So, I just got my Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art lens and I'm comparing it to my Sigma 24-105 mm Art lens. And, honestly for $900, the difference is really minimal, and after you run it through just the most basic default DxO program, the difference almost completely disappears. I knew the 24-105mm was good, but thought I'd see a bigger difference. So, I was starting to agree with Ken Rockwell on equipment specifications. But, this weekend, I did something I almost never do, which is go out retail shopping, or at least window shopping, specifically to see what my pics would look like on a 4K screen. I put a couple of photographs on a thumb drive, and went to Best Buy, and plugged it into a couple of 4K TV's, including a Sony 65 inch X950B. Oh, my stars, you want to see something that makes an enormous difference in what you see in your photographs, try doing that! Not only was I able to see the intricacies in the grain on this table, I was able to see the *dust* on the table. It looked like I was looking at the table in real life, like I could reach out and touch it. I've spent a lot of money in the last 10 months on new camera stuff. Canon 6D, Canon 300mm 2.8 ii, 70-200mm 2.8 ii, Sigma Art lenses, wide-angles, teleconverters, etc. And, while the 300mm 2.8 is
*slightly* better than the 70-200 mm with 1.4 TC, for most photography,
(with objects not in the same focal plane being slightly out of focus), there
wasn't all that much difference. But, I can tell you, that without a doubt the
absolute biggest difference in looking at my photographs I have seen this year is *not* which lens I am using, it was this TV/monitor. And I haven't been using a bad monitor, a
one-year-old top-of-the-line Dell XPS 17 inch laptop, and, at home, a Samsung 55
inch 1080p 18-month-old TV. So, it now seems, if you've got an 18MP (or better) DSLR camera anything above, say, a T4i, and any fairly recent Canon L lenses, you don't need new camera equipment, you need a Sony 4K monitor (the Samsung, Sharp and LG had a tendency to blow out the highlights a wee bit). But, with the Sony, I was simply stunned. It was almost like the first time I saw a plasma TV 15 years ago. Now, I'd like to see what the difference between my Sigma 50 1.4 Art and Sigma 24-105 Art is like on the Sony TV...
http://optimagroup.smugmug.com/Brown-Co/i-GrnWcdN/A
*slightly* better than the 70-200 mm with 1.4 TC, for most photography,
(with objects not in the same focal plane being slightly out of focus), there
wasn't all that much difference. But, I can tell you, that without a doubt the
absolute biggest difference in looking at my photographs I have seen this year is *not* which lens I am using, it was this TV/monitor. And I haven't been using a bad monitor, a
one-year-old top-of-the-line Dell XPS 17 inch laptop, and, at home, a Samsung 55
inch 1080p 18-month-old TV. So, it now seems, if you've got an 18MP (or better) DSLR camera anything above, say, a T4i, and any fairly recent Canon L lenses, you don't need new camera equipment, you need a Sony 4K monitor (the Samsung, Sharp and LG had a tendency to blow out the highlights a wee bit). But, with the Sony, I was simply stunned. It was almost like the first time I saw a plasma TV 15 years ago. Now, I'd like to see what the difference between my Sigma 50 1.4 Art and Sigma 24-105 Art is like on the Sony TV...
http://optimagroup.smugmug.com/Brown-Co/i-GrnWcdN/A
