July 26, 2014, 11:47:16 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 54
31
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: May 18, 2014, 09:18:15 AM »
I have some recent baby photos!  8)


That's creepy. Nice shots tho...

Thanks R1 ...yeah...they were meant to be chilling...I just love the bokeh of the 85L ...it is amazing.

32
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: May 17, 2014, 06:24:10 PM »
I have some recent baby photos!  8)

33
So on the fence about cancelling until issues and supplies are all worked out...But keep imagining this will be a great newborn lens...

Sure hope I'm not getting one of the lenses the OCD folk are tweaking to death and returning.  The stories here of lens churn are revolting.

Well said ...I think more than a few are over-tweaked!  8)
I am looking forward to Dustin Abbott's  review/comparison of both Sigma 50's...hope he got the Sigma Dock,too as I would like to hear what he has to say about that as well. His take is reliable, experienced, real-world and relevant. 
No measurbating.

34
It seems that the recent competition for Sigma has propitiated that Canon launch prices closer to market reality. If the picture is as good as it looks on the MTF chart, these two lenses are sales success.

Sure the EF-S looks a good price, but the 16-35 is a 17-40 replacement, at 150% the price. Not saying I feel the 16-35 is particularly expensive, and I very much doubt Sigma had anything to do with it at all, just pointing out it is 150% more than the lens it is replacing with less zoom range.

I do not think of the 16-35 as having less zoom range......17-16mm is more significant than you would think.
Also...I returned my 17-40mm in one day because the zoom "throw" of the zoom ring was non-existent at the wide end....like super abrupt....not spread out like at the other end.  I know everyone has a different take and no one is right or wrong..but I just don't need 35-40mm. I have a 24-70mmII an the 16-35mm II now...If I am going out with just zooms..its a nice overlap...the 16-35mmII is weakest (sharpness) at the 35mm end...and the other lens handles that area quite handily......
I bought the 17-40mm initially to save money and ended up getting rid of that notion! LOL!

35
I think that the new 16-35mm IS will be a big seller... if I had all three (17-40, 16-35mm 2.8II), this would be the tempting option.. In Canon's new (absurd) pricing structure I am pleasantly surprised at the intro price of this lens. I think this lens makes the 17-40mm a non-entity (except for price!).  When I  added an ultra-wide zoom to my quiver I had initially purchased the 17-40mm but sent it right back...What bothered me was the "short throw" in the zoom ring at the wide end.  There was very little to no separation between focal lengths. This is not talked about very often, but it was a total deal-breaker for me.  I ended up biting the bullet and waiting for a good sale/rebate situation on the 16-35II.  In the current spread and pricing of Canon lenses I this this offering and pricepoint  seem reasonable (relatively).  Although, my last lens purchase was a Sigma (35mm), and my next lens purchase will be a Sigma (50mm), too!.....so perhaps Canon will become even more "reasonable" with their price structure as it has been woobling out of control!   8)

36


My thoughts, exactly.
I've bought a 17-40 for less then $500 recently, in perfect condition. I know it have some drawbacks, and not perfect. So is 16-35II, compared to 35L I own.
That new lenses should be really, really sharp and rise the quality mark. Otherwise I'd prefer primes over them.
[/quote]

How do you compare a 35L to the 16-35 f/2.8II?  One thing that the 16-35mm can do a whole lot better than the 35L is 16-34mm!!!!!!!!  LOL..you had to know you were walking into that one!   ;D

37
Upgraded from the original Simga 50 to the Art 50…. Have a much higher hit percentage on the autofocus, and the image is just very sweet…  I would recommend upgrading (the size isn't that much more in reality, unless it just won't fit in your camera bag).
Stop..stop...I have to buy a new truck for work....stop!!!!!! LOL!

38
B&H is going to send me both the 50 Art along with the older Sigma 50 so I can compare them side by side.  I don't own the Sigma dock, and so I am wondering how much of a factor that is going to be to getting accurate AF from the newer lens.

Do I need to have them send me the dock, too?

COOL! I can't wait to read your comparison!
 I own the original 50mm (and I have an Art 35mm and just bought a dock for it and potentially to use with a 50mm Art as well.)
I am on the fence about the 50mm Art.  Really like my original 50mm Sigma.   I know that the new lens will be sharper, more contrast etc...just way better in most respects...yet the original is way smaller, and has a great rendering more like the 50mmL in many respects.  I even have a friend dying to buy my old Sigma...so it is tempting to step up to the new ART.....
Yesterday, I downloaded the software for the Sigma Dock and updated the firmware on my 35mm Art...which was already one of my favorite lenses...Pretty cool tech there. I plan on learning the software soon and understanding how it adjusts the focus..but to tell you the truth, I have no complaints with that lens.
Get the Dock, Dustin and do a full uber review on the whole shebang...I think everyone will enjoy that!

39
LOL...that is one of the reasons why I got out of the business and became a carpenter.  I got away from photography completely (so sad), during the whole film>digital transition.  I got back in when the 5DII came to market (I used to be a nikon film guy..but I thought that was the most affordable digital finally equals film camera to finally come along).   I have been shooting ever since prodigiously ever since...FOR ME!  I love it.
I can not imaging shooting professionally now...at the risk of sounding like an arrogant snob...everyone has a cell phone and takes pictures and they can be your "director" at a photoshoot...thinking that they know a lot about professional photography based on "their" experience.  They have no clue what a good photographer brings to the table.  ...but like someone said above ....shoot safety shots and cover your ass.  It is frustrating..no? ...they see your best work, hire you and then want safe medeocrity....and you walk away so unfulfilled.    LOL.   It has to be worse now than ever with instagram, snapchat, etc....EVERYONE thinks they are a photographer. Shoot a pic, run it thru some software, immediate gratification....I am an expert!!!!   
I know I am oversimplifying it.... but...just shooting for me gives me MORE joy, knowing everything that I know.
Your shot at the top of the page totally tells the story beautifully....but they were not looking for your ability and vision, they wanted snapshots of their volunteers.  Don't you see, your intellect and vision are the problem.  Not them!!!!!(very high sarcasm).   LOL!
Nice work...I understand your dilemma.   Perhaps you can balance it out and continue...

40
Animal Kingdom / Re: Cuteness Overload
« on: May 10, 2014, 08:05:32 AM »
The expression of the chick in 8766 is priceless ;D

(No, you guys, not THAT kind of chick)  ::)

That expression is priceless! Oh the sassiness of youth!!! He is a real tough guy, til his mother is not around. LOL.
Unexpectedly beautiful photos!!!

41
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?

42
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

43
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!!!!

44
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?

45
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?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 54