November 23, 2014, 05:46:12 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 - Scott_7D

Pages: [1]
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Rumors Surface [CR1]
« on: November 09, 2012, 02:19:27 AM »

Not to be a stickler, but the 7D was announced in Setptember 2009 and available in October...


Canon 7D has enjoyed one of the longest shelve lifes in the DLSR age and I am sooo glad I waitied out the 50D and bought my 7D in January 2009.

The AF is super quick and if you handle the exposure well then high ISOs are a breeze.

Check out what the AF can manage...

Mid air Puffin - http://jamiedouglasphotography.com/p646954356/h12715cc9#h12715cc9

Incoming Puffin - http://jamiedouglasphotography.com/p646954356/ha3897d3#ha3897d3

Black Bear Cub ISO1250 - http://jamiedouglasphotography.com/p646954356/hac981db#hac981db

I recently upgraded to a Canon 1D Mark IV but kept a firm hold of my 7D which is the perfect backup body.

2
My question is clear, sigma has a cheaper 50mm 1.4, that is newer, and made for digital camera, with all it's coatings, and apparently it has a special digital focusing system. But, then there is the 1.2 l, it has about half a stop of luminosity more, which I don't know what difference that makes, and it's an "l" lens.

Please keep in mind that I'm asking which is better in total and in different ways.

This is to fill a gap in my range, (16-35 and 70-200 2.8 is ii), so I'm looking for one that won't fail me

The Sigma is just 1 year newer than the Canon, so don't use that as consideration between the two. Also, "Made for Digital" doesn't really mean much, except that it has modern coatings. All new lenses have similar types of coatings though.

Another thing, the Canon is 1/3 stop faster, not 1/2, so again, not much between them.

I own the Sigma and have used the 50L and I have to say there isn't really much between them in terms of image quality: both are excellent, especially at wide apertures. The Sigma has less CA in my opinion, but is maybe a touch softer; however, the reduced CA is a nice thing to have. Both have good contrast wide open and amazing from f/1.8. Both have nice bokeh, but I might give the nod to the Siggy here (this is very subjective, of course). Neither lens will disappoint; they are tops in terms of wide aperture performance in the 50mm class.

However, the Canon has much better build quality and the AF is definitely better too. The Canon seems to suffer from spherical aberations more than the Sigma, so focusing can be off if you use the center point from f/2-4, but it's AF is more consistent. My Sigma's AF is working well after MA, but only at the expense of longer focus distances at wide apertures (if I focus on something 25+ feet away at f/1.4-2.8, it is OOF, but at normal distances, it's perfect).

I'd say that if the difference in price doesn't bother you, get the Canon. If you want similar image quality and don't mind the more pedestrian AF performance and build quality, the Siggy is a great option. I love mine and am no longer drooling over the 50L. If Sigma built a 24/1.4 as well as their 50, I would have saved a lot by not buying the 24L.

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Distagon 15 f/2.8 ZE Official
« on: March 19, 2012, 02:45:25 AM »
The question in my mind is this: Given it'll be manual focus, why not just get the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 with an EF adapter, and have the extra flexibility of the zoom? From what I can see, it's the best ultrawide in existence, prime or zoom. I suppose only thing that the Zeiss has in its favour is lower weight and the ability to accept filters. But apart from that, why would I want it, if it isn't significantly better?

The Nikon, while an excellent lens isn't all roses. The distortion at 14mm is extreme; not really acceptable for architecture (it isn't so bad at longer FLs though, but if you want 14/15mm you're SOL with the Nikkor). A prime like the 14L II does much better, the Zeiss should be even better.

The Nikon also suffers from pretty heavy flare, while the Zeiss should be pretty flare resistant given the performance of it's 18/21/25mm brothers.

The Nikon is the best UWA zoom in existence in terms of resolution, but primes like the 14L, 17TS-E or the new Zeiss still have advantages in their specific focal lengths. Of course, the Nikkor is cheaper than any of the three aforementioned lenses, so that's a nice perk.

4
Lenses / Re: how long does it take for lens prices to drop? (24-70mm ii)
« on: February 14, 2012, 12:10:52 AM »
Awhile  back I got curious, so I checked my customer profile on Adorama (they keep a record of everything you've ever ordered). Virtually every lens I've purchased is either now selling for more or roughly the same as what I paid. 

So, I guess the answer would be: maybe never.

Untrue to one extent: Crap always varies.  Good stuff on the other hand is on a "buy it if you need it" basis . . . because it's a hit-or-miss sale proposition.

The only lens I got (financially) burned on was the 70-300 IS . . . which is also the lens I was greatly disappointed in.

As I said in another post (paraphrased) it's not like X bursts into flames and stops taking good photos when it's replacement comes out. 

Most people are looking for sales on the 24-70mm right now; so, just find a 'good' dip in price ASAP and stick with it, IF you need it and you'll be fine.

I don't know about that, most glass prices seem to remain fairly consistent.  Hell the original 24-70 was $950 when it came out!  And it was as high as $1449 retail within the last few years and it's still $1200 at B&H.  Granted the original came out before the "recession," but still.

Actually the Canon press release states that the MSRP of the 24-70L was $2099 USD at the time of release, not $950. And if you look, you'll see that pretty much all lenses Canon's released in the last decade have started out with a higher price than expected and then dropped 20-30% once the early adopters have bought theirs. Expect the new 24-70 to be at $1800-1900 or so within 18 months of the first shipments.

5
Lenses / Re: New Lenses Imminent? [CR1]
« on: November 03, 2011, 12:48:26 AM »
Canon badly need a decent 'normal' prime for APS-C users because the current offering all have significant weaknesses, as does the main third party alternative.  Beyond that, there is a need for some affordable wide angle primes.  To be honest, if it saves money they might as well make them EF-S, as anyone that can afford a full frame camera should really be able to afford 'L' glass (and if not, they've probably got their buying priorities wrong!).  I don't buy the argument that some people make that it's only full frame users who care about prime lenses.  A decent full frame setup will cost you many thousands of your local currency; it's a little insulting to suggest that only the rich can afford to be 'serious photographers'.

 I disagree with your statement regarding FF users and the cost of an FF setup. FF users are not much more likely to be rich than your average prosumer APS user these days: here in Canada, a 5D2 is $1999 and a 7D is $1449, which is not a huge difference. Also, used 5Dc's and 1Ds(II)'s can easily be had for less than $1500.

 Secondly, a 5D2 with a 35/2 provides better performance at a cheaper price than a 7D with 24L (my set up); similarly, said 5D with 50/1.4 is much cheaper and better than said 7D with 35L. You can pretty much go on forever with similar comparisons. A 5D2 with 24/2.8 isn't even comparable to APS, as an EF-S 15/1.8 doesn't exist and if it did, the price would be frightening.

 If you look at it this way, you can see that your statement about a "decent" FF kit being expensive is quite wrong. One (myself included) might even say the opposite is true. I suppose that makes me look dumb, as I have a 7D/24L, but in my defense, they were purchased years apart, I need the 7D's features and my mkI 24L was way less than the new one is.

 If you don't need high PD or the AF/FPS of a 7D, how exactly are your priorities wrong in buying a 5D2 with cheap glass? You get better performance for less $$$ and often end up with a lighter, smaller kit as well. There's no rule stating that FF users are stuck buying L glass and honestly, they need it less than us APS guys.

 This is why I like the idea of Canon updating these non-L primes: they would benefit both APS and FF shooters. These lenses are mostly fine optically, all they need is USM, more aperture blades and maybe a tweak here and there. They should definitely be kept EF though, even if there is a small cost savings to make the wider ones APS, there's more than enough interest in them from FF users. Personally, I'm looking to add an FF body as soon as I can afford it and would definitely buy a 35/2.

6
The GM 2.2L is hardly a good example here. It's the automotive equivalent of an old EF28-90mm f/3.5-5.6 or (insert terrible, cheap Canon lens here). It is as basic and unrefined an engine you'll find these days, though it has been discontinued for 5 years or so. Your average brand-new 2-2.5L 4 cylinder costs about $5k and some, like Honda's awesome Type-R grade K20A is about $13k.

A 400mm f/2.8 is an ultra-high performance product with low production volumes. Think of it as a Porsche GT3 or Ferrari engine. Those go for $50k and up.

Just the time taken to grow the crystals for the Fluorite elements is huge, never mind grinding and producing all the "regular" glass elements.


argh!  why are these lenses so expensive??  I recently installed a new engine in a friends S10.  We paid $2100 for a brand new GM 2.2L engine, NEW, from the local GM dealership.  Think of how much metal, engineering, etc is in an engine.  For the price of ONE lens, we could buy three new engines!

I do not understand :-/  The time to precision-grind glass?   Umm...

LOL, I still want one!

7
Contests / Re: Holga Giveaway
« on: July 19, 2011, 02:55:12 PM »
Looks Holgatastic! I'm down to win a kit like that; it's my birthday tomorrow!

Pages: [1]