Messages

16

Lenses / Re: Is An UWA Lens Useful on a Crop Sensor?

« on: May 10, 2013, 11:38:56 AM »

Can you rent one where you are?  If you can, try the Sigma 8-16, which is the widest of the lot and performs well (though not being able to attach a protective filter is a trifle alarming), and judge for yourself.  Sure, you can use it to "get it all in" but to these eyes the results seldom look good unless you're photographing a cramped interior space - outdoors, if you try to "get it all in" you'll likely end up with vast amounts of boring empty foreground.  The main point of these lenses is the fun you can have playing with the distortions they create.  See here, for instance (you may already know all this, of course):

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/wide-angle-lenses.htm

You may find that after the initial new toy excitement wears off these special effects seem a bit gimmicky and lose their appeal; or you may decide that you like the effects but that 8mm is too extreme and 11-12 is enough; etc.  Chances are you'll enjoy finding out.... 

17

Lenses / Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?

« on: May 10, 2013, 11:14:11 AM »

It depends what you shoot and in what circumstances.  Not sure what you mean when you say that the 70-200 2.8 II will likely "outperform" the 100L.  I suspect that any differences in sharpness among the three lenses you mention are negligible in actual use, while in my experience you can create better background blur with the 100L and 135L than with the 70-200 2.8 II; this matters to me but may not matter to you.  If weight matters (it does to me, but may not to you) and you don't need f/2.8, consider the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is more-or-less as sharp but smaller, half the weight and half the price price, or the 70-300L, which is perhaps not quite as sharp (though in most practical applications this may not be noticeable), but also smaller, half the weight and half the price - and more versatile, too.   

18

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 03:55:25 PM »

Once you composite images, Its no longer Photography to me.

He didn't ask whether the results of his manipulations met some definition of "photograph" but whether the manipulations he performed were unethical.  Are you saying that he can manipulate all he wants so long as he doesn't call the results "photographs"?

19

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 09, 2013, 03:42:14 PM »

I much prefer the altered image. I'm not sure the clouds were *needed*, but I like them and all the other changes, including the removal of those ugly, distracting, scruffy bushes/trees.  Cheating? Sure, if the sole point of taking a photograph is to show what you were able to make of the scene in front of you using nothing but your ability to interact with a particular lens/camera combination. 

Part of me wants to say that displaying skill/technique is part of the point of the exercise, and that adding interesting subjects and removing boring/ugly ones is as "wrong" as a recording where a pianist who hits 97 wrong notes is able to "fix" it by splicing in correct ones, or where a famous soprano's (Flagstad) high Cs were in fact sung by someone else (Schwarzkopf) and dubbed in.

Another part of me, though, wants to say that photography is different.  Leaving aside honest/accurate reporting, photography is inherently deceptive/manipulative - if you can't "improve" on reality, why bother photographing it in the first place?  The real thing looks better than any attempt at providing a neutral report of it.  For many photographers, the best lenses are those which allow the shallowest depth of field.  Why do we want them?  So we can distort reality and make it appear that the subject is surrounded, not by distracting or ugly details, but by smears of light and colour.  The same is true of wide angle lenses and long telephoto lenses - we want the distortions they provide.  Compared to what all these lenses do, removing a few ugly bushes after the fact seems rather trivial. 

20

Lenses / Re: Poll: Most Wanted New Lenses of 2013.

« on: May 07, 2013, 05:18:56 PM »

I like that the Canon 200mm 2.8L didn't receive any votes! 

That would be in my #2 spot if the 135f2 wasn't so good, and if Sigma can keep up the current trend of releasing best in class lenses then their 135f1.8 will really kick butt (and lets be honest, the canon 135f2 is a really old lens. It should be an easy target). That lens is at the cutting edge of what can be done with long lengths at the fastest apertures (without costing as much as a car), and 200f2.8 is already saturated by the many zoom lenses that every single lens company has been regularly updating for the last decade.

Moreover, Sigma has a fairly new 180mm f/2.8 stabilized macro lens, which received an extremely favorable review at lenstip (elsewhere too, I expect):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/837868-REG/Sigma_180mm_f_2_8_APO_Macro.html

21

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Best Point & Shoot that will fit in a pocket?

« on: April 28, 2013, 05:33:58 PM »

The Sony - tiny (exactly the same size as the Canon S95, which should in turn be the same size as the S110), but with a sensor that provides near-APS-C quality, including low light performance.  By far the best point-and-shoot I've ever used and as far as I know it's still without a serious rival.  (I've not used one, but I assume the Sony RX-1, with its full-frame sensor, is much better still, but to me $2800 seems a bit much for a camera with a non-interchangeable prime lens.)

22

Lenses / Re: 24-105L or Sigma 35.1.4 for 6D walk-around

« on: April 28, 2013, 09:17:39 AM »

One thing you could do while pondering what to buy is attach your 17-40 to your 50D, set it to the equivalent of 35mm on FF (a bit less than 24mm) and spend a day wandering around using only that focal length and see how restricted you feel (if at all).  I would find it too restricting, but that's me (I prefer details to scenes, so unless I expect to be inside my standard walkaround lens is more often than not my 70-200 f4 IS or 70-300L).

Regardless, though, I think buying the 24-105 as part of a kit makes the best sense financially, for all the reasons given so far by others.  On FF you can get very nice background blur with it, by the way (though you'll want to be near 105 for optimal effect).  Note that while the 35mm Sigma will make excellent background blur, you'll have to get pretty close to your subject, far closer than I would ever want to get to people (but again, that's me).  If you do get the 24-105 first, wait and see how restricted you feel by *that*.  You may be surprised at how well it performs, even in very low light (esp. on FF). 

(I wouldn't overlook the new Canon 35mm IS either unless you're trying to minimize depth of focus.)

23

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

« on: April 27, 2013, 11:17:48 PM »

I'm hoping that Sigma will redo their 50mm 1.4 and make it as good as the 35mm 1.4;  that should solve the issue for good.  I have the Canon 1.4 but am not wild about it, and even though I had read endless complaints about the Sigma I thought I would buy one on the off-chance I received a good copy.  The copy I received was atrocious - nothing was remotely sharp at any aperture, not the subject nor anything in front of or behind it.  Rather than commence a tiresome replacement hunt, I returned it for a refund and decided to wait for something better.  (Meanwhile I may try the Panasonic/Leica 25mm 1.4 for my Olympus OM-D instead....) 

24

Lenses / Re: Lightweight lens for backpacking and bicycle touring

« on: April 16, 2013, 04:05:36 PM »

Assuming you really do want to go as wide as 10mm, I would recommend against the Tamron you mention - I briefly owned one when I owned a Pentax K-5, and unless it performs much better in its Canon incarnation you can expect inconsistent exposures, poor contrast and grotesque purple fringing.  (I returned it for a Sigma 8-16, which was better, but surely too wide and heavy for your purposes.)  By all accounts the Canon is far superior, and if my father's copy is any indication, so is the Sigma.

(But if you really want light and compact, something completely different might make more sense - Sony RX100, say, or a micro 4/3 with a lens or three....)

25

Lenses / Re: Long zooms

« on: April 15, 2013, 09:56:12 AM »

I am considering purchasing a long zoom lens for football and rodeo photos and birding. Does anyone have links to reviews comparing the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 Di LD SP FEC (IF) and Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM? Any personal opinions (like I have to ask) whether the Canon is worth the extra $500-$700? I shoot a 7D, mostly for newsprint (so everything gets halftoned down to 150 dpi).

You can find some of those compared to the Canon 100-400 here:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/article.php?l=en&article=50

He also has another article which compares the Sigma 50-500 OS with the Canon 100-400, where he finds the Sigma a bit sharper at one end, the Canon at the other, and the OS of the Sigma to be far worse than the IS of the Canon.  He may have had a bad copy of the Sigma; the OS on mine is excellent, probably better than the Canon's (I've read reviews to the same effect).  I rented the Canon and the Sigma and ended up buying the Sigma because I preferred the bokeh from the Sigma.  Both struck me as being much the same otherwise (they cost about the same, too).  I had no problem with slow focusing on the Sigma, but then I don't photograph fast moving things and thus didn't really test it in that way.  I have no experience at all with the others on your list. 

26

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D800 Value Dropping?

« on: April 13, 2013, 03:46:44 PM »

Having had one, its a fine camera, but, as noted, even with high end Nikon Glass, its is difficult to get the resolution that the body can provide.
 

Let's suppose one buys a D800 and a few lenses capable of exploiting its resolution.  When you and others refer to difficulty (presumably this involves the need for a tripod, mirror lock-up, etc., and attendant skills) of realizing the camera's potential, are you saying that someone who chooses for whatever reason to use it hand-held will, other things being equal, get photos that are worse, or at least no better, than if he had used a D600 or D700 or 5DII/III or 6D etc., or that they will still look better, but not as good as they could?

27

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM

« on: April 12, 2013, 02:50:37 PM »

Justin: The review was a very good read. I would have loved to see side-by-side comparisions of your shots done with BOTH Sigma and Canon 35/1.4. That would tell the tale for me. BTW, does anyone already have such a comparison they could share? If one already exists, where may I find it?

This isn't quite what you're asking for, but The Digital Picture's review includes a bokeh-at-f/4 comparison of this lens vs Canon's three 35mm lenses and the Samyang equivalent.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-35mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

28

Reviews / Re: Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM

« on: April 12, 2013, 02:45:38 PM »

Hope Sigma updates their 50mm 1.4 to the same standard.
Sigma's on a bit of a roll i got a 30mm for my m4/3 camera last year that is really good.

I wish they would update their 50mm too.  I had no interest in it until I tried the 35mm, which I liked so much I ordered the 50mm - only to receive a copy (brand new) that seemed to have every flaw I've read about.  So I returned it and decided to stick with my Canon 50mm 1.4 for now.

As for Sigma being on a roll, lenstip fairly recently gave a rare (for them) rave review of Sigma's new 180mm macro lens.  Has anyone here tried it?  (I've only tried their 150mm macro, which I didn't much care for.)   

29

Lenses / Re: IS mandatory? 70-200 f/4 IS vs. f/2.8 Non-IS

« on: April 12, 2013, 11:45:51 AM »

If you will always be using the lens in bright light and have a steady hand, you probably don't need IS at all.  But if, like me, you will often want to use it in lower light, and if you're not trying to freeze action or minimize depth of focus, you may find, as I do, that f/4 + IS yields better results than f/2.8 without it.  Even though I seem to have a pretty steady hand (I've taken taken some sharp photos in very low light with the 135L and 200 f/2.8 L at very slow shutter speeds), I'm still not as good as IS and I would rather not worry about it.

30

Lenses / Re: Which Lens ... 24-70 II or primes?

« on: April 10, 2013, 11:34:44 AM »

Depending on how low the light is you usually find yourself shooting with, I'm inclined to suggest that IS matters (unless you're using a tripod), and may more than make up for any otherwise perceptible differences between the lenses involved.  So, if you want a 24-70 2.8 zoom I would suggest the newish Tamron instead; with the amount saved over the Canon you could buy the new Sigma 35 1.4 or get a head start on another fast prime ....