Apparently "year of the lens" was meant to be fiscal year 2014
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.
Do you have a homeowners/renters policy with them? I'm pretty sure that's the only way they'll write a Personal Articles policy.Nope, I have a personal articles policy with State Farm as a standalone thing in DC. My auto and renters insurance are through progressive.
But I'd like to hear how the non-resolution upsides of the Otus might benefit video -- after all, it's not $4k just because of resolution and build quality. I hear it manages chromatic aberrations well, has low distortion, great bokeh, etc. -- are those especially desirable for video?
For those asking about the cost of cine lenses, I can tell you that sharpness is not the prime consideration. Lack of chromatic aberration, distortion, and light fall off are important as those are very hard to correct in post on video.This is your answer, unless you are shooting in RAW for video, it's nearly impossible to correct CA and fall off. Distortion is more correctable, but, it can be a pain if the scene has multiple subjects. You certainly dont want to be correcting it shot to shot.
The good quality cine lenses are extremely expensive because they can be. It's a niche market and the other production costs for shooting video are so high that the cost of the lens isn't much of a consideration.Not to mention that a lens with a long focus throw and that is parfocal gives you so many more options on set. Renting the equipment is part of the expense, but having to do several takes cause the lens is crap to pull focus with costs more in time and energy
Now the 12mm f2.0When they make that lens cine, it's gonna kill off all their 16mm f/2 sales. Cause the main users of it are video people, and a lot of them are moving to m4/3 mount.
For all those who have been asking for a UWA prime lens specifically designed for APSC, here it is ... but the price is not competitive for a manual lens, I guess it might come down in a few months.
Assuming optically the prime is very good, I still don't understand why anyone would pick up the RokiBowYang, even at a discounted street price of say $350.Yep, the Tokina 11-16mm is also f/2.8 and can be had for the same price. And for that I get auto-focus, auto-aperture, existing lens profiles, and a great, proven lens. Oh, and I can use filters.
Where are you going with this? Are you implying Sigma is going to under-price the 50/1.4 Art because they are filled with the milk of human kindness and don't care for profit?
Companies can engage in loss leaders. What better way to introduce sigma to a new demographic and re introduce themselves to a demographic that has since moved on from sigma die to their past issues.I think Sigma sold the 35mm as a loss-leader, or close to it, because they wanted the good press of being 60-70% the price of the Canon and Nikon lenses while being sharper, etc. Kind of the same way Tamron priced their 150-600 pretty low relative to what they could have charged.
If they put 4K video on it, NAB would be a great place to announce it.True, but I don't see that happening. For one, there would have been a lot more rumor leaks that it would have 4k, especially since there have been so many other cameras adding 4k.
Interesting, looks like it's for crop sensors only though.Yeah, they technically announced the lens a year and a half ago, but they clearly had issues with production: http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/photokina-2012-samyang-10mm-f2-8-for-aps-c/
My guess the mystery lens will be a 50mm f1.4, this will be a popular focal length in the mass sales market.And theyve said before that they are working on one. Thing is, manual focus 50mm f/1.4 lenses are a dime a dozen out there with adapters, so, Im not sure how successful they'll be with that. Unless its very cheap.
These look like zooms based on the focal lengths and the zoom ratios listed. I don't know much about how these patents work but I thought that primes usually only have one focal length listed. Am I reading these wrong?Yeah, I dont really get that either. I know there is an effect of the lens being shorter at min focus distance vs focusing at infinity, but that wouldnt explain the 300-150 zoom. And also, previous macro patents listed as one focal length: http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/10/new-65-f2-8-180-f3-5-macro-patents/
Any suggestions to remove them? I did order clips but they have not come.Pulling the background tight is option #1, using a garment steamer is option #2 if option 1 doesnt work. Or if you've got time, gravity works too.
Is size, cost, and weight the reasons someone would go with a 16-35 f/4 over the 16-35 f/2.8?Cost alone is the reason a lot of people go for the 17-40 vs the 16-35 right now; unless you really need the f/2.8, then it isnt worth the extra money. I'd say size and weight are lower priorities, though they certainly add up for landscapers who take long hikes, etc.
I'll actually disagree, not with it being misnamed, but with it being irrelevant. Again, they are measuring only the sensor, so its probably quite true that in a body with a fast frame rate and good AF, the D800 sensor would be superior. That body just happens to not exist from Nikon, which is irrelevant for what DxO concerns itself with.
- Two of the three subscores consider only ISO 100, but not everyone shoots at ISO 100 all the time
- Their 'Sports Score' is a total misnomer - low noise at high ISO coupled with poor AF or a slow frame rate is not good for Sports