July 29, 2014, 05:05:20 PM

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 - infared

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 54
181
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Sample Images
« on: November 01, 2013, 03:47:35 AM »
Oh boy....this does not look too exciting. the CA looks really bad (red box photo)...and the sharpness/micro contrast definitely has no WOW-Factor from what I can see in these images....that is for sure! (This preliminary set of images has more of an impression of the "Old Sigma").............makes my 24-70mm f/2.8 II as though it is worth the coin I dearly paid for it.

182
Technical Support / Re: Maybe I'm Getting Old
« on: October 26, 2013, 04:55:08 AM »
Glad to help.

Posting this way, other people can click on the image. This increases the numbers of views on Flickr and makes you feel good!




It would be a concern if the clicks brought in money. Not so if the only beneficiary is my ego.


FUNNY comment!
I will stroke your ego a little more and tell you that this is a great shot! Nice freeze frame.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7411/10409032524_612c0bb7f3_c.jpg

(Now people will clik on it and build your ego/Flickr-count even MORE!).
It's all fun!
LOL!

183
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Gets its Price
« on: October 26, 2013, 04:46:13 AM »
Never been impressed with the Canon 24-105mm L.  It's good but not worthy of 'L' status IMO.  So I'm very interested in this lens.  At an eventual street price of $650 more or less, it will be very interesting.  And great to have a worthy alternative to Canon.

It will take a loooong time before this new lens hits that price! The 35 1.4 hasn't budged much in price since day one. At the most it will drop $100. All recent Sigma lenses seem to be priced around the same $800 ish mark. It's still a lot of money for some, especially considering there is no weather sealing.

I'm relatively happy with the Canon version, bought it 2nd hand. Weather sealing and 77mm filter thread is more useful for me so I'll stick. Interesting prospect though for those looking at buying a general purpose zoom right now. A 6D or 5D3 with this thing would likely be a winning combo!

I agree with ZV....the price on this new Sigma is not going to drop to $650 anytime soon...sounds like it is very fairly priced in the $800 range.....I sold my Canon version and bought the 24-70mm f/2.8 II which is overpriced but great....IQ on it blows the 24-105mm away...but damn do I miss that extra reach...it is considerable!

184
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Gets its Price
« on: October 25, 2013, 11:26:54 AM »
<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><g:plusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14590\"></g:plusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14590\">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS ready for preorder<br />

</strong>The Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG is scheduled to ship on November 4, 2013 according to B&H Photo. The new Art series lens from Sigma will be priced at $899. This is significantly less than the <a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397662-USA/Canon_0344B002AA_24_105mm_f_4L_IS_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296\" target=\"_blank\">Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS</a> when purchased new. Although, you can shop around for easy “white box” deals that bring the lens below the Sigma. However, if the Sigma performs better, then the small additional cost may be worth it.</p>
<p><strong><a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009621-REG/sigma_635_101_24_105mm_f4_dg_os.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296\" target=\"_blank\">Preorder the Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><em>thanks Alessio</em></p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>



OK...this is funny...4 posts back on the rumor homepage is the canon 24-105mm alert for $639... That is quite a bit cheaper...plus the Canon has IS.  I am a little slow on the uptake sometimes...but the Sigma has no IS...correct?
I owned the Canon and it is a very decent Zoom lens ...especially at $639!...
I am A Sigma Fan...own the new 35mm....but I am wondering if this lens really best the IQ on the Canon "significantly" asit will have to to sell well, right?


The sigma has stabilization. They call it 'Optical Stabilizer' (OS) instead of 'Image Stabilizer' (IS).


Thanks LuCo....somehow (I read three different right-ups and missed that info!!!)....The write ups I have read have DG in the name...but not the OS?   THAT is important to include. I apologize for my oversight. (don't get old...everything gets confusing!!! LOL!)/

185
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Gets its Price
« on: October 25, 2013, 11:22:00 AM »
I am not trashing the lens. In fact if the IQ is greatly better than the Canon version then I believe that I will buy the lens. 

I am pointing out, however, the big elephant in Sigma's room.  They have begun producing some very impressive lenses, and producing them quite rapidly. But their cameras are just so weird that they do not seem likely to gain nearly the market share on the bodies that it seems plausible they may gain gain on the great lenses.  Maybe they need to make a sensor deal with Sony like Nikon did, and produce a line of "straight" cameras if the Foveon thing never fully catches on.  Or make their own.  Maybe a non-bayer approach like Fuji is using.

Just as a point of order, this post has nothing to do with Sigma cameras. This is about their new lens.

As for the new lens I'd be more wary than I would with primes. Given the experiences I've read with the Sigma zooms, the AF may be much less reliable and accurate throughout the range. And you will surely need to have their lens dock to do the calibrating work -- adding more to the cost if you don't already have one.

Personally, I hope they have produced a real winner. I have their 35mm f/1.4 and it's my most used general purpose lenses.

Good advice about the zoom...although it seems that Sigma is really making a MUCH better effort these days.
The 35mm is SWEET~

186
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Gets its Price
« on: October 25, 2013, 08:54:28 AM »
<div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><g:plusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14590\"></g:plusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14590\">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS ready for preorder<br />

</strong>The Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG is scheduled to ship on November 4, 2013 according to B&H Photo. The new Art series lens from Sigma will be priced at $899. This is significantly less than the <a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/397662-USA/Canon_0344B002AA_24_105mm_f_4L_IS_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296\" target=\"_blank\">Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS</a> when purchased new. Although, you can shop around for easy “white box” deals that bring the lens below the Sigma. However, if the Sigma performs better, then the small additional cost may be worth it.</p>
<p><strong><a href=\"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1009621-REG/sigma_635_101_24_105mm_f4_dg_os.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296\" target=\"_blank\">Preorder the Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><em>thanks Alessio</em></p>
<p><strong><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">c</span>r</strong></p>



OK...this is funny...4 posts back on the rumor homepage is the canon 24-105mm alert for $639... That is quite a bit cheaper...plus the Canon has IS.  I am a little slow on the uptake sometimes...but the Sigma has no IS...correct?
I owned the Canon and it is a very decent Zoom lens ...especially at $639!...
I am A Sigma Fan...own the new 35mm....but I am wondering if this lens really best the IQ on the Canon "significantly" asit will have to to sell well, right?

187
Lenses / Re: Image of the New 100-400?
« on: October 24, 2013, 08:33:13 AM »
Well..it definitely does not look like the Sony lens posted above...other than it is black and white...but it could be a lens that Sony is testing?
Really can't tag the camera body at all...so it is very hard to guess.  Interesting how the black band (zoom ring?), in the middle is so tight and indented from the white lens barrel.  It is, to say the least, unusual looking???!!!!!
Is this a clip from a bad, old 70's movie and perhaps we should be looking backwards ...no forward for a rumor....LOL..just kidding.

188
EOS Bodies / Re: Sensor Dust - DSLR vs Mirrorless
« on: October 23, 2013, 12:17:56 PM »
When you open and close Petri dishes for bacteriology you learn to minimise any chance cross-contamination by spores and airborne bacteria by having the lid plate always pointing its inside surface down and turning over the bottom plate so that the agar is pointing down. That way, particles do not settle on the inside.  I do the same when changing lens...

Ever considered carrying around a portable HEPA laminar flow hood?   ;)

This is my favorite response, above...too funny!

I have 2 MFT cameras and a Canon 5DIII.  I don't have dust issues with either type of camera.  I know that it makes sense that the exposed sensor on the mirrorless would welcome debris but I am not coming across anything that is monumental... i.e. that I am seeing in my images.  I use common sense when changing lenses and occasionally give the blow out treatment with a dust blower....but I do not see scads of dust that I need to PhotoShop out etc. in my images.  Do anyone really have a consistent problem with this?????

189
Lenses / Re: Which TS lens is better
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:34:42 AM »
That is my quote "as good or better"...  I read a review BEFORE I bought my lens (I just looked for 20min and cannot find the review...but I did read it) and there were sample photos showing less color fringing with the 17mm TSE II with 1.4X compared to the 24mm TSE.  I was in shock.  In any event ...I have shot images with the 17mm TSE II alone and with the 1.4X on the lens.  I am very critical about image quality...I have to say...unless you are a professional Architectural Photographer and use the lens daily...or desperately need the f/3.5 for some reason or the slight extra swing/tilt..I cannot see buying both lenses.  The results are really SURPRISINGLY fantastic with the converter on.  It is something I would never even considered doing until I read the article. 
So, raise your eyebrows if you want ...but it is a great setup.

I'm happy for you for you enthusiasm over your 17mm setup, you have good reason to. But the review you refer to must be against the old 24mm TS-E. The version II is optically nearly perfect. Extremely sharp and sharper than the 17mm, CA, flare, distortion and vignetting is very well controlled and color and contrast are absolute top notch. And so is the 17mm. The pixle peepers will probably give the 24mm the highest grades, but to me, the quality differences between the two are academic.

I had not tried the 17mm+1.4xIII combo before, but did yesterday. It works surprisingly well, but the results are not as good as those you get from the 24mm TS-E 3.5L II (the differences are more than academic here). I did not do a very thorough test of how much tilt & shift I got from one compared to the other, but it seemed the 24mm gave me more of both. I'm sure someone else in here has done the comparison.

OK...this is getting interesting....I think that I stand corrected that The review I read MUST have been comparing the  17mm II+1.4X III combo to the OLD 24mmTSE
So Eldar, thanks for checking that out and giving a personal report (I would but have no 24mm!). Question...did you compare with the lenses stopped down to 6.3 or 8?
The reason I ask is because if you take a look at the DigitalPicture Lens Comparison Tool (only web comparison that I can find),  the results look VERY close. (Like say in a 20" x24" print are we going to see a difference?)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=487&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Any pics you can post?
I also apologize for my "perhaps" over enthusiasm.

I just left on a business travel (currently sitting in an airport lounge), so it will be some time before I can post anything more than text.

In the TDP ISO chart comparison I think it´s clear that sharpness and contrast has taken a fair hit on the 17mm/1.4xIII combo. But the interesting question is of course what you would say looking at an actual image.

To compare with something else; Reuter published the statistics for the 100 best images of the year (2012). Which cameras, lenses, shutter speeds, ISO etc. was used. The most widely used lens was the 16-35mm f2.8L II. And it is beyond question that they have plenty of good images to choose from. If you compare the 17mm/1.4xIII combo to the 16-35 at 24mm f8, you´ll see that your combo is at least as good as the 16-35. So equipment wise you are positioned to produce image of the year quality with what you have.


That was my point..hit the sharpness and contrast a little with PS and who will know the difference. When I soot something with that rig it is always on a tripod and always stopped down..and when I see the real world results there is just no complaint from me! Thanks for the feedback...I am going to check out that comparison to the 16-35 II zoom on TDP!

190
Lenses / Re: Which TS lens is better
« on: October 23, 2013, 06:24:17 AM »
That is my quote "as good or better"...  I read a review BEFORE I bought my lens (I just looked for 20min and cannot find the review...but I did read it) and there were sample photos showing less color fringing with the 17mm TSE II with 1.4X compared to the 24mm TSE.  I was in shock.  In any event ...I have shot images with the 17mm TSE II alone and with the 1.4X on the lens.  I am very critical about image quality...I have to say...unless you are a professional Architectural Photographer and use the lens daily...or desperately need the f/3.5 for some reason or the slight extra swing/tilt..I cannot see buying both lenses.  The results are really SURPRISINGLY fantastic with the converter on.  It is something I would never even considered doing until I read the article. 
So, raise your eyebrows if you want ...but it is a great setup.

I'm happy for you for you enthusiasm over your 17mm setup, you have good reason to. But the review you refer to must be against the old 24mm TS-E. The version II is optically nearly perfect. Extremely sharp and sharper than the 17mm, CA, flare, distortion and vignetting is very well controlled and color and contrast are absolute top notch. And so is the 17mm. The pixle peepers will probably give the 24mm the highest grades, but to me, the quality differences between the two are academic.

I had not tried the 17mm+1.4xIII combo before, but did yesterday. It works surprisingly well, but the results are not as good as those you get from the 24mm TS-E 3.5L II (the differences are more than academic here). I did not do a very thorough test of how much tilt & shift I got from one compared to the other, but it seemed the 24mm gave me more of both. I'm sure someone else in here has done the comparison.

OK...this is getting interesting....I think that I stand corrected that The review I read MUST have been comparing the  17mm II+1.4X III combo to the OLD 24mmTSE
So Eldar, thanks for checking that out and giving a personal report (I would but have no 24mm!). Question...did you compare with the lenses stopped down to 6.3 or 8?
The reason I ask is because if you take a look at the DigitalPicture Lens Comparison Tool (only web comparison that I can find),  the results look VERY close. (Like say in a 20" x24" print are we going to see a difference?)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=487&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Any pics you can post?
I also apologize for my "perhaps" over enthusiasm.

191
Lenses / Re: Which TS lens is better
« on: October 22, 2013, 10:41:10 PM »
I read a review BEFORE I bought my lens (I just looked for 20min and cannot find the review...but I did read it) and there were sample photos showing less color fringing with the 17mm TSE II with 1.4X compared to the 24mm TSE.

I suspect the review was comparing the TS-E 17mm to the original (MkI) version of the TS-E 24mm, which didn't have the stellar IQ for which the MkII version is known. 

But I'll reiterate what I stated initially in this thread - the only meaningful differentiator between the TS-E 17/4L and the TS-E 24/3.5L II is that one is 17mm and the other is 24mm.  In practical use, the IQ differences are insignificant.  Regarding using a 1.4x TC, the greater tilt capability of the 24 vs the 17+1.4x might be of significance in some applications.  Also, tilt has a pretty deleterious effect on IQ - I wonder how the tilted 24 II compares to the tilted 17+1.4x.

You may be correct...It might have been comparing the 17mm II combo TO THE OLD 24mm and I was unaware of it.
Again...I have to say...the results that I achieve with the 17mm TS-E + 1.4X are very, very good..especially if I stop down to f/8 or f/11. 
This stuff is complicated and tedious!!!

192
Lenses / Re: Which TS lens is better
« on: October 22, 2013, 06:00:35 PM »
Better?  If you're referring to the original TS-E 24L, maybe - but the TS-E 24L II is sharper than the bare TS-E 17mm, and decidedly sharper than the 17 + 1.4x (very obvious in the TDP crop comparison).

In a head to head ISO chart comparison, the TS-E 24mm f3.5L II is the sharper lens. It beats almost anything you can compare it to. And it combines incredible sharpness with all the other qualities that one could wish for.

But the 17mm is also an incredible lens and with our current sensors, I believe the differences between the two are a bit academic. I am a bit worried though, walking around with the unprotected bulging front lens.  The image below is a shot, unedited raw to jpeg in LR, except for size reduction to fit the 4M size limit, with the 17mm on 5DIII (1/50s, f5.0 and ISO100).

In the Digital Picture comparisons...yes if you are pixel peeping and both the 17mm II with 1.4x vs 24mm II TSE's there is a slight difference (according to this comparison)...but even here..if you stop both lenses down a stop or two...you can really see no difference....it is negligible.
For me ...working on a tripod...I can just stop the lens down...I never shoot with it wide open..never. (I guess maybe astro photographers would a lot, though).  Someone else may have different needs...but putting on a converter and stopping down a stop or two and that save me $2500 while still giving incredible results and lightening the load in my bag....Can't beat it!
Conversely ...if you are going to mainly shoot with the 24mm...then I would say to buy that and be done with it...
but I reach for the 17mm first...so this really works for my needs...   Again... in the real world, the results are so good that if you have a good shot..no one will ever notice the difference unless you are making a huge print and peeping very heavily. I dare say the results will blow away anything that my 16-35mm II would have set on 24mm.

193
Lenses / Re: Which TS lens is better
« on: October 22, 2013, 05:53:54 PM »
As others stated, you should decide based on focal length only.  Personally, I picked the TS-E 24L II as my preferred focal length, after spending some time shooting my intended TS-E subjects with at both 17mm and 24mm (testing was actually done with the 7D + 10-22mm; I bought the 16-35L II and sold the 10-22mm about a month after getting the TS-E 24L II). 

I bought the 17mm TSE II (incredible) Lens first...based on the fact that (much to my surprise), I could use my Canon 1.4X III to increase the focal length of the 17mm to 24mm and get as-good (OR BETTER !), IQ as the 24mm TSE.

Better?  If you're referring to the original TS-E 24L, maybe - but the TS-E 24L II is sharper than the bare TS-E 17mm, and decidedly sharper than the 17 + 1.4x (very obvious in the TDP crop comparison).
I was talking mostly about functionality. You can crop a little but cannot always go backwards.


Sorry - your statement about image quality suggested otherwise…


That is my quote "as good or better"...  I read a review BEFORE I bought my lens (I just looked for 20min and cannot find the review...but I did read it) and there were sample photos showing less color fringing with the 17mm TSE II with 1.4X compared to the 24mm TSE.  I was in shock.  In any event ...I have shot images with the 17mm TSE II alone and with the 1.4X on the lens.  I am very critical about image quality...I have to say...unless you are a professional Architectural Photographer and use the lens daily...or desperately need the f/3.5 for some reason or the slight extra swing/tilt..I cannot see buying both lenses.  The results are really SURPRISINGLY fantastic with the converter on.  It is something I would never even considered doing until I read the article. 
So, raise your eyebrows if you want ...but it is a great setup.

194
Lenses / Re: Which TS lens is better
« on: October 22, 2013, 07:19:07 AM »
I got first the TS-E 24 and then the TS-E 17. If I were to start all over I would start with the 17.
I bought the 17mm TSE II (incredible) Lens first...based on the fact that (much to my surprise), I could use my Canon 1.4X III to increase the focal length of the 17mm to 24mm and get as-good (OR BETTER !), IQ as the 24mm TSE.

I already owned the 1.4X III to use with my 70-200mm...and NEVER would have considered using it on a super wide-angle lens...BUT ....I find that the combo is INDEED impressive!  Of course you lose an f/stop from the 17mm making the the combo quite a bit slower slower than the 24mm TSE (f/5.6 vs f/3.5 on the 24mm)...but considering all of my work with the lens is done on a tripod and low DOF isn't something that I am usually looking for with a super WA....for me it was like buying two TSE's for the price of one! I am AMAZED at the results with the 1.4X III. It goes against all I have learned over the years...but there it is.
Something to consider when looking at these lenses.
You still have the drawbacks of filter placement, protruding element of the 17mm...it is a little more cumbersome ...but I find it to be worth the money savings for me. If I was a pro, who shot Architecture all of the time, perhaps not.

195
Canon General / Re: What's Next for Canon?
« on: October 19, 2013, 10:07:59 AM »
I'm a photo guy, not a video guy.  But in a few years, my kids will be saying, "These silly pictures don't even move, s'up with that?!?"

I really have a hard time picturing a future where photographs are also completely replaced with video. Both have their place. Would I really want looping videos on my walls at home rather than static pictures? That would be maddening. I don't want everything everywhere to be in constant movement. Imagine replacing 100 wedding photos with 100 videos -- it would take forever to go through them.

Yeah. Not gonna happen. Two different mediums. Very different purposes. One is about the narrative. The other is about the moment.

Clearly, you guys haven't seen the photos and newspapers in the Harry Potter movies...   ;)

Harry who?

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 54