sensor and on say a 20-ish Mp sensor it is more than "ok" when wide-open and the 50/1.4 is the sigma bulk of glass, had it with the 7D, was really rather sharp wide-open, so i opted to buy a Nikon mount when i traded in mounts

okay, let me see some out of the camera pictures, please

3

Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]

« on: December 23, 2012, 10:31:44 PM »

Optically, the Sigma 50/1.4 seems quite good.  But when I read reliable reports describing the Sigma's AF as "very inconsistent" (TDP) and "schizophrenic" (lensrentals.com)...well, I'd rather not have my intended subject be part of that creamy bokeh - the best IQ in the world sucks if the lens can't achieve correct focus. 

It's interesting that you mentioned the 85L as 'bad ass' - given slow AF, and that the 85/1.8 is one of the best values in the Canon lineup for IQ/cost, and the very nice Sigma 85/1.4 is half the price of the 85L, I'd have thought the 85L would also be an overpriced pile of...whatever.

well, as far as the AF of the Sigma goes.. I had mine calibrated at sigma (took him one afternoon), so did my friend - both lenses worked like a charm afterwords (well up to f/3.2 - never really went smaller) - but yeah, it sucks to be the owner of a new 50/1.4 most of the time.. but in the end.. it pays of.. metaphorically as well as literally..

the 85L was designed with mostly one purpose as far as i can tell.. to get sharp pictures at f/1.2 - does it? yes - and it should.. if you are going to buy that chunk of glass.. you better hell use it at f1.2-f/2.. or you may as well get the f/1.8 you mentioned - the 85L isn´t cheap, but you get for what you payed for, a really "bad-ass" lens you will love to use at f/1.2.. with the 50L you simply don´t get that and if you did.. hell.. charge 2k€ if you will.. people will want to buy a sharp 50/1.2.
as far as the sigma 85mm goes.. sure.. it is half the price, but at least in this case.. you get what you pay for with the Canon.. and that is the only 85mm lens that goes to f/1.2 and is actually sharp when doing so.. and hey.. it´s only 2x the price of the Sigma.. the 50L is 3.5x the price..

4

Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]

« on: December 23, 2012, 07:47:23 PM »

That's your personal value judgement, and while you're entitled to it, the lens performs as it does, regardless of price.  The $13K 600mm f/4L IS II costs $4K more than its predecessor.  Are the optical improvements and lower weight worth $4K?  Was the original worth $9K?  Perhaps not to you...but does that make either lens crap?  A Chevy Camero ZL1 has just as big an engine as a Mercedes C63 AMG, but the Chevy is half the price - that much better price/performance ratio that you're so loyal to means that Mercedes must be crap, right?

As for parroting the statements of others and calling a lens which is a favorite portrait lens of many photographers for good reason, and more importantly, one that you have very limited experience with, crap, well, thanks for being a shining beacon of maturity.

did you really just compare an American riverboat with four wheels attached to it to a C63 AMG to make a point and put the word immature on the end of it? judging from that alone.. you either don´t know jack about cars.. or you must be american.. if anything.. the 50L is a Camaro being sold for 20k more than the Mercedes.. but can´t handle fast corners (f1.2 and 1.4).. and all it has for it are fancy looks and a big engine (f/1.2) for the straights (portraiture).. if you find it justifiable to spend 800€ more for the 50L than the Sigma 50/1.4.. by all means.. it´s your money..

okay.. let me correct my harshness from before. the 50L is what it is - but for the price that they charge you, it ought to be a lot more of what it now just is not. i know you don´t give a furry crack of a rats behind.. but for the average consumer, the price policy of Canon in the last year or so (50L EFs have always been a bit silly).. is just plain ridiculous and you have to agree that although it is a creative lens.. if you consider what you actually get for your buck.. it is rather a bit of a pile of something - or if it´s the word that bothers you.. the lens is rather.. ridiculously over-priced for what it can optically do - the 50/1.4 for 400€.. is 95% as useful for 3.5x less.. and even you can´t deny.. the bokeh that the Sigma delivers.. is pretty darn creamy but just a bit less of.

and as for the big white thingies.. they tend not to sell that many, development tends to be just as high as with mass lenses, production is rather specific and more by hand than the mass ones.. the 9k$ in 1999 is about 12.5k$ in 2012.. when the 13k$ price goes down a bit.. yeah.. the new price is justified.

5

Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]

« on: December 23, 2012, 05:13:55 PM »

In that case, on what are your scathing comments on the 50L based?  Rented it a few times, perhaps?  Or have you just read lots of reviews?  Personally, I've never used the 28/1.8, but reviews call it soft and 'disappointing' (and the 'kinda ok' 24L II and 35L are certainly sharper). How does that match up with your real-world experience with the 28/1.8?

it´s the Nikon F-mount one.. not the Canon EF.. i used to have the 7D and was here a looot.. still have the habit of coming here.. and yeah.. the 28mm is also "kinda ok", never praised the lord out of it.. but the 50L is really rather bad.. when you take the 1400€ price.. for ~800€.. it would be a whole lot better.. and i hope you are mature enough not to mock me having a "sony".. i am loyal to the price/performance ratio..

and for all the other children that like to be smart about stuff.. the sub-100mm L lenses that i mentioned.. were fast-primes (i didn´t write it because i thought it was self-explanatory, seem to have been mistaken).. the TS-E when not T-ed are over-designed.. how the heck would it look like if whey were soft? grow up, please - thank you.


edit: oh right, my background with the 50L was rather brief, when they had a "try it out" at a sport event - on the screen it looked rather nice.. but on the PC.. it was "kinda ok" for a 800€ lens.. and "CRAP" for a 1400€ lens..

6

Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]

« on: December 23, 2012, 04:38:43 PM »

Just another no budget talker. I wonder, what kina lenses do you have?

I'm sure you think 1D X is crappy camera too

28/1.8 and a 50/1.4 - mostly carry it with me on the streets in the bag whilst walking about during my commute in the city where i study.. so yeah.. i don´s have the money for a noctilux..

the 1D X is an excellent camera for sport shooters.. why on earth would i say it were crappy?

7

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D C Available?

« on: August 24, 2012, 04:57:14 PM »

why not go with a RED Scarlet? for 18k$ you get the Scarlet-X lightweight collection with a Canon mount (5" LCD, 4x64GB SSD + reader, 4x battery, etc.), that will do 4K 16-bit RAW (vs. 8-bit 4:2:2) and will have 15EV of dynamic range with the upgrade coming.. why bother with this thing?