|
Still not very efficient though. Fast-paced professional photographers rely on CO2 lasers to get the maximum amount of light on to their sensors as possible.. but not before removing the AA and IR cut filters.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Still not very efficient though. Fast-paced professional photographers rely on CO2 lasers to get the maximum amount of light on to their sensors as possible.. but not before removing the AA and IR cut filters. I tried this and now my sensor is emitting a cloying green smoke, does that mean it's working??? It smells like good photos!
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
You’re on the right track. If there’s too much green you can always adjust it it post. Also, something is wrong with lightroom because you’ll have to manually move your clarity slider all the way to the right. So sick of having to do this every time. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2018 15:46
|
|
|
Set up an import preset that maxes clarity. Done!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Set up an import preset that maxes clarity. Done! Then export it and import it again a few times to get the slider even further to the right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Then export it and import it again a few times to get the slider even further to the right. Oh my loving god... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
The Mrs. is looking to get a new lens for the 80D. She got her hands on a canon 24-70mm f2.8 L lens for a few shots and is in love. I'm not a huge fan of the $1600 price tag, but we did find the tamron equivalent. We are not professionals by any stretch of the imagination, but have enjoyed both the nifty 50, and the tamron 35 I picked up a little over a year ago as well (meaning we're not total newbs). I'm not afraid to shell out, but if the tamron is cheaper and roughly equivalent, why not? Does anyone have any feelings one way or the other about either lens? Edit: Now seeing G2 - is that newer generation? Yup. answered my own question. Beverly Cleavage fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Oct 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 03:12
|
|
|
You'd probably be fine with the tamron. The most recent tamron and sigma 24-70's are both supposed to be very good. It's also worth noting that both the tamron g2 and sigma art lenses have IS, and the canon f2.8L II does not. For what it's worth, I have the canon lens and it's great, but yeah 1600 is a lot. Also, this is really minor, but tamron zooms use the nikon direction for the zoom ring, so if your wife is used to shooting on canon glass it will be reversed from what she is used to, which she may or may not find annoying?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
Beverly Cleavage posted:The Mrs. is looking to get a new lens for the 80D. If you're using a crop sensor camera, what's keeping you from picking up an EF-S 17-55 2.8? It will give you *roughly* the equivalent of the 24-70 on a full frame camera body and give you image stabilization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 04:33
|
|
|
Drewski posted:If you're using a crop sensor camera, what's keeping you from picking up an EF-S 17-55 2.8? It will give you *roughly* the equivalent of the 24-70 on a full frame camera body and give you image stabilization. If they've never owned or used a full frame this comparison is worthless. The 17-55 is a great lens though. But it's not a 24-70.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 05:06
|
|
|
Beverly Cleavage posted:The Mrs. is looking to get a new lens for the 80D. I use the sigma art 24-70 (albeit on a full frame Sony a7iii) and I love it. 1200 isn't much cheaper than 1600 but it is less. Or go with the tried and true favorite of the tamron 17-50 2.8 crop lens for $400, 450 for the vibration compensation model. Sigma and tamron Have both significantly picked up their game with their art series and g2 series lenses and are producing really high quality lenses for less. When I did shoot on a crop camera (50d) I liked the 17-50 focal range as it was roughly the same a the 24-70 on full frame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 09:47
|
|
|
The only benefit to going for the Canon glass is usually that it is lighter than what sigma and tamron put out but in terms of image quality there is almost no difference. I'd always go with the cheaper product under those terms. I haven't looked at 24-70 lenses for a while but I would've thought the Sigma Art verison is superior to the Tamron, at least I see it used much more often.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Don't forget the in camera corrections for jpegs at least for certain bodies. Third party lenses don't get that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:I haven't looked at 24-70 lenses for a while but I would've thought the Sigma Art verison is superior to the Tamron, at least I see it used much more often. I'd wager that on a high density photosite sensor like the 80D in APS-C that the Sigma 24-70 outperforms the Canon 24-70 at equivalent apertures. Maybe not much, but slightly on topics of aberration. Probably about equal for distortion, though on aps-c any pincushion or barrel distortion will be at the edges. Sigma won't release new lenses that don't at least minorly outperform the market in both price and quality or features (utility like the 150-600, or maximum aperture). They've taken several passes at the trifecta zooms (they've also a 70-200 coming soon) and backed down, but they're moving now, in part I suspect because they developed a new ULD glass type with Hoya they really like, based on interviews. Tamron lenses are fine for >99% of the market, though. They're likely very similar to the Canon equivalents. Build quality and weight usually suffer a bit vs Canon or Sigma. Also, Sigma does in body lens corrections on Canon now. Install the latest firmware for the lens with the USB dock and virtually all Art, Sport, and Contemporary series lenses have correction data now. They changed their stance on this about 2-3 years ago when they started releasing Art zooms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Thanks for the comprehensive replies. I'm still digging into some of the detail - and I hadn't done enough research to even realize sigma had an option there as well (though it makes sense upon reflection). She's still inclined towards the canon, but at $1200 for the Tam, $13 for the Sig, either of the two non-oem lenses are likely more than good enough for our uses and minimum $400 less than the canon lens. (immaterial: For some reason I also confused my 35 for a tamron when it's actually a sigma - so if we go that route, get the dock and update both lenses! win-win!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
I have the g1 Tamron. It take food pics. The IS is helpful, my only complaint is that the rubber grip ok the zoom ring has stretched out and is a bit loose. A few shots from my crappy website    Sorry if they're huge, posting from the app.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
xzzy posted:If they've never owned or used a full frame this comparison is worthless. No, it's not a 24-70 that's for sure true. But, it's much less expensive, it does have IS which the others don't, and its optical quality is still really, really good, making it a viable choice to consider. I think it's one of the best crop-frame lenses you can buy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Drewski posted:No, it's not a 24-70 that's for sure true. But, it's much less expensive, it does have IS which the others don't, and its optical quality is still really, really good, making it a viable choice to consider. I think it's one of the best crop-frame lenses you can buy. I think you misunderstood. If you have never used a full frame 24-70 saying those numbers gives you no point of reference to understand what was being compared. If you aren’t a camera geek there is no mental comparison of 50/FF is “normal”, 25 is “wide” and 200 is “telephoto”. We all forget that most people even refer to telephoto as “zoom”. Yes a 24-70 on FF is roughly equivalent to 17-50 on crop. However, if you have only ever used a 24-70 on crop and really like the telephoto end (112/ff), you may be disappointed in the crop comparison. I think that’s where the comment came from. It’s worth a look as an option for sure as plenty of people like the smaller size, weight and price tag of what ultimately is a very useful focal range.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
For those of you who own a Canon EOS M50 and a Mac, your long period of suffering is over.. macOS 10.14.1 apparently now supports Canon's wacky .CR3 format and you can now preview .CR3 files in the Finder and Preview. About loving time, only took like, what eight goddamn months?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
24-70 is a (wide-ish) normal to short telephoto on an 80D. I wonder if wife likes the whole range of the zoom or just appreciates the higher magnification at the long end and subject isolation afforded by the wider aperture. I know that when I first got a telephoto lens to go with my 18-55 I suddenly realized I was going to really like photography, and my Jr high-age niece asked for a 'real camera' for her birthday because she wanted to be able to 'zoom in' on people. Regardless, I have two suggestions. One is for the whole range: the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4. It's a 24-70, plus more wide-angle ability, and admittedly a stop slower at 70mm, but it has IS and is just $450. Reviews are good and if it's anything like my Fuji 18-55 2.8-4 the image quality is going to be way better than a standard Canon 18-55. The other follows from the supposition that it's the 'zooming in' that most appeals to the camera user in this case: the Sigma 50-100 1.8. A monster of a portrait lens, staring from the mid range of the Canon L zoom and ending a little farther out at 100mm, but with a 1.8 aperture, which will make it better for subject isolation and background defocus than the 24-70 could ever offer on an 80D, and with much, much better low-light capability (faster aperture *and* IS). And it's $1000. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jan 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Speaking of crop 24-70ish lenses, anyone have the Sigma Art 18-35/1.8? I've been hovering over the buy button for a week because it looks like a fantastic lens for my 80D on paper and it's priced very attractively. The only downside seems to be no IS but that's not the end of the world. It'd be great if it were 18-55 or so but the Canon 50/1.8 is fine to carry in addition to the Sigma if I got it. Someone put me over the edge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
charliebravo77 posted:Speaking of crop 24-70ish lenses, anyone have the Sigma Art 18-35/1.8? I've been hovering over the buy button for a week because it looks like a fantastic lens for my 80D on paper and it's priced very attractively. The only downside seems to be no IS but that's not the end of the world. It'd be great if it were 18-55 or so but the Canon 50/1.8 is fine to carry in addition to the Sigma if I got it. Someone put me over the edge. Yes, get it. It was one of my favorite lenses on crop. Perfect wide to normalish length at a constant 1.8? Was very bummed to ditch it when I moved to full frame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
charliebravo77 posted:Speaking of crop 24-70ish lenses, anyone have the Sigma Art 18-35/1.8? I've been hovering over the buy button for a week because it looks like a fantastic lens for my 80D on paper and it's priced very attractively. The only downside seems to be no IS but that's not the end of the world. It'd be great if it were 18-55 or so but the Canon 50/1.8 is fine to carry in addition to the Sigma if I got it. Someone put me over the edge. If you want that zoom range out to 50mm on a constant aperture zoom, why not look at the 17-50 f/2.8? It's not quite as fast as the 18-35 but it does have IS and it's about $350 new.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:If you want that zoom range out to 50mm on a constant aperture zoom, why not look at the 17-50 f/2.8? It's not quite as fast as the 18-35 but it does have IS and it's about $350 new. I really like the fact that the front element is fixed and everything happens internally since I enjoy shooting outdoors a lot and I have gotten lenses pretty gritty in the past. The 17-50 is intriguing, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
charliebravo77 posted:Speaking of crop 24-70ish lenses, anyone have the Sigma Art 18-35/1.8? I've been hovering over the buy button for a week because it looks like a fantastic lens for my 80D on paper and it's priced very attractively. The only downside seems to be no IS but that's not the end of the world. It'd be great if it were 18-55 or so but the Canon 50/1.8 is fine to carry in addition to the Sigma if I got it. Someone put me over the edge. I have one on my sd Quattro and it never really comes off despite other options. It's probably the nicest quality APS-C zoom I've ever used besides the related 50-100.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
I want to get a Canon FF for real estate photography for the company I work for. Camera also needs to double to shoot video for promos. Budget is around $1300 for the body so I’m considering either a used 5D mk iii or a 6D mk ii to go along with a 16-35mm f4 and 50mm 1.8 STM. I was leaning towards the 6D for its dual pixel AF in video but the reviews for the mk ii have been mixed to say the least. Any thoughts for the best body for a video / photo hybrid?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 10:45
|
|
|
Is FF a hard requirement? You can easily get a new 80D and a nice lens for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 10:55
|
|
|
Nigel Tufnel posted:I want to get a Canon FF for real estate photography for the company I work for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 11:01
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Is FF a hard requirement? You can easily get a new 80D and a nice lens for that. Trying to get maximum fidelity at the wide end. I’m a Nikon shooter normally so don’t know what Canon’s APS-C wide angle is like around 15mm (FF equiv) but it seems that the 16-35mm is pretty standard for real estate so we’ll need a FF body to take advantage of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 11:25
|
|
|
There's a 10-18mm EF-S lens that will offer very minimal distortion even at the wide end. That's giving you the same FoV as 16-29mm on a full frame. Here are some samples with exactly that combo.
Helen Highwater fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Jan 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 11:35
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You got glass? No glass yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 12:01
|
|
|
Nigel Tufnel posted:No glass yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:There's a 10-18mm EF-S lens that will offer very minimal distortion even at the wide end. That's giving you the same FoV as 16-29mm on a full frame. Here are some samples with exactly that combo. Agreed, the 80D gives a lot more bang for your buck than the older FF cameras, and you'd need to spend $2k+ on a 5D body to really beat it. And the 10-18mm is great, I use it all the time. With the left over money, buy some speedlites and remote triggers so you can light up the places you're shooting. And a good tripod and ball head. And a copy/subscrption to Lightroom. Good accessories aren't free, and things like that will give you way better results than a meatier camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
Thanks for all the advice. I've compared the 10-18 to the 16-35 and the 10-18 looks pretty smeary in the corners compared to the FF equiv. Still, as you say, 80D is much better for video. Hmm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
I wouldn't worry about the corners since all the realty photos I've seen have been compressed to hell. It seems like halfway decent photography is a pretty low bar in that field. https://twitter.com/BadRealtyPhotos/status/1050495022754385920
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:I wouldn't worry about the corners since all the realty photos I've seen have been compressed to hell. It seems like halfway decent photography is a pretty low bar in that field. This post is off to the Best Photographer thread now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Realty photography is a delightful venn diagram of bad photographers and horrifying interior design.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
I recently got hold of a Canon EFS 15-85 f3.5-5.6. Gotta say as a walk around lens it's pretty great so long as you're not looking for super shallow dof, obviously. The stabilisation in particular is great and the sharpness is good for a lens covering such a wide range of focal lengths. I wouldn't pay full price for it but if you're looking for an all round travel lens and can find a used one that's been looked after well then it's worth thinking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
rolleyes posted:I recently got hold of a Canon EFS 15-85 f3.5-5.6. If you want to compromise with a little less on the long end, there's also the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4, and it's $300 less (new) than the canon. This has been my walkaround lens for a little under a year now. Good sharpness, though not quite as good as the Sigma 17-50 2.8, and has a little bit of a weird distortion at 70mm, but otherwise I really like it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:55 |
|
|
hope and vaseline posted:If you want to compromise with a little less on the long end, there's also the Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4, and it's $300 less (new) than the canon. This has been my walkaround lens for a little under a year now. Good sharpness, though not quite as good as the Sigma 17-50 2.8, and has a little bit of a weird distortion at 70mm, but otherwise I really like it. Funnily enough that's one I was considering but I decided to go with the Canon for the extra 2mm at the wide end, which is a much bigger difference than it sounds. They're close otherwise though. From reading reviews (pixel peeping links below) the Canon has marginally better image quality and greater range, at the cost of narrower apertures. The Sigma wins on aperture and, as you say, is significantly cheaper. Canon: https://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/465-canon_1585_3556is Sigma: https://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/517-sigma1770f284osapsc
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2019 21:16
|
|