October 26, 2014, 03:15:48 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 - bchernicoff

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 38
Lenses / Re: Help. 50mm 1.2 ?
« on: October 31, 2013, 09:54:53 AM »
Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff.
From your Test at F= 1.4 both lens, My decision is to keep My Dear Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 and Not spend my money $ 1619 US Dollars for That Beautiful Canon 50 mm F/ 1.2 L.
No, Sir, Not worth 4 time of the cost of my old Sigma, just one stop faster and better Contrast/ Better Colors that my Old yes could not see the difference.
Thanks again, Sir for your great Job.

You're welcome! Also 1.2 is only a half stop faster than 1.4.

Canon General / Re: Lose or Loose?
« on: October 31, 2013, 08:06:59 AM »
I didn't read all the comments on this post, but this page is incredibly useful for these sort of common errors:


Lenses / Re: Help. 50mm 1.2 ?
« on: October 31, 2013, 07:24:40 AM »
The 50L is front focused. It seems longer?

The Sigma is more like a 46mm. At least that's what I've read on this forum and others.

Lenses / Re: Help. 50mm 1.2 ?
« on: October 30, 2013, 03:04:54 PM »
A couple of comments on the above images...

Lightroom default processing of RAW files from a 5D Mk III... no tweaks.

I don't think I hit critical focus in the image from the Canon. I haven't done any focus calibration with that lens yet, but it should have been as sharp as the Sigma 50mm. Live view manual focusing shows similar sharpness. The Sigma 85mm is the sharpest lens of the three. When you step back so that it frames the same as either of the 50's, the images from the Sigma 85mm are much sharper at all apertures.

Lenses / Re: Help. 50mm 1.2 ?
« on: October 30, 2013, 01:02:53 PM »
Sigma 85mm 1.4 @f/1.4

All three were taken from the same spot.

Lenses / Re: Help. 50mm 1.2 ?
« on: October 30, 2013, 01:01:54 PM »
Sigma 50mm 1.4 @ f/1.4

Lenses / Re: Help. 50mm 1.2 ?
« on: October 30, 2013, 01:01:04 PM »
Canon 50mm 1.2L @ f/1.4

Lenses / Re: Help. 50mm 1.2 ?
« on: October 30, 2013, 10:22:48 AM »
Yes, the Sigma was shot at 1.4 and the Canon at 1.2. I will shoot some direct comparison images and post today.

Lenses / Re: Help. 50mm 1.2 ?
« on: October 29, 2013, 12:41:07 PM »
Canon 1.2

Lenses / Re: Help. 50mm 1.2 ?
« on: October 29, 2013, 12:34:40 PM »
I've used the Sigma for a few years and have been really happy. I just got the 1.2 on Friday and so far it's so close to the Sigma that I'm not sure what I spent the extra money on. I plan to do a full comparison in the near future though. Here are two shots taken wide open. The Sigma is a bit shorter than 50mm, but not as much as these images would suggest. I believe I was a little further back with the Sigma.

My initial impression is that the Canon is definitely better. I'm not convinced that it's 4x the price better.

Both are definitely a step up from the Canon 1.4 when shooting wide open.

EDIT: replacing attachments with larger versions:

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Have you ever purchase camera gear from BuyDig.com
« on: October 28, 2013, 01:14:05 PM »
I've made at least 6 purchases over $300 there without a problem. I bought the 100 L macro most recently.

I ask this in all seriousness...not try to start a flamewar...

Why would you install Windows? Is there a video game you play that isn't available on OS X? Follow on question...why Windows 8.1?

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Gets its Price
« on: October 25, 2013, 09:52:05 AM »
I've been a big fan of Sigma lenses and regard my trio of 1.4 primes as near perfect. This lens is really tempting as a walk around lens with two caveats: lack of weather sealing, and telescoping lens barrel. I went from the Canon 24-105 to the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC and have been very happy, however I'm expecting big things from this Sigma in terms of IQ. I can't wait for the reviews!

I was just asking since everyone keeps talking about 11 and 13" airs if they have regrets not getting a 15" or bigger. The 13" allows for more storage but the frustrating part is the jump from 256gb hd to 512gb on the 15" is $600 and yeah you get dedicated graphics but I have that now with my early 2013 retina. I wanted less heat  and more battery since I run windows exclusively. Unfortunately there is not much with windows and accurate displays in the 4.5lb category. Maybe the new dell m3800 will surprise us but who knows.

For what it's worth, I'm less worried about the amount of storage. Even 256gb is enough space to keep the last several months worth of images on board. That 512gb SSD I'm using now will go into a USB3 external enclosure and will provide fast, portable storage when needed. It's very easy to relocate folders in Lightroom to an external drive, so any folders in LR greater than 6 months in age can get moved to the external drive.

I'm facing a similar dilemma. I'm running a 2009 Core i7 27" iMac and a 2011 15" MacBook Pro that has a Crucial 512gb SSD. I want to replace both with either a 13" or 15" Retina MacBook Pro plus a 27" display.

 The way I see it, to gain the extra portability of the 13", I would  be stuck with dual-core rather than quad core, and Iris 5100 vs Iris 5200 for graphics. I am waiting to see benchmarks for these new systems to get an idea of performance. Also, I did some research last night on how to limit Lightroom or PS to two cores, so I could get an idea of how it runs on my current MacBookPro on two cores and integrated graphics (using gfxCardStatus).

How did the test run on 2 cores?

Oh, sorry. I just found the solution late at night and didn't run any tests yet. Here's how to do it:


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 38