Just came across this accidentally, but Sigma recently released a press release boasting a 20%-50% AF speed increase for both the Sport and Contemporary 150-600: http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=561

As a 150-600 C owner, I'm certainly hoping they'll be able to deliver on this promise--and this might make these lenses more compelling, particularly the C, as good "budget" wildlife lens options!

Wonderful shots Glenn

mrsfotografie said:

slclick said:

Luds34 said:

ecka said:

mrsfotografie said:

ecka said:

miz said:

hmmm
Sigma not putting great 85 1.4 in a new ART body -everybody is bitching
Tamron putting great 90 2.8 Macro in a new line body - everybody is asking 'Whats wrong with the old one?'

Mankind <3

Click to expand...

The "old" one is only a few years old.

Click to expand...

I expect it will be a cosmetic upgrade, that will quickly expand the line of 'new' lenses.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Why so much drama around cosmetics?

Click to expand...

That was going to be my question. Tamron has optically produced a good macro lens for many years. There most recent one though went the modern route of internal focusing, etc. I had been keeping my eye on that lens for a while but then a deal on the Canon 100L came up I could not pass on.

I suspect you guys are correct, it probably is just cosmetic. Which means, get a good deal on the current model?

Click to expand...

There is no reason why this could not be a weather sealing, improved coatings, stabilization or other improvement.

Click to expand...

Looks like you hit the nail on its proverbial head with that statement!

I still kinda miss my old Tamron AF SP 90mm f/2.8 DI Macro for the 'soul' of its pictures although maybe its nostalgia. It was a really quirky lens with a massive focus extension and no IS though and that's why I sold it.

I find the Canon 100mm L macro a bit clinical - maybe it's just too good I don't know but down the road maybe there's another Tamron in it for me...

Click to expand...

Just taking a cue from all the other refreshes I've seen lately. Looks great, but I'm covered.

cpsico said:

shot at iso 100
shot one as is from raw
shot two raised 5 stops in photoshop
shot 3 100 percent shadows raised

Click to expand...

I prefer the first one ;D

6D is fine for fast moving subjects, don't let anyone tell you different.

i concur with Fussy III

60D has better AF overall
7D mk1 has some issues and constantly gives inconsistent AF.
Went over to service centre and didn't find any solutions.

After much testing back and forth,
it seems the AF is prone to problems WHENEVER there is some backlight.

for NON-backlit subjects its great.
60D is great in most situations BUT IT DOESN'T have zone AF
which is a great help

kaihp said:

tron said:

I just observed something even different in my case. Both of my 5D3 cameras (firmware 1.2.3) format a 64GB CF card in FAT32 and a 64GB SD card in exFAT !!!!

Have you observed anything similar?

Click to expand...

I can confirm that my 64GB SDXC card was formatted with exFAT in 5D3.
I don't have a 64GB CF card, so I am unable to test this.

Click to expand...

Thanks for answering. I guess I will have to use the CF for backups in my hyperdrive.

Context, on first look it is hard to make out the guitar as a guitar.
Your words told the story but the picture could have told it all.
However I am not sure you could have found the right perspective to improve this one with everything in its place.

AlmostDecent said:

ecka said:

AlmostDecent said:

ecka said:

AlmostDecent said:

ecka said:

AlmostDecent said:

ecka said:

Try this one.
http://pliki.optyczne.pl/tam35/tam35_fot13.JPG

Click to expand...

Obviously since the section of image is so small compared to the overall frame (1000 pixels of the 6000), one needs to reduce the fringe. Aside from that:

Click to expand...

So now, do you agree that it is not a zero click solution? Sometimes it can be a real headache. Those are just a quick search samples, but there are situations when the CA and fringing is just too much and you have to paint it out of there, literally.

Click to expand...

Perhaps zero click was a bit excessive, but hardly the Mission Impossible you painted. Even in your last request above, all I did was take my default setting, set the green to zero (down from +5), and lower the purple to +2 instead of +5. In your last example, you can't even see the fringing unless you are literally zoomed to 100%, and if you are planning on using an image where that is relevant, I would assume the rest of the post-processing will also be more than zero clicks as well. It literally took me a couple of seconds, so very far from a headache.

Click to expand...

What you did is you didn't actually remove the CA and fringing , while still affecting everything from pink to purple. OK, let's leave it there, I see you are too stubborn to admit anything .

Click to expand...

Funny I was going to say the same thing. i showed you your images perfectly cleaned, and proved not only it could be done, but easily. In not one instance did you show any issues with my results, other than to say you found them so unbelievably good, I could only be cheating.

Click to expand...

You are wrong. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. Your effortless method doesn't work on images with purple object in it, without making a mess.

Click to expand...

It does, and I proved it. If you had a criticism of the corrected images I shared, by all means.

BTW, regarding the CA compared to rival lenses, quoting LensTip (for example):

"The Canon 2/35 IS had very similar results in this category but its maximum level was a bit higher." (i.e. worse)
"The Nikkor AF-S 1.8/35G fared worse practically at all aperture values"
"Once again the Sigma A 1.4/35 is the most serious rival of the Tamron – it had results of 0.03-0.06% which were only slightly better depending on the aperture value."

http://www.lenstip.com/455.5-Lens_review-Tamron_SP_35_mm_f_1.8_Di_VC_USD_Chromatic_and_spherical_aberration.html

http://www.lenstip.com/365.5-Lens_review-Canon_EF_35_mm_f_2_IS_USM_Chromatic_and_spherical_aberration.html

Click to expand...

Can't you see Canon's better? Sigma's better too, btw.
You can stop now, I'm not buying it.

http://www.lenstip.com/359.5-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Chromatic_and_spherical_aberration.html

ahsanford said:

http://petapixel.com/2016/02/19/here-are-the-cameras-that-won-world-press-photo-2016/

"I'm super stoked my killer A7 rig let me push the shadows five stops. Suck it, Canon."

-- said by no one who won a WPP award this year.

- A

Click to expand...

yet somehow, someone with a GoPro made it to the awards...... Oh the humanity! What will happen to DXO now!

Maiaibing said:

niels123 said:

I have the 35ART from Sigma en I love the focal length and imge quality. However, there is two things which I don't like about this lens:

1) Focus at greater distance gives (much) softer images compared to close focus.

Click to expand...

Frustrating. Had the same with my Sigma 50mm ART with having to choose between sharp either at short or long distance. Used the Sigma dock. Dialed in separate MA for the four distances the dock suggested. Problem solved.

It is now spectacular on the 5DS/R.

Click to expand...

THIS. Thank you for writing the post I was just about to do myself. Same situation, lens and dock settings. Completely took care of my 35 Art (now my wife's) Close was great out of the box and over 15ft it became less so. I don't know if I used all four points for adjustment, maybe as the closest three are pretty close.... but still, the dock is invaluable.

skfla said:

Am I the only one that watched the Park Camera commercial for the 80D simply because of the woman's accent? Honestly, I found it much ore interesting than the camera.

Click to expand...

Did you also notice that she spoke fluently, whereas the guy in Canon's own video here: https://youtu.be/Fj2O7ZUS_Xk seems to be reading a script about something he doesn't understand? He's introduced as "Canon U.S.A.’s Technical Product Trainer Jon Lorentz" but he speaks like a drafted-in voice-over artist reading words he's never seen before.

Hi

I would like to see such a feature in an upcoming Canon.
Makes quite some sense, hopefully they come along with some field previews using this tech.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/7158808396/worth-the-wait-a-look-inside-the-pentax-k-1?slide=10

well, minus blurred nightscapes by shooting in this mode... :-\

Its time for another warning.

Every member is entitled to post a opinion, but attacks on other members will not be tolerated.

We allow members quite a bit of slack in their comments and opinions.

Its unfortunate that a topic has to be locked because things are getting out of hand. Its been quite a while since a permanent ban was issued, but we can and will do it.

neuroanatomist said:

Or maybe you'll argue that since there are three authors on your review, they're not your words. Sophistry instead of outright lies.

Click to expand...

rishi_sanyal said:

Does the concept of multiple authors elude you? I said they weren't *my* words. Do I need to define 'my'? I wasn't even the main author of that review.

Click to expand...

Exactly as predicted. Of course I'm familiar with multiple authorship. In scientific publishing, it's expected (and explicitly stated by most journals) that all co-authors have read and agree with the content of the entire paper. It's called taking responsibility. I apologize for applying too high a standard to DPR.

Earlier, you were defending DPR as unbiased. When presented with yet another biased statement in a DPR review, you retreat to defending only yourself. Interesting.

rishi_sanyal said:

Did Nikon forget to pay us off for that 5DS/R review? Did Canon not pay enough? I suppose this is what happens when I don't have a proper accountant -I get so confused about which bias I'm supposed to insert where. And how much of it.

Frankly, at this point, the conspiracy theories are purely amusing. They require no rhyme, no reason, no logic, no self review and iteration of your reasoning based on new data, no evidence except for the slim evidence you choose to fit your hypothesis, while ignoring the rest... I believe there's actually a term for this...

Click to expand...

Since pointing out who said what seems very important to you, let me remind you of my words concerning corruption and conspiracy:

neuroanatomist said:

In fact, I was pointing out that DPR is biased, nothing more. Not conspiracy, not corruption.

Click to expand...

Any more false accusations you'd like to levy?

DPR's bias is not extreme, but is quite pervasive and evident. Praise vs. damning with faint praise. I summed it up previously: 'Nikon cameras deliver awesome performance and stellar images, and Canon cameras take decent pictures.'

My experience is limited. In the last year I have started shooting the kids and wildlife more. My 7D II is video only and keeps my 24mm attached and a mic on top. Before the 7D II I was never happy with results.

With my limited experience these are the things I have figured out.
Wide lenses are your friend, that is the first rule I have.
I have had some success hand held lately, most of the reason is I know I need to be steady and with the wider lens shake isn't as bad.
Also the wider the lens the deeper DOF you can get. Using telephoto's and a wide aperture are more difficult and take a bit of practice.
Buy a microphone or do not waste your time. The on camera mic picks up all of the lens noise and IMO it isn't worth doing.
Tripod, support or monopod are best as Mt Spokane mentioned, but I wouldn't say it is always required.
Sitting through 20 minutes of video of crap to edit out a few minutes is much more boring than sorting to find a few really good pictures out of a hundred.
When my pre-ordered 1Dx II arrives I will have much larger files of crap data to sort through, and they will be 4K.
There is other info, shutter speed, iso etc.... Just starting go green (green box) the videos will be bad enough without inserting untrained expertise by adjusting settings. Save lesson a few weeks from now.

So, for a while, green box, wide lens and a microphone. Have fun.


So there it is, my infinite wisdom. If your videos look like crap consider what you paid for this lesson and figure you got your moneys worth.

Ads are different for each viewer, they are based on previous websites visited. Clear out your cookies, and the ads will be random or based on the site you are viewing. As soon as you look at a product on another site, they will start following you from site to site.

Thanks for this everyone,
I have been looking forward to this profile.

It might work better than Metabones EF to E-Mount options. They're also controlling the firmware of many of their own lenses, so maybe more of an interest in making it perform better than what's out there currently? Not saying I'd be buying, or that I'll 100% be on Sony in several months... just more interesting developments. Some legit competition for Metabones can't hurt either.

midluk said:

If I see it correctly, nano USM has the same problems as STM:
no distance scale and only focus by wire.

So I don't think it will just replace normal USM for the L lenses.

Click to expand...

Nano USM for EF-M and EF-S kit lenses, sure.

But keep the real deal USM for EF glass, please. The future 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM had better not be focus by wire / lack a distance scale / etc.

- A

bertrandG said:

It's a 50-100mm f1.8 according to http://digicame-info.com/2016/02/50-100mm-f18-dc-hsm-art.html

Click to expand...

If true, I pretty much nailed it!

kphoto99 said:

old-pr-pix said:

Worldwide the number of lenses shipped still remains well below 2 per body. The enthusiasts and pros who sport large lens collections are clearly far outnumbered by the average consumers who buy the one lens or two lens kit and nothing further. Higher quality wide range zooms also tend to reduce the number of individual lenses produced.

Click to expand...

Pros have many lenses but they also have more then one body, this reduces the lens/body ratio.

Click to expand...

Good point, but I still expect many enthusiasts & pros run above the 1.6 average across the board. Currently I have three ILC bodies and 13 lenses - 4.3 average per body (all digital, not counting the older FD series bodies/lenses). I suppose we could do a poll to see how CR readers average out. I'm certainly not suggesting I'm representative.

Hahaha, ohhhh DxO. Making things up as they go right in front of everyone and people just accept it as valid scientific testing.

This one stop gets me rolling. How is this score even possible when the Canon was clearly better in their testing? Haha

As to why this new USM debuts in a non L lens:

Following one of the links in the 20+ pages 80d thread I found the information that the new USM technology can only be applied to a lens with a single low weight focal element.
So I believe that for moving heavy class in a video aimed lens STM is here to stay...

StudentOfLight said:

I also superimposed the Zeiss' MTFs for the 28 Otus over the 55 Otus.
According to the Zeiss charts 28 Otus falls short of it's longer namesake.

Click to expand...

Comparing MTFs for different focal length lenses is apples & oranges. All of Canon's current white superteles have flat lines at the top of the charts, & the wide-angles look like spaghetti. Does this mean that all wide-angles suck? Of course not. Look at Canon's MTF charts for wide-angle zooms e.g. the 16-35L & you'll see that they provide different superimposed data for the wide & long ends of the lens.

Michael Reichmann has a great guide explaining how to read MTF charts & what can be inferred from them.