Messages

16

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss 135mm f2 Apo Sonnar Preview

« on: April 30, 2013, 12:32:09 PM »

It also has a unique 2100$ price tag too but hey! I'm not saying it isn't the best performing 135mm made just like the zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best UW lens made. I'm simply saying that sharpness and CA were never an issue with years of me using the 135L but IS was, and a bit more speed would be nice.

Well, the price is in line with other top glass. Canon 85L and the new 24-70 are in the same club.

When you consider it in this perspective it's not so expensive after all.

Not really. The 85L is unique because its f/1.2 and the 24-70 is a zoom, can't really compare. Now if this 135mm were f/1.8, then I could hold it in the same category but f/2? No practical reason to consider upgrading.

....

No practical reason for you. Fair enough. But I wasn't talking about you, I was comparing the price of this lens with other lenses in the same quality league. It doesn't seem to me that its price is way off the standard for the best glass club.

17

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss 135mm f2 Apo Sonnar Preview

« on: April 30, 2013, 09:57:38 AM »

It also has a unique 2100$ price tag too but hey! I'm not saying it isn't the best performing 135mm made just like the zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best UW lens made. I'm simply saying that sharpness and CA were never an issue with years of me using the 135L but IS was, and a bit more speed would be nice.

Well, the price is in line with other top glass. Canon 85L and the new 24-70 are in the same club.

When you consider it in this perspective it's not so expensive after all.

18

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 30, 2013, 08:11:18 AM »

Good for Canon to upgrade the lens, but as for everyone else, I wonder about the price.

Nikon is charging a ridiculous amount of money for their 80-400G (though prices are going down quickly). However, they could do it because the new lens is much better than the old 80-400.

Canon 100-400 is quite good. Can they do a so-much-better lens optically? I don't know, and if they do the price will be exorbitant. Certainly it will feature better IS, and I think they're going to smoothen the bokeh too - the biggest problem of the current version. So while I'm sure it will be a better lens overall, the margin could be slight to justify the difference in price. I think the MK1 will look like a much more attractive package to the most.

Talking about alternatives... never heard of Sigma 50-500? I'm holding on for my purchase of an expensive telezoom until Sigma and Tamron announce something in this range. In the meanwhile I enjoy the cheapolicius Tamron 70-300.

It's interesting.  Before the 6D came out, many people claimed they'd get a 5DII over the 6D, but it seems like the 6D has done just fine and people are happy with its advantages over the 5DII.  When the 24 IS, 28 IS and 35 IS came out, people complained about price gouging and said they'd never get those lenses, but some of those prices have fallen into the 400 range already.  When the 24-70 II came out, people complained that it lacked IS and was priced through the roof, but people are still buying it even though the Tamron 24-70 has VC and is significantly less costly.

The problem with the 100-400 is that it does some things well, and that other lenses have eroded many of the advantages it had when it was released.  The 70-200L II + 2x is said to come close in IQ at 400mm and is longer when stored and is slightly heavier with the 2x.  The 70-300L is more compact and lighter and has very good IQ.  I'd expect the new 100-400 to soundly beat the current 70-200L II, 70-300L and 400L f/5.6 IQ-wise, especially at the long end.  It might come out closer to 3k initialy but give it a year or two.  Early adopters pay a premium.

The 24-70 MK2 is optically better than the Tamron. If you can afford it and you don't mind IS, the Tamron is not a strong competitor.

As far as the rest is concerned, it's Canon offer at a certain price point. If you want a 35mm prime and you can't afford anything better than that (e.g. 35L) and/or you don't want to buy products from other brands (e.g. Sigma), there's not much of a choice. Afterwards you can only try to get the best out of what you bought.

None of those product is "bad". There's just a discrepancy between their price point vs performance ratio when you compare them to other offerings on the market.

19

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss 135mm f2 Apo Sonnar Preview

« on: April 30, 2013, 07:30:52 AM »

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.

Not saying that. Just saying you get to a point where comparing razors to razors like the 135L and the zeiss that its pretty much irrelevant. For me, The issues I run into is the lack of IS and I could use a bit more speed.

Another sharp 135mm f/2 is nice but I see IS and 1.8 to be much more useful.

We're talking about what seems to be a true apochromatic design = almost ZERO CA and RSA even wideopen.

In Nikonland people say that focus confirmation works flawlessly on D4 and D800. I would assume it's going to be the same for the ZE version.

I agree that AF and IS will probably increase your keeper rate. But this lens is not meant for people who want more keepers; it's meant for people who want the Zeiss look with best optics and the best build out there. For these people all the rest is secondary. There's no reason to compare this lens to others: it's unique.

20

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm 1.4 AF issues question

« on: April 30, 2013, 07:09:34 AM »

So I'm in the market for a 50mm 1.4 (I cannot justify the additional cost of the 1.2L for what I'm doing, no matter how much I'd love to get it) after running into AF issues with a Canon 50mm 1.4.  I have previously tried a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and LOVED how sharp it was at 1.4 - 2 (primarily where I would use it), but had major issues with a shifting depth of field and AF issues.

As I mentioned though, I loved the IQ on the Sigma. But I am wondering what the ratio of this lens having AF issues is, and for those who owned one and had AF issues: whether sending it in to Sigma definitively fixed the AF issues for the body you were using.

So two questions really, for those who own one of these:
If you own one, did you have AF issues out of the box?
If you did have AF issues, did sending it into Sigma fix it?

I wouldn't buy anything from Sigma at this point except for those lenses already in the A/C/S lineup.

21

Lenses / Re: EF 100-400 Replacement in 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 30, 2013, 06:23:26 AM »

Good for Canon to upgrade the lens, but as for everyone else, I wonder about the price.

Nikon is charging a ridiculous amount of money for their 80-400G (though prices are going down quickly). However, they could do it because the new lens is much better than the old 80-400.

Canon 100-400 is quite good. Can they do a so-much-better lens optically? I don't know, and if they do the price will be exorbitant. Certainly it will feature better IS, and I think they're going to smoothen the bokeh too - the biggest problem of the current version. So while I'm sure it will be a better lens overall, the margin could be slight to justify the difference in price. I think the MK1 will look like a much more attractive package to the most.

Talking about alternatives... never heard of Sigma 50-500? I'm holding on for my purchase of an expensive telezoom until Sigma and Tamron announce something in this range. In the meanwhile I enjoy the cheapolicius Tamron 70-300.

22

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C

« on: April 22, 2013, 02:28:49 PM »

Yes, once again you're correct that the 1.8 crop lens has the same light-gathering ability as the 2.8 FF lens.

However, the important fact (to me, at least) is that the exposure from the 1.8 lens will be twice as bright-in camera than the 2.8 lens at the same ISO -- for low-light shooting this is more important to me than depth of field.

Which is what I also said. What matters is not the total amount of light, but the luminance on the sensor surface.

Do you understand the otherwise self-contradiction of saying that it gathers the same light but it delivers a twice as bright image....?

23

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?

« on: April 22, 2013, 02:13:03 PM »

Ok, maybe I see your point if you consider events like focus breathing or other alterations of the linear ratio between angle of view and reproduction ratio. I agree with you that in those cases it's not 100% correct to reason in terms of angle of view - but they are specific circumstances. In usual conditions the relationship is linear enough to take the approximation for good. If nothing else, reproduction ratio is a nebulous term that is hard to use in a conversation if you aim at being understood. The approximation to angle of view is much more manageable and gives readily comparable figures.

24

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?

« on: April 22, 2013, 01:50:02 PM »

... I never quite understood why people say that FF and APS-C have different DoF (provided the same optics, aperture, and distance to the object are used).

Marketing through misinformation, obfuscation, leading and derogation.

DoF is related to angle of view and aperture. To get the same angle of view at the same distance from the subject, on FF you need a longer focal length (1.6x if we consider a Canon APSC) than on crop.

Then, because f/stops are related to focal length, if you keep the same aperture on both systems you'll see that on crop you end up with a narrower iris. This is why you have more DoF

No it isn't, and this common misunderstanding is why people keep failing to get their heads around this.

Depth of field is a function of two metrics alone, reproduction ratio (how big the subject is projected onto the capturing device)  and aperture. Now if you want to make comparisons across sensor sizes you have to make a standard for reproduction size, it doesn't matter what the standard is, but if you don't you can't make relevant comparisons.

"DOF is determined by subject magnification at the film / sensor plane and the selected lens aperture or f-number." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

I would strongly suggest people stop talking crap and start reading and learning something authoritative about the subjects they seem so intent on teaching other people about.

Can you provide an example of how reasoning in terms of angle of view may lead to errors?

In my book same reproduction ratio = same framing = same angle of view.

25

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Does Canon really have a Flagship Stills Camera?

« on: April 22, 2013, 12:21:07 PM »

... I never quite understood why people say that FF and APS-C have different DoF (provided the same optics, aperture, and distance to the object are used).

Marketing through misinformation, obfuscation, leading and derogation.

DoF is related to angle of view and aperture. To get the same angle of view at the same distance from the subject, on FF you need a longer focal length (1.6x if we consider a Canon APSC) than on crop.

Then, because f/stops are related to focal length, if you keep the same aperture on both systems you'll see that on crop you end up with a narrower iris. This is why you have more DoF

26

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Waiting for a Sigma 50 "A" like their 35 to appear?

« on: April 22, 2013, 11:10:46 AM »

I'm sorry about your personal misadventures, but your opinions are very much in disagreement with the majority of what I've read/experienced myself - especially for some of the lenses you mentioned.

If you're happier with Canon lenses good for you, but I still think your generalizations are far from reality.

He said the 70-200 and 400 f/2.8 IS are better than the 120-300 and 100-300, which is absolutely true.  Canon's telephotos and super telephotos are some of the best in the world.  He said the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and Sigma 85mm f/1.4 focus inconsistently, which is something I've heard plenty of times (with any 3rd party lens really).  And he finished it off saying that the 35mm f/1.4 is the only lens superior to it's Canon counterpart (which most people agree on).

It seems like you're reading what he said very selectively since most of what he did say tends to mirror what I've read/experienced.  And he's not really making "generalizations" he was very specific about the lenses and the problems that they had.

He said that all of Sigma lenses, except the new 35mm, are worse than their Canon counterpart.

Now, it doesn't seem to me that Canon has anything similar to a 120-300/2.8 or a 100-300/4, right? What's the point of comparing a 120-300 zoom with a 400mm prime (that costs 5 times as much)? And by the way, every comment I've read on both lenses was ecstatic.

Let's compare apples to apples at least. Many people prefer their Sigma 50mm (in spite of focus quirks) and 85mm to their Canikon and even Zeiss equivalent because of the razor-like center sharpness wide-open and nice bokeh. Many people preferred the 50-500's smoother bokeh to the 100-400L. 17-70mm VS Canon 17-85mm. And so on.

Beware that I'm not stating the opposite: I'm not saying every Sigma lens is great or better than its Canon equivalent. I'm going so far as disagreeing with the opposite assertion.

Some people have a very different mind attitude towards Canon and other brands. When Canon products have problems, well, it just happens, sample variation is a hard reality and so on. When other products, most of the time much cheaper, have similar/other problems then it's all about terrible QC.

27

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Waiting for a Sigma 50 "A" like their 35 to appear?

« on: April 22, 2013, 10:10:18 AM »

Have to respectfully disagree. An inferior lens manufacturer would make lenses other than what Canon offers so as to offer no apples to apples comparisons. Sigma is making (so far in their art line) superior lenses in critical flavors that go head to head with the best that Canon has...

There's only one superior lens in their art range at the moment, the 35mm f1.4. But like many Sigma lenses before, how well does it focus? The rest of Sigma's range are sub par with Canon counter parts. With Sigma, you get what you pay for.

You are terribly misinformed. The new 35mm focuses like a dream. And the USB dock has been designed to counter possible tricks by Canon in the future.

And the statement in red is plainly false.

Ok, lets qualify this a bit more. I've owned a Sigma 180 macro and used several, the AF ring was so gritty it was difficult to fine tune the focus. When compared with a Canon 180 L, there was  amassive focal length difference between these two lenses. The Canon has a much longer focal length at close distances and I'm pretty sure the Sigma lost focal length as I focssed closer....not what I wanted in a Macro lens. I had a 100-300 f4 EX DG...it was pretty unspectacular in sharpness, but more seriously it's AF was pretty inaccurate, often mis focussing. It had the most stupidly huge hood...because it flared so badly in bright light. I had a 70-200 ED DG mkI, it had dreadful back focussing issues at Min Focus distance. It had AF inconsistencies, sometime accurate and sometime way off. I have a 12-24mm EX DG. A nice lens, but it's been back to Sigma twice. Once for Aperture motor burnout and a whole lens group coming loose. I had a Sigma 120-300 OS DG and to be frank it was terrible. It was sharp enough, but it was so huge. It's AF was erratic and imprecise. It was way short of the 300mm stated, closer to 280mm at infinity but down to a dissapointing 240mm at Min focus distance. When compared to my Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, the small increase in Focal length wasn't worth the poor AF and massive extra bulk. None of these AF issues were related to Microfocus, the Sigma HSM motor system just isn't in the same league as the Canon USM system. I had a Sigma 24-70 (non HSM), it was a noisy AF system, but very good. The big issue was the rubbish hood and awful flare on sunny days. When I replaced it with the Canon 24-70L (mk I) it blew it away in every regard. Generally I find that Sigma lenses have a warm cast, but this varies between lens designs.
I hear from several friends who have the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4, they too get focus inconsitencies.
I don't get these issues with Canon L lenses. After the 120-300 OS DG dissapointment, I bought a 400mm f2.8 L IS which really put the Siggi in it's place. It's not just the sharpness, it's the AF's amazing accuracy.
So I'm sure you see that I have a long history with Sigma lenses in a professional basis. Most of my lenses went back to sigma and couldn't be fixed.

I'm all ears for Sigma releasing newer better lenses, but I've heared this story SO many times. I trust in Canon because they make reassuringly good kit and their prices reflect this. As I said before, and i'll restate again....the only superior lens (to Canon) in their catalogue at the moment is the 35mm f1.4. Every other lens is in some way deficient compared to it's Canon counter part.

I'm sorry about your personal misadventures, but your opinions are very much in disagreement with the majority of what I've read/experienced myself - especially for some of the lenses you mentioned.

If you're happier with Canon lenses good for you, but I still think your generalizations are far from reality.

28

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 135mm f/1.8 DG OS ART Next from Sigma? [CR1]

« on: April 22, 2013, 10:01:51 AM »

.
Much as I love the Canon 135, GMC is probably spot on about a next generation version. However, with the stellar performance of the newest 70-200, would they sell any at the $2K price they'd tack on?

The Canon ef primes have been a nice earner for Canon. Many wedding photographers have stayed in the Canon fold (when Nikon had better DSLR specs) becuase of the 35L, 85L and 135L. No other band (other than Sony) had a simular array of bright primes. But as usual Canon were unaware of the need to develop the next gen of fast primes. The 35L is a fantastic lens, but flare control isn't great, it's AF in low light is erratic and it's not weather sealed and it's number of aperture blades is an even number. The 135L is an awsome lens, but it's an old design, flare could be better, MFD could be better. It could do with newer coatings, it's aperture blades are not circular (stop down and look at the out of focus blobs). It's not weather sealed and Sony has an f1.8 variant, which means that it's not the best of the breed. Popping IS on it would really make my wedding work easier too. It's AF is good but not as good as the newer 70-200 f2.8 L IS II. It#s a great lens but there's quite a lot of room for improvement.
The 85L is a quirky lens and I'm quite happy with it as it is. It's not easy to use, and it's dof is so slim it requires a well honed AF technique to get consistent results. I use this lens a lot and I love it.

Depends on what you do... if you use it for portraits the 70-200 is going to disappoint in many ways. The 135 L is the almost perfect portrait lens. Sigma is going in the right direction here: how can you make such a lens even more attractive? Make it faster and add IS.

29

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 135mm f/1.8 DG OS ART Next from Sigma? [CR1]

« on: April 22, 2013, 07:31:00 AM »

Did Sigma resurrect steve jobs or something? They're like a whole new company now, good for them. Although I was gutted when I found out the 18-35 1.8 was for crop, would have been awesome for ff.

The son took over the family business 

30

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Announces 18-35 f/1.8 DC HSM Art for APS-C

« on: April 22, 2013, 07:05:52 AM »

So in other words theoretically a Crop set to:

#1. 17mm - f/2.8 - ISO 800 - 1/50th - with 1/4 flash
#2. 55mm - f/2.8 - ISO 800 - 1/50th - with 1/2 flash

Will produce a 100% identical image with no difference in exposure, lighting, depth of field, field of view or composition when compared to a full frame set to:

#1. 27mm - f/4.48 - ISO 2048 - 1/50th - with 1/4 flash
#2. 88mm - f/4.48 - ISO 2048 - 1/50th - with 1/2 flash

While I agree with you, I don't agree that framing (and DoF) and exposure always have to be considered together. The crop format is mature enough to be considered on its own and without always being compared to its 35mm equivalent.

It is plain that f/1.8 on crop corresponds to around f/2.8 on FF in terms of DoF. The point of the discussion is whether or not a f/1.8 lens will give you the same exposure both on crop and FF.

You calculation seems to agree with that, since the distance from f/2.8 to f/4.5 and from ISO 800 to 2048 is always (more or less) 1.3 EV.