April 21, 2014, 06:19:50 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 ... 114
1
I once was photographing ducks with my 300 f2.8, when this guy behind me tapped my shoulder, I turned around, and he said "why don't you take some pictures of me?" and posed in what can only be described as a flasher version of the ending to an ice-skating routine. I giggled and said I would rather stick to the birds. He waved his hand about and flicked his fingers and yelled at me that I wasn't good enough for him and that I could eff off. I turned and took a quick step towards him and he ran like scared duck flapping his arms around. It wasn't scary or humiliating, but it shows there are a few people out there that don't quite follow the norm... Just don't worry about them..lol.

2
I just wonder, it looks like Sigma will have to deliver a lot of Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lenses.
Are they able to keep up the quality of each of those lenses? They did not have a very great reputation in Quality Assurance.
What is the experience with the Simga 35mm f/1.4 Art?

I'm worried about the tested lenses around even. Some say the 50 is not quite as good as the 35 and dpreview for example says the 50 is better in every measurable aspect. and some sites shows samples pretty poor, and other looks fantastic. So you can either get Otus quality or 50 L sharpness it seems. Hope I'm wrong and it's just pre-production.

3
Lenses / Re: New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !
« on: April 19, 2014, 09:43:52 AM »
I have used my sealed gear in very heavy rain and snow and conditions down -28 Celcius with no issues. I tried taking one of my 85's out in normal to heavy rain and kept my hand over it, but I fogged and got moist inside the distance scale in three minutes, experienced the same with a 35 L. All my sealed gear has always worked.

4
I updated my USB dock firmware to "1.2.0" and still find it to be useless a product.  Each time I connect my 35A to it, I'm told there is a firmware update for the lens (1.02 I believe) so, I update the firmware and disconnect the lens.  If I reconnect the lens I'm told again about the same update.  If I don't disconnect the lens I'm able to adjust the focus settings, but as soon as I disconnect the lens and reconnect I'm again told about the same firmware update.  If, while the lens is still connected I hit "later" to the firmware update the "customize" button is greyed out and I can't make changes.  I thought at first the issue lay with my laptop, so I used a different computer - same problem.  Perhaps the issue is with the lens BUT - months ago, and after several cycles of this nonsense, I was actually able to set the focus adjustments and use the lens.  If I reconnected it to the dock, I wasn't prompted to update the firmware and the focus settings I changed stayed.  I figured I was out of the water.  I was wrong.  After a few weeks, I reconnected the lens and was again prompted to update the firmware.  Rinse and repeat.  I've had to write down the settings I made so I don't have to attain them every time this problem occurs.

Updating the dock firmware and connecting the lens just now, I'm once again prompted to upgrade its firmware.  Perhaps the lens "forgets" its firmware after a few hours.  Who knows.  While I am looking forward to the 50A and I do love my 35A I'm very disappointed with this dock product, it's a stinker.

I would take my laptop to the store you bought the docking and try another docking and another lens.

5
*Sigh*

DXOs Lens test results are so useless. They rate it less than the Otus, as they should, however all of the measures they choose to exhibit would otherwise indicate that the new Sigma 50 should be the better lens. Comparatively, it has the same resolution, better transmission, less distortion, and less CA than the Otus. Only in a footnote do you actually learn why DXO rates the Otus higher: It has sharper corners.

Bleh. DXO. Bleh. It's like they just barf up test results and let the chunks & giblets remain where they plop.

I think the world would be well-served if DXO just gave up on lens tests alltogether, nuked their lens tests database, and just stuck with sensor tests. (And furthermore, I think the world would be better served if DXO did away with scalar test "scores"...just as useless as the chunks and giblets that is their lens tests.)

Um... I'm pretty sure DxO scores are based on a specific "best" setting, where the "best" setting represents the highest achievable score on a given lens.  The sigma score is based on f/2, and the Otus f/1.4.  They both acheive similar sharpness at that setting, however that gives the Otus a full stop advatage on toward the score.  You should maybe figure out how they score before trying to put down their scoring method......

Is the "best setting" for the Canon 50 , f1.2?

6
I was JUST praising Sigma for the wonderful firmware update for lenses in another thread. Way to go Sigma.  :D

7
It's been 2 weeks since certain claims were made about Canon screwing the customers ... yet to see any proof.

I'll second that.

8

However, this is highly skewed, because DXO uses their T-stops "measure" to determine what the "best" aperture is...and they chose f/1.2 on the 50mm as it's "best". That is about as close to the WORST aperture the 50/1.2 has...

Wow, I never even realized DxO did this  :o  Looks like DxO chose f/2.0 for Sigma 50 and f/1.2 for 50L as "best" for their ratings.  What the heck?

+100, man why do they even bother?

9
*Sigh*

 Comparatively, it has the same resolution, better transmission, less distortion, and less CA than the Otus.


Sigma is 1.7 T stop vs Otus at 1.5 T stop.

Ah, you are right.

Regardless, the Sigma looks like an excellent lens, and at only a quarter the cost of the Otus.

I agree completely, this could be a really epic winner.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, when they go all in, it's always a success.

10
*Sigh*

 Comparatively, it has the same resolution, better transmission, less distortion, and less CA than the Otus.


Sigma is 1.7 T stop vs Otus at 1.5 T stop.

11
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?

12
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..


13
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.

14
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...

15
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.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 114