Messages

31

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.

32

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.

33

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.

34

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 

35

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.

36

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

« on: April 22, 2013, 05:30:24 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.

37

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

« on: April 21, 2013, 02:36:15 PM »

How (or where) do the new ART lens series compare to their EX series?

I like the Sigma lens I own, but the naming nomenclature is getting more and more confusing.

The EX designation has been set aside.

Now all lenses are (supposedly) in the same quality league. They divide them based on the intended use: the ART segment includes fast lenses for creative use, CONTEMPORARY includes popular zooms, while SPORT includes fast teles for action/wildlife.

I have both the 135 F2 and 200 F2 and with the 200 and IS you can easily shoot 1/30 or 1/50 all night long and if Sigma can do this, it would be like a mini 200mm F2 (and probably a lot lighter).

Actually, it'd be a mini 200mm f/2.8.

135 / 1.8 = 75
200 / 2.8 = 71
200 / 2.0 = 100

A mini 200mm f/2 would be a 135 f/1.4. And that would not at all be small, lightweight, cheap, or discreet. Imagine the bastard love child of an 85 L and a 200 f/2.

But this rumored lens, if it becomes real, would still quite impressive nonetheless.

b&

What I meant by 'mini' is the 200mm f2 smaller brother. Going to weddings and shooting a 135mm at 1/50 SS could save you a couple stops of noise. From your example, the 85 / 1.2 = 70 could be the smaller brother to the 200mm f2.8 ?

Sorry, how are this calculations done? To me, I agree, it's a little brother to a 200 f/2 - if it's sharp enough for the cropping.

38

Reviews / Re: Canon 60D vs Nikon D7100 - 2 Problems I Noticed with the Nikon D7100

« on: April 21, 2013, 01:18:55 PM »

"well , then you need to WB against a qp-card etc to know what you are doing and to  se what you get, it tells nothing that you select a Kelvin number."

Ah No, I don't need to White Balance against a card to "know what I am doing".
I know exactly what I'm doing - I'm selecting identical Kelvin numbers for White Balance for each camera.

"It tells nothing"

Again No, it definitely tells me something. It tells me that Nikon's Auto White Balance or White Balancing by Kelvin number is terrible under the lighting I had set up. Canon is much more accurate.

"Was it RAW or JPG?"
If you had read my post you would realize I was filming (VIDEO!) no RAW or JPG.

Ankorwatt's point probably was: you can see that they are different, but without a reference how do you know which one is correct?

39

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

« on: April 21, 2013, 11:53:08 AM »

Yes, all nice. But i am not worried about the need of such a lens. More about the possibility to even build it! (For a price someone can pay)

A 135mm f/1.8 lens has the same size physical aperture as a 200mm f/2.8 lens. I'm pretty sure this lens would be cheaper than Sigma's $1,300 70-200mm f/2.8 OS, seeing how it's a much simpler design. I'd also guess that it'd be cheaper than Canon's $1,000 135mm f/2 L, because that tends to be how Sigma rolls. I'd personally guess somewhere in the $800 range.

Cheers,

b&

Sigma's 180mm f/2.8 OS Macro is faster than Canon's equivalent, and has OS, and is more expensive. It might be a precedent for this lens's pricing. My guess is about $1,300.

I also wouldn't be surprised. It would be faster than the Canikon equivalent, and with OS. I guess something around 1100$ at launch.

For me, as a FF + crop shooter, this lens could replace the purchase of a 300mm f/4 - if it takes TC well. Overall a lot of value if one lens is both a fast portrait prime and a sharp stabilized tele.

40

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

« on: April 21, 2013, 11:28:40 AM »

I'd rather see Sigma do a 19mm or 20mm or 21mm wide angle "A" lens. There's nothing available for Canon that's a prime, wide and auto-focus.

Canon's widest is 24mm and if Sigma did a 24mm, they'd just be copying Canon. They should man up and do something new.

That could be said about the 35mm too, but it seems that it made many people happy (including me).

24, 28, 35, 50, 58, 85, 100 and 135 are very popular and "recognizable" focal lengths. Canon, Nikon, Sony, zeiss etc have their own version. Sigma is just joining the big game - at least for now. However they had a 20mm, so it might be that something wider will come.

I wouldn't buy the 50mm. The focal length on ff is too similar for me - just a bit of cropping. However, the run lured 135mm.... That's another story.... Slurp!

41

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

« on: April 21, 2013, 11:20:07 AM »

My oh my. If it takes 2x TC well you end up with a stabilized 270mm f/3.5.....

42

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

« on: April 19, 2013, 12:49:44 PM »

What makes this lens epic is that there is no equivalent FF lens. In very low light, this can focus when f2.8 cannot!!!

+1

It's epic that it takes crop shooters where they've never been before.

43

EOS Bodies / Re: 21mp Sensor in the 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: April 19, 2013, 12:27:59 PM »

And why didn't they bring the 70D already, since it is overdue after 2 1/2 years, when Canon has all the stuff they need (including sensor) ready. It looks to me (and I hope so), that they are delaying the 70D so they can introduce it with the new sensor.

Who said it was overdue and/or that they're delaying the 70D?  Internet expectations?  Or Canon?  Perhaps Canon believes they're ahead of schedule.  Because other than some not-so-vague comments from Canon employees who were put on the spot, I don't recall reading/hearing anything about the 70D or the 7D2 especially in regards to an impending announcement or due date.

So again, are these YOUR expectations from reading a RUMORS site, or are these missed deadlines that Canon has self-imposed?  Obviously a rhetorical question...

Talk on this website has REALLY gone from "rumors" to "if _____ doesn't fit my personal expectations then it's ______ (fill in the blank with negative thoughts)."

Have you ever heard about competition?

Canon is deciding on the sensor while the D7100 has been shipping and making people happy for a while. That's what makes Canon look late. They're not the only player in the game, and the show goes on with or without them.

44

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

« on: April 19, 2013, 11:47:10 AM »

Angle of view is a combination of focal length and sensor size. If we're talking about two different sized sensors, to get the same angle of view, we have to adjust the focal length to suit.

Exactly. And you have to decide if we're talking about focal length or angle of view. You can't freely interchange the two concepts, because they are two different things. You can compare one to the other, but within limits.

Focal length is a property of the lens, and the lens alone. Whatever is a function of focal length, is not affected by the sensor in your camera, which - as you said - instead will affect the angle of view.

A Nikon 1 10mm f/2.8 lens will have an equivalent focal length (read: angle of view) of a 27mm lens on FF, but it will be nevertheless a 10mm lens. Assuming transmission is the same, the exposure would be the same for this lens and a 10mm F/2.8 lens on FF. The Nikon 1 lens can be smaller because the sensor is smaller. The total amount of light gathered by a FF will be more, but the amount of light hitting the sensor / surface of the sensor would be the same. You could mount the FF lens on the Nikon 1 and it would be the same - because the extra light will fall off the sensor. That's why exposure is not affected.

If you now transpose this concept to this lens, you will understand that exposure-wise a f/1.8 lens is a f/1.8 lens disregarding of the system. This, again, is because f-stops depend on focal length and focal length is a parameter of the lens and not of the camera.

45

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Digital Film (for use in old camera's)

« on: April 19, 2013, 11:34:11 AM »

How about this one?

http://re35.net/index.html

 

Seems awesome to me