Do you have sample images from this lens somewhere that aren't in video form? I'd love to see some 100% crops, particularly in high-CA situations, if you have any...
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.
I tested Canon 35 f1.4 (that I own) and Sigma 35 f1.4 (that I jumped to buy immediately) and Canon lens has a more pleasing bokeh and image. I made the comparison on screen and paper (1000mmx700mm printed images).
Truly, the Sigma looks crisper, but I prefer a general beter looking image.
I made this comparison because I could sell my used Canon 35 f1.4 at the price of a new Sigma 35 f1.4 and I almost made the switch, but then I said to try the Sigma first.
I decided to keep my Canon lens from two reasons:
1. Sigma did not demonstrated yet that can make a working horse (I had a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and was extremely unreliable). I can`t afford to have bad working lenses or on repair for weeks in a row. This will be a disaster for me.
2. The images printed looked beter from Canon. The colours and general image are more appealing.
In the last years we are all looking at the numbers, but nobody looks at pictures anymore.
I got the idea that the Sigma is cheap, but I do not want cheap, I want the best Image and reliability.
And I am sure that all of you know what I am talking about.
no , sorry I don't
please show me, I have both canon 35/1,4 and the sigma 35/1,4
Might be because you did not own a Sigma before.
I owned "the 50mm" from Sigma and it was so unreliable. The "internet" is screaming of the problems that Sigma lenses has.
If Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Sony charge so much for a high performance lens, how Sigma did it so cheap? Has to be something wrong inside. Something that will crack when the lens will have to hork hard.
Interesting, Ive always heard it sucked at 24.
Anyways, I was fortunate to be forced to learn HTML many moons ago and like babysteps learned CSS and html5 and such and have built my website from scratch... It's still not perfect but at least if anything needs changed, i can do it myself quickly and upgrade as I go along.
18mm? What the heck is it with these idiotic lens makers. We've got the 17-55, 18-55, 18-135, 18-200, 18-270 and now 18-35. What do we have that starts at 24mm-equivalent? The only one I own - the 15-85IS.
f/1.8 sounds interesting, but not if it starts at 18mm!!!
That's what I was looking for. I remember reading that they were going to update the 30mm when they announced the 35mm but I guess I didn't realized it was going to be this quick. Has it been confirmed that they are any different besides the cosmetics and the USB dock?
It's a shame when so many people that admittedly never have used the 35L is recommending 3rd party alternatives. I've myself never used the Sigma, but the 35L is a top notch lens. Not cheap, but it has a proven performance and quality record over 14 years which the Sigma doesn't.also get the sigma 35mm f1.4 its half the price of the 35mm L and its better too
Ignoring the body-choice stuff (I love my 7d, and have been quite happy with the IQ:$$ ratio, but I'm also usually in pretty good light), I would get behind this recommendation of the sigma 35 over the 35L. Sharper, great colors, reviews all say the AF is as good as the 35L (never used the canon, so can't comment personally), etc etc.
I guess this is a joke - but if serious it makes me wonder, as a Rebel user, if one could damage a pro level EOS by trying to push in an EF-S lens?
also get the sigma 35mm f1.4 its half the price of the 35mm L and its better too
Woot.Oh come on, put some excitement into your sarcastic owl calls!
I think it may be a new canon mirrorless announcementand I think it may be a 7d2 that shoots 12fps, has 1dIV level weather sealing, 82pt-AF, APS-H with 5d3-like ISO noise, for $1800.
I get the sense that you are new to the details of photography, so here are a few basic points.
Your prior camera, the 600D, was a crop-sensor camera using the EF-S mount. This sensor was smaller than the full-frame sensor in the 5D series cameras (and the 6D and 1D), using the EF mount. So, the 18mm wide end of your EF-S zoom lens on the 600D is actually equivalent to a 28mm EF lens on a full-frame camera.
There are a number of EF lenses that cover this range. For primes, you could look at any of the 28mm lenses. If you are shooting handheld from a ladder, you might consider the new 28mm f/2.8 IS lens, with image stablization that will help with any blur from handholding. There is also a 20mm f/2.8 lens with a wider field of view that is inexpensive. For zooms, there is a 17-40 f/4 and a 16-35 f/2.8 that would probably work as well. Zooms generally have smaller apertures, so they require more light, but that should not be a problem with a 5d mark 3 or 6D (although the 5d mark 2 it may be). For wider apertures (1.8, 1.4, 1.2), note that the field of view, or the area in focus, is very narrow. For more detail, you want smaller apertures (larger numbers, like 5.6, 8, 11, etc).
The TS-E lenses are manual focus, and would require you use a tripod and spend lots of time with them. The "stitching" of images is also more time spent on the computer afterwards. It does not sound like that is what you are looking for.
However, changing lenses is not hard or time consuming, and you could also get a 100mm f/2.8 macro lens (the version with the IS if you are shooting handheld) to take your detail shots right after you take your wide shots. Or you could get the EF-S 60mm macro lens and put it on your old 600D for your macro shots, but note that this lens will not work on your new full frame 5D.
Also, you should look into the 6D camera. Its built-in wifi might be useful in your working environment, and the autofocus will be plenty for photographing stationary carpets. The images should look just about as good as the 5d Mark 3, and maybe even better than the 5d mark 2. (This is the kind of thing that people on the internet argue about a lot, though).
I hope this helps.