here are a few...one from a job...two for the "love of"...
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.
Clown photographerHey phenix...I guess My President has the camera pointed straight at YOU,
I am reminded of...
Yes...I got a defective one from B&H...spent a day screwing around with the Sigma Dock..etc...was making me CRAZY and I though..."why am I doing someone else's work for them??? on a $950 lens no less..."The Sigma 50A is an optically fantastic lens, with a very poor and unstable AF system. As I have stated in other threads, I do not understand how Sigma can push something as inconsistent as this to the market.
It is hard to reconcile the diverse opinions about this lens. Some people like yourself report poor & unstable AF. But reading the reviews on B&H, some seem to find the lens outstanding in every way, including AF. So many reviews absolutely glow with praise! I will have to try the 50A for myself at some point. Is it possible that some copies are truly excellent while others are defective?
[head spinning] Wow, I am simply floored by the ingenuity and creativity of some of you folks. I never cease to be amazed by those who will create such inventive systems by assembling a variety of disparate tools. Thanks for explaining that setup, and showing one of the resulting images. [/head spinning]
As for the original post, I expecting to be treated to an image of the iPad flying out of its user's hands, pulled by the turbulence from the flyover...
However, from what I've read and saw in person, the extra special coatings on the Sigma, actually seem to make it a bit slower than 1.4. It almost seemed that it was about 3/4 of a full stop slower than the Canon.There are some topics relating experiences with F1.4 lens in Canon digital cameras, I did not find now, but the conclusion is surprising:
I'm still wavering, but at this point, I'm leaning towards the 50L 1.2. I was able to shoot some MIGHTY dark bars with this and no additional lights with the 1.2 wide open.
So for when you need very low light...at this point, I'm leaning towards getting the canon 50L 1.2.
A member of CR did a test with an F1.4 lens (at F1.4) mounted on a Canon DSLR camera with all manual settings, and photographed a target with controlled lighting. Then he repeated the shot with everything the same, except that he put duct tape on the electrical contacts of the lens, so the camera could not identify which lens was being used.
He found that the picture looked darker when the camera could not identify which lens was being used. Neuro then gave a simple explanation and terrifying:
Digital cameras (unlike film) do not capture well the light that hits the sensor at a very tilted angle. How F1.4 lenses (and more luminous) many light rays arrive at quite tilted sensor, and do not penetrate well into the photodiodes. To circumvent this problem, Canon pushes the ISO (in secret) to simulate the use of light rays that exists in the film. Ie. When you select ISO100, the camera secretly push the ISO up to 153 (for example) and compensates for the lower utilization of light rays.
If you select ISO 1600, the camera pushes secretly up to ISO 2129 (for example), and compensates for the lower utilization of light rays. In this case, the noise will be larger than an ISO 1600 "true".
If the lens is not manufactured by Canon itself, ISO not be pushed secret, and the lens will appear darker than a Canon lens that had the ISO pushed.
Infrared and VeloDramatic... Glad you are having good luck with the 50 Art lens.
What body are you using your 50 Art on?
Do you use the outer focus points or mainly the center point?
Wait...wait...I thought that I resembled that remark?....Infrared, is that a DIY ring light and power box? If so, would you mind showing off the business end and telling us about it?
I'm always fascinated by DIY lighting.
"Pull magic knob" Snicker.
Nice shots everyone!!!! Love the vehicles!