September 14, 2014, 10:09:23 PM

Author Topic: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon  (Read 5626 times)

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1341
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #60 on: April 18, 2014, 03:05:46 AM »
Hah! That is actually an old technique used in cinematography for the dreamy effect. It doesn't give you spherical blur circles, though, just the soft highlights.

Isn't there a net-like filter or something for that?
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #60 on: April 18, 2014, 03:05:46 AM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4444
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #61 on: April 18, 2014, 03:23:22 AM »
Hah! That is actually an old technique used in cinematography for the dreamy effect. It doesn't give you spherical blur circles, though, just the soft highlights.

Isn't there a net-like filter or something for that?

You guys are thinking of soft focus. There are lots of ways of achieving soft focus. Vaseline was one of them (mostly for cinema stuff as far as I know, although I'm sure people did it for stills as well)...people don't usually do that anymore as it means putting oily gunk on your lens on purpose. :P There are also plenty of various soft focus filters that use some kind of net design. Some use particle dispersion as well. The net or particles diffracts light, softening it much like diffraction from stopping down a lens (but at all apertures). One of the side effects of net-type soft focus filters is they mess with your boke...you can see it in a lot of tv shows and movies...look at the OOF backgrounds. You can often easily see the design of the net or the particle distribution in OOF highlight blur circles.

A lot of high quality cinema lenses are purpose-built with spherical aberration these days though (soft focus as well as spherical OOF highlights are very desirable in TV/Movies...any time you see a real cinematic tv show or movie, look closely at the background highlights...you'll see very frequently that they are clearly spherical.) So the use of filters or, god forbid, Vaseline, is usually unnecessary.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1485
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #62 on: April 18, 2014, 04:21:31 AM »
If you want this...you gotta buy a lens that offers it. Either a soft focus control/defocus control lens...or something like the 50L/85L.

Or smear a bit of vaseline on the lens :)

(Just kidding.)

Phil.

Hah! That is actually an old technique used in cinematography for the dreamy effect. It doesn't give you spherical blur circles, though, just the soft highlights.

All the time! Hair nets work wonders but the look is bit dated now.

barracuda

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #63 on: April 18, 2014, 04:22:04 AM »
Up to a certain point it does have its entertainment value, but then ...

+1
5D3, 5D2, 6D, 60Da, T4i, SL1, EOS M, G15, G11 converted to 720nm infrared, Powershot S100, Sony RX100, and lots of lenses.

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1485
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #64 on: April 18, 2014, 04:22:29 AM »
@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.

As for your assuming, you assume that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply explaining what Canon does. You assume that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are simply fans, others are simply customers and might otherwise not care about the brand. You assume a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions.

All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.

Totally rude and unnecessary. How can a person use such words to make a point?  :(

You might want to go through and read a couple weeks history of Dilbert's posts. Then make a determination of who's rude. Dilbert LOVES to make assumptions about people, then create little fantasies about why people write the posts they do based on those assumptions. You know what they say about people who assume, right? "When you assume, you just make an A*s*s of you and me?" Hence the donkey comment. I thought it was rather appropriate, given the whole discussion of assumptions at the time. :P I think everyone else got the joke.

Oh!

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14308
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #65 on: April 18, 2014, 06:51:39 AM »
The dreamy effect can be approximated with post-processing effects...but it's never quite the same. This is a fairly specific effect, one that must be done with optics to get the full effect in all it's aesthetic glory.

Maybe an analogy to another set of effects – use of a polarizing filter – that can be partially but never fully replicated in post-processing, and that require optics to achieve, would help? 

No, probably not.  ::)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

candc

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #66 on: April 18, 2014, 07:32:44 AM »
Here are some sample photos taken with the Nikon 135/2 Defocus lens that shows the difference between normal boke and boke in a lens with spherical aberration:

No Defocus


Flat blur circles, sharp subject, clearly defined focal plane. Looks great, nothing wrong with it, but it is not the same kind of boke as you get from a lens with spherical aberration:

With Defocus (spherical aberration)


Spherical blur circles, highlighted outer ring, radial gradient to the center. Soft and dreamy highlights on subject at the focal plane. Focal plane itself is less defined, softer, smoother.

This is what you get with a lens that has spherical aberration. The blur circles cannot be replicated in post if you start out with solid ones. The dreamy effect can be approximated with post-processing effects...but it's never quite the same. This is a fairly specific effect, one that must be done with optics to get the full effect in all it's aesthetic glory. If you want this...you gotta buy a lens that offers it. Either a soft focus control/defocus control lens...or something like the 50L/85L.

If you still can't tell the difference, well, then all I can say is those two lenses are definitely not for you. :P

i did not know that there were lenses that had an adjustment ring to control that effect, i don't really understand how it  works but it is a very cool feature, are there any other lenses besides this nikon that have that adjustment? i really want one now.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 07:34:49 AM by candc »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #66 on: April 18, 2014, 07:32:44 AM »

ahab1372

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #67 on: April 18, 2014, 08:45:15 AM »
@candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx

bluenoser1993

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 35
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #68 on: April 18, 2014, 09:24:38 AM »
Excellent examples from the Nikon lens.  Does it's adjustable range take it further in regards to the affect than the 50 1.2?

I am disappointed that there wasn't a rebuttal to the $46,000 lens, it had the potential to be very entertaining.

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 626
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #69 on: April 18, 2014, 11:37:44 AM »
@candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx

I owned the 135 softfocus and sadly this canon lens has ugly angular bokeh balls and primitive autofocus mechanism.  50L/85L II have far superior output if interested in the effect.

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 899
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #70 on: April 18, 2014, 11:45:25 AM »
What I would love to see:
A real "photographer" shoot with all three lenses for the purpose of showing us the difference in bokeh.
Reviewers are not photographers and many times they shoot inane images that do not show off the specific qualities off a lens so that an experienced photographer can actually get a handle on what is going on.
We need to leave DxO out of this, too (don't get me started on that outfit!!!! LOL~).
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma Art, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #71 on: April 18, 2014, 11:59:46 AM »

So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?


It depends entirely on who "you" is and what s/he wants to do with it.  If you like that dreamy look, and if you use the lens to take portraits (in which case the chances that anything in a corner would be in focus anyway seem slight, rendering - pun half intended - corner sharpness moot), you may not want such an improved lens at all. 

And if you do want better sharpness, including sharp corners, why not get the new Sigma - or do something different altogether and buy, say, a Sony A7r + FE 55 1.8?  Do your lenses all have to have "Canon" written on them?"  Your complaint looks rather like another manifestation of the fanboy-ism that keeps getting brought up:  Does Canon have to make the best of everything according to some notion of "best" that may or may not be widely shared?

(And leaving all that aside, for now if you want a 50 1.2 (or 85 1.2) lens for a ff camera, regardless of brand, are there better alternatives which are also 1.2?  There are new similar lenses from Fuji and Panasonic/Leica, both supposedly marvelous, but they're APS-C and M43 respectively, but that's not quite the same thing....)
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 02:27:26 PM by sdsr »

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4444
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #72 on: April 18, 2014, 12:22:26 PM »
@candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx

I owned the 135 softfocus and sadly this canon lens has ugly angular bokeh balls and primitive autofocus mechanism.  50L/85L II have far superior output if interested in the effect.

I think that's because the lens uses a diaphragm with strait blades, rather than curved. It was cheaply built overall as well, hence the reason I think it was discontinued (it just couldn't measure up in today's market.)

I really wish Canon would create another one, though, with a modern design and modern quality. I'd particularly like to see a 135 f/2 Macro Defocus lens...I think that would just be awesome to have spherical aberration in a long macro lens. Oh, the macro photos I could make with THAT! :D
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 5D III | Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: SBIG STT-8300M | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #72 on: April 18, 2014, 12:22:26 PM »

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 680
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #73 on: April 18, 2014, 02:26:21 PM »

i did not know that there were lenses that had an adjustment ring to control that effect, i don't really understand how it  works but it is a very cool feature, are there any other lenses besides this nikon that have that adjustment? i really want one now.

Minolta used to make at least one:

http://www.cameraquest.com/minsoft.htm

Not exactly a current lens, though....

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 626
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #74 on: April 18, 2014, 04:44:48 PM »
@candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx

I owned the 135 softfocus and sadly this canon lens has ugly angular bokeh balls and primitive autofocus mechanism.  50L/85L II have far superior output if interested in the effect.

I think that's because the lens uses a diaphragm with strait blades, rather than curved. It was cheaply built overall as well, hence the reason I think it was discontinued (it just couldn't measure up in today's market.)

I really wish Canon would create another one, though, with a modern design and modern quality. I'd particularly like to see a 135 f/2 Macro Defocus lens...I think that would just be awesome to have spherical aberration in a long macro lens. Oh, the macro photos I could make with THAT! :D

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the SA adjustment, it was just a dated design in general.  It would be nice to see an updated version, although I'd first rather see an Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS update with curved blades/IS.  The other thing was, I though the 50L gave a better balance of dreaminess and sharpness than I could find with the 135 softfocus (even at variable midpoints settings etc).

If you are a fan of the dreamy look of softfocus, the 50mm f/1.2L is a great combination of sharpness and dreamy effect.  It makes more of a tradeoff in sharpness than the 85L II does, but if you like that effect you might actually like the 50L better than the 85L.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2014, 04:46:37 PM by Ruined »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #74 on: April 18, 2014, 04:44:48 PM »