« on: April 28, 2013, 09:48:47 AM »
I bought my 5D3 for 2499$ from BVI. It took 2 weeks to ship, but patience paid off as it was brand new in the box.
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.
No IS + F/1.8 = No replacement for 135L.
So the IQ of a lens would be great if it had IS and 1.8? I am sure that someone like you knows that there is much more to a lens: Corner sharpness, build quality, hard stops, Bokah, fall off, sharpness at f2 etc etc. Besides 1.8 or 2 does not make much difference in real life photography.
I use mine for non-critical stuff, Like ebay photos, vacation photos and personal stuff. When I do use it for clients it's usually at F/8 so no-one could tell. It's a great lens if your using flash...
f8 - that's the key to optimising results from this lens.
All our Building Panoramics pictures that have been shot with this lens are at f8.
Even so, it still has to be king of versatility.
Why would a professional photographer use a point & shoot as a backup? If I'm shooting a wedding with a 5D3 as primary equipment, what would a point & shoot do for me if I have a problem with the DSLR?
If I'm a photojournalist with a DSLR and a 16-35 or 70-200, what would I do with a point & shoot?
Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.
Who knows, though?
The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.
Here's a comparison between the 135mm f/2.0 and a much sharper lens:
f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.
Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.
Right because comparing a 7000$ dollar White-tele to a Sub-1000$ lens is a fair comparison.
Wow really? Ok. Here's a $750 Sigma 105mm Macro lens compared to the $1200 135mm L. That's 2/3rds the price of the Canon 135mm L, it's a cheaper lens that blows the Canon lens out of the water with no hint of blurry corners or a blurry mid frame. And it has Image Stabilization. I think that's more than a fair comparison.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=790&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0All these incessant arguments about "IQ", when most people here will never approach the limits of the lenses they have!
Before anybody is allowed to post a lens IQ, colour, rendering, etc comment they should be forced to go see the conditions they are tested in. Bench tests are so far removed from real world use now most of this stuff is irrelevant. If you are using AF then that will have a far greater affect on the sharpness of your images than pretty much anything, assuming you are using two or three times the focal length as a shutter speed, you are on a very heavy tripod, working at one optimal aperture etc etc.
If you are not printing above 20" regularly, if you are using AF, if you are not using a tripod, if you are shooting in anything less than good contrasty light, if you are not shooting wide open, or stopped down, forget bench test resolution figures, they mean nothing.
Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/
P.S. After the debacle of Sigma's incompatibility issues, and more importantly, their refusal to stand behind their products and re-chip every single affected lens, I for one, will never buy a Sigma lens regardless of price, features or perceived value. I had a good friend who laughed at me when I got my 16-35 and 24-70, he said his six Sigma lenses cost less, I still use mine and they are worth pretty much what I paid for them ten years ago, his stopped working on his digital bodies and were scrap.
So you're saying that nobody will notice 3.5 stops of noise? Because that's what the addition of image stabilization wil give you when shooting an event. You know those indoor things with very low light where especially with a 135mm you have tons of unessesary shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. I guess everyone should just be shooting at iso 4800 instead of 400, because that's what you're saying doesn't matter. There's no difference after all. Yep. None. /sarcasm
How about subjects moving towards the camera, off-center, shooting sub f/2.8 and that will make the 5d2/6D sweat.
+1 ... Try shooting a two year old kid running about ... The shots in focus will be great, but they'll be a minor percentage of the total shots made.
Yeah, I do that all the time.
I found that percentage of fails was very high with 5d mark III.
Of course 6D is a bit worse, but for all practical purposes I could use either one and expect similar low percentage of in focus pics, and few keepers per each session...