I wish it came in "M" mount. The mirrorless cameras are just so much less bulky.
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.
Which has greater noise? An APS-C sensor or a full frame sensor cropped to APS-C size? Bare in mind our hypothetical situation is you're still reach limited, so the bigger sensor in itself conveys no advantage, and the only arguable difference is pixel size. For roughly comparable sensor generations I'd argue they're practically the same. Outside of lab tests, it probably isn't significant.
At ISO6400, I'd happily use either of my 600D or a 5D mk2 (as secondary body to 7D), but when reach limited the 600D would be my preference of the two. To me noise isn't the limiting factor in this scenario.
Below are a pair of images shown at 100%. One is from an 18 MP APS-C camera at ISO 3200. The other is from an 18 MP FF camera at ISO 6400, a full stop higher than the APS-C image.
I'm having trouble telling which is which, the noise levels are so similar.
DigitalRev reviews have no purpose beyond entertainment.
What amazes me most are the number of posts on the forum lately scrutinizing the Sigma 50 1.4 beyond belief. Apart from the Otus, it's the best FF 50mm ever made from an optics standpoint. Let's stop discussing preferences about bokeh, rendering, etc. as if they are objective fact.
In fact, I've even been considering selling my 70-200 2.8L II and picking up a 135L (and change), although I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet. If they bring out a 135L IS, that might well convince me ... although I'm still tempted by the 135L as is. (And no, I don't want to just add a 135L to my kit. I really don't need any more lenses!)
FWIW I'm really bored with 24-70 zooms, so I ditched mine (24-70 f/2.8 L) and got a Ʃ35 f/1.4A instead to bridge a gap in my range of wide to standard prime lenses. I find that I am shooting with primes more and more often, with really satisfactory results. Often I will have a wide or standard prime on the 5DMkII and a tele-zoom on the 5DMkIII. My 24-105L and 17-40L get most of their use when I travel, the 17-40L is almost exclusively for holiday use .
Manual focus (even with the super precision matte screen) is almost impossible with the 50L at f/1.2 just like f/1.4 with the 24L, but things get a little easier with the 85L and 135L because of the focal length.many years.
there is nothing wrong with the 50L.
it's a people lens. it's plenty sharp.
it's f/1.2 - so if you're not nailing focus, you need to work on your technique.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...
Exactly. It's not the f/1.2 aperture that causes the focus problems on this particular lens. It's actually the field of curvature and is especially prominent at close distances from about f/2.8 to f/4.5. The lens will back-focus and there is pretty much nothing you can do about it. I thought it was pretty underwhelming for $1699.
You could manually focus... but I think the presumption is that those who struggle with f1.2 are using bad technique, like focus and recompose... which will all but guarantee the subject is out of focus.
The 50L is the ultimate love/hate lens for Canon shooters, I think, and to me, it's part of why it's so satisfying to use. If you nail a photo with it at f/1.2 it feels like an achievement instead of a gee I pressed the shutter moment. On the other hand, many people have tried the lens and hate it. I see it as a very specialized tool for unique looking portraits, but similar results can be achieved with other lenses.