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.
Often, wide-wide-wide = boring-boring-boring. You stand in a spot with a great, wide vista, and you look around and are inspired. You take a shot with an ultrawide lens to try and capture that vista, and the resulting shot utterly fails to capture your feeling as you viewed the scene, and instead looks flat and uninteresting.
Why? As tntwit stated, an ultrawide AoV renders even moderately distant subjects tiny and apparently more distant. For an ultrawide shot to have visual impact, you almost always need an interesting foreground element - and with a UWA lens, 'foreground' means within a few feet of the lens. Also, that subject needs to be something that works with the perspective distortion inherent in that situation (usually not a person, as most people don't find exaggeration of their nose/belly/hips to be very flattering).
There's a good reason the shot you complemented was taken at a short tele focal length. Not trying to dissuade you from a UWA lens, just saying composing a successful shot with such a lens takes thought and practice - and might be difficult when the most common foreground element you'll run across is a guard rail.
What would make more sense for a competitor to the Sigma 30? An EF or EF-s Canon lens?
A fast EF-S. For EF, the 35L is close in focal length and is already an excellent lens.
Yes but a competitor on price as well.
What would make more sense for a competitor to the Sigma 30? An EF or EF-s Canon lens?
Thanks so much for the replies! While the vacation is for the family, I would love to take avange of the experiance and taking a lot of serious photos. We are planning on walking for the whole day, so personally the 70-200 is out of the picture. Its just way to heavy to carry for 6+ hours. I will though definitely bring the 35 and 24-105. Also I just recently bought a b&w polarizer. Now that's said and done. Do you think ithe fisheye would be a good add? Not only for the trip but to have in my "inventory" ..
The 50mm f/1.2 L won't focus right with any AF sensor on any 5D. I've tried it on 5Dc, 5DII and 5DIII (and 7D for that matter). My lens, even at the best AF adjustment setting (-20) it misses more often than it hits (stationary high-contrast target from tripod). I wouldn't exclude the possibility of my sample being sub-par, but if you decide to get one of these, make sure the shop has a good return policy. I'd actually recommend getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 instead.
Having said that, both the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths are useful for weddings, and the 35L is excellent.
While your DoF explanation is right, the focal length does not change hence "angle of view of the lens doesnt change either" doesn't make any sense.
What is focal length? Focal length alone doesn't dictate angle of view. Focal length + frame format dictate angle of view. (Simple trigonometry: half angle of view = atan(half frame length / focal length)). When you "crop", you change angle of view.
You could argue that but the lens still projects FF equiv. angle of view, it's just the outer area of light falls outside the sensor. Well, who cares about the light outside of sensor? The term "angle of view" is always a relative term which really means the angle of view the current sensor is able to see.
That's all I have to say.
Remember, a 50mm lens on a 1.6 might be about 85mm, but you still have the 50mm perspective.
What the heck are you talking about? What's might be a 85mm but have 50mm perspective?
That's the biggest mis-concept ppl have been stating over and over again.
focal length and frame size determines angle of view. Angle of view AND position determines framing. Position alone determines perspective.
Putting a 50 on crop, putting a 85 (approx) on FF, stand at the same position, frame the same picture, the perspective are exactly the same.
Conclusion? 50mm on crop will have 85mm equivalent angle of view as on FF, and will have 85mm equivalent perspective as on FF.
What if a second lens needs adjusting? If Canon adjusts camera for one lens, will you lose its adjustment if you re-adjust the camera for a second lens?
However, I talked to one of my best friends today...He gave me his professional opinion that with current technology (coatings, etc.) the minimum effect on image quality per air to glass interface is 3%.
For example, after 10 filters there would be 73.7% transmission with an optically perfect set of filters (.97)^10 = 73.7%.
Depending on the angle of the light ray passing through the filter, the abberations / MTF deficiency will vary, but once again, 3% is basically a minimum level of effect.
Sorry, going to disagree again. First off, I'm not sure you're distinguishing between transmission loss and IQ decrement. Transmission loss with modern lens coatings is much less than 1% per interface.
Now, take your friend's value of 3% IQ loss per interface leading to a 6% loss of IQ from a filter. Roger Cicala's (lensrentals.com) tests of large filter stacks refutes that. Moreover, optically there's no difference between a curved glass-air interface and a flat one - the magnitude of refraction and reflection is the same, only the vector direction differs. So, let's look at the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II - arguably the best zoom lens in existence. It has 19 groups, meaning 38 glass-air interfaces. At 3% loss per interface, that means absolutely no light hitting the sensor if you mean transmission, or over 100% IQ loss if you don't mean transmission. I don't think either is even close to true.
But why it has to be longer? Cant they bend light sharply enough to use big glass in a very short lens? What are physics restrictions to this? (Just curious, an article regarding this would be an interesting read)
Material properties restrict how much the light can be bent. To make fast aperture short lenses, you'd need new glass-like materials that have a higher index of refraction and have lower chromatic abberation properties. Diffractive optics with their gratings can bend light more than traditional optics, but the technology is not yet good enough to deliver comparable or better IQ.
Really? And why can Voigtlander do this, for example? Their Nokton 35mm F/1.4 doesn't look that much bigger. I'm sure there are plenty of others that are fast, in that same focal range and pretty small and flat - and "full frame"...