October 22, 2014, 11:48:00 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 - infared

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 64
196
Thank you for your continued contributions to the Sigma v Canon debate :)  I'm glad these shots are closer to each other and the Tivo LEDs now match in size, so that and some of the other details make this more useful.

Now that you've had both lenses together for a little while, can you comment on the ergonomics of using them?  I realize this is a lot more subjective, but how does the Sigma's weight and balance (front or back heavy, balanced?) feel in hand?  Which one is more enjoyable to use?  If the IQ was exactly the same, which one would you prefer?

I read somewhere that if you want to manual focus the lens that the Sigma is a JOY to use and that the Canon handled like "a greased pig".   Which would you rather hold?? I am guessing that the focus on the Canon (I have never used one), is like the manual focus on my 85L.  It makes me nervous to even hold the lens (I do love that lens)..because the focus ring just spins...there is no damping....if the Sigma is like my Sigma 35...it would be MUCH more stable in the hand for general use compared to the Canon, no?

197
Here is the link to the RAW files on Dropbox:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8qzabpem293spp6/AABUczvDztiTKF0bZRvsdAPHa

Jason

MORE IMPORTANTLY...in the second set of photos your dog moved his head between shots.  I hope you are going to have a word with him regarding that!  :-X

198
For me personally I find the 50L unacceptably soft. If you can see a clear improvement in sharpness in 1024 px in uncropped frames like I can then there is a huge difference. I really don't know what else to say. You can also make the sigma images look just like the Canons @f/1.4 in the in focus areas, just by softening the sigma up, literally there are light room settings that make both indistinguishable for in focus areas but you can't create detail that was never recorded with the Canon. Logically speaking if you get a good copy and ignore the very minor difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 the Sigma is better in every measurable and conceivable factor. I really don't get why this is so contentious.
Yep, no doubt there is a big difference if it's visible in 1024px photos.  The Sigma wins for sharpness at f/1.4 and for richer color, and for that it's going to attract a lot of photographers.  The difference is certainly visible in the full-res uploaded to Dropbox (Thank you Jason for that).

However, while sharpness and detail are important, they aren't everything there is to know about a lens.  The 50L adds a beauty factor in how it draws a picture.  It just looks pretty, especially for portraits.  Maybe the 50L's slight softness is an advantage for some photos and for some photographers.  I'm eager to see some portrait comparisons with the Sigma 50/1.4.  I'm sure the Sigma will compare well, but it will be interesting to see any differences.

So does that mean that you don't want the 50L to be sharper than the Sigma 50 Art?

If sharpness is your only concern, you shouldn't buy either of these lenses and instead get a 50mm f/1.8 and shoot at f/8, which I'll be much sharper than both of these at 1.4.

sigma is a little sharper at f/1.4 but can't do f/1.2 at all, can't get quite as thin DOF as the 50L, has less realistic color and less pleasing boke.  Personally no, I would not trade off those things for a.little more sharpness; I have a ton of sharp lenses but very few look quite like the 50l.
Um...no bokeh?

Ah, well if bokeh becomes a factor, there is no doubt that the 50L offers thinner depth of field and hence can render more out of focus.  This is not subjective, but rather a fact of f/1.2 vs f/1.4.  I also like the rendering better, though that is subjective.  But that is the whole point, one can crow about sharpness all they like but that is a very one dimensional and frankly inaccurate summation of a lens.
Well...I think the whole point is sharpness (wide open) and nice bokeh. So many wide lenses are not even close to sharp wide open... I agree tho. I think that both of these lenses (and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG) all have good sharpness wide open and they all have different renderings.  I can totally see where someone would like the Canon, as it is clearly no slouch and does have the superior softness in the rendering of the bokeh, but I also feel that the sharpness and contrast is superior in the Sigma (and the price) so I can see it is personal like or dislike for each look.  (and I am not even going to touch the AF discussion...it is so complicated...arrrrgggghhh..LOL).
I think all three of the lenses I am mentioning are great for different reasons.  Makes buying just one kind of tough...but then if you have a REALLY good shot...is anyone going to notice which lens it was???  LOL. That is a whole other discussion too!!!!

199
At the risk of being considered rude, my comment is one of suspicion.  The author said that he put the two lenses on two different 5D3s and took casual snapshots around his home.  So how is it that in each pair of shots, the composition and focus are so identical?  And how the heck did he get the dog to stay absolutely perfectly still while he switched cameras?
I see what you are saying but, to me I can clearly see that the rendering is different for each shot exactly the way I would expect it to be for each lens.  Plus others have checked Jason's exif data and said it proves him true. Perhaps his dog is a professional model and Jason is just being modest?

200
For me personally I find the 50L unacceptably soft. If you can see a clear improvement in sharpness in 1024 px in uncropped frames like I can then there is a huge difference. I really don't know what else to say. You can also make the sigma images look just like the Canons @f/1.4 in the in focus areas, just by softening the sigma up, literally there are light room settings that make both indistinguishable for in focus areas but you can't create detail that was never recorded with the Canon. Logically speaking if you get a good copy and ignore the very minor difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 the Sigma is better in every measurable and conceivable factor. I really don't get why this is so contentious.
Yep, no doubt there is a big difference if it's visible in 1024px photos.  The Sigma wins for sharpness at f/1.4 and for richer color, and for that it's going to attract a lot of photographers.  The difference is certainly visible in the full-res uploaded to Dropbox (Thank you Jason for that).

However, while sharpness and detail are important, they aren't everything there is to know about a lens.  The 50L adds a beauty factor in how it draws a picture.  It just looks pretty, especially for portraits.  Maybe the 50L's slight softness is an advantage for some photos and for some photographers.  I'm eager to see some portrait comparisons with the Sigma 50/1.4.  I'm sure the Sigma will compare well, but it will be interesting to see any differences.

So does that mean that you don't want the 50L to be sharper than the Sigma 50 Art?

If sharpness is your only concern, you shouldn't buy either of these lenses and instead get a 50mm f/1.8 and shoot at f/8, which I'll be much sharper than both of these at 1.4.

sigma is a little sharper at f/1.4 but can't do f/1.2 at all, can't get quite as thin DOF as the 50L, has less realistic color and less pleasing boke.  Personally no, I would not trade off those things for a.little more sharpness; I have a ton of sharp lenses but very few look quite like the 50l.
Um...no bokeh?

201
rocksubculture....thanks for posting the images....no incessant "measurebating, focal...blah..blah..blah.."
In real life (I tended toward the Sigma as I have the 35mm which I love) I can see that both lenses offer there very special signature which with each has its own pluses and minuses.  Well done.
I was hell-bent on buying the Sigma Art...but I think I am just going to hold on to my Sigma 50mm DG and enjoy its own rendering for a while longer.  I have a friend who is dying to buy the lens from me as he KNOWS the new Sigma is giving me serious G.A.S. ...especially since I just bought the Sigma lens dock....
I think I need to step away from this..go make some pictures and come back to the prospect with a clearer head.
I actually like all three lenses...what is a poh boy to do!!!!!!! LOL!

202
EOS Bodies / Re: When Does the Year of the Lens Start?
« on: May 02, 2014, 09:41:36 AM »
Well....it already started at Sigma!   :P

203
Lighting / Re: Incredible Godox Witstro 360 flash (does HSS too!)
« on: April 30, 2014, 09:03:50 AM »
The AD-180's are just as good!(well...with less power but still way more than the Canon 600's)...with the flash cord adapters you are getting 1sec recycle at full power!!!  With a few AD-180s and 360's you are getting extremely portable and inexpensive tube lighting (like a mini portable studio) with a ton of versatility and plenty of power. The batteries are incredible. Anyone hesitating about that...just try one for a while an you will hope you never see a AA battery or charger ever again.  They are not auto strobes, so you have to know what you are doing..(a good flash meter can be very valuable) but I am definitely a fan.

204
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: April 24, 2014, 11:16:44 PM »
I have to say...I think that half of the people here complaining about the focusing of the 35mm f1.4 Art.  Mine focuses spot on ...all the time and I just LOVE the lens. it's one of those lenses that just stuns you every time you open the files. In actual shooting situation my lens is very consistent.

+1.  I didn't even think I'd like a 35mm lens on a FF body.  I bought the 35mm Art as an impulse at Christmas because I got tired of waiting for the 50mm.  I have to say, I love this lens.  The AF is very accurate, and the colors are vivid, and it is razor sharp.  Also, the field of view is very versatile, and it is nice to have so much DOF at f/1.4 compared to a longer lens like a 50mm or like my 85mm (at f/1.8).  The thing lives on my camera.


Ah...yes...photographers..not peepers...ahhhhh...I may eventually buy the 50mm and a dock...I want to see Dustin Abbott review both first. I hope that that can happen. Until then I am loving my original Sigma 50mm!
35mm is CLASSIC on a FF for all the reasons you mentioned and the Sigma Art is a classic, too!!!

205
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens
« on: April 24, 2014, 08:11:01 PM »
I have to say...I think that half of the people here complaining about the focusing of the 35mm f1.4 Art, must work for Canon....  Mine focuses spot on ...all the time and I just LOVE the lens. it's one of those lenses that just stuns you every time you open the files. In actual shooting situations my lens is very consistent, and one of my favorites to reach for.

206
Was there any mention of any of the reviewers of the 50mm Art f/1.4 running their test lens thru this process???
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-optimization-pro-and-usb-dock

I think that Roger is very professional and very reliable...and he seems to think the dock and the software are a valuable tool.  I just wonder if Brian at the Digital Pic had run the lens thru the software after his preliminary test to see if his copy tested any better????

I would like to see Dustin Abbott get his hands on a retail copy of the Sigma Art 50mm and a Dock and give us his input.  Can that happen!?!?!?!?!?!?

207
Canon General / Re: Canon Hong Kong Announcement April 24, 2014
« on: April 22, 2014, 08:47:25 AM »
A white flash  ;D

YES! ....to go with the white camera just announced. YOU ARE A GENIUS!!!!!!!!

208
Canon General / Re: Canon Hong Kong Announcement April 24, 2014
« on: April 22, 2014, 07:04:37 AM »
It's probably just another white camera.  :o

209
I have a good copy of the original Sigma 50mm f/1.4... And I really like the bokeh with this lens...
I may buy the new one...but I am in no hurry...so go at it boys!

210
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 11:45:25 AM »
What I would love to see:
A real "photographer" shoot with all three lenses for the purpose of showing us the difference in bokeh.
Reviewers are not photographers and many times they shoot inane images that do not show off the specific qualities off a lens so that an experienced photographer can actually get a handle on what is going on.
We need to leave DxO out of this, too (don't get me started on that outfit!!!! LOL~).

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 64