|
Seamonster posted:I want to know what kind of arcane magic Sigma is using to get such awesome wide open sharpness. Shitloads of aspheric elements and exotic glass, plus more elements gives more chance to correct abberations. Like the new 50/1.4 Art, 13 elements is not an unprecedentedly complex design, that's roughly what any fast wideangle lens has (35/1.4 or 24/1.4 or something). It's just that Canon is still using the same 7-element all-spherical Planar formula that everyone has used since the 60s and that was designed 120 years ago. There's only so much you can do to tweak a basic design like that, and Canon has not even done that much since 1993. I think your idea about the image circle is probably also not too far off. They probably are designing for a slightly larger image circle and then vignetting it down to 35mm, I think that's very likely with some of the primes. Zeiss bragged about the Otus being a "medium format lens" (hence the Distagon name on a normal lens) and I think the logic behind that may be a larger image circle that they sweet-spot on. Also one way to get extra lens speed is a telecompressor - you take a large image circle and squish it down into a smaller one. The same number of photons over less area makes it brighter and since you're taking a big image and squishing it down, it gains sharpness. It's the opposite of how a teleconverter costs speed and makes softness more apparent since you're magnifying the image and showing all the flaws. That's how Olympus gets their superfast zooms - they're stock FF Tamron designs with telecompressors in the back to crush the image down to 4/3 and boost the speed. I haven't seen a lens formula diagram, but I have a hunch that's what Sigma is doing with lenses like the 18-35 f/1.8 and the 24-70 f2. They design the lens for like a 0.7x crop factor for the respective format and then telecompress it to gain speed and sharpness. So half of it is Sigma being willing to think laterally, and the other half is Canon being unwilling to take risks when they can just spin out the 5th incremental update (1 2 3 4 5) of the 24-70L lens and rake in the dough. Actually the 24-105L should probably be in that list too. The EOS-M just perfectly encapsulates Canon's priorities to me - the principal design goal was not to compete with their existing gear in any fashion and risk cannibalizing sales, making it a good tool to take pictures with was not even on the list. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Apr 23, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:wisdom I love when people discuss lens construction on these forums. It's so much more interesting than just hearing about subjective qualities ("The boken is at least 1.3 times creamier than the previous version") and marketing non-statements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
I'm starting to get wary about that supposed 24-70mm/2.0. There have only been a few mentions about it long in the past, with nothing new since then. Just a couple of days ago I looked for it and came across some thread on a photography forum where they theorycrafted how much bigger and heavier such a lens would get. While I don't remember the numbers anymore (I think 6 lbs was mentioned), it wasn't pretty. Of course, I suppose that assumes regular lens design. If they're going with the aforementioned telecompressors, then who knows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I'm starting to get wary about that supposed 24-70mm/2.0. There have only been a few mentions about it long in the past, with nothing new since then. Just a couple of days ago I looked for it and came across some thread on a photography forum where they theorycrafted how much bigger and heavier such a lens would get. While I don't remember the numbers anymore (I think 6 lbs was mentioned), it wasn't pretty. Of course, I suppose that assumes regular lens design. If they're going with the aforementioned telecompressors, then who knows. Well, it won't be a lightweight for sure. The 18-35 f/1.8 is a brick too. Theorycrafting this out myself, my rule of thumb would be to take a medium format 6x4.5 lens and work from there. Relative to 645, full frame is a 1.6x crop factor, so roughly the same amount of speed gain as going from 35mm to APS-C (1.5 stops). For an f/2 lens at full frame, then, we're talking about a 645 lens that is roughly f/3.5. There are a couple 645 zoom lenses but none are quite that fast or cover that focal length. The Pentax-FA 645 45-85 f/4.5 weighs 805g, the Vario-Sonnar T 45-90 f/4.5 weighs 1200g, both of those lenses need to be roughly 2/3 of a stop faster and cover a bit more focal length (they're 30-55 ish). The Pentax-FA 645 55-110mm f/5.6 (500g) is just about the right focal length (35-70) but it needs to gain about 1 1/3 or 1 1/2 stops of speed. So scale that up by how much you think adding an extra stop of light and some zoom range would weigh for a medium format zoom, plus a MF->35mm telecompressor. All of those lenses are pretty old designs and probably could be done better (or lighter) by Sigma, plus the telecompressing will hide minor flaws near wide open (ignoring abberation from the telecompressor, you get 1.6x the resolution), but it'll still be fairly heavy. I think probably 1500g is the bottom end, maybe 2000g on the high end, but that's just a wild-rear end guess. So roughly equal or somewhat heavier than a high-end FF 70-200, and probably not much smaller. 6lbs seems a bit high but not out of the realm of possibility. You're right that they've been pretty quiet on it, though. It has been a while. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Apr 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:There are 2 other theories as well: they're actually designing the lenses for even wider apertures than what is being advertised but pre-emptively "stopping down" to avoid the common issues of actually being wide open. Oh and for the record this theory is very testable. Take a long-exposure shot with the lens wide open and look down the barrel. Do you see the iris stopping down? If not, if you disassemble the lens, is there a round waterhouse stop near the iris? A waterhouse stop is like a fixed, circular iris, and they could still be using one to manipulate the maximum allowed aperture of the lens rather than the blades of the iris, although you'd be trading focus accuracy for improved bokeh. I'm personally guessing "no" on that one (especially on primes), but the practice isn't unheard of. Olympus actually does that with their telecompressed zoom lenses. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Apr 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:I want to know what kind of arcane magic Sigma is using to get such awesome wide open sharpness. Is their glass that much better? Improvements in the optical formula? There are 2 other theories as well: they're actually designing the lenses for even wider apertures than what is being advertised but pre-emptively "stopping down" to avoid the common issues of actually being wide open. Or, less likely, they're designing for a larger-than-necessary image circle (like a tilt-shift lens that doesn't tilt or shift) and thereby get to use the sharpest center potion of that circle
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If you buy the canon 35/1.4 you are a straight up idiot at this point. Got my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 today. Was too busy to take it out, but here's a dog. I haven't quite figured out a good white balance setting for LED lights yet, so that might look a little off, but it seems like a very capable lens. I definitely want to start shooting wider portrait/lifestyle stuff, so hopefully this will get me some experience with that.  5D3 ISO800 f/1.4 1/40sec 1:1 crop an AOL chatroom fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Apr 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The APS-C 30/1.4 is blatantly designed for a larger circle. It barely vignettes on full frame. The 35/1.4 is a lot of (exotic) elements. So's the 50, but in its case it's mostly that everyone else hasn't bothered trying to make a really good one. The newest Nikon 50 and 85 1.4's for example have the exact same issues (and resolving power) as the 1.8 models. Yeah I think the 50 magic is pretty easily explained: 7 elements in 6 groups 2.9" x 2.0", 10.2 oz vs 13 Elements in 8 Groups 3.4" x 3.9", 28.7 oz It might just be possible to squeeze better performance out of number 2 there
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
I am going to be buying a new lens this weekend, and I've had my eye on the Sigma 35 1.4 art for some time. However, I already own something that covers that focal length and I need something on the longer side. I was tempted by Tamron 70-200, but when I last used one, the majority of my shots were between 180mm and 200mm. NOW, I have found a 200mm f/2.8L II for $500 odd. It's a little scuffed, but optically sound. Am I being an idiot buying the 200 prime over the others? edit: Incidentally, the main thing that turned me off of the 35 art is the new 50mm art which suits me far better, full frame and all that. I'll be saving for that separately. sildargod fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Apr 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
bisticles posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
am I better off buying the 28 f2.8 with IS or the 28 f1.8 with no IS? I mean, I already have a super low light lens (nifty fifty), I just want to know if the two perform the same in terms of sharpness. I figure IS is more useful than not having it and having a lower f stop. At least the IS might salvage something the other wouldn't? Primarily for car and portrait shots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
sildargod posted:I am going to be buying a new lens this weekend, and I've had my eye on the Sigma 35 1.4 art for some time. However, I already own something that covers that focal length and I need something on the longer side. I was tempted by Tamron 70-200, but when I last used one, the majority of my shots were between 180mm and 200mm. NOW, I have found a 200mm f/2.8L II for $500 odd. It's a little scuffed, but optically sound. The 200/2.8 is a superb lens, almost as good as the 135/2 - I can't see anyone hating it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
Laserface posted:am I better off buying the 28 f2.8 with IS or the 28 f1.8 with no IS?  ). If you're not attached to 28mm, which I personally find awkward but you may prefer I'd look at the 35/2 IS. Otherwise the 2.8 ain't bad, just expensive for a 2.8 wide prime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
sildargod posted:I am going to be buying a new lens this weekend, and I've had my eye on the Sigma 35 1.4 art for some time. Sorry, but what do you mean "full frame and all that"? The sigma 35mm is a full frame lens. If you just prefer the 50mm focal length that's another issue (I don't). Also the 200mm 2.8 owns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:
Saying it again, this lens rocks. It's a great focal length, and it's light, fast and renders beautifully. It's awesome. The 200/2 is even better, but its gigantic and costs 10x as much money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
There's also the older 200 f/1.8(!) that is pretty badass and can still be found used occasionally. I can only imagine what the DOF is like on that beast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
There's on on KEH right now for ~$2900. BGN grade though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
What does one use 200mm for, apart from portraits and sports? I've been meaning to complement my prime collection with a longer one than 105mm. But then thinking some more about it, I'm not even entirely sure what I want to shoot with it. There's only so much interesting things you can pick out in the environment and isolate. Rural middle-Europe is boring as gently caress. --edit: I suppose compressed landscape shots, if the geography allows it, at least what I see in related Flickr groups. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Apr 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Yes, long focal length landscapes rule. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Yes, long focal length landscapes rule. Yep. I prefer them to wide also (opinions!) unless you have something really close and interesting to include as a dominant feature in a wide angle one. It's also an awesome venue lens if you don't want (or aren't allowed) a giant horking 70-200 and you're going to be parked in one spot (as is the 135/2 if you're a bit closer)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
I was considering a 70-200mm, but I fear people may think I'm a terrorist with a rocket launcher.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
I use my 135/2 a lot for low-light concert venues. I also used it when I was in the front row when Joe Biden was giving a speech and I was way closer than the press pool area. It was compact enough for me to not feel weird about putting it through the security screening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:There's also the older 200 f/1.8(!) I am salivating at the prospect of this. Thing must be huge. e: Ha yep   DOF seems incredible from the stuff I'm looking at on Google Images Quantum of Phallus fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Apr 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I was considering a 70-200mm, but I fear people may think I'm a terrorist with a rocket launcher. lol at the 70-200 being considered huge I just bought this monstrosity a little bit ago:  Bird photography is a helluva drug
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:lol at the 70-200 being considered huge 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:lol at the 70-200 being considered huge sigmonster? niiiice
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:lol at the 70-200 being considered huge
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:what is that thing and does it screw together from six separate sections like it looks like? Its the Sigma 300-800 f5.6 m-m-m-megazoom. Its enormous but it is one piece. It weighs in at just under 13 pounds and makes me laugh like an idiot. The bummer is that I haven't had a chance to do anything with it yet because anytime I'm not at school or a job, its been dumping rain. Rageaholic Monkey posted:How do you even hold that poo poo straight out That thing really only works on a big rear end tripod with a gimbal head. I can handhold it for a bit but haha yeah gently caress that poo poo. This is for driving in / hiking in with a backpack and then setting it up like a mortar emplacement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The 1.8 is old and soft ( Mostly want a prime that I can use in close quarters with my 550D. the 50 is good for cars when I have space but if there is a group or tight parking (or for portraits and group shots at parties, no space) I like to be able to get in closer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Laserface posted:Mostly want a prime that I can use in close quarters with my 550D. the 50 is good for cars when I have space but if there is a group or tight parking (or for portraits and group shots at parties, no space) I like to be able to get in closer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I guess I'll be going with a 6D. http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-6d-body-refurbished Trigger = pulled. Now just to get a lens 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/eos-6d-body-refurbished http://www.ebay.com/itm/151103797004 -- 24-105 f/4L for $658 with US warranty. I've done bidness with GetDigital for my 100mm L Macro and it was fantastic. KEH has the same lens for the same price used or it's $900 refurbed (lolwut?) Got the deal from http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9543 ... add it to your bookmarks for Canon deals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
I already decided on the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, but that's a good deal. I might end up getting that lens from someone in the office, though. Hopefully, I can snag a good deal from him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:I already decided on the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, but that's a good deal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:So scale that up by how much you think adding an extra stop of light and some zoom range would weigh for a medium format zoom, plus a MF->35mm telecompressor. All of those lenses are pretty old designs and probably could be done better (or lighter) by Sigma, plus the telecompressing will hide minor flaws near wide open (ignoring abberation from the telecompressor, you get 1.6x the resolution), but it'll still be fairly heavy. I think probably 1500g is the bottom end, maybe 2000g on the high end, but that's just a wild-rear end guess. So roughly equal or somewhat heavier than a high-end FF 70-200, and probably not much smaller. 6lbs seems a bit high but not out of the realm of possibility. I really doubt they'd bother with a 24-70 f2 unless they had the idea of making it an APS-C lens. It'd be as big as a cinema lens, and extremely unwieldy while it's alternatives would only be slightly slower but actually useable. At least with long lenses you know they have to be long, so there's a trade-off you're willing to make for their size. A 24-70 is relatively pretty small. I wouldn't be surprised by a new 24-70/2.8 from them though. Maybe a neato non telescoping one too. But their next lens is a 24/1.4 apparently, and I'd guess a rehousing of their latest 85mm after that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Hell yes! Report back. Haha that require me to actually take pictures 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
Anyone want to comment on my gear purchasing "plan"? I decided to post here instead of the my first DSLR thread because I'm pretty set on buying into Canon (mostly because I want the 400mm 5.6L lens). I'm coming from a Panasonic LZ200, which is an excellent bridge IMO. I bought it for high speed video (golf swings mostly) and random fun things. I got into bird/wildlife photography and macro stuff. I plan on keeping this camera for the high speed golf stuff. My primary interests with the DSLR would be in this order: Birding/Wildlife (probably including video) Macro general walking around, vacations etc.. astrophotography (this isn't a priority and isn't something i'd get into right away but someday) I've pretty much convinced myself that i want the 400mm 5.6L prime lens for the Wildlife priority. I've been debating about the body, 7D or the 70D. Getting touchscreen on the 70D and the video capabilities would be real nice, I'm also intrigued by the wifi and using it to trigger remotely with the chainfire app. I'd miss the spot AF for birds in branches, but i may be able to live with that. I'd save a good amount of money on a used 7D though, so that's what i'm battling in my head. Here is what I'm currently scoping out: Canon 70D body only 40mm pancake 400mm 5.6L prime 60mm EFS 2.8 Macro memory cards, batteries etc.. Budget around $3500. Can anyone recommend, or offer thoughts with those lenses based on those priorities?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
TheMirage posted:Here is what I'm currently scoping out: Honestly, I think you have chosen the same setup I'd go with, though I'd recommend the 100mm 2.8 Macro (non L). I've owned both the L and non L macro lenses and can't say I notice a difference in sharpness; the non L is super sharp. It only lacks the IS of the L version, which I didn't find I needed on macro work anyway. The 60mm is awesome also, but the 100mm is in a league of it's own for the price IMO. Also gonna recommend generic batteries like Photive. I've found they last as long, if not longer (in my case) than the Canon battery. If you think you're going to get into off-camera flash ever, I'd pick up some YN 603 wireless transmitters. They double as a remote trigger for the camera so you can get some use out of them now, and then when you get into flash stuff they work really well as a off-camera flash trigger. Quite a versatile 30 photobux if you ask me. That's a setup to be excited about, nice picks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
I'd look into the Tamron 150-600 instead of the 400 f5.6. I used the 400 prime for quite a while and its great but if the Tammy was around at the time I probably would have used that instead. Its comparable to the prime at 400, plus you get the extra reach and VC for about the same money. I'd probably vote for the 7D for the faster burst, bigger buffer and because I think the AF system is still better but I don't do video at all so there's that. Also what mcclifford said about the 100mm 2.8 macro is totally true. Best macro for the money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
The Tamron 150-600 is back ordered pretty much everywhere. I was hoping to get one in time for summer but that seems unlikely now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 16:38
|
|