February 26, 2015, 06:15:23 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 - Dylan777

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 301
1786
I mean to say that double gauss f/1.4 or faster lenses have image quality that is so incredibly bad that it's off the scale.

Compared to 85mm or 35mm primes @ f/1.4 double gauss normal lenses have:

10 times less spacial resolution
5 times more chromatic aberration
4 times more purple fringing
4 times as much hazing

Nevertheless, ...

  • As of 2012, the 50/1.2L tested better for resolution than any 50mm from Nikon, Zeiss or Sigma on LensRentals' shootout.  That's a success. 
  • The 50/1.2L stopped down delivers a wonderful look that is not accounted for in those tests but that is known to photographers.  The advantage of the lens is not the slight extra bit of light going from f/1.4 to f/1.2 — this is less important than ever in the digital era.  And it's not the bokeh at f/1.2 — that's not a useful aperture for a lot of what a 50mm is used for.  Instead, the advantage is the overall look, especially for portraits, and especially stopped down 1, 2 or 3 stops.  That look is why some photographers describe it as their favorite lens.  In that regard too, it's a success. 

Even though you say it's a fact that 50mm lenses are "horrible", it's also fact that many photographers buy, use, enjoy and often prefer 50mm lenses.  That says the photograph is what matters, not the metrics.

Even though a lens may be "just right" for some photographers, it won't & can't please everyone.  A manufacturer can't make a lens that pleases everyone, or the variety of lenses that would be needed to please everyone.  So whatever they make, someone will be unhappy that their personal goals for a new lens weren't met.

It appears that Nikon designed their new 58/1.4 with similar goals — it offers a very nice look, similar to the 50/1.2L based on what I've seen online.  It's not surprising that Ming Thein recently wrote about the Nikon 58/1.4:  "No intention of buying one since the demos I tried in Japan a couple of weeks ago were pretty soft and ‘glowy’ at f1.4 ..."  It's not his kind of lens — so he bought the Otus instead.

With the 50/1.2L Canon delivered a lens that some photographers very much wanted and that measured very well in the 50mm ecosystem of its time.  It doesn't please everyone, but it pleases some photographers very much.  The fact that the Otus raises the bar is great, but not so relevant for the many photographers who are simply not interested in a $4k manual focus non-weather-sealed lens, even one as good as that. 

Now we eagerly wait to see what Sigma brings to the table ...

You do have a meaningful point here, basically:

Canon 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2

Center Resolution: 4/10 
Average Resolution: 0/10
Lack of Chromatic Aberration: 3/10
Lack of Purple Fringing: 3/10
Lack of Glowiness/Hazing: 2/10
Bokeh Transition Quality: 8/10
Lack of Bokeh Artifacts: 10/10
Contrast & Color: 10/10
Lack of Onion Bokeh: 8/10
Lack of Ugly Distortion: 8/10

The Canon f/1.2 L is one of the worst lenses in a few categories, and one of the best in others. Personally I like a well balanced lens.

I actually switched from using a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, to a Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC because of this idea of balance band has much better color and ecause it has much better bokeh transitions, lacks bokeh artifacts, contrast than the Canon II, which is 3 times more expensive. Which to most people would be a hugely sacrilegious switch, considering the advantages in resolution and the fact that the Canon is an APO lens, which is mind blowing. But after using both the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I, and II, and the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 vc, I stuck with the Tamron. The Canon 24-70mm II just has a look that is way too clinical, it makes things look ugly and lacks color and contrast, and the bokeh of the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I just looks  busy. I also tried the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G and it was actually between the Tamron and the Canon I 24-70mm in almost every way. The Nikon had some business in the background but was a little better controlled than the Canon.

Simply put the Tamron 24-70mm VC takes the best all around photos out of any of the Canon or Nikon compatible 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses (You can also adapt Nikon lenses to Canon and manual focus). Go figure, though I still keep a spare in case I run into onion bokeh issues, which is the lenses only major flaw.

I also don't like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 because it takes too much away from other categories to achieve it's resolution. After owning the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (the best one I found out of several copies) I sold it and went back to the Canon 35mm f/1.4, because it has much less purple fringing, lacks that weird mustache distortion, and has slightly nicer bokeh.

I used to be very obsessed with resolution, but experience has taught me that a well balanced lens takes better photos.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is not a well balanced lens though. At resolutions above 1024 pixels on the short side, it really shows a lack of detail, and even at resolutions below that you have to basically walk on eggshells to get it to create a sharp image wide open. There is no room for error. It also has a painfully high level of purple fringing.

At f/1.4 I like the Canon 1.2 over the 1.4 though because the 1.4 has very busy bokeh which is very noticeable at that aperture, even though the 1.4 has more resolution at that aperture. However I think that the Sigma 1.4 is better than either Canon at 1.4. It basically combines the strengths of both Canon lenses into one, and you can't beat that. The Nikon 58mm is basically a lot like the Sigma 1.4 wide open, except the Nikon is super sharp. It's a shame then that the other main difference is that it has so much purple fringing.

In conclusion, excluding the Otus due to price:

Canon 1.4 @ f/2.0 = best
Sigma 1.4 @ f/1.4 = best
Nikon 58mm 1.4 @ f/1.4 = too much purple fringing
Canon 1.2 @ f/1.4 (or f/1.2) = Capable of great images in the right hands but only up to web sized wide open, due to extreme softness.

Also @ f/1.4 Zeiss 50mm Sumi = Sigma 50mm = Nikon 50mm G f/1.4 (for the most part they deliver basically the same images)

I wouldn't shoot with any 50mm other than the Otus wide open though as the image quality of the double gauss design wide open is just really unacceptable.

If Sigma is releasing a new 50mm though that means that they have probably made huge improvements in image quality. Lets just hope there are no downsides.

LOL-LOL-LOL

There is nothing wrong shooting with TAMMY. However, the number #1 reason many photographers settle with TAMMY is due to tighter budget - not for better IQ, not better in AF speed, or VC feature etc...

If we have a choice to pick one FREE lens between Canon 24-70 II and Tammy 24-70 f2.8 VC, you think people going to take TAMMY over Canon?

You can love me or hate me by saying that, but that is the TRUE in many cases.


1787
PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot SX50 Replacement in the Spring [CR2]
« on: January 09, 2014, 09:34:01 PM »
100x zoom :o :o :o

 wildlife shooters, are you already for this? This will be perfect camera to shoot 100yrs old turtle running from miles away ;D


1788
Lenses / Re: Headed to Hawaii -- let's talk gear / locations
« on: January 09, 2014, 07:44:14 PM »
If you want your photo looks like the one below, then get disposable film underwater camera :-\

Maybe rent a decent UW camera - with insurance just in case.

Hmmm... if I ship an LR rental right to my hotel:
    • Canon Powershot D20 --> $50 incl. shipping
    [/color]

    • Nikon 1 AW + 10mm lens --> $78 incl. shipping

    That's expensive for just one day of shooting.  I'll have to think about it.

    - A

    Get a used one ebay: http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=0&_from=R40&_nkw=Canon+Powershot+D20&_dcat=31388&rt=nc&LH_ItemCondition=4

    Sell it back on ebay after your trip - can you really lose $ that much ::)[/list]

    1789
    EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
    « on: January 09, 2014, 07:30:03 PM »
    I'm sure you guys still remember this ::)

    To be honest, I'm one of those thought Canon going to have something in vintage as well. Last time I check, Df didn't do welllllllll

    1790
    Lenses / Re: Headed to Hawaii -- let's talk gear / locations
    « on: January 09, 2014, 07:06:08 PM »

    That reminds me!  What underwater camera would you recommend?  I will not buy a new one as I never shoot underwater but Hanauma Bay snorkeling is on the list and might make for some memorable snaps.  So this is a one-day shooting opportunity only.

    I was likely going to get some disposable film underwater camera, as I won't rent that Nikon AW rig or risk my 5D3 on some rubber housing.  And I'm not interested in a $100-200 P&S.  I need a one-time solution that takes decent pics underwater.

    Any recommendations?

    - A

    If you want your photo looks like the one below, then get disposable film underwater camera :-\

    Maybe rent a decent UW camera - with insurance just in case.

    That is one of the worst UW disposable shots I have ever seen? Maybe a problem with the camera , silting, cloudy day or whatever!!  Your right that you can rent a UW rig from a dive shop which would be a better choice but geez, I have had way better results than that when starting out with UW disposables back in the day!!

    Yes, indeed. Back in 2007, that was a $10 disposable film underwater camera. Could be operator error ;D....I'm not sure how you would do better with tiny disposable film underwater camera @ high shutter speed?

    These photos were developed from film and got scanned as digital photos. Anyways, I think OP should get compact digital UW camera for better IQ. Trip like this is well worth it :)

    1791
    Lenses / Re: Headed to Hawaii -- let's talk gear / locations
    « on: January 09, 2014, 06:33:40 PM »

    That reminds me!  What underwater camera would you recommend?  I will not buy a new one as I never shoot underwater but Hanauma Bay snorkeling is on the list and might make for some memorable snaps.  So this is a one-day shooting opportunity only.

    I was likely going to get some disposable film underwater camera, as I won't rent that Nikon AW rig or risk my 5D3 on some rubber housing.  And I'm not interested in a $100-200 P&S.  I need a one-time solution that takes decent pics underwater.

    Any recommendations?

    - A

    If you want your photo looks like photos below, then get disposable film underwater camera :-\

    Maybe rent a decent UW camera - with insurance just in case.


    1792
    Lenses / Re: Headed to Hawaii -- let's talk gear / locations
    « on: January 09, 2014, 05:45:13 PM »
    I live on Oahu and there are some nice places to shoot. On the South shore there are places like Black Point, Diamond Head (both the beach area and the hike up to the crater), Tantalus Drive (for night time city shots),
    Pali Lookout, Lyon Arboretum and such. On the East side there is Makapuu Point like Dylan's pic (nice morning hike), Bamboo Ridge (area near the Blow Hole), Sandy Beach, Kaneohe Bay, Koko Head and Crouching Lions Inn have nice hikes. North shore for surfing and a nice hike to Kaena point. Id probably stay away from the West side as its pretty heavy for rental car break ins.

    You're setup is plenty fine. A fast prime might be nice if you wanna do some street shots in Waikiki and I usually use a .9 grad for sunrise/sunset.

    Enjoy your trip and message me if you want any more spots to shoot.

    Great spots Kayo :)

    1st photo: from our hotel room, look down Waikiki in the morning. I wish I had FF + 24-70 on that trip :'(
    2nd photo: Snorkeling in Oahu. Couldn't recall the name of that place at this moment????


    The 2nd shot looks like maybe Hanauma bay!!   
    Of all the lenses that I took to Hawaii my most used was my 16-35 f2.8L and with my 5D3.
    Have fun!!

    Yes, indeed. Thanks
    Here is another shot with my $99 P&S

    1793
    Site Information / Re: Just a general thanks
    « on: January 09, 2014, 09:56:19 AM »
    Hi Dreamer,

    That's very nice of you ... yes there are many helpful members on CR and Neuroanatomist & Mt Spokane are at the forefront of it with lots of helpful advice ... if I'm not wrong, they are also the most prolific contributors to this forum.
    By the way, even though you feel that you "have little to contribute", its better to contribute than to "shut up", coz there will be many who are below your level of experience, in photography, so could very well benefit from your posts.

    Happy New Year!

    +1...so much respects for both, Neuroanatomist & Mt Spokane :)

    And of course, my newly fav Mr. surapon "ha-ha-ha" ;D

    1794
    Lenses / Re: Selling price increase on big whites
    « on: January 08, 2014, 09:33:51 AM »
    Wow....the 400mm f2.8 IS II went up by $300 as well. Got my 400 few weeks back for $10,999

    1795
    When I said Canon has been sleeping "here"...I was referring to 50mm focal length.  This is the NORMAL focal length for FF and the Canon offerings have been in my mind disrespectful of photography.  I think Canon should be offering something solid, reliable and competent in this BASIC staple. The do not, as far as I am concerned. I bought the old Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (not without its own problems...but apparently I bought a good copy), because the canon offerings were so anemic...and the price on the L lens for what it offers is embarrassing. Also, if they ever do come to bat on this situation, (a 50mm f/2.0 IS is NOT addressing this BASIC issue) you can bet the pricing will suck the air out of the room.  Whatever is going on over at Sigma Corp. I for one hope that they keep sending lots of it our way. Hope this new Sigma busts the 50mm situation wide open.  We will see. (fingers crossed).

    Canon offers five flavors of standard lens (40/2.8, 50/2.5, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.2).  Four of them are very affordable.  I would not call that "disrespectful of photography".  Each of them offers some advantages, and each has found many buyers, and each has made many fine photos.  Your old Sigma 50/1.4 is about $500 or about 25% more than Canon's 50/1.4, so it should be better at least in some way.  Now Sigma offers a $900 version of a 50mm, which is much less affordable than four of Canon's offerings.  And it's not weather-sealed.  Should Canon have offered a $900 large-sized non-weather-sealed 50mm lens?  That would be nice, but can you really blame Canon for not filling every possible price niche.  And I disagree about a 50mm f/2 IS.  That would be a "basic staple".  A 50/2 has been a basic staple in the photography world for generations.  Adding IS would make it even more attractive, especially for video.

    I think you're mistaking releasing a bunch of gimmicky lenses for actually having a good set of lenses.

    The f/2.5mm is a Macro lens it is not a general purpose lens. The 40mm f/2.8 was Canon's entry into a super cheap STM prime for their STM initiative, the 50mm f/1.8 was just a super cheap lens to promote entry level photography with primes, and the 50mm L prime is horrible. The last version was so bad at f/1.0 that they dropped the entire idea, and the new version is equally horrible. At f/1.2 it has lower picture resolution than an iPhone 5. It also has image quality that has to be compared to lensbaby, a plastic lens made to be extremely horrible on purpose for visual effects. The 50mm f/1.2L is one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period.

    Canon's only non-gimicky 50mm is the 50mm f/1.4. And actually it's a pretty decent 50mm, it actually has more resolution at f/2 than any other 50mm lens in the world released, prior to 2013. It is extremely hard to make a 50mm lens that is fast and most deliver extremely poor image quality. The Canon 50mm 1.4 actually beat out every other 50mm lens on the market at f/2, delivering what I would consider the fastest 50mm aperture with an average resolution of 2400 LPPH or more (which is the minimum resolution I consider acceptable), but it was disappointing to see such a poor focusing mechanism and such poor coatings because it wasn't updated for an extremely long time.

    It's understandable how Canon let this lens stay the way it was without an update.

    However, as Nikon with their 58mm f/1.4 and Zeiss with their 55mm Otus have shown that there are new ways to make a 50mm lens, and I think Sigma took notice, but Canon is lagging way behind, as this sample shows:



    @ f1.2, I can see a "donkey" through my 50L 8) blahhh-blahhh-blahhh

    How often do you hear "my f1.4 prime is so dam good from f2.8 to smaller?"





    1796
    "The new Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM Art has been reengineered and redesigned to set a new standard of performance in the Art line"

    Will this out performs my f1.2 L  ::) ::) ::)

    For sharpness?  Hell, the current 50 F/1.4 is sharper after F/2 or so.   Set a higher bar, will ya?  :P 

    Again, for sharpness, I think the new 50 from Sigma will dust the 50 1.2L based on the performance of the Sigma 35mm Art:

    Consider Roger's take, which is a clear read:
    http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/sigma-35mm-f1-4-arrives-announces-new-world-order
    (Besides his nice article, note: "This lens kicks butt, takes names, and basically posterizes the manufacturers who make the cameras this lens will fit on.")

    Then consider PhotoZone's take on both 35s and the 50 1.2L (poor away from center), which is attached.  Those are stellar F/1.4 and F/2 numbers away from center for the Sigma, by the way -- large aperture glass almost never shows such a good performance.

    So I expect for sharpness the new Sigma to really take it to the 50 F/1.2L, but as everyone on this forum will say, there's more to it than that -- bokeh, distortion, chromatic effects, focus speed/accuracy/consistency, etc. may say that the Sigma is lacking in some department.  We'll see.

    Hell, off the cuff, size may be a tipping point for some -- this lens had better cut diamonds it's so sharp if it's going to take up 3-4x the volume in my bag as my trusty old Canon 50/1.4, and I don't expect the new Canon 50 F/?.? IS to be much bigger than its physical 'twin', the 35mm f/2 IS.

    - A

    I can't compare this Sigma Vs my 50L yet. However, my 50L is quite awesome when shoot wide open or at f1.4. As an owner of 50mm f1.4 for 2-3yrs, I do know the history of this lens. The color and contrast from f1.4 are flat. I'm not good reading reviews or showing 3rd party testing data. I like to see my own photos ;)

    There is no fun buying f1.4 prime, but can't get good results at near f1.4.

    The 50 L is a wonderful lens, and as your shot shows, it draws nice, BUT what I see is dead center comp, if you were to shoot that same shot with one of the outer most points, it would be a mess. I know because I have tried, I had to be at around 2,8 to get decent sharpness with outer points, and even then I would just prefer the 24-70 at 50mm.

    Just want to say, I have owned three 50 L's and I LOVE that lens, but it simply lacks so much sharpness and IQ slightly off center it's very limiting for composition.

    There, I just recomposed the shot;D....I'm guessing it's a keeper NOW :P

    1797
    Abstract / Re: The rain of fire
    « on: January 07, 2014, 10:28:09 AM »

    1798
    If you want to go the dishonest route, you could just recover the photos from the deleted card. But I agree with jdramirez, why not just be honest about it.

    I am wondering what the big deal is here.  Is there some chance the coach will find a gem in the photos that will become the next Coke Ad and he will make millions from you?  Is the perfect compliment to your portfolio a 12 year old kicking a soccer ball at a youth soccer field?  What does everyone plan to do with these pics?

    Is it an honor thing?  You can take my life, but you'll never take my copyright!   

    As many CR members here, I'm one of those treating photography as a hobby. I'm lucky that I have decent job. The income is good enough to support my family and little hobby on the side :)

    I DO NOT know the reason(s) why the coach requested to have all photos deleted, once transfered. He didn't ask me to delete the photos I took the 1st time - only asked if I can keep those photos to myself and try not to share in public.

    I simply respect the coach wishes. Besides, I made a new friend here on CR by giving him the coach contact info ;)

     

    1799
    Lenses / Re: Should I go for the 85mm F1.2L II USM ?
    « on: January 06, 2014, 08:39:27 PM »
    Hi,

    At last I managed somehow to save up some $$$ to purchase and upgrade my equipment especially my lenses. So one of THE lenses I was aiming for is the king of Bokeh .. THE 85mm F1.2L II USM, well it's Expensive alright but from what I see it's really worth the cash, but what confused me is that I've heard some complaints about it's performance in low light and how it keeps hunting for focus though it's a USM name holder, I'm about the fact that I might not be comfortable with it since focusing speed is an issue for me personally and might be for others as well, so should I go for it or wait if there's an upcoming upgrade ..

    And thanks in advance ^^

    No, this lens doesn't hunt in low light. Avoid focus from infinity to close up - AF is slow when you in this situation.

    1800
    "The new Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM Art has been reengineered and redesigned to set a new standard of performance in the Art line"

    Will this out performs my f1.2 L  ::) ::) ::)

    For sharpness?  Hell, the current 50 F/1.4 is sharper after F/2 or so.   Set a higher bar, will ya?  :P 

    Again, for sharpness, I think the new 50 from Sigma will dust the 50 1.2L based on the performance of the Sigma 35mm Art:

    Consider Roger's take, which is a clear read:
    http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/sigma-35mm-f1-4-arrives-announces-new-world-order
    (Besides his nice article, note: "This lens kicks butt, takes names, and basically posterizes the manufacturers who make the cameras this lens will fit on.")

    Then consider PhotoZone's take on both 35s and the 50 1.2L (poor away from center), which is attached.  Those are stellar F/1.4 and F/2 numbers away from center for the Sigma, by the way -- large aperture glass almost never shows such a good performance.

    So I expect for sharpness the new Sigma to really take it to the 50 F/1.2L, but as everyone on this forum will say, there's more to it than that -- bokeh, distortion, chromatic effects, focus speed/accuracy/consistency, etc. may say that the Sigma is lacking in some department.  We'll see.

    Hell, off the cuff, size may be a tipping point for some -- this lens had better cut diamonds it's so sharp if it's going to take up 3-4x the volume in my bag as my trusty old Canon 50/1.4, and I don't expect the new Canon 50 F/?.? IS to be much bigger than its physical 'twin', the 35mm f/2 IS.

    - A

    I can't compare this Sigma Vs my 50L yet. However, my 50L is quite awesome when shoot wide open or at f1.4. As an owner of 50mm f1.4 for 2-3yrs, I do know the history of this lens. The color and contrast from f1.4 are flat. I'm not good reading reviews or showing 3rd party testing data. I like to see my own photos ;)

    There is no fun buying f1.4 prime, but can't get good results at near f1.4.

    Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 301