September 19, 2014, 04:06:28 PM

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 - Albi86

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 56
1
Lenses / Re: Distance-dependent AF behaviour of Canon 35/2 IS
« on: May 17, 2014, 04:15:06 AM »
Another trick that I use is to half-press the shutter button 3-5 times so the lens has more chances to settle on the correct focus.

Beware !

I think you'll find that is a flawed technique.

Maybe yes, but in my experience it helps reducing random focusing errors :)

2
Lenses / Re: Distance-dependent AF behaviour of Canon 35/2 IS
« on: May 17, 2014, 02:58:58 AM »
I typically use two or three samples per AFMA setting on focal, and its usually fine, but with a erratic lens, I find that no number of samples is going to fix the issue.  I might get a average value of many samples, but if the lens varies all over the place, it needs service.  Using a average value when a lens does not work correctly is no help.

+1

My point exactly.

Another trick that I use is to half-press the shutter button 3-5 times so the lens has more chances to settle on the correct focus.

3
Lenses / Re: Distance-dependent AF behaviour of Canon 35/2 IS
« on: May 16, 2014, 04:32:38 PM »
Dot Tune produced exactly the same results as what I had previously empirically established over a couple of months. You average the focus confirmation range on both ends of the spectrum, so the inaccuracy is sort of evened out. Also, DotTune excludes the lens inconsistency from the process, something that instead affects FoCal heavily.

With FoCal I use the manual mode and I take 5 shots per AFMA value. The problem is that the variability is so high that the curve is unreliable. I have AFMA'd other lenses with good results. Interestingly, on those lenses FoCal and DotTune measurements don't differ of more than +/- 1. In my experience DotTune is actually quite reliable.

My Sigma 35A had a similar but opposite issue: it was spot-on at short distances but back-focused on medium distances. With the dock I was able to selectively correct that defect, something unfortunately Canon doesn't offer.

I was wondering if it is a design flaw or a specific problem of my copy, in which case it can be sent in for adjustment.




4
Lenses / Distance-dependent AF behaviour of Canon 35/2 IS
« on: May 16, 2014, 08:48:39 AM »
I started noticing some consistent front-focus problems while I was on a trip, and over some time I settled on a +7 value.

Checking the AF performance of this lens on my 5D3 using FoCal was completely useless due to focus imprecision.

Using DotTune, I confirmed that it needs a +7.5 at distances < 2.5m while it's spot-on at medium distances. I kept the +7 because the DoF is shallower at close distances, but my pictures at medium distances were somewhat affected and with this sort of gap it's very difficult to compromise.

Anyone else who owns this lens encountered similar problems?

5
The somewhat affordable price of the 16-35 makes me worry...
Ha ha, one can't be suspicious enough...

I think it looks good. Makes me want one even if I am not really in the market for a wide. It will be interesting to see reviews.

It's just that the really good Canon stuff is usually very, very pricey.

This lens is remarkably affordable unless we compare it to the 17-40. In that case, if performance is not a big leap forward, it's very overpriced.

6
The somewhat affordable price of the 16-35 makes me worry...

7
Are these lenses simply too slow for tracking? 

I don't have direct experience with all of those, but it seems to me that this is the most likely circumstance. High performance in AI Servo doesn't sound like an engineering priority for a 50/1.4 or a UWA zoom.

Consider that the 50, 85 and 135mm are also very old lenses.

8
Lenses / Re: Before you buy your next prime...
« on: May 07, 2014, 01:39:46 PM »
Folks,

Before you buy you next prime lens, take a deep breath and watch this video. I've been lurking on this site for a while now and I must confess, I've been sucked into the lens acquiring vortex. I don't have a lot of lenses now, and I am not a pro, but I am at a point in my life where I can actually start to afford these toys. The discussion around here is generally geared towards and around specific lenses and their attributes but somehow or the other, I have managed to miss or avoid posts about a lens acquisition strategy. I stumbled across this video this morning and got some clarity. Please forgive me if it has been previously posted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjhdL3ggjYU

Comparing and choosing lenses just by their focal length is simplistic to the point of being almost stupid.

The Sigma 35A and the Ultron 40mm f/2 have very similar FL but they're as different as it gets in size, weight, AF, color rendition, sharpness, micro-contrast, etc.

One could even have a 50L and Zeiss 50mm f/2 MP and still find use for both.

A much smarter approach would have been "what would you like your next lens to do better/differently?".

9
EOS Bodies / Re: When Does the Year of the Lens Start?
« on: May 07, 2014, 01:21:12 PM »
One thing they have to do to win me over is to deliver the lenses I listed (or something similar), deliver consistent quality And add weather sealing. It is unthinkable for me to sell my L-glass for anything without weather sealing. The current Sigma lenses I have now are bought more from curiosity than need.

I have to agree with Eldar on this particular point, I have the 35 Art, like it, use it, but, without weather sealing, for my type of Imaging (Dust/Rain/Snow), no weather sealing handicaps the Lens so I tend to bring it out in optimal weather conditions.

But, the Sigma 35 Art is other than the lack of weather sealing, a very good Lens, in most areas better then my Canon 35L, I look forward to getting the Sigma 50 Art, I suspect it may well perform better then my Canon 50f/1.2 L but not as well as my Otus 55, but it will have a reasonably reliable (hopefully) AF feature.


A number of L lenses -- including that 35L if memory serves -- are not weather sealed either.

- A

Weather sealing is the smartest marketing trick of the photographic history. No one knows what it is, but everyone wants it.

Brawndo's got electrolytes. It's got what plants crave.

10
Very interesting.

I honestly can't see any remarkable difference in bokeh between the two. In fact it seems that f/1.4 and f/1.2 produce similar DoF. But this could be an artifact of resizing.

The Sigma does look already a bit sharper though. One can see that in pictures involving fine details.

11
PowerShot / Re: New PowerShot & EOS Cameras to Offer DOF Control?
« on: May 05, 2014, 11:03:31 AM »

the rumor is very vague..

+1

A lot of heat for something that we don't even have a clue of what it is.

12


You can make or agree with hyperbolic comments like "Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close." or you can look at the ample evidence that it is not. Don't forget for one second Canon knows to the exact number the market for the 24mm f1.4 premium lens at the price point they are prepared to sell them at. Nowadays it seems the one who shouts loudest or wishes the most gets the most followers, that doesn't make what they are shouting accurate.

I think you are neglecting one important point.

Canon has a multilayer interest in producing lenses. First of all they produce a revenue on their own, otherwise they wouldn't design, manufacture and sell them. Differently from kit lenses and consumer cameras, the target market of expensive lenses is more opinionated and sensitive to quality. The moment you offer them better quality at a lower price, you make them interested. More and more as time goes by and both Sigma and Tamron become established as quality manufacturers.

Second, many people are with Canon because of the lenses and their reputation to be the best. The moment this changes, a big reason for having a Canon system is gone - especially if you take into account that other manufacturers offer better sensors too. So the availability of quality lenses and cameras in different mounts is eventually going to affect camera sales too. Case in point, the latest market share data for Japan showed that Canon is still the market leader but did lose some share. Sigma btw has a quite considerable share of the lens market.

So as someone stated before, Canon executives are not likely to start pulling their hair already, but at the same time I do agree that the Canon/Nikon duopoly is over and that both companies should really rethink their strategy.


13
Lenses / Re: EF 400L f/5.6 vs. Tamron 150-600
« on: April 28, 2014, 03:11:55 AM »
I have the Tamron and I can wholeheartedly recommend it.

As stated above, for far subjects the haze usually ruins your pictures to an extent that nullifies the advantages of even the best lens.

On the other hand, if you're close enough to fill a good part of the frame (i.e. no savage cropping), even at 600mm f/6.3 the Tamron performs really well.

14


Oh, and guess what?  Sales figures also impact the business decisions being made by whatever brand meets your camera system needs, too.



I think you're flipping the pancake a bit.

Sales do matter in terms of determining the business decisions of a company. We however are the end users, not the company. To us it can be nice to know why they did this or that, but ultimately it is a very academic interest. Sales figures do not affect our experience once the product is in our hands and do not improve our output or our enjoyment. The first rule of statistics is that it never applies to individual cases.

In the end of the day, I don't really care whether Canon feels the need to update this or that. My money is supposed to be spent on fulfilling my needs, not Canon's. If their products are good I buy them, otherwise I don't and it doesn't really matter if other people think they're good for them. If I have to choose, I'd rather be a quality minority than a trivial majority, yes.

That said, this point is a particularly moot one when it comes to OEM vs 3rd party offers. The reason why the Canon 50mm sells well is that it's Canon's offer in the 50mm range and it's affordable. The real quality of the product matters only to a little extent, since most buyers do not make a lot research ahead of purchasing. Buying a Canon lens for your Canon camera is a very trivial and uninteresting event; preferring a Sigma lens for your Canon camera is instead a choice with significant implications.

Anyway this isn't even a criticism to the Canon system, since 3rd party offering are part of, and not against, the Canon system.

15
To be followed by an announcement from Sigma of an 85mm 1.4 Art for a quarter the price and 90% the IQ.

Very much wishing so here.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 56