August 28, 2014, 01:37:18 AM

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 - ahsanford

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 57
I notice that the 14-24 f/4 is not rumored to be an "Art" lens. 

I'm waiting to see the quality level of the lens when and if it's announced.

'C' for contemporary?

Nope.  'R' for rumor.   :P

- A

24mm f/1.4 A $1100?

Please anyone, what was the introduction price of the 35mm?

If memory serves...

$899 for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art
$949 for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art

- A


There are much bigger weaknesses in the wide angles of various vendor lens lineups than there are at 85mm and beyond. Canon's 85/1.2L is already quite good, as is the 100 and 135. Although Sigma may want to play there later, there's less opportunity in that space of the lens market than at the wide end...

If Sigma do deliver a 14-24 and Canon's 11-24 is just a rumor for some time longer then Sigma will have that part of the Canon market all to themselves. Then there's all of Sony's market too.

Smart thinking by Sigma. Aim for where Canon is weak.

If that 14-24 is front filterable and comparably sharp as the Nikon 14-24, it's a land grab for Nikon landscape business as well.  That Nikon lens has a sterling reputation but has gone without any serious competition. 

- A

24 1.4?

Dangit.  I was looking forward to an 85 1.4 Art this Fall.

The 24-70 f2 possibility is very cool, however.  Might drown my sorrows then look forward to that beast!

I wouldn't give up on an 85 f/1.4 Art.  That's been rumored for some time on other sites.  Most rumor mongers say Sigma needs both the 24 and 85 to complete the standard Art prime line. 

Further, Dustin Abbott (fellow CR forum member but also does his own reviews) said that he's already been approached to review a early Zeiss Otus 85mm.  Any 'Otus' developments are absolute gold for Sigma, who have demonstrated that they can make an autofocusing lens 95% as good for 1/4 the price.  So if Zeiss is making one, Sigma will gladly swoop in, outperform an aging Canon L in that FL, and gobble up a good chunk of the high end dollars there.  Be patient.

- A

I'm curious about the rumored 14-24, though I think the 35mm end of the 16-35 makes it a more practical zoom lens.  Also, it would be the first 14mm FF lens to take a filter, so that makes me wonder.

Surprised Sigma hadn't pounced on a really wide UWA zoom for FF some time ago.  Before they were killing it with Art lenses (and delivering much higher quality product), they were undercutting for price and niche/gap-filling lenses Canon wasn't making.  I would have assumed they'd have tried this FL by now.

I ran a poll recently that pegged why so many people coveted the Nikon 14-24, asking them to choose if they could only have one of two things -- that lens's sharpness OR it's focal length, which was more important?

Though a large majority said they really just wanted a sharper ultrawide in general, a quarter of respondents really thought that focal length was the killer item.

So I think a Sigma 14-24 will sell well if it were offered just from pent-up demand of 14mm UWA zoom covetees and the IS should please some event photogs.  Now if it is nearly as sharp as the Nikon and it takes front filters, it will sell like hotcakes to the landscapers.  The Nikon 14-24 is great, but from what I've read, it really handcuffs photogs from a filtering flexibility perspective.   As I understand it, Nikon 14-24 users can't use the main Lee setup and need to buy a specialized Lee rig that is limited in some way.  (I want to say they can't stack much or they can't use a CPL -- someone please correct me.)

Regardless of whether this Sigma lens is real or not, I agree with RLPhoto -- I'll be perfectly happy with my new Canon 16-35 F/4 IS.  It is a brilliant tool which says yes to nearly everything I need:  it's sharp, it has IS, natively works with my Lee setup, can handle some rain, and doesn't weigh a ton.  Love it love it love it.

- A

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: August 15, 2014, 10:57:30 AM »

Sigma: 14-24 F/4 OS is rumored for Photokina...

Lenses / Sigma 14-24mm OS lens at Photokina?
« on: August 14, 2014, 05:41:34 PM »
Oh snap.  Ultrawiders who really want 14mm on a zoom might be happy to see this rumor...

...but I think someone will complain about not having f/2.8 before anyone can say woohoo to a 14-24 lens.

- A

EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 02:40:25 PM »
Annnnnnd this is why I'm not a pro. 

Mackguyver:  ETTR is not new to me at all, I've been doing that for some time.  That principal is well in-hand for me.

But if I understood your and Jrista's posts correctly, I just learned that my in-camera WB does affect my RAW files due to its effect on metering.  That's a big deal for me, as I shoot everything in AWB and JPG+RAW, and I simply correct the white balance in my keeper RAW files.

So now I do need to sweat my WB.  I always thought that RAW alleviated me of that burden and I just focused on a general (non-color-specific) histo. 

- A

EOS Bodies / Re: SL1 as a "travel" body
« on: August 13, 2014, 02:15:01 PM »

ISO samples are here in one convenient place:

The 40D is not there, but more modern cameras are there for comparison:

- A

EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 02:02:56 PM »
I have often struggled with red objects in my 5d3. I wrote last year about it but did not get any replies. Yesterday while trying out my new 85 1.2 ii, I saw the same issue.

Red flowers come out in an over saturated red haze. The other colors seem saturated just fine, but the reds are over powered so much that the flowers lose detail.

I can reduced saturation in LR, but then the whole image looks washed out... the issue is only with reds.

If I reduce just red (Red channel only) , then it lacks punch, although I get back details in the flower...

Has anyone else observed this?

Looks like your auto white balance is thrown off by the amount of 'green' in the photo (greens look too blue). Try a WB setting of 'daylight' or 'cloudy'. I find this gives the best overall results if shooting in a 'green' environment.

Good tip, but I've seen this even 'as shot' from my RAW processing in ACR.  I clip on my reds all the time, and tweaking the WB isn't doing it for me.  I end up having to toy with sliders for saturation and (a) waste time doing that and (b) never like the output when I do.

This also isn't limited to strong green backgrounds being a trigger.  I've seen this happen on anything with a strong field of red in the frame regardless of background.  I am talking about the RAW file and not about picture-style related saturation effects with onboard JPGs.

I'm not a pro.  I like to keep my RAW processing time down to around 60-120s per shot, so color is one of the things I would prefer to get right in-camera and only need to run global saturation/luminance changes on in RAW processing.  There has got to be a way to manange this in-camera before you clip. 

Mackguyver's suggestion (see page 2 of this thread) to use multi-color histo and avoid clipping the shadows is interesting and will be tried out.  Is exposure only a global adjustment for auto exposure modes?  Is there anyway to run auto-exposure independently for R, G and B?  I'm getting a headache thinking about how that would not work -- colors would shift, the metering may not work that way, etc. -- but please sate my curiosity and tell me anyway.   :D

- A

EOS Bodies / Re: How do reds come out in your 5d3 ?
« on: August 13, 2014, 11:16:28 AM »
Excellent thread.  This topic has vexed me on 5D3 flower work.  The 5D3 has always been oversaturated on reds in my hands, and I seem to lose something when I try to rein in the reds in RAW processing.

I don't want a great post-processing tool for this specific issue.  More commentary on in-camera work, please.  How do I preview this is going to happen, and when I find it, how do I compensate for it?

Keep talking, people.

- A


I was curious about this, so I looked up a few.  Ever-trusty-TDP has this anecdotally listed in some reviews but not in it's handy specifications pull-down, so I had to go to (roll eyes) Ken Rockwell's site for this:

Just for the filter threads...

24-70 F/4L = plastic
24-70 F/2.8L II = plastic
24-105L = plastic
70-200 F/4L IS = plastic
70-200 F/2.8L IS II = metal
70-300L = metal
35L = metal
50L = plastic
85L = metal
100L = plastic
135L = plastic

So it's a bit of a mixed bag.  Some wonderful lenses on that list have plastic threads and seem to be doing just fine.  But I do understand the confidence metal components can inspire:  my old 24-70 F/2.8L I was a pickle jar full of metal, and am fairly certain I could have used it as a hammer.

- A

My one experience with a lens being completely destroyed by a drop was entirely the fault of using plastic for the filter threads.  Had they used stainless steel or aluminum, it would have bent a little, and the filter would have shattered, and that's it.  Instead, the filter threads shattered, and the lens filter (whose threads were made of metal as they should be) dug into the front glass.  The cost of replacing the front glass was more than the lens was worth, so I considered it a complete loss and moved on, but I'm very wary of plastic parts on lenses these days as a result.

At the very least, filter threads on a lens should always be made of metal.  Anything else is a hack.

I understand your position, but I respectfully disagree.  Lugging around heavier items sucks all the time as insurance for something that doesn't happen so often.  I have had one straight drop of my gear in 10 years of shooting with SLRs (and everything was fine anyway). 

Provided the weather sealing doesn't suffer and they choose plastics for the long-term that are UV/oxidization resistant, I'll choose lighter weight over a sturdier material every time.  I'd love to see even my tank-like 70-200 F/2.8 IS II get the weight reduction treatment if I could.

Now, if I was shooting sports or covering a war zone, the calculus might change.  But until then, I'd like to sweat less and shoot in higher comfort.

- A

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/4L IS -- Canon registration, ACR profiles, etc.
« on: August 08, 2014, 04:28:55 PM »
I'm fiddling with it now.  Is microcontrast just DXO's term for the clarity slider from ACR?  Seems very similar.  It's a 'more detail at the cost of an HDR look' sort of tradeoff to me.

- A
Yes, that's a good way to put it.  I generally go light with that one, maybe +5 to +10 if needed.  Also, if you expose to the right (or have shots with blown out highlights) the "Highlight Recovery - Strong" in the Exposure dropdown is pretty amazing.

The functionality is impressive but the controls/layout are a mouse fest.  Not overly fond of that.  And it really crawls on my old MacBook Pro for most tasks.  Only the noise reduction previews take this long on ACR.

I've collared a few keeper RAW files from older shoots that capture the standard things I need to wrestle with in ACR.  We'll see how this does, thanks.

- A

Lenses / Re: 16-35 F/4L IS -- Canon registration, ACR profiles, etc.
« on: August 08, 2014, 03:27:09 PM »
DxO might be a good choice for you as it's really designed for two types of people - users like yourself who prefer to have the tool do most of the work, and users like me who are insanely slightly obsessive about processing 100% of their photos from RAW.  The basic processing works extremely well and the general sliders are easy to use to tweak your photos a bit, but there's lots more if you get into it.

On the other hand, the interface isn't the most intuitive and you have to export everything to file (or other apps) and that can be a little hard to get used to compared to other apps.  I'd recommend downloading the free trial to see if it's for you.  These two tutorials should get you started:

It's typically a love/hate thing with DxO, but try to be patient at first, it really is a great program once you get the hang of it.

I'm fiddling with it now.  Is microcontrast just DXO's term for the clarity slider from ACR?  Seems very similar.  It's a 'more detail at the cost of an HDR look' sort of tradeoff to me.

- A

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 57