Messages

586

Lenses / Re: Sigma 50 1.4 or canon 85 1.8

« on: December 21, 2012, 09:22:50 AM »

Hi,

I would like to know your thoughts on aquiring a new lens for my 600d.
With the lens I would like to do some low light and strob photos, also but not that much street. It should be also useful for video (manual focus capability).
I would like to have some nice sharp images and a nice oof background. What would you recomend?
I also considered the Samyang 85mm 1.4 but I really do not know how is it to focus on a 600d with the stock focus screening, which I am not willing to replace.
I know 50 and 85 are quite different focal lenghts and actually I already have the sigma 17 50, which makes me quite happy, but sometime the f 2,8 does not deliver the oof I wish.

Thank you for your advices.

On a full frame the focal lengths are different animals. But on a crop such as yours they are more alike (excluding the brand name and IQ and sticking just to focal length)  in that they will both fit the portrait genre. They will fall on the lower and higher end of the "medium" tele lenses on a crop sensor. So depends on if that is what you intend them for. Indoors they both will be a tight fit on a crop sensor for groups of people. Head shots they are perfectly suited for. The 85mm on crop would be similar to 135mm on FF so outdoor portraits etc are doable and perhaps some ambient light sports too.

587

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: The seemingly amazing Sigma 35

« on: December 20, 2012, 10:21:11 PM »

Is there a reliable source for the Sigma's relative bokeh deficiencies?

Or are people just regurgitating unsubstantiated rumors?

Seeing is believing... Lensrental blog had several in their blog, as did a Korean site ....a slew of rather flat pictures. Granted not head to head comparisons but underscores sharpness isn't everything.

588

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: right now i am not happy to be a canon user

« on: December 20, 2012, 01:42:59 PM »

Sounds like the OP needs a holiday - New York City is quite nice, and I'm sure you can get a 6D/5DIII locally.

I'm almost tempted to say that a trip to LA to have the USA service center in Hollywood take a peak at your 5DIII issues.

Seriously, I'm from Germany too, and I've recenly checked flight prices to NY, to get me some new gear 

Oh stop whining my german friends and just invade the UK... it may just work this time and it is closer! (Is 65 years too soon?)

589

Lenses / Re: Buy Canon 24-70l II today or wait for Newer version with IS?

« on: December 20, 2012, 01:11:15 PM »

Why no mention of the new 24-70 f/4 IS version that should be available in January?  I have the  24-70 vII now and just rented the Tamron for comparison.  I didn't care for the Tamron that much and didn't feel their VC comes anywhere close to the Hybrid Canon IS version that is on the 70-200 vII.

Now I am considering returning the f/2.8 and ordering the f/4.  Just don't know.  I love the IQ with the new 24-70 on the 5DMkIII but scared to death of camera shake on the shot that I need to capture.

Any speculation that the IQ will be less on the f/4?

Speaking specifically of the announced 24-70 f4, it is still unclear to me why a shorter range with the same aperture of f4 would be better than the 24-105 L for an average user. Unless perhaps it is almost exclusively geared to be paired as a kit with 6D.

Perhaps 24-105L being rather ubiquitous makes it less disirable for some? But then, the new 24-70 f4 will be equally so in a few years. I can't speak for individual copy variation that seems to exist among 24-105L, but mine is sharp. Unless the IQ and IS are both updated in the 24-70 f4 to the extent where its reduced weight becomes a key selling point, I think the 24-105L is still the better contender at give away prices.

If the price of the new 24-70 f4 L (now listed at $1499) comes down eventually to $900 then I think it becomes a more interesting match up and will present a tougher decision... lighter, marginally higher IQ and IS of the 24-70 f4,  against an older, heavier, bulkier 24-105L. For some, the ergonomics could be an important issue, but not at ~$600 price differential with a shortened range.

590

Lenses / Re: Did you use a UV filter on 70-200 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)

« on: December 20, 2012, 10:03:51 AM »

more glass less IQ

Thanks for that pithy explanation. I've always wondered why the 70-200/2.8L IS II with its 23 elements has so much less IQ than the 35/2 with only 7 elements. Now I know.

Perhaps... but one can still contend the caveat is the glass being added from B+W, Hoya, or tiffin or even high end pro versions of whatever brand was not part of the original optical design while the 20 odd elements or just 7 elements would have been carefully chosen to play well together.

591

Lenses / Re: Did you use a UV filter on 70-200 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)

« on: December 20, 2012, 09:48:17 AM »

more glass less IQ

That's my general bias as well, though I fully admit this is not based on any sound comparison. But personal perceptions matter. And I don't have filters on high end glass.

However, the point of this thread was, even if you hold such a perception that sticking another piece of glass on a precision engineered optical system is awful,  is there a point at which you balance the potential protection afforded by this added glass with the potential smidgen of trade off in IQ of a high quality lens? And I did say potential.

It appears a fair number do think it is justified.

592

Lenses / Re: Did you use a UV filter on 70-200 f2.8L IS (I or II) during its last use? (Poll)

« on: December 20, 2012, 09:25:31 AM »

Hmm ...with n= 80+, may be a dirty non parametric test is in order?

593

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions

« on: December 19, 2012, 10:56:30 PM »

Here is the sigma 35mm subpar bokeh discussion and graphs at lensrentals blog...scroll down a bit.
Yes he discusses it within the review for the new canon 35mm IS.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon

594

Lenses / Re: Buy Canon 24-70l II today or wait for Newer version with IS?

« on: December 19, 2012, 10:43:52 PM »

OK, OK, OK. I get the point about not waiting for a rumored lens. Let me ask a follow up question.  Will IS offer a big benefit for photos on this lens in indoor situations for family portraits?

In practical terms, no; because in event photography, or gatherings, the bottleneck is always the subjects themselves moving...be it a vibrant party or a rock concert or active wedding guests in a dark venue... in these cases the subjects would have moved before your hands shaking.... IS in and of itself will not save the day here...but I suppose it never hurts to have IS...may be good for posed situations and portraits. But take into account the added weight and cost, I will take wider apertures and higher ISO any day over IS in these situations.

But I am told IS in the wider range primes recently introduced by Canon (24mm, 28mm,35mm) are partly targeted toward videographers....may be it helps but I don't know much about videos to comment.

595

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions

« on: December 19, 2012, 10:11:05 PM »

When I first saw the Sigma head shot of the girl here on the forum somewhere (someone please link it if you remember), my thoughts were: beautiful subject, sharp lens, very nice OOF but the bokeh is not very pleasing. Granted, one can't look at football-shaped off focus lights always to judge this.. they all tend to look the same...one needs to look at real world backgrounds ...and the quality of the bokeh is not always measurable...it is subjective. I simply did not like the Sigma rendition. There was also something about the color...microcontrast...I dunno... Sigma was clearly a sharp lens but it did not speak to me.

ever shot a 70-200 f2.8L IS II wide open or a 50 f1.4 from canon at 1.4? football shaped bokeh happens on any lens if the conditions are right

That is misreading what I said...I was not saying the football OOF shapes shouldn't occur... I said they are not a good way to judge the quality of bokeh in general...say furniture in the back or trees. Lensrentals' Roger's gallery pics of the sigma 35mm 1.4 is more telling in his recent blog...and ...oddly he directly addresses the sigma bokeh also in the canon 35mm f2 IS review blog with some graphs to boot. All said, I think sigma may very well be sharp, but the bokeh quality may still be behind 35L.

596

Lenses / Re: Buy Canon 24-70l II today or wait for Newer version with IS?

« on: December 19, 2012, 09:44:21 PM »

  A new 100-400L has been 'coming in about a year'....every year for the past 5 years.  If you need/want it now, get it now.

And  the 35L II too will be in by January right after 100-400L II.  I am planning to take the second Sunday off to play with them.

597

Canon General / Re: necessity of photography school

« on: December 19, 2012, 10:56:17 AM »

Going to photography school is the same as going to "art school" in a more broader sense ... I guess they hand out photography diplomas in art schools but I digress. A couple of art history courses and may be a specialized course for 3 or 4 credits on top in a regular liberal arts curriculum will do more good... Granted over priced in this context. But most proprietary "art schools" in small communities are run by people who are more ignorant about art than Mr. Squeers-like schoolmasters from Dickensian novels.

I think art of any kind stands out when it has a unique and personal view point. By training students to mostly conform, we blunt innovation and uniqueness. If I had a nickel for every time I saw a shot of a long straight road going into infinity in a perspective shot... I'll be Donald Trump (hopefully without the badger hair). Most of what an "art school" can teach can be acquired from public sources, me thinks.

And here is a scene from the classic Britcom "Red Dwarf"

Lister: I went to art college.
Rimmer: You!!!
Lister: Yeah.
Rimmer: How did you get into art college?
Lister: The normal way you get into art college. The same old usual, boring, normal way you get in. Failed my exams and applied. They snapped me up.

598

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions

« on: December 19, 2012, 03:22:42 AM »

Sounds like the Sigma 35mm is sharper but perhaps there is too much rosey enthusiasm about this lens among some.  I am glad to have Canon play defense... competition is always good for the customers but let me share my subjective view of the Sigma pictures I've seen so far.

When I first saw the Sigma head shot of the girl here on the forum somewhere (someone please link it if you remember), my thoughts were: beautiful subject, sharp lens, very nice OOF but the bokeh is not very pleasing. Granted, one can't look at football-shaped off focus lights always to judge this.. they all tend to look the same...one needs to look at real world backgrounds ...and the quality of the bokeh is not always measurable...it is subjective. I simply did not like the Sigma rendition. There was also something about the color...microcontrast...I dunno... Sigma was clearly a sharp lens but it did not speak to me.

Now, in all fairness, had the Canon 35L been used on the same model, same night lighting, would it be any better? I don't know as there was no head-to-head comparison. So I hope for Sigma's sake that Canon 35L would also have produced the same picture.

But what is more significant is that lensrentals gallery in their Sigma review/blog also has those rather flat looking pictures with color rendition that just doesn't grab me. And Roger from lensrental goes on to say bokeh is in fact subpar with this lens. Another review cited in this thread earlier also states the same thing about the Sigma bokeh.

So sharpness is not everything. There is such a thing as "Je ne sais quoi" about the images that lenses generate and I think 35L has it in spades. It hasn't seen much use with me for some time...but perhaps it is time I paid an old friend some much deserved attention.

599

Lenses / Re: Lens dilemma

« on: December 18, 2012, 08:15:28 PM »

To me versatility beats other considerations if quality is not compromised. And I think even the verrsion 1 zoom in question is great lens. If budget is a consideration, then the order in which combinations are acquired becomes key. I would first get the 70-200 for versatility reach and quality and then acquire 135 f2 lens to complement the zoom for higher speed and yes image quality too... but it is all in balance.

600

Lenses / Re: The next 24-105 v. 24-70

« on: December 17, 2012, 07:14:20 PM »

Seriously dude, what's the deal with the polls?  I don't think people are going to be too happy with you cluttering up this board with impossible polls.

+1. Agree with Axilrod.   I count 4 polls from you in one day...You need a hobby.