April 19, 2014, 04:20:10 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 - sdsr

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
1

There exist plenty of other review sites that test lenses.  Why keep looking at DxO?  You might as well read science fiction.  At least sites like LensTip and The Digital Picture will show you actual images.



Lenstip's review is now up:

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=400


2
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 02:26:21 PM »

i did not know that there were lenses that had an adjustment ring to control that effect, i don't really understand how it  works but it is a very cool feature, are there any other lenses besides this nikon that have that adjustment? i really want one now.


Minolta used to make at least one:

http://www.cameraquest.com/minsoft.htm

Not exactly a current lens, though....

3
Lenses / Superzooms, again
« on: April 18, 2014, 02:19:30 PM »
After all the angst about whose 50mm primes are trash, this might amuse (sorry if it's already been posted somewhere, but if it was I couldn't find it).  The fact that it's about Nikon is neither here nor there, though I guess some may want to complain about that, too....

http://photographylife.com/question-18-300mm-lenses-part-deux


4
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 11:59:46 AM »

So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?


It depends entirely on who "you" is and what s/he wants to do with it.  If you like that dreamy look, and if you use the lens to take portraits (in which case the chances that anything in a corner would be in focus anyway seem slight, rendering - pun half intended - corner sharpness moot), you may not want such an improved lens at all. 

And if you do want better sharpness, including sharp corners, why not get the new Sigma - or do something different altogether and buy, say, a Sony A7r + FE 55 1.8?  Do your lenses all have to have "Canon" written on them?"  Your complaint looks rather like another manifestation of the fanboy-ism that keeps getting brought up:  Does Canon have to make the best of everything according to some notion of "best" that may or may not be widely shared?

(And leaving all that aside, for now if you want a 50 1.2 (or 85 1.2) lens for a ff camera, regardless of brand, are there better alternatives which are also 1.2?  There are new similar lenses from Fuji and Panasonic/Leica, both supposedly marvelous, but they're APS-C and M43 respectively, but that's not quite the same thing....)

5
Canon General / Re: Helen Oster
« on: April 18, 2014, 11:22:43 AM »
I'm simply overwhelmed with all your good wishes - so glad I'm able to be here  and provide personal support and advice.

Thank you!!

We're glad too; you're a model of customer service.  Happy birthday!

6

I bet the majority of us posting here are middle aged men. The white versions of cameras are mainly bought by women and the EOS 100D / SL1 is definately aimed at the female market as much as men.


You may be right; but if so, is it insulting or just realistic that the only white lenses are the 40mm and the 18-55mm kit zoom?  (As someone pointed out, the white Ls aren't white at all but a nasty orthopedic-shoe-beige.)

7
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:20:04 AM »

Here we see the defensive comments and a retreat to the trenches of the intangibles like bokeh (which is not clearly different in any sample shot I have seen anyone point to specifically) and creaminess [...].


Your overall point re pro-Canon bias may have more than a hint of truth about it, but I disagree with your implication that "intangibles like bokeh" don't matter (at least, I assume that's what you mean by "retreat to the trenches").  Of course, bokeh/blur is a tricky issue for reviewers because it can't be measured in the same way that resolution/sharpness can, and while there's presumably no debate whether one image is sharper than another, there may well be disagreement over which has better bokeh (and, of course, whether it matters in the first place).  But the fact that it can't be measured doesn't mean it's "intangible" - you see blur just as you see sharpness - and whether one image is "clearly different" from another is also subjective (in the 1.8 vs 1.4 comparison someone posted earlier to show that there was almost no difference, the difference seemed quite obvious to me and I had no difficulty at all in forming a preference).  And for some people a lens's bokeh/blur properties may trump other considerations. 

That said, for all I know the Sigma may have better bokeh than the Canon (unlikely though that may seem), just as the Sigma 35 1.4 seems to have better bokeh than the Canon 35 1.4 (at least as per Brian's comparison at the digital picture.).

8
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 16, 2014, 11:01:10 AM »

Higher quality lenses also require a higher quality review(er). Just putting it on your camera and going outside and shooting some objects and posting centre crops doesn't cut it.


That's true of all lenses, of course.  But I don't think test chart comparisons are terribly helpful either.  What I would rather see - and which Brian will surely do when his review shows up; it's one of the most useful aspects of his reviews - is comparisons of photos of actual subjects of various sorts: portraits, buildings, landscapes, etc. 
I suspect the Sigma will prove to be a superb lens, and wouldn't be at all surprised if in may ways it beats the 50L - though if I used a 50mm lens to take portraits I would be far more interested in which has better bokeh than which shows the most clinical detail. 

(Personally, I have no stake in this particular debate - if I want crazy sharpness from a 50mm-ish lens, I suspect that my Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8/Sony A7r combination is at least as sharp as the Sigma would be on any current Canon body, while weighing less than the Sigma lens alone, and if I want a blur-fest from a 50mm-ish lens I'll use my manual Canon 55mm 1.2 on the Sony.)

10
Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro
« on: April 08, 2014, 05:16:23 PM »
He hasn't yet reviewed its big brother, the Sigma 180mm 2.8 OS, which evidently knocked the socks off the hard-to-please lenstip reviewer:

http://www.lenstip.com/355.11-Lens_review-Sigma_180_mm_f_2.8_APO_Macro_EX_DG_OS_HSM__Summary.html

Has anyone reading this tried that one?

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed
« on: April 06, 2014, 08:54:36 PM »
I'm about to put my 50L on Ebay.... and it has nothing to do with this new 50mm Art.

I took my kids to Flower Field in Carlsbad yesterday. I carried A7r + FE 55mm. With Eye-focus feature in A7r, compose the shot is so easy. At wide open, I couldn't miss a shot. However, the Bokeh is not smooth as my 50L.

Bottom line is, I'm willing to trade that bokeh for light weight ;)

I suspect that for most real world use the differences between the new Sigma and the FE 55mm are trivial, far less than the difference in weight and size; it's nice to be able to carry around a FF camera and two primes in a small bag whose weight is negligible.  The FE 55 is so sharp on my A7r it's hard to imagine I would appreciate something even sharper, and if I want more dreamy blur I can use my old manual Canon 55 1.2.  I may end up buying the Sigma in a Canon mount, especially if reviews appear showing comparison shots involving something other than test screens and the like - though the Sigma on a current Canon FF sensor may not look any sharper, if at all, than the FE 55 on an A7r anyway, and the more I get used to the light weight of my Sony and M43 mirrorless gear the harder it is to return to my vastly heavier FF Canon gear, much as I like it.  I wonder if Sigma would ever be interested in making longer and wider primes (or even zooms) in Sony's FE mount....

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 06, 2014, 08:18:47 PM »

Maybe I didn't read his review carefully enough, in which case apologies in advance, but where in his review does he say that sharpness is a bad thing, that amateurs only care about sharpness, that pros don't care about sharpness,

He doesn't "say" sharpness is a bad thing, but he "holds" it as a negative factor, because he associates sharpness with amateurs, instead of praising it as a feature.

Quote
Warning 1: Image sharpness depends more on you than your lens.
Warning 2: Lens sharpness doesn't mean much to good photographers.
Amateurs waste too much time worrying about lens sharpness, and since this lens is designed for amateurs, it's super sharp.

[....]

Why do you feel the need to start an argument by claiming "I am making things up"? You could have nicely asked for a clarification. Because online posts are anonymous, we don't need to be polite and courteous to each other, is that it?

OK, apologies for the tone - I perhaps should have said that your interpretation of his comments on sharpness is not persuasive.  They don't read like that in isolation, and you will find language to that effect in every lens review he writes (every one I've read, at any rate), regardless of who makes the lens, and regardless of whether he likes it, including all his Nikon and Canon favorites.  It seems to be part of his review template.  Nowhere does he say that sharpness is a negative factor - it's part of his insistence that sharpness is overrated and that sharpness also depends on factors beyond the physical properties of a lens.

13

When the 5 year old turns 21 in 16 years time, what would you rather have?
4k video or 1080p video of the birthday?


If that's the sort of thing you're going to film with this camera, you should note that, according to sonyalpharumors: "The only bad news is that it doesn’t record 4K on SD card. You will have to use an external recorder."  How many people are interested in doing that?  (It's not an issue for me as I never shoot videos, unless I hit the wrong button by mistake!)   

The low light possibilities sound intriguing, though - so far there are precisely two Sony FE lenses that I want (and own), so I guess they could have a body each.  Sony's body:lens ratio seems a tad off....

14
Hope the "S" stands for stabilised :)

It evidently stands for "sensitivity" (honest - you can read all the details at sonyalpharumors), so please don't say mean things about it.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 05, 2014, 11:14:22 AM »


But not only the L fanboys are vehement against Sigmas and Tamrons. I was shocked how Ken Rockwell snubbed the excellent 18-35mm (even he had to agree it is optically superior) and advocated not in favor of an L but all the EF-S lenses! Of course, he recourses to simply lying when comparing the 35A's build quality to the 35L's. Without batting an eyelid, he says the Canon has a metallic body and the Sigma has a cheap plastic body.
And in both Sigma reviews he holds being sharp as a bad thing, saying these are sharp because they are built for amateurs, who care only about sharpness! Lol! So to build a lens for pros, Canon and Nikon deliberately build non-sharp lenses.

Rockwell says enough silly things (often contradicting himself) that you don't need to make stuff up to criticize him.  Maybe I didn't read his review carefully enough, in which case apologies in advance, but where in his review does he say that sharpness is a bad thing, that amateurs only care about sharpness, that pros don't care about sharpness, or say anything negative about the lens's optical performance aside from "significant axial chromatic aberration at close distances" at f1.8? Rather, he states that "optically this lens is extraordinary" and that "if you don't mind the weight and don't worry about the future ... [it] works fantastically well today."  He does make his usual comment about many people worrying to much about sharpness (he may have a point), but the reasons he gives for not wanting one himself are its size and weight, lack of IS, his fondness for the Nikon 35mm DX, and worries about long term performance and compatibility with future camera bodies.   

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35