July 24, 2014, 03:17:02 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 - raptor3x

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
16
Looks like Sigma will have to deal with AF reports first and check this before release of the 85mm f/1.4 Art. This is not good advertisement for Sigma and their products.
My 50mm f/1.4 Art does not have AF problems. I am extremely happy with my copy.

no one has problems with AF of this lens except the one that has a 1D series, like me

Yeah, I've found that the focus on the 5D3 is really excellent with the new sigma, but unfortunately pretty bad with the 1D3 and 1Ds3.

17
I certainly read doubts about the AF, especially off the center point. 

However, the effusive praise, perhaps well deserved, won't light a fire under Sigma to address the AF problems.

My experience with the lens is that the AF is rock solid on the 5D3, not quite as good but close to the consistency of the 24-70ii.  On my 1D3 and 1Ds3 however the AF is complete and utter garbage.

18
B&h mail says it is weather sealed with an optional protection filter.
First time seeing that! Any other lens have that kind of sealing?

The only 'weather-sealed' lenses that don't have that stipulation are the super-tele lenses (not including the 300 F/4 and the 400 F/5.6).

Actually, no.  The requirement for a filter to complete the weather/dust sealing is explicitly stated only for those lens where an inner barrel moves behind the fixed position of the filter thread.  Among current lenses, that includes the 16-35/2.8L II, 16-35/4L IS, 17-40L, and 50/1.2L.  Canon does not state that a filter is required to complete the sealing of any other 'sealed' lens, although Chuck Westfall has recommended using a front filter on any sealed lens that accepts one.

Hmnn, interesting, I thought even the 70-200 needed a filter to complete the weather sealing.  I always thought that was a bit odd but this makes more sense.

19
B&h mail says it is weather sealed with an optional protection filter.
First time seeing that! Any other lens have that kind of sealing?

The only 'weather-sealed' lenses that don't have that stipulation are the super-tele lenses (not including the 300 F/4 and the 400 F/5.6).

20

Can you tell which are fisheye, which are rectilinear, which are fish and which are defished?


1. Rectilinear
2. Fisheye
3. Fisheye
4. Defished

21
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang Teases Some New Lenses
« on: April 18, 2014, 06:27:05 PM »
But that has the bulbous front element which means using it with filters is a PITA.

Plus photozone doesn't think much of its optics...

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff


Very true about the front element.  As for the optics, they're sharper than both the 16-35II and the 17-40 with the only real weakness being that flare control is not good, it doesn't have USM AF, and it's very large and heavy.

22
As someone who has not shot any video on my DSLRs, can someone explain to me the value in spending 4k on a 50mm zeiss lens to mount on a DSLR that is going to down sample the image to 2 mega pixels?

This is something I've never understood either.  I understand that cine lenses are expensive because their designs need to minimize focus breathing and zooms are usually parfocal, but it seems like they should have relatively low sharpness requirements.

23

With the 1-series you can set your minimum shutter for example at 1/1000s in Av, so you can get up to 1/8000s if there is enough light, and like Neuro said, if a player drops in to the shadows or into the sun, you will never have longer shutter than 1/1000s, but always correct exposure.

Pretty sure that's only for the 1DX and even then only with the most recent firmware update.  Previous bodies were, for no obvious reason, limited to 1/60th of a second for minimum shutter speed.

24
Lenses / Re: General purpose zoom for honeymoon
« on: February 26, 2014, 11:10:36 AM »
I'm heading on my honeymoon in April to Mauritius for 2 weeks.

At home, I shoot 5d mk iii and generally with primes (24L, 35, 50L, 85L, 100L macro and soon to have 135L).

I'm thinking of not taking any of those and just buying a general purpose zoom so that:

a) Im carrying less stuff (so my new wife doesn't kill me for taking so much stuff), and
b) I can focus on enjoying my honeymoon and taking snaps rather than worrying about having the right lens on (so my new wife doesn't kill me for taking so much stuff).

I could just take the 24, 50 and 135 + an extension ring and that would cover most scenarios. However on a general walk about I'd still be carrying 3 lenses.

I'm sure this has been covered before (somewhere) but I think my options are:

The canon 24-70 ii feels too expensive to justify.
The canon 24-70 f4 doesn't feel exciting enough (70mm @ f4) to warrant £1000.
The canon 24-105 f4 could be a reliable choice but its dated and I worry about sharpness and sample variation.
I like the look / idea of the tamron, but the stories I hear about AF inconcistency (not MFA) worry me.

So I'm kind of leaning towards the sigma 24-105 f4. But I've owned the old sigma 24-70 f2.8 in the past and found the AF to be unreliable and the bokeh to be unattractive. But I could save a bit of cash and buy a used canon 24-105 f4.

But does anyone have any good opinion (or bad opinions) of the sigma 24-105? and/or any decent and definative review sites? and/or does anyone have an opinion on whether the canon 24-105 would be a better bet?

And/or any other suggestions that I haven't considered?

Your time is always appreciated.
Thanks all
Alex

The 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 will both be great for taking shots of indoor activities,  ;D.

25
I'm curious.

Why do you think, did Sigma for only for a f/1.4 rather than down to the f/1.2 of the Canon L 50mm ?

Because it's going to be 815g with f/1.4 :)

The extra glass for top performance at f/1.2 would have been an overkill. I'm more surprised that Zeiss didn't go for f/1.2 considering they definitely had the budget.

IIRC the Distagon design means the maximum possible aperture is F/1.4.

26
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tokina 24-70 f/2.8 Pro FX Spotted
« on: February 17, 2014, 07:12:31 PM »
In any case, I'm not keen on Tamrons and Tokinas because their rings tend to rotate the Nikon way round, which I find annoying when combined with a bag of Canon lenses!

If you look at the photo  you can see the zoom ring rotates in the Canon convention.  Maybe they'll have the different mounts rotate in different directions for consistency with the OEM lenses.

I stand corrected, it's just Tamron (should have looked twice at the photo in the post!).

I still can't see the point of this lens unless it has an ultrasonic motor. All the other major manufacturers have moved on (except for Zeiss and Leica, obviously) from this eighties arrangement. Who cares if it's built like a tank, I don't intend to use it to invade another country  ;D.

Tokinas usually have the zoom ring rotating in the opposite (Nikon) direction as well, at least, that's the way it is on the 16-28.

27
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tokina 24-70 f/2.8 Pro FX Spotted
« on: February 17, 2014, 11:57:18 AM »
In any case, I'm not keen on Tamrons and Tokinas because their rings tend to rotate the Nikon way round, which I find annoying when combined with a bag of Canon lenses!

If you look at the photo  you can see the zoom ring rotates in the Canon convention.  Maybe they'll have the different mounts rotate in different directions for consistency with the OEM lenses.

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sensor reflections from eos-m
« on: January 22, 2014, 08:30:32 PM »

Only thing I can think is that the registration distance of mirrorless cameras is so small that maybe flare is exacerbated by slight reflection off the sensor. The registration distance of DSLR's is much larger, so any kind of reflection off the sensor will fall of to almost nothing by the time it reaches the lens again. With EOS-M, or pretty much any other mirrorless camera, the registration distance is only a couple/few millimeters.

That was my first thought, except he's using a 40mm pancake lens so the registration distance will be exactly the same as if it were on an EF mount DSLR.

29
Lenses / Re: Walimex / Samyang 24mm T1.5 for 88 euro @ amazon germany
« on: October 07, 2013, 01:36:36 PM »
Well, it's not like anyone would like the declicked aperture ring, anyway. And it's a cheap brand. And the lenses were ugly. And dumb.

Actually...yes, I would have liked it. While declicked might have been a bit of a pain for some photography, it can be used to great effect with video.

And while it's a cheap brand, the lens optical IQ is pretty good. Go read some reviews.

Wooosh

30
Lenses / Re: Best 35mm wide open????
« on: September 24, 2013, 05:00:45 PM »

But the answer to your question the Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 is the best. Is it $1000 better than the L or the Sig? It would be to me, but not to most people.

This is really interesting as pretty much every comparison I've seen shows the Zeiss being the worst of all the 35 1.4 lenses.

Edit: Scratch that, I was thinking about the 85 1.4.  I may have to rent a Zeiss 35 now.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6