Messages

16

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS

« on: May 06, 2013, 03:40:21 PM »

Good review....with current pricing I can see this is a considerably less expensive option to the 24-70mm 2.8L II....but I think it is a less convincing option to the 24-105mm, no? When comparing tele reach AND price this lens does not stack up unless the IQ is that much better.....
(Did I miss something Justin, or were you actually able to squeeze 73mm out of the lens for the shot of the child in the hat? AMAZING!). 

Thanks, I've never used the 24-105 so purposefully avoided comparisons, I have no doubt somebody on this forum will chime win with some sort of spec/chart comparison to show off exactly how different they are at 37mm f/4.5.

As for the 73mm, that's what the exif read when I "pushed" the lens into Macro mode... not sure how accurate that is, but it *is* at the long end of the zoom range past 70mm on the marker.

17

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

« on: April 13, 2013, 07:33:38 PM »

Another thread turned into a test chart comparison argument. I'm surprised there's no BBQ in these photos.

Notice how I don't do that in my reviews

18

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

« on: April 13, 2013, 08:23:39 AM »

Justin from your article "Vignetting is incredibly prevalent on this lens, enough so that you may have to adjust your metering accordingly." What aperture did u use on the last shot in the review of the boy reading? I suppose one could just crop a bit or as u say use post editing to wash away the added imperfection. Funny that proprietary s/w enables people to add vignetting but that's another story. I really loved the shots and the other pro shots I've seen with the 5D3 are incredibly sharp and the color tuned to "what that can't be" level. Wish I could get those results. Checked out your Huff review and the pros who liked your stuff on Flickr, Best of luck with your career and being a "stay at home dad".

That image was taken wide-open at 1.4, I was attempting to see what kind of flare could be produced with light going into the lens (I believe I took the hood off too). You can see a bit of green flaring, but not much else beyond that, and the image remains sharp and contrasty.

19

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

« on: April 12, 2013, 05:36:42 PM »

Justin, just curious about the photo labeled "Trevor Portrait". Was that lit with flash or natural light?

Flash: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jvlphoto/8641936552/#

20

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

« on: April 12, 2013, 04:13:10 PM »

zeiss doesn't offer weather sealing either. i guess they missed the boat.

Yeah, what a piece of crap!

21

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

« on: April 12, 2013, 03:37:47 PM »

I would buy it... If it has weather sealing...  !

An expensive lens need this I think!

The current Canon 35mm f/1.4 L doesn't. Neither does the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L.  I agree that weather sealing is preferred, but sometimes we just don't get that choice

22

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

« on: April 12, 2013, 12:20:58 PM »

I had the Sigma in my amazon cart at one point and almost bought it. Went for a 2nd hand 135L instead. So tempted now after reading the review!

How many lenses is too much? I used to think 5 was my limit. Somehow I want less lenses. Is that weird?

I thought my Pelican 1510 case decided how many lenses I had. If it fit, I own it, if not... shouldn't have it.

I have a Canon 40mm f/2.8 & a Sigma 35 f/1.4 that don't fit, but I'm not getting rid of anything either now

23

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

« on: April 12, 2013, 12:01:01 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.

They updated the 30 1.4 for crop-sensor cameras, and the 50, I think, was their first step in the right direction (it was priced at more than the Canon 1.4), so maybe throw a few more hundred per lens into a bit of a redesign, up the QC and maybe that's all it needs.

24

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

« on: April 12, 2013, 11:55:38 AM »

i've been struggling with my next lens purchase and i've narrowed it down to the 24-70ii and this sigma 1.4. clearly, price is not the issue - space in my bag is! i like to pack light, and i love 35mm. the question: do you guys believe the 24-70ii will outperform the sigma 35 at 35 f/2.8? i generally prefer primes due to size/weight but everyone can't stop talking about how great the 24-70ii is, and i don't often shoot in low light but man, if i get this sigma i might just have to!

extra, relevant info: i own the 24-105L

i plan on making the purchase after canon's apr23rd announcement - i know it's a long shot but i've been waiting for a 35mm 1.4ii from canon for a long time - what say you canonrumors? thank you in advance for your help

Man, tough comparison.  The 24-70 f/2.8 L II is not a light lens at all, it's optically incredible, with the price to match as you know. I could see you selling the 24-105 after getting it though, you won't miss the extra reach with the quality of image coming from the 24-70.

While I didn't do side by side tests, I do have some shots taken at 35mm on the 24-70 and they're pretty much perfect... so can the Sigma out-perform the Canon? No, I can't say that it would. But then, I'm not using the Sigma at 2.8... I'm using it at 1.8 - 2.2

The Sigma also isn't a light lens, though not as hefty as the Canon 24-70.  If price isn't an issue I'd say go with the zoom, you'll get a lot of use out of it. But I, personally, find a lot more joy out of using the Sigma... hope that helps.

25

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

« on: April 12, 2013, 11:32:14 AM »

There is no reason to buy any other 35mm 1.4 from either canon or nikon. Why bother? If sigma made a 24mm 1.4 as good as this 35mm, I'll sell my 24L II and pocket the cash.

I would *love* to see Sigma take a stab at the Canon 24 1.4 next.

26

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 8-15 f/4L Fisheye

« on: April 03, 2013, 09:58:41 AM »

Your review is the first one not to complain about the hood and lens cap.  I find the them fine, others seem to have issues. 

In all honesty, bad though the cap/hood is, I had loads of problems with the cap on my 15mm f2.8 - it was forever falling off.

What he said.

27

Reviews / Re: Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?

« on: April 03, 2013, 09:56:00 AM »

It's on my "to do" list.  I've actually never used it. Kind of scared to, since I own the 17-40 f/4 L and without a doubt I'll want to upgrade after trying it out 

28

Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II

« on: April 03, 2013, 09:54:44 AM »

Justin "You are wrong about how good this lens is" - The 24 1.4 II is in desperate need for an upgrade!! This is not a lens you buy to stop down, this is a lens you buy to be able to use wide open in low lit conditions.

The vignetting I guess is something you to a certain degree must accept. But the level of Chromatic Aberration (purple fringe) this lens produces wide open is absolutely unacceptable.

The worst negative of this lens however is not the CA, but the coma distortion.

I work a lot in night/low light photography, and stars in the edges of this lens get distorted to the level that they look like "bananas". If you shoot wide open in contrasting light sources, eg. night photos of a city, the coma distortion in the edges is so bad that it is ridiculous!

A slight positive is that the 24mm 1.4 from Nikon is not any better. But that still does not mean that this lens from Canon is optically a good lens.

The Samyang 24mm 1.4 which I also own 2 samples of, may not be as sharp in the center as the Canon/Nikon 24, but it is virtually free of CA and coma distortion in the edges, and the Samyang even has more glass/lens elements!! Hence I more often tend to use my Samyang 24 than my Canon 24.

The Canon 24mm 1.4 II, as well as all other of Canons L wide angle primes (14mm 2.8 II/35mm 1.4/50mm 1.4/1.8/1.2) are in desperate need of upgrades! I wish Canon would start to prioritize the wide angle department, and not only focus on tele-lenses.

You're right about the Chroma, it's an issue but not one I've seen drastically reduced in any lens of this focal length.  The Sigma 35 may be the best I've seen at equivalent apertures (but that's a different story).

The Canon 24 ƒ/1.4 L II was introduced in 2008, if we can assume a lens nowadays has about a 10-year shelf life I'm not sure you'll see an update from them until 2018.

However, good news is that Sigma is stepping up the competition with their "Art" series - it'd be interesting to see if they tackle 24mm next.

And my bad on the night-time photography, you have more experience in this than I, but I do recall seeing some incredible examples of night-scape photography taken with this lens, which is why I mentioned it.

Thanks!

29

Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II

« on: March 23, 2013, 10:45:26 AM »

So it's unclear from the review if the reviewer really likes his focal length on the cropped frame 7D used for all the shots shown in the review or for full frame body. Certainly there are lots of people who love the 35L on a full frame body so I old suspect users of the 24L II will love it on 7D. I have the 24L II, 35L, and 24-70L II, and the TS-E 24L II and find the 24L II doesn't get on my camera. 24-70L II for general use and in events with and without a flash. 35L for low light down to F/1.4, TSE for architecture mostly with a tripod.   Steve

I did like it on the 7D, I had actually forgot how much until I looked back at the images I shot with it.  In fact, I might have liked the tighter framing a crop sensor buys me. On full frame, I'm partial to 35mm lenses, and this makes sense in this context. As CRguy mentioned in his intro, it's a great lens on all camera formats. Obviously you take full advantage of it on a FF camera, but I was able to get some great results on crop too.

30

Reviews / Re: Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II

« on: March 22, 2013, 12:12:14 PM »

24mm isn't particularly flattering for portraiture

If your definition of "portrait" is "head-and-shoulders passport-style photograph," then, yes, that's true.

But your review has one portrait after another, and they're all really good! Indeed, I'd say that the 24 f/1.4 is one of the best portrait lenses there is -- provided you're not trying to use it for headshots.

Cheers

b&

lol, okay true, I guess I was just interpreting the comment one way.  It's *great* for the kind of portraiture I did with it