I think I may have tuned in to the WRONG channel?
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.
check the 5th paragraph
yes, we need to see some real tests but I think Sigma's likely got a lens they can be proud of.
... as I continue to cuss the inconsistent AF of a new, but past warranty EF 50/1.4
I looked at the review - very impressive at 1.4. It is the contrast between sharpness of focus plane that sets off the bokeh - aka EF 85 1.2.
However in the comparisons I looked up TDP crops of the Nikkor 58 1.4G. What's going on there !? Have you seen the price of this lens ? Nikon is currently like a child's spinning top just as it loses it's momentum; it wobbles all over the place.
Lucky for us Canon users that Zeiss are pushing the boundaries - 'cos Nikon certainly aren't.
Incidentally I believe the Otus is made in Germany; it's the other dslr 'Zeiss' lenses that are made by Cosina in Japan.
+1. Zeiss lenses are for the most part, made in Japan by Cosina. Meaning, you have excellent German lens design, being made by the Japanese who excel at high quality mass production. A perfect match in this era, in my books.I've been told that Zeiss and Leitz lenses are manufactured in Japan now and that these brand names are just licenses leased out by international trading companies that own those names. Is this true? Or, does Zeiss and Leitz still manufacture everything in Germany? Thanks
What difference would it make?
If Zeiss puts their name on it, I don't care if they had Aunt Mabel make it on Mars.
That's just my point. If Zeiss only exists in a leased name only then what's the hype all about. It's just another company trying to cash in on a former good name. My guess is we're all looking for the nostalgia in a new digital world. Reminds me of all the products being marketed today with names such as Polaroid and Bell & Howell.
Ugly and expensive...... just like the ex wife.
Why do you think, did Sigma for only for a f/1.4 rather than down to the f/1.2 of the Canon L 50mm ?
Because it's going to be 815g with f/1.4
The extra glass for top performance at f/1.2 would have been an overkill. I'm more surprised that Zeiss didn't go for f/1.2 considering they definitely had the budget.
My Canon 50 1.4 works fine, but doesn't get a lot of use, so I'm in no hurry.
But I would love to see a robust, sharp, contrasty, fast focussing 50 1.4 WITH IS.
Not holding my breath on that.
I think you're really missing the point of this lens. This isn't just some random 50mm lens that's maybe kind of good.
Read about the Zeiss Otus, and then imagine a lens that is 89% as good with autofocus. That's this lens.
The resolution data for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART which has been verified by third parties indicates this lens is twice as good as anything other lens in it's segment with autofocus. In some cases this lens is five times better than competitors, that makes it good enough to make everything else obsolete.
For reference the difference between the worst superzoom available on crop, at it's worst setting and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II on full frame at it's best setting is right around the same as the difference between this lens and it's best competitor.
This lens is a really big deal. Some people have been waiting for something like this for decades. It's the first standard focal length autofocusing prime with pro level resolution wide open.
The G1X-II looks to me to be a collossal waste of time and money for Canon development. If they had wanted to
hit a home run, they should have used M lenses, priced it at $499.00 and pushed it as a new mirrorless system.
Now they just have two turkeys on their hands and will have a hard time selling either.
I'm not personally excited about any of these potential lenses. It's not the focal lengths or apertures, but that sigma does not in any way get me excited. I've owned several sigma lenses including 8mm fisheye, 10-20mm, 18-200mm, 120-400mm and 300mm f2.8. None of them were remarkable to me in IQ or performance or worth the discounted price compared to their canon counterparts. IMO it's always worth the extra $$ for Canon glass...
I have used both Canon and Sigma 35 1.4; Sigma is noticeably better without the need for pixel peeping. The sigma 50 1.4 also compares very well to the Canon 50L from experience. You just have to pick the right lens range with Sigma
But, if the extra power isn't required, that 'one size' could be a set of 4x0EX-RT flashes instead of a set of 600's, and with multiple flashes that would be significant cost savings.
True, although I'd probably still opt for the 600s anyway, especially if the 4x0EX-RT does not zoom to 200mm. The 600 doesn't have that much power at 200mm for a large group (wide area) at a distance, but for smaller targets, it is handy.
Is the transmission distance any better between the Yongnuo and the Canon?
No, they are identical. In the side by side testing I did they both became unreliable at the same distance, but the Canon was a bit better at reconnecting.
The YN-E3-RT from Yongnuo is every bit as good, cost over a hundred dollars less and gives you Group mode with pre 2012 Canon cameras, and adjustable M mode in five groups with almost any camera make, even you Fuji owners, plus a very useful AF assist lamp. So far the only thing I have found the Yongnuo doesn't do is work properly for pre 2012 cameras in Remote Shooting Mode, it doesn't fire the flashes but does release the shutter. But considering the positives far outweigh that one minor negative it is tough to not highly recommend the Yongnuo YN-E3-RT over the Canon ST-E3-RT.
I just picked up the YN-e3-RT as well and am working on my review. So far: I agree with you completely (And I didn't know about the remote shooting issue, so thanks for that tip). But, and you know this is the case too, some people will only *ever* buy proprietary first party gear, full warranty, local sellers etc. Thankfully the rest of us who are a bit more adventurous get the benefits.