September 30, 2014, 07:50:42 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 - Artifex

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8
16
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Will vintage lenses help me find the way?
« on: January 10, 2014, 08:08:26 PM »
+1...if you not in hurry, wait for x-mas holidays. BH has great deals on EF and L lenses.

I'm envious of the low prices on camera gear in USA. :D
I think that the shipping costs and customs fees would nullify any savings.
And i can't see myself staying for a whole year with just a 28-135 and a nifty fifty.... :P

+1, we suffer from a lot more tax  ::)

I don't know where exactly you are from, but in Québec (Canada), it is a bit ridiculous! Gear sold at B&H is cheaper with taxes, customs and shipping than here before taxes (and we have 14,975% of taxes).

17
The Zeiss Otus is nearly 10 inches long, which seems to be what you need to avoid the double gauss design. The new Sigma is an inch longer than the last one, at 4 inches so I highly doubt that it will be any other design, but we don't know for sure.

The Otus is about 6" long, I don't know if I call that "nearly 10 inches".
Sigma seems to have an "enhanced" double gauss design, by the way:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sites/default/files/311-lens-construction.jpg

I'm in no way a specialist and I might be wrong, but the 50mm Art design makes me more think it could be a retrofocus design like the Otus 55mm. Maybe someone with better knowledge could confirm or negate this.

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Where are Canons innovation?
« on: January 09, 2014, 09:00:49 PM »
If the OP feels that Sony's innovations are inviting then he should move to Sony. After all this is why Sony are producing these cameras; they want people to buy them. Just don't mention lens innovations.

For myself, the most recent Canon innovation is the 6D sensor. Excellent dynamic range coupled with film-like tonal graduation and astonishing high ISO performance. Quite extraordinary.

I totally agree with you. For me, as a MF shooter who started on film SLR and loved it, the 6D is a bit of a dream come true once the stock focussing screen is replaced. As you stated, the tonal graduation is lovely and the high ISO performance is ridiculously good. However, there is something that impresses a lot that isn't much discussed; the look of the high ISO noise. Unlike the 550D or the 7D, the noise doesn't actually look like "noise", but makes me more think of film grain. Even at 6400-12 800, where it starts being heavy, I actually don't find it ugly; it resemble the grain added in post in film shoot on digitals cameras more than "regular" noise.

19
Lenses / Re: TAMRON SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Hitting Market
« on: January 09, 2014, 05:42:02 PM »
Why is there so much fuss about the quality of a $1000 lens that comes with a 5-year guarantee? Buy a copy from a proper retailer and either test it for yourself in the shop or at home if by post and send it back if soft. There are rubbish copies of the 100-400L, but no one makes such a song and dance about it.
My reason is that I've sprung for a Tamron 200-500, and it was pretty poor.  I also bought a Samyang 14mm after reading the glowing reviews and got the worst lens I've ever owned.
 
I don't want to lay out $1100 until a few reviewers that are careful and know what they are doing put up some reviews.

I'm really surprised to hear about the Samyang, although I have heard that there was an early optical formula that wasn't nearly as good.  How long ago was that?

My copy (Rokinon) is shockingly sharp.  I purchased the copy that I reviewed because I simply did not want to send it back.  I know of many very, very skilled night and landscape photographers that use it over far more expensive options because it is just that good.

I personally am not very surprise however. Samyang lack good quality control on their lens. My first copy of the 14mm was unable to focus farther than 1m. I returned it and the second copy is absolutely stunning, with no defect whatsoever. For me, you should buy those kind of lens from trusted sources with good return policy and be patient.

20
The f/2.5mm is a Macro lens it is not a general purpose lens. The 40mm f/2.8 was Canon's entry into a super cheap STM prime for their STM initiative, the 50mm f/1.8 was just a super cheap lens to promote entry level photography with primes, and the 50mm L prime is horrible. The last version was so bad at f/1.0 that they dropped the entire idea, and the new version is equally horrible. At f/1.2 it has lower picture resolution than an iPhone 5. It also has image quality that has to be compared to lensbaby, a plastic lens made to be extremely horrible on purpose for visual effects. The 50mm f/1.2L is one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period.

Canon's only non-gimicky 50mm is the 50mm f/1.4. And actually it's a pretty decent 50mm, it actually has more resolution at f/2 than any other 50mm lens in the world released, prior to 2013. It is extremely hard to make a 50mm lens that is fast and most deliver extremely poor image quality. The Canon 50mm 1.4 actually beat out every other 50mm lens on the market at f/2, delivering what I would consider the fastest 50mm aperture with an average resolution of 2400 LPPH or more (which is the minimum resolution I consider acceptable), but it was disappointing to see such a poor focusing mechanism and such poor coatings because it wasn't updated for an extremely long time.

Just because you don't personally use or like a lens doesn't make it "gimmicky". 

The original 50/1.0 lens, which you call "horrible", was almost unique in its time and still makes beautiful photos at f/1.0:  http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263

The 50/2.5 macro is for any purpose you want to use it, not just macro.  It's cheap and sharp, though it has the old buzzy AF motor.  Cheap + sharp + 1:2 macro = a good combination.

The 40/2.8 is a wonderful pancake lens and is a cheap way of shrinking your big dslr and still having really sharp photos.  Brilliant and a joy to use.  Cheap + sharp + very small = a good combination

You're right, the 50/1.8 is "just" a super cheap lens to promote entry level photography with primes.  But wait, that's a good thing.  What's wrong with that?  That actually makes some people very happy.

The "horrible" 50/1.2L which you compare to a plastic Lensbaby has been used for a tremendous amount of professional work.  It is good enough for David Burnett, Sebastiao Salgado and Mario Sorrenti, but not good enough for you?  And this guy seems to make decent photos with it:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/petezelewski/ ... not bad for using what you say is "one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period."

As for the Canon 50mm f/1.4 having more resolution at f/2 than any other 50mm lens in the world released prior to 2013 ... not exactly.  That would easily have been the Leica 50/1.4 Summiluxhttp://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

In the Lensrentals "Great 50mm Shootout", you'll note that both Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L scored higher in resolution than any of the 50's from Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.  That's pretty good for lenses you consider gimmicky or not good.  Leica scored higher, but Leica is in a much higher price category.

Moreover, just looking at lens in EF-mount, the Zeiss 50mm f/2 clearly beats the EF 50mm f/1.4 at f/2.

... which is a $1200 manual focus f/2 macro lens. Lensrentals clearly shows that Nikkor 50/1.4 beats all of it's price category rivals and Sigma is the sharpest in the center, while the good old plastic-fantastic 50/1.8II would put all them to shame, for the price that is :).
I'm not a pixel-peeper, but I do prefer sharp-cropping over soft-zooming. Any decent lens can produce perfectly good and sharp snapshots. Actually, you don't need a DSLR for that (or anything with a big sensor, you can make bokeh in photoshop these days :) ). 50L is not my dream fifty, nor is the 50/1.4USM. If the new Sigma 50/1.4 is anything like their 35Art, then I'm getting one, but for now - nothing beats my 40.

Of course, I haven't talked about value, but only sharpness. Of course, the Ef f/1.4 is faster, cheaper and have AF, while the Zeiss 50 f/2 MP is sharper, have 1:2 magnification and have a much better build quality and focus ring for MF. They are very diffent produces for different needs and different photographers.

I can only agree with you though; if the Sigma 50mm Art is anything like the 35mm Art, I am also getting one!  ;D

21
Moreover, just looking at lens in EF-mount, the Zeiss 50mm f/2 clearly beats the EF 50mm f/1.4 at f/2.

Where are you seeing this?  How does the $1,283 Zeiss beat the Canon 50/1.4?  Here are the numbers at f/2 according to LensRentals:
Canon 50/1.4 = 790 center, 660 average
Zeiss 50/2 = 760 center, 620 average
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

They are close, but the Canon 50/1.4 scored higher.  The Zeiss is arguably better according to charts over at The-Digital-Picture, but again they are close.  Of course, the Zeiss should be better, being 3X or 4X more expensive.

I am seeing this on the MTF graphs and reviews of lenstip and photozone. They are, from my expirence at least, trusted sources. Also, the fact that it is more expensive doesn't affect the fact that it is, according to the graphs, sharper; I haven't talked about value, but only image quality.

22
The f/2.5mm is a Macro lens it is not a general purpose lens. The 40mm f/2.8 was Canon's entry into a super cheap STM prime for their STM initiative, the 50mm f/1.8 was just a super cheap lens to promote entry level photography with primes, and the 50mm L prime is horrible. The last version was so bad at f/1.0 that they dropped the entire idea, and the new version is equally horrible. At f/1.2 it has lower picture resolution than an iPhone 5. It also has image quality that has to be compared to lensbaby, a plastic lens made to be extremely horrible on purpose for visual effects. The 50mm f/1.2L is one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period.

Canon's only non-gimicky 50mm is the 50mm f/1.4. And actually it's a pretty decent 50mm, it actually has more resolution at f/2 than any other 50mm lens in the world released, prior to 2013. It is extremely hard to make a 50mm lens that is fast and most deliver extremely poor image quality. The Canon 50mm 1.4 actually beat out every other 50mm lens on the market at f/2, delivering what I would consider the fastest 50mm aperture with an average resolution of 2400 LPPH or more (which is the minimum resolution I consider acceptable), but it was disappointing to see such a poor focusing mechanism and such poor coatings because it wasn't updated for an extremely long time.

Just because you don't personally use or like a lens doesn't make it "gimmicky". 

The original 50/1.0 lens, which you call "horrible", was almost unique in its time and still makes beautiful photos at f/1.0:  http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263

The 50/2.5 macro is for any purpose you want to use it, not just macro.  It's cheap and sharp, though it has the old buzzy AF motor.  Cheap + sharp + 1:2 macro = a good combination.

The 40/2.8 is a wonderful pancake lens and is a cheap way of shrinking your big dslr and still having really sharp photos.  Brilliant and a joy to use.  Cheap + sharp + very small = a good combination

You're right, the 50/1.8 is "just" a super cheap lens to promote entry level photography with primes.  But wait, that's a good thing.  What's wrong with that?  That actually makes some people very happy.

The "horrible" 50/1.2L which you compare to a plastic Lensbaby has been used for a tremendous amount of professional work.  It is good enough for David Burnett, Sebastiao Salgado and Mario Sorrenti, but not good enough for you?  And this guy seems to make decent photos with it:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/petezelewski/ ... not bad for using what you say is "one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period."

As for the Canon 50mm f/1.4 having more resolution at f/2 than any other 50mm lens in the world released prior to 2013 ... not exactly.  That would easily have been the Leica 50/1.4 Summiluxhttp://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

In the Lensrentals "Great 50mm Shootout", you'll note that both Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L scored higher in resolution than any of the 50's from Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.  That's pretty good for lenses you consider gimmicky or not good.  Leica scored higher, but Leica is in a much higher price category.

Moreover, just looking at lens in EF-mount, the Zeiss 50mm f/2 clearly beats the EF 50mm f/1.4 at f/2.

23
I'm so seriously excited about this!! If it matches the 35 A, I will buy it ASAP. Anyone want to buy a Zeiss f2?

Would you have asked yesterday, I would have said yes, but now… meh…  ;)

24
Lenses / Re: SIGMA 50MM F/1.4 ART ANNOUNCED TODAY!
« on: January 06, 2014, 06:24:49 PM »
Not a rumor, but a long awaited announcement...
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/50mm-f14-dg-hsm-art

- A

Really fast spec read:

  • Roughly halfway between the weight of the current Canon 50/1.4 and Canon 50/1.2L lenses
  • Long at 3.9" and with a 77mm filter diameter, the overall footprint is more like the Canon 24-70 F/4L IS (fully closed) than the current stable of 50mm lenses.  This thing is big.
  • No IS

It looks like an oversized Sigma 35/1.4 Art lens, though not nearly as heavy.  I never understood why faster 50 primes were often smaller than both 24/35mm lenses and 85mm lenses, but this one seems to buck the trend and run bigger than its wider counterpart.

Well, this has been wanted ever since the 35/1.4 Art ever came out.  Here you go.

- A

I am extremely happy to see this announcement. For now, the revealed specs remind me a lot of the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4; the lens is very big and heavy for it's focal length and looks more like a wide angle than a standard lens. I really hope it will also remind me of the Otus by it's performance, but not it's price!

25
Lenses / Re: New lenses ($6800 budget)
« on: January 04, 2014, 12:07:11 PM »
Hello fellow Canon-owners,

After holding all Canon bodies in my hands at the store, I have settled for a Canon 70D. The fullframe ones were just too large for my small hands.
Now I’m looking to invest in some quality glass, and I could really use some help.


My budget is around €5000,- ($6800) for 5 lenses in total. Even though with this amount of money I could go FF, I still don’t like the body size! Lens discussion only please :)

Lens 1:
A prime between 45-100mm with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
I can work with the 50mm, but also the 85 and so on, so I just need 1 that is the best.

Lens 2:
A mid-range zoom with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
Everything below 20mm to above 40mm is fine.

Lens 3:
A decent lens for macro between 85 and 100mm. I don’t have a preference for the aperture here.

Lens 4:
I have the 18-135, but I don’t find that sharp enough. I do like the zoom range though. Is there anything that comes close to the range, but sharper?

Lens 5:
A zoom that goes beyond 250/300mm. If that is achieved by a teleconverter that is fine by me, if that gives me better results.


Just a few notes:
- I don’t mind used lenses. If a great piece of glass is discontinued I’m more than happy to search the internet.
- Stabilized lenses don’t matter to me, I have steady hands.
- Autofocus is nice, but manual focus lenses are also welcome.
- I’m not a brand-whore. So I don’t care if the lenses are from Canon or a third party like Carl Zeiss. As long as the quality is good.

Some extra info:

With my current lenses I do this:

50mm 1.8: portraits, but also some macro. However I find that for macro it's too short in focal length.

18-135: I use this pretty much all of the time. But with the 70D the quality is bad to be honest.

70-300: I use this at festivals and at the zoo. I'm often at 250/300mm.

Before this I had a Canon 550D, so I already know how to work with them. With the new ones I just like to improve the sharpness of my shots and make use off all the 20 megapixels in the camera. So it is not like I just want to burn some cash, I think I really need those 5 lenses.

I say sell the 70D. With the 5000 EUR get the 1DX. With the proceeds from the sale of the 70D and a few hundred more EUR get the 24-70 f2.8 II and you've got yourself an awesome combo!

I am not sure the 1DX would be the best choice, considering the OP stated he wanted a small body and the 1DX can hardly be considered small! For me, the 6D would be a better choice; it is significantly smaller and lighter and have similar picture quality (though not equal). Moreover, the main benefit of the 1DX don't seems to be very important for the OP; he mentioned he didn't mind MF lens, so the much better AF might not be so useful for him. Also, he never mentioned the importance of weather sealing or burst speed.

For the macro lens, I can say that the 100L is just about as good as it gets. If you want something cheaper, which doesn't seems to be the case, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 VC seems to be a very nice substitute for the more expensive but slightly better 100L.

In a more personal note, I have that being in the OP situation, I wouldn't rush and buy 4-5 lens at the same time. I personally prefer buying one lens at a time; that way, I can see what type of lens I am missing and what shoot I can't take because of it. Starting with minimal gear not only helps you master what you have and becoming better with it, but it also helps you differencing what you WANT from what you NEED. This, however, is just my point of view.

26
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Will vintage lenses help me find the way?
« on: January 02, 2014, 01:08:24 PM »
One of the things old MF lenses are often missing is a proper non reflective lens coating on both sides.  Light reflects of the shiny digital sensor and reduces contrast so it does not matter how sharp the lens is if the image is washed out.

This is the first time I've heard this mentioned.  ???

is a digital sensor more reflective than film was/is?

Thanks!

+1. Also, I use MF lens extensively and frankly never noticed my images were washed out. True, some lens like the Sears 55mm f/1.4 have low contrast wide open, but stopped down a bit, it is similar to modern lens. On the other hand, my CZJ 135mm f/3.5 seems to have higher contrast than modern lens, even wide open.

27
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE
« on: December 31, 2013, 07:23:32 PM »
In the German ColorFoto this lens is rated around average and do not even get the mark Digital Empfohlen, that most tested lenses get. It is especially due to low contrast in corners. Who want an average lens, very expensive and With no autofocus?

inge
Inge, do you have a link to that test? The search on their website doesn't seem to work

I would also like to see that, since it was review as outstanding by my favorite websites. Lenstip, for instance, seems to praise this lens, like The Digital Picture and Photozone.

http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=363

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-50mm-f-2-ZE-Makro-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/535-zeiss50f2eosff?start=1

28
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE
« on: December 31, 2013, 02:09:06 PM »
Quote
Then I suggest you try a 50mm macro lens that focuses to 1:1, without an extension tube and compare the reading on your camera with that you get from a 50mm macro lens that focuses to 1:2, with the addition of an extension tube. Seeing is believing I guess ...

I really would like to try that if I had something uselessfull like a 50mm Makro 1:2. BUT. Both lenses would be focused to the closest point to get to their maximum magnification. Both would be set to an equal f-stop (and focal length of course) and both would be handled with the same sensor-sensitivity. So I doubt any difference between the shuttertimes. Doesn't sound to compelling to me. Maybe I'll find an old 100mm Macro with anything like 1:2 and compare it to the 100L with 1:1.

Maybe.

I saved you the trouble and did the test. Maybe it will help you.

29
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Will vintage lenses help me find the way?
« on: December 31, 2013, 01:31:07 PM »
Also, to find the way, it is really simple, we got to cut your head!  :P


30
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Will vintage lenses help me find the way?
« on: December 31, 2013, 10:02:41 AM »
I personally am a fan of vintage lens. I allow me to have multiple prime, covering much of the most useful focal length, at a very low price. Moreover, since I use a 6D (FF camera) and a custom split-screen focusing screen, I really get the same feeling when shooting than with my Pentax K-1000 film camera, with which I learned to love photography. I must point out that I do photography for artistic purpose and not professional purpose.

Of course, modern lens often offer more feature; AF, better sharpness, better coating, electronic aperture, more CA, etc. You are never going to have the same thing in a 50$ vintage lens than in a 1000$ modern lens. However, if like me, you always work in full manual, you might find the difference not so great. Also, if you study the lens themselves before buying, you will be able to find good deal on stunning lens.

Lots of people are advising against using vintage lens, which is only logical, because those lens don't fit the way they work. I really don't think they are giving bad advice, but IMO they are taking for granted you're needs and workflow are similar to theirs. If vintage lens fit the way you work, I really don't see why you shouldn't at least try working with one and see if you like it; you might love it, and if not, you can always sell it back the same price you bought it (if you take care of your gear, it is not 2 more month of use that is going to change the value of a 30 years old lens!).

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8