April 16, 2014, 07:20:38 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] 4 5 ... 22
31
Lenses / Re: Most Anticipated Rurmored Sigma Lenses?
« on: February 10, 2014, 01:19:38 PM »
I'm not personally excited about any of these potential lenses.  It's not the focal lengths or apertures, but that sigma does not in any way get me excited.  I've owned several sigma lenses including 8mm fisheye, 10-20mm, 18-200mm, 120-400mm and 300mm f2.8.   None of them were remarkable to me in IQ or performance or worth the discounted price compared to their canon counterparts.  IMO it's always worth the extra $$ for Canon glass...

You can't compare the older Sigma lenses against the newer ones. Sigma has completely taken their company in a new direction, and for the past year has been the most exciting lens manufacturer there is. Instead of offering slightly worse lenses than mainline manufacturers for half the price, they are now making lenses that are the best in the world and gunning for performance like Zeiss and Leica while laughing at the offerings from the likes of Canon.

Their new 18-35mm f/1.8 is one of the the highest resolution crop zoom, if not the highest on the face of the planet (depending which copy is testes it's either the best or in the top 3), and has basically no image quality flaws. Wide open it beats or matches the big white zooms including the 200-400mm 1.4x on crop. And it's an f/1.8 zoom.

Their new 35mm f/1.4 was described as ushering in a new world order by reviewers.

The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is noticeably sharper than the Canon 85mm f/1.2 II, and has much much less purple fringing with almost no difference in background blur.

The Sigma 24-105mm f/4.0 OS lens has 29% more spacial resolution than the Canon 24-105mm (combined average of 24,28,35,50,70,85,105 focal lengths)


I'm not personally excited about any of these potential lenses.  It's not the focal lengths or apertures, but that sigma does not in any way get me excited.  I've owned several sigma lenses including 8mm fisheye, 10-20mm, 18-200mm, 120-400mm and 300mm f2.8.   None of them were remarkable to me in IQ or performance or worth the discounted price compared to their canon counterparts.  IMO it's always worth the extra $$ for Canon glass...

I don't think you can compare the old Sigma lenses to the new Sigma lenses. I'm still not convinced if they are worth the cheaper price either, as AF is very important to me and I compare them always to Canon lenses. But the Sigma that's more exciting then any other lens from any brand (except the 35 L II) is the new Sigma 50 f1.4 Art.

Lens Rentals has said that Sigma's new lenses no longer have issues with defects and are basically the same as Canon or Nikon. I would trust a company that manages hundreds of Sigma lenses to know about their quality.

In fact if you look into the defect rate data the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L , which is an older design and therefore less reliable lens and compare it to the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART you find that you are more likely to get a lens with autofocus defect on the Canon than you are likely to have ANY defect on the Sigma. So not only is the autofocus way more problem free, the whole lens is more reliable in every way.


32
Lenses / Re: 50mm F1.8
« on: February 09, 2014, 10:49:26 PM »
Just a quick thing, I've been using a 550D, or a Rebel T2I before this and had recently changed to a 6D. I used my 50mm F1.8 with my 550D before, it was a great moment, giving me bokeh which I've never seen before and amount of light which is so desirable in an APS-C, but after a while I realized that it was not really sharp overall and... it just doesn't click. It doesn't give the amount of details one would command in order to produce a good image overall. However, after leaving it aside for some time, I picked it up again and put it on my 6D, and it feels like a whole new lens again (Doesn't refer to the brand new idea, more of a change, something drastically different)! It's sharp throughout the subject that I wanted, gives me great bokeh and it looks a lot sharper than before. It just feels different. Has anyone felt this, something like breathing in new life into an old lens by using a new camera body?


Full frame lenses used on crop deliver very different performance:



Image was taken with the same lens on crop and full frame with different subject distance.



Blue line is a crop lenses sharpness on crop versus full frame (the exact same lens).

33
Lenses / Most Anticipated Rurmored Sigma Lenses?
« on: February 09, 2014, 10:45:53 PM »
Am I the only one incredibly psyched about the rumors that have been floating around about a few rumored (unannounced) Sigma lenses?

There have been rumors of several incredible ideas:

16-20mm f/2.0
24-70mm f/2.0
24mm f/1.4
135mm f/2.0 OS

Dear god, please make these lenses a reality.

34
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 09, 2014, 12:31:52 AM »
I'm expecting this lens to be as good as, but not better than, the 35mm Art. On that basis, I'm expecting to pay similar money for this lens.

You're comparing apples to oceans.

"I'm expecting this new 180-550mm IS STM lens be as good as, but not better than, the 18-55mm IS STM. On that basis, I'm expecting to pay similar money for this lens."

Let me rephrase your statement into an apples to apples comparison.

"I'm expecting this new 50mm ART to have double the performance of any comparable 50mm lens in it's price range. On that basis I expect to pay at least 25% less money for it."

Much better.



Some people have a hard time understanding something. I said the problem isn't a faulty lens design, since there are good copies out there, I said because of the amount of bad copies it makes buying a good one much harder than it should be. I'm not sure how many times I have to state something before people can actually read it right.

You do realize that Canon's 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2 are some of most defective lenses in production from any manufacturer, with defect rates of 13.75% for the 35mm and somewhere within 2% of that for the 50's according to lens rentals, which manages over 12,000 copies of 350 lenses.

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 has a defect rate that is around half of what you get from Canon (strictly comparing to the 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.2).

Sigma used to have a defect rate around 17% for some of it's popular lenses, so they deserve the bad reputation though.

35
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 08, 2014, 08:25:38 AM »

I suggest googling to see I am not the only one. I have had at least 30-35 lenses made by Canon and the two I have had a problem with was a miscalibration fixed under warranty and only because of massive front focus, after I got them back they were perfect. So again, just because one person says something doesn't make it true all over. One of the known problem lenses is the 24 L II, I'll give you that one, it's one lens with a huge problem with AF. Other than that copy variation from Canon is not about AF. But I'm done trying to argue with people over the 35, I sold mine because it was rubbish and 10 shots of the same thing gave 10 different levels of sharpness.

I'll try the 50 art and keep my fingers crossed that it can focus and get sharp images every time, if not, well it's gone and I'll be yet another 50 L which is lovely but way to soft.

Why don't you want to give the 35mm f/1.4 ART another chance? It's an amazing lens. Tons of reviewers have loved it and I had several copies that gave me nothing but good performance. The optics are simply stunning.

Exactly :) I really recommend giving it another try, you're missing out... It's the favorite lens of most of its owners for a reason!

Thanks, for the suggestion, but I already had two 35 L's and bought just to see if it could replace my beloved L. I already knew about the focusing issues from reading about the lens before I bought it. I bought it from a good friend for a very nice price, and he said it was excellent and loved it, but needed the cash. I run it through FoCal and it all looks VERY promising, very sharp super consistent AF and it doesn't look good for my L. All set and done, I try it around the house and it just can't get a sharp shot, but the thing that worried me was the complete variation of sharpness, so I kept trying, and when it hit it looked VERY sharp, so I ran it through FoCal again, tuned my setup, and got the same exact results. Then took it outside, same deal, no matter the distance and or light, completely impossible to get two images in a row sharp. So I decided I'm keeping the 35 L, which afma'd at 0 within 1,5 minutes of calibration and works 100% of the time. And then trade that for the 35 L II which I have been waiting for since forever. The Sigma is 20-25% cheaper used than new here, so buying new ones and trying and trying to get lucky with one is something I don't see being worth it.

I don't see the 35mm f/1.4 II coming any time soon.

Canon seems to have abandoned core DSLR pro lenses. The rate at which they are releasing meaningful core upgrades to their pro lines is so low that Nikon and Sigma accounted for 10 times more core lens products combined than Canon in 2013. Canon seems to have been focusing all their efforts into weird niches to try to expand their market because DSLR sales have leveled out, and they have been failing to expand anything (Video, small dslr's like the SL1, IS in primes, touchscreens etc).

The only traditional lenses Canon has released in 2013 were in the pipeline way before 2013, and according to Canon reps I've talked to have only been released so that the research on them wasn't wasted.

Anyways your experiences with the 35mm ART are rare and isolated, the odds of repeating the same results are very low.

Quote
The 50 is different because there isn't anything that would do what the Sigma does AT ALL, IF it works, so that is a lens I would keep for years, IF it works. And so, I'm willing to buy it new, and try a few copies to really find the one that works, or so claimed by people, that there actually are copies that can work. My thought is, if it's such a large number of off lenses, how long does a good one really last? I have heard of 35's that drift in afma value over time, and that must be the worst symptom ever....

I have had no such issues. I bought three Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses right when they came out and had zero issues from then until now with 4 5D Mark III bodies, and 3 crop bodies. The thing about reading information about lenses like this online is that people only post when they have a crazy problem. Nobody posts when everything is A OK. The majority of lenses are A OK.

36
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 07, 2014, 11:19:56 PM »

I suggest googling to see I am not the only one. I have had at least 30-35 lenses made by Canon and the two I have had a problem with was a miscalibration fixed under warranty and only because of massive front focus, after I got them back they were perfect. So again, just because one person says something doesn't make it true all over. One of the known problem lenses is the 24 L II, I'll give you that one, it's one lens with a huge problem with AF. Other than that copy variation from Canon is not about AF. But I'm done trying to argue with people over the 35, I sold mine because it was rubbish and 10 shots of the same thing gave 10 different levels of sharpness.

I'll try the 50 art and keep my fingers crossed that it can focus and get sharp images every time, if not, well it's gone and I'll be yet another 50 L which is lovely but way to soft.

Why don't you want to give the 35mm f/1.4 ART another chance? It's an amazing lens. Tons of reviewers have loved it and I had several copies that gave me nothing but good performance. The optics are simply stunning.

37
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 07, 2014, 03:05:59 PM »
I do think that using the Sigma 35mm as a reference is a little bit risky. I mean, if you have a great copy never sell it, but it doesn't talk google long to find lots and lots of people have inconsistent AF, and I was one of them. It's no point for a lens to have that fantastic IQ, which it really does have, when it can't deliver that IQ when you need it to. Not even certain if you take 8-10 shots. It should be possible to buy ten 35 lenses and have them perform VERY similar, that is not the case now.

The worst part is that it might be hard to tell the difference of a poor copy or if the Sigma just works like that. If you buy one and it doesn't seem right and you exchange for three-four others and they are the same with a bit too many missed shots, is it a design flaw or all poor copies, how can you tell? All the happy AF owner I read about can use one shot or Live view for all I know..

I go out of my way to purchase a large number copies for each lens I get and keep the best one and I have not had a single problem with Sigma's autofocus in their newer lenses. Not a single problem out of 12 copies (4 each) purchased of the 18-35mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4. I've also purchased a used Sigma 85mm f/1.4 to test it out before buying new and it had focusing issues, but only because it had the older version of the autofocus chip. When I had the newer autofocus chip installed after talking to Sigma's representatives as part of reselling the lens, all the autofocus issues went away. Sigma does not have any unusual autofocus issues in their newer lenses, period. Out of 13 copies tested with the newer autofocus chips, none had the slightest issues, and each focused with pinpoint accuracy every single time.

Canon has focusing issues too, in fact, out of all the lenses I've purchased, Sigma has had a track record of 1 in 11 having focusing issues, and Canon has a track record of 1 in 8.

The problem is with perception - whenever a Canon lens has a focusing issue it's always an isolated outlier that represents a small minority of unlucky users that will be quickly and conveniently resolved under warranty. Whenever a Sigma lens has the EXACT same issue, it's seen as a systematic problem that's common to the majority of users that is a huge hassle to fix.

Maybe in reality both currently have an occasional minority of problems now and then and you're no better off choosing either one with newer lens designs.

38
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 07, 2014, 02:36:35 PM »
$1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!?  Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery.  I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....


You do realize that both Canon and Nikon's top pro 50mm lenses run $1700 right? This lens blows these competitors out of the water in every conceivable dimension and costs less. It is such an improvement over the top alternatives that is  the single greatest generational improvement in image quality in the history of pro Canon or Nikon autofocus lenses. That's not an exaggeration. We are literally talking around double the performance of the nearest competitor, which again run $1700 if you forgot.

Read this part of this thread if you want to know what makes this lens so special:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16643037&postcount=377

You are getting performance that compares to a $4,000 Zeiss lens for 3/4 the the price of the nearest competitor.

I welcome the $1300 price tag, this lens deserves it.


Now lets not but the body ahead of the lens now. They are saying they're gunning for the otus, but, that may be more PR buzz.


Did you read the link at all? The performance of this lens is not in question. The data has shown that they the performance will be as extreme as they claim.

Quote
will it meet and exceed the current canon 50's?


If by "meet or exceed" you mean 182% the average spacial resolution of the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and 178% of the Canon 50mm f/1.4, then yes. Basically at a given aperture you can expect slightly better performance in the extreme corners with this new Sigma than you will see in the center of Canon's other 50mm lenses.

We already have the data, and we already know how the performance will stack up.

Quote
  And, how will it stack against the new canon 50 Is when it comes out?  Now those are things I wonder.


The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART is an incredibly complex and incredibly huge 50mm lens that uses a radical retrofocal optical formula pioneered by Zeiss with the Otus. It's fundamental design shift that is nothing like any other 50mm lens and requires a huge lens with tons of expensive glass.

There is basically zero chance of a small cheap consumer 50mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 receiving the radical design responsible for the doubling of performance relative to the competition.





39
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 07, 2014, 01:15:23 PM »
In various threads around CR, I have noticed quite a few opinions that are not complimentary to the folks at DxO. The various individuals seem to take issue with DxO's methods and conclusions and generally disagree with pretty much everything they offer. Why? Is there some inherent fault with their methodology that would make their conclusions erroneous? (I am neither pro or con on this issue, but would just like some enlightenment.) Do you have any factual basis for disagreement? Comments?

There is little fault in DxO's methodology, except for a few issues I have with them testing outliers in copy variation.

The problem with DXO is DXO's scores are stupid nonsense.

DXO scores are like rating a car by taking it's price, multiplying by it's horsepower and dividing by it's color in binary. Then situations like this happen:


Newbie: My sensor has the highest DXO mark score of any sensor!
Bystander: What are you using the camera for?
Newbie: Low light reportage!
Bystander: You do realize that you picked an 80 megapixel medium format back to do reportage. It delivers images at 3 seconds per frame, and has an iso range of 100-400 and absorbs only 10% of the light of a Canon rebel, that is the worst possible camera for your needs.
Newbie: No it's the best DXO says so!
Bystander: lol

40
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 06, 2014, 11:58:20 PM »
$1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!?  Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery.  I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....


Hilarious! You do realize that this lens is the single greatest generational improvement in image quality in the history of pro Canon or Nikon autofocus lenses right? That's not an exaggeration. We are literally talking around double the performance of the nearest competitor, which run $1700 if you forgot.

Read this part of this thread if you want to know what makes this lens so special:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16643037&postcount=377

This isn't a lens isn't even remotely a question of value. You are getting performance that compares to a $4,000 Zeiss lens for less the the price of the nearest competitors from any brand.

Not sure where you get this all from. About the only description of performance we have so far is from Sigma. No exactly an unbiased view. If it's very good I'll probably buy it, but proof's in the pudding.


Actually Sigma hasn't said too much about the performance of the lens directly, the reason we know this lens is so good is because Sigma provided MTF charts of the lens's performance, block diagrams of their optical formula, and sample copies of the lens at shows.

This lens is a winner at any price point that has been rumored.

Now all that Sigma needs to do is keep up the momentum.

41
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 06, 2014, 10:51:29 PM »
$1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!?  Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery.  I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....


You do realize that both Canon and Nikon's top pro 50mm lenses run $1700 right? This lens blows these competitors out of the water in every conceivable dimension and costs less. It is such an improvement over the top alternatives that is  the single greatest generational improvement in image quality in the history of pro Canon or Nikon autofocus lenses. That's not an exaggeration. We are literally talking around double the performance of the nearest competitor, which again run $1700 if you forgot.

Read this part of this thread if you want to know what makes this lens so special:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16643037&postcount=377

You are getting performance that compares to a $4,000 Zeiss lens for 3/4 the the price of the nearest competitor.

I welcome the $1300 price tag, this lens deserves it.

42
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 5d Mark ii ebay advice
« on: February 06, 2014, 01:57:20 PM »
Do not even think about buying it.

Yeah the chances of fixing it for less than it costs to buy a heavily used working one are slim and you may have problems with it for life.

43
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 06, 2014, 01:23:57 PM »
The 70D gives sharper images SOOC, due to a weaker AA filter.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=673&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=458&CameraComp=845&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


Wow. That is not a small difference.


Yeah the 70D is a game changer, paired with the Sigma 18-35mm, which is also a game changer it is the first Canon crop camera that I haven't loathed using over my full frame.

The first time I had to use my backup 7D and 15-85mm I threw up a little in my mouth when I saw the pictures it took.

The first time I used a 70D and sigma 18-35mm, my impression was "wow, this is basically a lighter version of my 24-70mm f/2.8 and 5D Mark III). Tests back this up, showing that this is the first Canon normal zoom and crop camera combo that delivers full frame like detail levels.

44
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 05, 2014, 11:37:43 PM »
I really enjoy my 70D but wonder if the 7D would have better IQ. When I look at DxO scores for these two, it's  pretty much a dead heat. Anyone out there have first-hand experience comparing the two? Thanks in advance.

That is a bit of a silly question. Comparing the 70D against the 7D is like comparing a Ferrari 458 Italia to a Brick in a race. The 70D is much better.

The 70D is a 40 megapixel camera, with almost no AA filter, compared to a 18 megapixel camera that is 4 years older. The 70D has 9% less noise and delivers images that are 15% to 20% sharper, according to back to back tests.

I have owned 3 7D bodies, and currently have a 70D body. There is no comparison between the two. The 70D is way better.

For example you'll see lenses are 10 Mpix on the 7D on DXO, on the 70D they are 12 Mpix.

The 70D also has less noise at ISO 200 than the 7D has at ISO 100 so base ISO performance is incredible.


70D = 15-20% Sharper
70D = 9% less noise at LEAST at any ISO (in many cases there is a significant difference)
70D = 50% less noise at base ISO for landscapes
70D = Way better dynamic range at high ISO (same DR at low ISO)
70D = Way better color and tone

DXO scores are about as meaningful as taking the horsepower of a car, multiplying by it's price and dividing by it's model number. They're an arbitrary choice of combining numbers that have little meaning, you need to look at the actual data.

The image quality of the 70D is much better. The only reason you buy a 7D is if you need crazy autofocus and burst speeds for sports or action or incredible weather sealing. Otherwise the 70D just obliterates it.

45
Lenses / Re: 24-70/2.8 Canon or Tamron: Which did you choose and why?
« on: February 03, 2014, 12:18:46 PM »
That has to be the dumbest "proof" ever.

You are totally mixing up the ability to blur white and black bands, thereby creating grey, with lack of contrast, this is a spurious argument. That the Canon lens blurs the black and white bars faster than the others proves it has smoother out of focus blur. The fact that the dog picture didn't contain any black pixels whatsoever even though it has a black nose is a processing issue not proof that the lens has no contrast.

To prove your idea you'd have to show that a correctly exposed full spectrum image with areas in the background that are, 1, black, 2, out of focus, 3, large enough to not be affected by the range of tones around them. Your Bridget's dog image would have been a good example, had it not been for the fact that the black levels were raised to the level that they were no longer black, or even close to it. It isn't difficult to prove there is no black after you take it all out.

A few years ago I worked making content and creating characters for video games. I'm responsible for implementing the first bokeh effects into a best selling video game. I'm personally responsible for creating some of the most iconic CG images of the last decade, and in doing so I consulted a few people on bokeh which consisted of dozens of optics experts that researched for universities. I'm certainly glad you set the record straight. For years, I've been foolish enough to believe that Ivy League professors were legitimate and knew what they were talking about.

There is no such thing as "blurring faster" when comparing identical apertures and focal lengths. The diameter of the circle of confusion is identical, and your statement is mathematically impossible. The Canon adds glow to objects that are out of focus. This is a very simple concept to understand and is not debatable.

You can decide if you like this glow or if you do not like this glow personally. However I can tell you that it is an unusual feature. Basically all of the common pro Canon, Nikon or third party lenses do not exhibit this behavior.

Hope that helps.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 22