April 17, 2014, 04:37:52 AM

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 - Viggo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 113
1
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 16, 2014, 12:40:00 PM »
Why does some people think that "portrait shooting" automatically means CENTER focus and HEADSHOT?
I'm not sure, but that's what the 85, 135 and 70-200 are for :)  I use the 85 for everything from full length to head shots and my favorite "portrait" lens for broader shots is actually the 24 1.4 II, but the 50mm focal length has its place, too.

Do you center focus with full length?

2
Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 16, 2014, 12:37:18 PM »
Still i find it somewhat odd that you would need three pro slrs and a dozen L lenses to photography your kids running round the house , that however you look at it is a complete waste of money and kit. I wager that the person in question does some other work with it too ;

That's not odd at all, I have shot concerts, weddings, pitch dark stuff, studio lit stuff, sports and NOTHING comes close to how difficult it is shooting kids playing, and I don't say that as a joke. Small flat faces with low contrast and bright colored clothes running in completely random motion and very unpredictable. You can't sit them down and ask them to smile, you have to be always ready, and for me the AF system of the 1dX is the only one that gives me those fun fast action shots time and time again. And for the fast shutter, a fast lens with great AF is needed. I could go on..


3
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 16, 2014, 12:24:49 PM »
Why does some people think that "portrait shooting" automatically means CENTER focus and HEADSHOT?

The 50 L sucks for a 2/3 portrait or a full body shot of a kid when the edge points are used to focus. The 85 is WAY different and to mention those two lenses in the same sentence for the same things is just not right.

I have always felt the 50 L is one of the coolest lenses Canon has made, I LOVE the size and how it handles, and unlike the 135 L, 85 L and 35 L it's fully weather sealed which is a big deal for me. And for center composed shots I can't think of a lens I would rather use for portraits, BUT it's just so extremely limited.

So I both love and hate it. If the Sigma does the nice bokeh, like it seems, is sharper or as sharp in the center and much sharper in the corners and it's resistant to flare and have similar contrast and color rendition plus the already proved (almost) zero distortion, it would be the better choice no matter if you own the L or not, imo.

4
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 16, 2014, 04:52:41 AM »
The Zeiss 50 f2.0 was the best 50 for Canon by a larger margin, before the Otus, which technically isn't a 50, but oh well. The Zeiss 50 f1.4 however is absolute rubbish. So if the Sigma is worse than that it would be demolished by the Otus in the same way the sf-s 55-250 gets destroyed by the 70-200 mk2.

I can't see how the Sigma can be only slightly better than the 50 L and still compete with the Otus, that just doesn't add up. I'm beginning to wonder if the 50 Art lenses tested are all preproduction with high copy variation when the results differentiate so much.. But in some cases the example shots are just done wrong.

I downloaded the Zip with the raws from the 50 Art and I wasn't impressed at all, and with the first images shot by the Otus they blew my mind, so either Sigma lied, plain and simple, or people can't shoot or it's very high degree of copy variation and or preproduction lenses. This also of course mean I have to buy one, and buy it new so I can exchange it 4-5 times until a good copy is found.


If you look at this review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

then it is pretty clear what the difference between the 50A and 50L is. Now if you don't care about corner sharpness (such as when using a shallow DoF and the corner is not in focus anyway) then this won't matter much to you. But if you're using a 50mm prime for landscape (for example) then the Sigma just blows the Canon away.

Higher quality lenses also require a higher quality review(er). Just putting it on your camera and going outside and shooting some objects and posting centre crops doesn't cut it.


I am aware of TDP test charts, and I can't understand how someone could can shoot so bad as to get the SLRlounge results and be that close to the 50 L when Bryan CLEARY shows the opposite.

I absolutely do care about best as possible corner performance, that's why I sold three copies if the 50 L, center comp isn't my favorite always. So I do agree with you.

I also think that center performance should also be MUCH better with the Sigma than the 50 L, not just the corners. The Otus is epic and the Sigma doesn't even come close as far as I have seen. BUT that being said, none of the tests I've seen is the end all, so I won't judge it until I have tried it myself and seen what others here on CR have to show when they get it. But an Otus Killer it doesn't look like it...

5
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 16, 2014, 04:33:05 AM »

Minimal difference in sharpness/CA  ?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1


Correct, difference is minimal given everything I've seen thus far - unless you make a living shooting flat sharpness test charts.

The 50 f/1.2L was designed with uncorrected field curvature+spherical aberration with a priority on bokeh.

If you shoot flat test charts, that could be a problem.  But since things we shoot generally are not a flat test chart and do have depth, real world performance in the shots I have seen appear to have minimal difference sharpness/CA.  Wide open the Sigma does have a slight advantage in sharpness/CA real world use, but I expected that given the larger f/1.4 retrofocal design - at narrower apertures the Canon actually appears to pull ahead of the Sigma in sharpness (likely due to reduction of field curvature).

Field curvature does not make a lens subpar even though it will not perform as well on a test chart (just ask the $10k+ Leica Noctilux).  In the end, the real world performance is what counts.  And, some lenses will sacrifice some test chart sharpness/aberrations for superior bokeh and real world performance.


This lens is really in an entirely different class than Canon 50/1,2


At first, after only viewing the Sigma vs Zeiss, I was going to say that the Zeiss is clearly better through at least f4 (that's as far as I looked). The Sigma  simply puts the 50L to shame, by a large margin. If you leave the Sigma at f/1.4, it still remains sharper than the 50L until about f/5.6, which is astounding.
You have to be really blind if you do not see the differences


The Zeiss 50 f2.0 was the best 50 for Canon by a larger margin, before the Otus, which technically isn't a 50, but oh well. The Zeiss 50 f1.4 however is absolute rubbish. So if the Sigma is worse than that it would be demolished by the Otus in the same way the sf-s 55-250 gets destroyed by the 70-200 mk2.

I can't see how the Sigma can be only slightly better than the 50 L and still compete with the Otus, that just doesn't add up. I'm beginning to wonder if the 50 Art lenses tested are all preproduction with high copy variation when the results differentiate so much.. But in some cases the example shots are just done wrong.

I downloaded the Zip with the raws from the 50 Art and I wasn't impressed at all, and with the first images shot by the Otus they blew my mind, so either Sigma lied, plain and simple, or people can't shoot or it's very high degree of copy variation and or preproduction lenses. This also of course mean I have to buy one, and buy it new so I can exchange it 4-5 times until a good copy is found.


6
Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 15, 2014, 02:36:42 PM »
My main subject is my kids too, I don't make money with my gear either.

7
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 15, 2014, 04:16:27 AM »
Apologize if this has already been posted, but to me this has been the most useful comparison and breakdown yet:

http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-50mm-f14-dg-hsm-Art-Review


I agree.
btw it was already posted


Okay, thanks!

I see a few other sites that do sample images but they front or back focus and overexpose and do NO editing, and to me that misrepresents what one could actually get. IF they want to post samples that are untouched, they should at least focus properly and provide the original raw's for us to play with.

8
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 15, 2014, 03:57:09 AM »
Apologize if this has already been posted, but to me this has been the most useful comparison and breakdown yet:

http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-50mm-f14-dg-hsm-Art-Review

9
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 15, 2014, 02:59:22 AM »
+1 for the 85 L, it makes a snapshot of your trashcan look like a pro commercial shot ;D


I know Canon has another lens that can make this trash can looks even BETTER.... take a guess ;D

Thanks Viggo ;)

Say 200mm f/2 IS and you're done!

Here's a more scientific comparison of sharpness. Seems the Sigma vs Canon L decision is really sharpness vs. bokeh, respectfully. If I had a 50L I probably wouldn't sell, but since I don't, I'm still super excited about my preorder :)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

Cool to see this, but still still won't change my 50L love 8)  I'll stay off in la la land and pretend a sharper 50mm (or two) don't exist :o

In all seriousness, the 50L a great lens for my uses (portraits and walkaround, but I'm sure the new Sigma will be quite a lens.


Lol! That was (not surprisingly) going to be my next guess. I'll have to wait and see more from the 50 art, but I downloaded the Zip and checked out the raw's. It seems the 50 L is brighter at same exif, which I like, and the samples are not in very controlled setting, the light has changed and it's much harder to tell, but I thought it would be MUCH better. Maybe he has a dud?

10
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 14, 2014, 06:42:42 PM »
I love all these new options coming to market! It seems if you already have a 50L no big deal, keep it. Question is, will anyone still buy the 50L for an extra $600 over the 50A? Is the bokeh $600 better if you don't already have the 50L? Not so sure.
50A is now on my list (along with a bunch of other lenses). Starting my letter to Santa now!

We will see loads of used 50 L's in the following months, here it's now only 200 usd more than the new 50 Art.

11
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 14, 2014, 06:03:42 PM »
+1 for the 85 L, it makes a snapshot of your trashcan look like a pro commercial shot ;D

12
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 14, 2014, 03:44:04 PM »
Pretty surprising to me this, it seems to be very opposite from other places. And corner performance is the problem with the 50 L for me. If it had the same sharpness across the frame as it does in the center I would never sell it.
It does limit off center compositions, but neither of my copies have been as soft as the test charts would indicate and I find the middle 1/2 of the frame is acceptable wide open.  If I need to put something critical in the outer parts of the frame, I'll either crop or stop down to f/2.  At f/1.2, any shots that turn out soft are more likely my fault, not the lens' fault :)

Maybe I'm wrong, I just very quickly scanned the SLR Lounge review, but isn't he limiting his pixel-peeping to primarily the center of the frame? And isn't it the center of the frame where the Canon 50L is strongest?
No, you're right, but I still have no regrets on the cancellation.  $950 is still $950 and I have the 24-70 II for the subjects I shoot where corner sharpness is necessary (landscapes, buildings) and I'd be stopping down to at least f/11 for them anyways.

I have had 4 copies of the 50 L and they have all been great and VERY similar in all aspects. And I didn't like the off center sharpness, I kind of always want it to be the corner performer the 85 L is at the biggest apertures. And it seemed like the Sigma would cover that, but, hm, I'm not preordering at least :oP

13
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 14, 2014, 03:08:47 PM »
Here's what I've been waiting for - a 50L to 50A comparison from SLR Lounge

I think it's enough to convince me to cancel my pre-order.  The Sigma is sharper, but not shockingly so, and the Canon's bokeh is slightly better (IMHO).  The Canon also appears to have ever-so-slightly better contrast, while the Sigma has better CA control, but again, only by a hair.

The other thing I've learned is that you'll have buy the USB dock to enable full time manual focus (which I guess isn't standard for Sigmas).  That's crappy. 

The 50L has killer build quality and USM in a much smaller package and I don't think the Sigma is worth 950 of my dollars for such subtle differences at f/1.4 in what for me, is a portrait lens. 

I guess I can't cancel it till the 24th, so I'll keep my mind open until then, but I think I'm going to cancel and resume the 50L II vigil ;)


I agree that if I had the 50L, I'd stick with it. But for a first-time buyer of a high end 50mm, I think the Sigma would be the better choice. The price difference is very difficult to ignore.


Pretty surprising to me this, it seems to be very opposite from other places. And corner performance is the problem with the 50 L for me. If it had the same sharpness across the frame as it does in the center I would never sell it.

14
Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 14, 2014, 01:13:42 PM »
Fair enough!

It's ok, we have an excuse - you misstated, and I misinterpreted your statement, because we haven't grown up enough to have outgrown zoom lenses!   ;D

Ouch! HAHA ;D

15
Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 14, 2014, 01:03:36 PM »
Neuro, I think you misread Viggo's sentence- as I did the first time !

Ahh, yes - I missed the "" marks around that phrase…but that might be because they weren't there the first time.   ;)

Fair enough!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 113