March 03, 2015, 11:49:28 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 - Radiating

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
A very nice lens indeed! :) may work as a crop standard lens also  ::)
Let's see how it compares to the Nikon 14-24 and the Canon 16-35...

Yeah when Tamron released their 24-70mm VC it was amazing. If this lens is anything like that they could easily be the best wide angle lens in the world.

While very cool, I'm satisfied with the 16-35 f/4L already. Too late sigma. :P

The 16-35mm IS is excellent in a sea of wide angle zooms that are mediocre, with the Nikon 14-24mm, and 16-35mm VR being one of the few other good ones.

The thing is Sigma's 14-24mm might be even sharper than Canon's version and wider. That would be a killer lens. There's lots of room to improve quality in this segment. The 14-24mm could blow Canon out of the water, or just be slightly better in every way like the 24-105mm (though lacking weather sealing, and being much larger as the down side)

I'm very curious to see what the 24mm 1.4 is like, every major brand has tried to get the 24mm prime right, and most don't perform well above f/2.0.

I'm very hopeful of some serious improvements with these lenses. :)

Lenses / Re: Lenses in the 20mm range
« on: July 28, 2014, 12:58:17 PM »
I'm in the market for a new lens. I'm going to be using it indoors with and without a flash to capture room environments (places I take photos will probably call for portions of the room to be darker than others in some instances). Anyways, I need a lens that is at least 20mm wide (94 degree viewing angle) to capture an entire room from a corner.

I was hoping people who own lenses in the 20mm range could weigh in on the topic considering the specs I'm requiring of the lens and provide me with recommendations.

BTW I'm new here :)


There are only 6 lenses in the 20mm range that do not have serious image quality defects:

Canon 16-35mm f/4.0 IS L
Canon 11-22mm f/4.5-f/5.6 EF-M
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8
Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR
Zeiss 21mm f/2.8
Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-f/5.6

Take your pick.

Lenses / Re: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART questions
« on: July 10, 2014, 09:39:32 AM »
Good day,
I'm planning to buy 35mm lense and my doubt is about Sigma's built quality. I know that this is a perfect lense, sharp and fast, but is it as unkillable as the canon 35mm 1.4?

The fact is I don't care much about dark corners, extreme sharpness etc, I think canon 35mm is as well extremely sharp. Vignetting can be creative also.

I heard that Sigma's autofocus is a mess sometimes, can this be the reason for choosing canon?

In other words, I like the picture made with Sigma (it's very NIKON-alike), but I'm afraid of some small things like micro adjustments and I don't wan't to buy some docstations.

The Canon 35mm f/1.4 L is 3 times less reliable  than the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, so if you want the lens that will give you less problems go with the Sigma.

The Canon 35mm f/1.4 is one of the least reliable lenses ever made and one of the most prone to focus related problems. In fact Canon's 35mm has more autofocusing issues alone than Sigma's lens has issues in all categories combined according to historical reliability data.

Lenses / Re: Confused, 24-70 f/2.8 or f/4?
« on: July 06, 2014, 08:14:32 PM »
Thought I made a decision. Went to the shop yesterday to buy the 16-35 f/4 and the 24-70 f/2.8.
The 16-35, yes. No doubts.
But, I was told in the shop, that one of the assistants tested the f/2.8 and the f/4, and that there was hardly any difference in IQ. He works in the fashion world for years.
So, I didn't buy the 24-70.
Macro option, I don't care. IQ, I do.
IS, a nice option.
But how about the IQ?
I know I will use a tripod a lot. I am not a type that walks the streets for making photos. I am more the calculating type.
What is wisdom?
IS or not?

Breaking down a question like this into something as simple as "little difference in IQ" is a ludicrously bad way to compare lenses.

The 24-70mm F/4.0 IS could not be more different from the 24-70mm f/2.8 II, and other normal zoom lenses.

Now I could definitely see a photographer taking both lenses shooting off a brick wall and not seeing much of a difference, and if your clients do not care that much about the details (most clients don't) then there isn't that much of a difference in practice.

But factually speaking there is a huge difference:

Let's compare the current 4 best options for normal zoom lenses:

Sigma/Canon 24-105mm, Canon 24-70mm F/4.0 IS, Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 II, Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8

For the record I own 3 of these 4 lenses because each is so very different and each has their own usage scenario.

Let's go down the list:

Canon 24-70mm f/4.0 IS L

- This is a very nice lens at the extremes, the 24mm and 70mm focal lengths deliver world class pro sharpness.
- The bokeh is also world class at all focal lengths.
- This lens is also the world's worst 50mm lens for any dslr. Literally. It is very hard to make a sharp normal zoom due to the extreme complication of the design, so Canon had little room to improve upon the 24-105mm f/4.0 IS L. Instead of improving upon it, they made it way better at 24mm, a bit better at 70mm and much worse in-between. Most zoom lens users use lenses towards the extreme so is good in theory, but overall the 24-70mm f/4.0 IS L scores lower in sharpness than the 24-105mm f/4.0 IS when you average all of the points on the frame and all of the zoom range that crosses over. The 24-70mm f/4.0 IS L lens is really genuinely terrible in the middle of the focal range, but excellent at everything else.


Test Chart @ 50mm f/4.0 - Canon 24-70mm f/4.0 IS L

Test chart @ 50mm f/4.0 for Canon 28-300mm super zoom

Here's a comparison with one of Canon's worst zoom lenses.

Test chart @ 50mm f/4.5 Canon 18-55mm kit lens:

Here's a comparison to Canon's cheapest zoom lens, the crop kit lens.

The 24-70mm f/4.0 IS is one of Canon's best lenses ever made at the widest and longest end of it's focal range, and you will indeed see little difference between it and the more expensive 24-70mm f/2.8 L II. However in-between it is literally one of the worst zoom lenses ever made. It is really genuinely terrible at around 50mm.

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 IS II

- This lens is as sharp , at all focal ranges and at f/2.8. It is one of the sharpest lenses in the world at any setting.
- This lens also has an apochromatic design, also known as APO, APO is an incredible feature that results in no purple fringing. All normal zoom lenses suffer immensely from purple fringing and it ruins a lot of photos. APO is a feature that is generally found only in the best and most expensive lenses in the world, the big white super telephoto lenses have it, and so do some of the more special zeiss lenses. Purple fringing cannot be removed completely by any computer program automatically unlike regular color fringing, and if it is above anything but a very small level it will always be obvious in photos with extremes of contrast.

Purple fringing looks like this from any zoom lens other than the 24-70mm f/2.8 II L. Again you cannot get rid of it without painstaking hand color correction and editors of major publications and stock photo agencies typically do not allow photos with purple fringing in it to be published, so this is a very important pro feature.

Another comparison:

You can see how one lens renders text more purple in this comparison.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 II is an amazing lens MORE SO because of it's apochromatic nature than anything else that it does.

The major problem with the 24-70mm f/2.8 II is that it has very poor contrast in areas that are out of focus. This is because Canon had to do some weird tricks to make the lens do what they wanted.

As you can see on the left images taken with the 24-70mm f/2.8 II have a glow that reduces contrast in the out of focus areas. Everything has this halo. This is a characteristic that is not found in any similar lens.

The result of this bokeh haze is that images will have different levels of contrast and saturation in the out of focus and in focus areas. You cannot simply boost the contrast and saturation to fix this. Because then your in focus areas will become over saturated and/or have a crunchy contrast.

The net effect then is that images taken with the 24-70mm f/2.8 II in certain situations can have an extremely muddy and weird looking background that reduces the pop of the image. I have had this negatively impact several shoots and require time consuming hours to fix in photoshop.

Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 II

This lens has sharpness that is near perfect, and provides nice bokeh. It lacks the apochromatic features of the Canon version, but lacks the hazy bokeh. However in some situations it has the exact opposite problem as the Canon with bokeh, it's sometimes way too harsh making things look busy too textured in certain situations. Not all situations, but it can ruin photos and is a problem.

Canon 24-105mm/Sigma 24-105mm

These lenses are basically of the same design and very similar performance. The Sigma is a little better in every image quality dimension, but only a little. I think it's worth it to get the Sigma personally.

The 24-105mm f/4.0 (Sigma or Canon) are a lenes that lacks any major flaws but also do not impress at any focal length. Never flawed but always mediocre in other words.

So as you can see each lens has it's problems, limitations benefits and differences. All of these lenses are terrible at something incredibly important or just mediocre and you have to pick which problem is going to affect you the least.

And that's excluding the aperture and IS discussion, which makes it even more complex.

I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June.  Why am I not jumping ship?  I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!

You do realize that there are only 6 lenses made in the world that can take advantage of more than 22.3 megapixels right? And then only when they are perfectly stopped down on a tripod.

Canon is not releasing a camera that has more than 22.3 megapixels because it is stupid to do so. It is like releasing a 8k TV when our content is barley HD, with a few 4k options, and a very small hand full of 8k options.

This is not a hard concept to understand. When your input for your device is around 10-25 megapixels in 99% of cases, having a much higher resolution is stupid.

If you still don't understand here's a photo with a Sigma 70mm Macro, taken on a tripod, this is one of the sharpest lenses in the world. One of the images is from a 5D Mark III, the other is from a D800. The 5D Mark III image has been scaled up to 36 megapixels.

100% crop

There is no difference.

If you are doing the kind of work that really does require 36 megapixels, and you have the technique and lenses to back it up then canon will soon be releasing a 40 megapixel specialty use camera for you, but for 99% of photographers anything more than 22 megapixels is a waste and a burden and makes your camera a worse tool.

Lenses / Re: Looking for an wideangle lens about 20mm
« on: June 09, 2014, 12:57:35 AM »
As far as ultra wide angle lenses go there are only a hand full from any manufacturer that aren't terrible.

Here's the complete list:

Full Frame:
Zeiss 21mm f/2.8
Zeiss 18mm f/3.5
Canon 17mm f/4.0 TS-E L
Canon 16-35mm f/4.0 IS L
Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8
Canon 14mm f/2.8 II L
Samyang 14mm f/2.8


Canon 11-22mm f/4.0-5.6 EOS M
Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6

All other ultra wide angle lenses have some sort of severe image quality flaw or flaws. Considering your aperture, focal length and price requirements this slightly narrows the list:

Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 (used)
Zeiss 18mm f/3.5
Canon 17mm f/4.0 TS-E L (used)
Canon 16-35mm f/4.0 IS L
Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8


Canon 11-22mm f/4.0-5.6 EOS M
Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6

If you want good autofocus this narrows the list even more:

Canon 16-35mm f/4.0 IS L
Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6

EOS Bodies / Re: Can Canon deliver a FF sensor that is class leading?
« on: June 03, 2014, 06:58:44 PM »
Whilst we're going to have to wait a month to find out what the distortion is like on the 16-35/f4L, the MTF graphs and samples tend to suggest it is going to be a class leading lens. And how long have we had to wait for it?!

And if Canon can do that, can it finally deliver a FF sensor that is also class leading? By class leading, I'm referring to noise control and DR that is close to linear right through the ISO range and that matches or exceeds that of Sony sensors.

What's important about it being linear? At the moment Canon sensors have a DR function that is flat in the low ISO range as opposed to Sony's which is linear: below ISO 200 (or is it 400?) there is very little gain in DR from Canon sensors whereas Sony's deliver substantial gains the lower the ISO goes. I suspect that prior to Sony's sensors coming out, people thought that the "flat area" at the start of Canon's graphs looked good because there was no degradation. What people didn't realise is that there shouldn't be any flat spots, rather the DR (colour, noise, etc) response of the sensor should be close to having a linear relationship with ISO.

You do realize that the 5D3 1DX and 70D sensors are better than anything Sonikon makes in several categories right? Just because those aren't your favorite categories doesn't make them any worse.

Lenses / Re: purchasing 70-200 f4 IS now?
« on: June 02, 2014, 10:28:51 PM »
you may want to wait a bit longer, since it is said to be updated very soon.
I have it and also Sony Nikon 70-200mm f4G lenses and I compared them side by side many times, in absolute term the Canon f4LIS is still a good lens but it shows its age compared to the Sony and the Nikon,espeically to the Sony.
and imho, the Canon f4LIS and Nikon f4VR are overpriced compared to the excellent Sony 70-200mm f4 SSM , the Sony comes with tripod mount and it is about 100US cheaper than the optically inferior Canon f4 70-200mm and the Optically as good but heavier Nikon..
I tested them all on my A7R and see the differences, the Sony was clearly sharper than the other 2 at 70 , 100, 135mm wide open , but at 200mm end , the Nikon was the better lens  at f4 , but stopping down to f6.3 , the Sony becomes better than the other 2 again.    I also compared the build quality of the 3 lenses, to me the Sony seems better made lens but a bit bigger than the Canon, the biggest one is the Nikon f4 and it is a bit longer than the Canon and the Sony.  But honestly I prefer the look of the Nikon lens since it is black and less conspicuous in public.   but if do not  care about the color of the lens, but only optical quality and AF accuracy , then the Sony wins hands down here.  and  after comparing the 3 , I am quite sure, the Sony and Nikon 70-200mm f4 are quite a bit better than the Canon one, and I am sure Canon must update it with better IS and better anti-flare coating very soon to be competitive.  the Nikon has almost 5 stop effective VR , and it focuses very very close, so personally I do not buy the Canon f4 70-200mm IS lens now , and I do not need f2.8 any more in this range(I use the Zeiss 135mm f2 APO instead). So if I need the best 70-200mm f4 zoom now , I will go Sony or Nikon. If you can wait , wait a few months , I am quite sure we will see a new 70-200mm f4LIS lens from Canon at Photokina(it does not mean we can actually buy it very soon , though).
All that having said , the best 70-200mm zoom is the Canon 70-200mm f2.8LISMK2 USM lens.

Your post seems a bit off. There is a known issue with the A7R causing significant image quality degradation when lenses are adapted to it (ie not native FE mount). My guess is you are experiencing this issue seeing as you are comparing a native lens versus two adapted ones and finding some of the best lenses in the world to be noticeably worse than everyone else has measured them to be.

According to multiple sources the Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 IS is noticeably sharper wide open than the 70-200mm f4 designed for the A7R. So if you are seeing the opposite, it's a problem with your setup.

For example if you look at DXO mark's raw data, it shows that in their field map measurements the Canon is 13% sharper overall and 28% sharper in the mid frame than the s]Sony on average across the zoom range at F/4.0.

Anyways, the 70-200mm F4.0 IS worth getting. It is the most flawless EF mount zoom lens that is made at any focal length by any manufacturer period. To start off with it's one of the top 15 sharpest lenses that exist for average wide open sharpness. Nevermind zoom lenses, it competes with primes. It also has next to zero aberrations of any kind. It's big brother, for example is not parafocal which makes it a problem to use for video (you can't zoom while shooting without focus correction), it has noticeably worse and more busy bokeh transitions and less smoothness, more spherical aberrations, coma, field curvature, CA, loca, etc etc. You get the same sort of difference when comparing most other pro zoom lenses to the F4.0 IS. Most pro zoom lenses are good at being sharp and that's it, they have tons of other flaws. The 70-200mm f/4.0 IS is unlike almost any other zoom, in that it just doesn't have significant aberrations of any kind. That's a very rare trait.

I certainly read doubts about the AF, especially off the center point. 

However, the effusive praise, perhaps well deserved, won't light a fire under Sigma to address the AF problems.

The AF problems are isolated meaning some lenses are perfect some are junk. This is much better than all lenses being slightly off. I don't mind buying multiple copies from multiple retailers (to ensure they come from different batches) and connecting them with multiple bodies if it means I will get a perfect setup.

Here's my take on it. Before today there were 3 wide angle zoom lenses that didn't have noticeable image quality problems, between all first and third party lenses (the 17-40mm did have a few exceptionally sharp copies, if you were lucky like the one tested by DXO but most were bad and all copies had really really crazy harsh bokeh, which was a serious flaw).

These 3 good wide angle zooms were the following:

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8
Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR
Canon 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 STM IS (EOS M)

These were basically the only wide angle zooms worth getting if you didn't want seriously noticeable flaws in your photos. That's why I have a nikon 14-24mm on my 5D3, as do many other pros.

Now there is a fourth option, the Canon 16-35mm IS. The 11-22mm for the EOS M is still sharper than this new 16-35mm IS based on the MTF data (removing the mirror enables incredible improvements in image quality for wide angle lenses, seriously the 11-22mm STM is insanely good, better than any of Canon's other full frame options), and the Nikon 14-24mm is still king hands down, but Canon now actually has a wide angle zoom lens for full frame that isn't too bad.

For me personally I find the 50L unacceptably soft. If you can see a clear improvement in sharpness in 1024 px in uncropped frames like I can then there is a huge difference. I really don't know what else to say. You can also make the sigma images look just like the Canons @f/1.4 in the in focus areas, just by softening the sigma up, literally there are light room settings that make both indistinguishable for in focus areas but you can't create detail that was never recorded with the Canon. Logically speaking if you get a good copy and ignore the very minor difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 the Sigma is better in every measurable and conceivable factor. I really don't get why this is so contentious.

I've mentioned this a few times and I'll mention this again:

- I've purchased 12 copies of modern Sigma lenses (revised 85mm design, 35mm 1.4 & 18-35mm 1.8 ), and I have not had one single focusing issue with them ever. I've done the same thing for Canon's primes, and purchased multiple copies of each and kept the best one and have had several Canon lenses with focusing issues.

- Statistically Canon non-supertelephoto primes lenses have to be sent out for repair more often on average for focusing problems by Lens Rentals than any of Sigma's new lenses. Sigma without question has more reliable focusing systems than Canon.

There are tons of threads everywhere about people with Canon lenses that won't focus properly, have developed erratic focusing, or have developed huge micro adjustments that cannot be corrected. Ignoring these issues while making negative comments about Sigma lenses that you have never owned is very backwards. Focusing is not a problem that only affects Sigma. It is annoying to constantly hear these arguments where people come up with reasons not to buy Sigma lenses that are even more severe in the lens they are buying as an alternative.

That's like someone thinking: "Man I sure hate car fires in Tesla's I'm going to make sure to buy that car marked "defective exploding pinto" at my local dealer"

The fact of the matter is that all manufacturers that make autofocusing lenses are releasing bad batches of lenses. Every time you buy a lens you are playing the lottery. I got 3 bad copies of the Canon 16-85mm in a row, that doesn't mean that there has never been a 16-85mm that was a good copy. Plenty of people have the 35mm Sigma, and plenty of people have reviewed the 50mm Sigma, yet only a small handful of people have problems with them. If these lenses really did have constant problems every review would say so. But no, top pros like the guys from f-stoppers have actually had better results from Sigma's new primes with focusing than Canon's primes. And they said that in their review.

If the majority of people are capable of getting Sigma lenses that have no issues whatsoever, then I bet that you can too.

Well, there's around a 13 month separation between the game-changing release of the 35A and the equally game-changing release of the 50A (relevancy?). So which lens is slated for next year? I'm hoping for the 85, though I suspect it will be a 24. 135 f/2 anyone?

Who would have thought just a few short years ago, that Sigma would become the preeminent AF lens manufacturer? Certainly not me...

24mm f/1.4 next please. Not impressed with the SamRokin 24mm, and the Canon is ungodly expensive.

Wouldn't this be a nice Sigma Roadmap ;D

35mm f/1.4 Art - $899
50mm f/1.4 Art - $950
24mm f/1.4 Art - $950
85mm f/1.4 Art - $799
135mm f/1.8 OS Art - $950

At the current rate, my bag will have nothing but Sigma primes and Tamron Zooms lol. Although if a 24mm & 85mm continue on Sigma's new level of quality, by the time a stabilized 135mm f/1.8 is released it should be priced at $2,000. Not that I want to pay that much (and probably wouldn't), but I'd like to see the new Sigma quality truly recognized, if that make sense.

Honestly I'm really wishing for this to happen, a whole line of world beating primes, would make me amazingly happy to have in my bag.

Plus the rumors of the 24-70mm f/2.0 and Sigma wide angle zoom have me even more excited. If Sigma is fast enough to the game, photographers in a few years might just shoot with their favorites first party bodies and nothing but Sigma lenses...

Lenses / Re: Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
« on: April 17, 2014, 01:18:16 AM »
This is much the same as the 35L vs 35A debate.....  If you want a sharper lens with harsher bokeh go with the Sigma Art Lenses... if you want an overall smoother rendered pic go with the Canon equivalent.   Though the 35A is  sharper (I owned it for a few months) the 35L rendered the better image to my eyes...  Sharpness isn't everything.

I agree with your 35L vs 35A conclusion BUT honestly all this talk about the bokeh of the 50L being better seems like unfounded assumptions.

In every test I have seen the Sigma 50A outperforms the Canon 50L  in bokeh. The Sigma lacks the aberrations and flaws, and business that the Canon shows while delivering the same punchy contrast in the background blur.

It's like somehow people have already decided that the Canon has better bokeh despite having evidence that seems to be to the contrary.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23