April 16, 2014, 09:29:44 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 - AJ

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
1
zzzzz.  Wake me up when they add tilt-shift.

2
Lenses / Re: Review: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 Di VC USD
« on: March 09, 2014, 04:28:02 PM »
Interesting.

The Tamron at 400/5.6 looks a lot sharper and contrastier than the Canon 100-400 at 400/5.6
However, the Tamron at 600/8 looks weaker than a Canon 100-400 with a 1.4x TC

So, by inference: will the Tamron at 400 mm with a 1.4x TC attached outperform a Tamron set to 600 mm without the TC?

3
Lenses / Re: Is There a Definitive "Best" Landscape Lens for Crop?
« on: January 31, 2014, 03:05:52 PM »
Sigma 8-16 or Tokina 11-16/2.8

4
Anyone notice this?

Quote
every lens is tested with Sigma’s proprietary modulation transfer function (MTF) “A1” measuring system before being shipped.

I think Sigma is really stepping it up.
First came adjustable focus - i.e. goodbye frontfocus problems.
Now: Goodbye decentering problems.
and at $900 this lens will be sharp and it'll have wonderful bokeh.  I have no doubts.
I think Sigma will be the new Zeiss - i.e. a premium 3rd party brand.



5
Lenses / Re: New lenses ($6800 budget)
« on: January 05, 2014, 11:52:01 AM »
Canon 15-85, Canon 100-400 L, Canon 100/2.8 L, Sigma 85/1.4 or Sigma 50/1.4

6
Lenses / Re: Another strike against UV filters
« on: December 18, 2013, 02:16:43 PM »
I crashed my car and my seatbelt left a bruise.  Another strike against seatbelts!

7
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 02:14:08 PM »
An f/4 zoom lens is not one you'd expect to have optimal light transmission anyway.
Isn't the point of lens design to have optimal light transmission?  And if the f-stop is four and the t-stop half a stop worse, doesn't that say something about Canon's glass elements and coatings?  The Canon 24-105 is a good lens but it should not have been branded with the red ring.

8
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 11:34:23 AM »
The t-stop of 5.1 for the Canon 24-105 is a bit of a shocker to me.  tsk tsk Canon!

So basically the Sigma is about the same price and about the same sharpness, but half a stop brighter.


9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 135mm f/2 DG OS Art Coming? [CR1]
« on: December 17, 2013, 12:00:59 PM »
Big DSLR announcement, hmmmm. Could they make a camera with an EF mount? Just think, all the sigma lenses sold to canon users would now work on it along with the canon lenses too, it would be a Trojan horse coup d'e'tat
Yeah I never understood why Sigma has their own lens mount.  Who's going to invest in an arsenal of Sigma-mount lenses?  Not me, even if they put out a decent body at a decent price.  Much better to have bodies with Canon and Nikon mounts.  That way a Sigma camera can mount more lenses ( = more camera sales) and Sigma can simplify its lens lineup by having fewer lens mounts ( = more profit).

10
Right. 

Remember, 10 years ago we thought that in 2013 we'd be driving hydrogen-powered cars, our houses would be lit by power obtained through cold nuclear fusion, and cancer would be cured. 

And we thought APSC was just going to be a stop-gap format.

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Availability
« on: December 15, 2013, 05:17:02 AM »
I really don't see a need to question Dustin Abbott's integrity on lens testing.  I would argue that large magazines and websites that make their money through advertising by big camera companies, or click-throughs  to stores  have more to gain by biased reviews. 

I think *all* reviews should be questioned, not so much because of intentional bias, but because of testing variations, and as mentioned by previous posters, variation between copies, esp. w/big glasss.  when the lens is out, we should have 5 or more reviews to look at, and unless there's some conspiracy, we should get a consensus on qualities based on bench tests.

My only concern is how will this lens work for me.  That's not just theoretical, it's practical.  For example,   I do not use a tripod, I shoot either handheld or with a monopod.  So even if I had a sharpest lens ever made, I would introduce some shake which would affect results.  I value a fast and effective stabilization system and that's my biggest hope for this lens.  I'm sure it will have to be stopped down at least one full stop for optimum optical sharpness, and that it will *not* be sharpest at 600mm.   So, the question is...how will this work for me at 400-500mm compared to a more expensive 100-400 L? or the Bigma???  I think we'll all find out soon and that will end the some of the speculation.

I agree with that too.  I'm watching this lens closely, and it may very well be the lens for me.  If I need to stop down a little for optimal sharpness then so be it.  Also I don't expect miracles along the edges because I don't place my subjects there.  If this thing does a competent 500/8 and and if the stabilization is solid then I'm sold.

FWIW I like the bokeh on that bison shot.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Thinking Out Loud: EOS 7D Mark II Thoughts
« on: December 15, 2013, 04:58:14 AM »
I too think there will be a 7D2 with some break-through feature, probably something to do with video.  It'll cost at least $1500.  Early adopters will flock to buy it. 

Three months after, there will be an 80D which will incorporate the same feature.  It'll cost significantly less.  Some features will be missing from the 80D that the 7D2 has (e.g. AF micro-adjust).

Three months after that the same video feature will hit the Rebel line.

Proven recipe.  Why wouldn't they go for it again.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 04:53:37 PM »
I wonder what's next.  Maybe with the next firmware, when you mount a Sigma/Zeiss/Tokina or other third brand lens, it'll say "irregular lens" and you'll have to push a bunch of buttons to get the camera operational.

Very annoying.

14
Lenses / Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« on: November 22, 2013, 11:42:19 AM »
"the" other $4000 50mm lens makes it sound like it's the only one on the block.  Leica noctilux 50/1 sells for roughly the same amount of money, used.    The new Leica noctilux 50/0.95 costs substantially more.

15
"did you buy that print at IKEA"

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27