Time to be with your loved ones

Time to be with loved ones

by sat

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

54

No, you don't. In some circles of photography, the 50mm has reached almost cult religion status. It seems to solve everything from focus problems to technique stagnation to global warming. Ask a question about photography, and chances are, someone will recommend a 50mm lens as the solution ("I want to take images of the space station crossing the sun" "The ...


21

My wife and I own three Sigma lenses: the "bigma" (50-500mm), my 17-70mm f/2.8-4, and her 30mm f/1.4 prime. We absolutely love them, for their respective strengths: Noone touches the Bigma for range. Yes, it's soft. Yes, it's unbelievably big and heavy. But it's a disturbingly versatile lens. The 30mm is incredibly sharp, and f/1.4 is something you just ...


18

Possibly - but the real answer lies in whether you find yourself limited by your current lenses in available light and portrait situations. Two stops is a lot of shutter speed and DoF, but I rarely find myself shooting my Sigma 50mm wide open at 1.4. Not because its too soft (its still plenty sharp for me there), but because the depth of field is so narrow ...


17

The reason for using a hood is to block light rays from elements outside of the actual frame (stray light) to enter into the lens and degrade the image quality (lowering contrast). Effectively, it "shades" the lens from these rays. Since a sensor is rectangular, valid light rays that fall on the corners arrive from angles larger than light rays that fall on ...


15

Absolutely. With most lenses, the old saying 'you get what you pay for' applies. If you want to buy a good Sigma lens (they have some excellent ones), you'll have to buy an expensive one. Between these particular models, the Sigma is much softer near the wide-angle end and has stronger fall-off as well. At the long end, it diminishes but you have to stop it ...


14

Sigma makes some great lenses, and Sigma makes some lenses that are of pretty poor quality. Canon is the same way... it's hard to make a brand-wide generalization. A much better option is to do research based on specific lenses. I've found the lens reviews at FredMiranda.com to be pretty helpful.


14

There are enough variations in lenses that it's hard to make a generalization about an entire brand vs. another. A lot of folks stick to the lenses from their camera manufacturer and I think that in the past the quality tended to be better. That said, some of the third party lens manufacturers have some great lenses, and some of the lenses by Nikon and ...


13

Comparing the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM against the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD you will find that the Canon excels in almost every aspect, and the price reflects that. Sharpness The Sigma lens provides a very compelling option on a crop sensor camera. It performs well when stopped down to f/4.0 and beyond. The issue is that in ...


13

Yes you are looking at clipping by the mirror box, I'm afraid it's unavoidable when using a lens with large aperture and exit pupil close to the film plane at certain focusing distance. Even if the mirror box doesn't clip the light cone the lens barrel will (for off axis points of light) leading to cat eye bokeh. Here's an example from a full frame camera ...


11

The Bayer sensor used by the vast majority of cameras is basically a two-by-two grid of sensors with 1 blue, 1 red, and 2 green sensors known as a Bayer filter named after the Kodak Labs scientist that came up with it. The data from such a sensor then must go through a demosaicing process that converts the 4 data points into a pixel giving the result of the ...


11

I have shot with the Canon EF70-200mm and the Sigma 70-200mm. I've included a 100% screenshot of an image made a couple of weeks ago with the Sigma lens: The image was made at f/13 under studio lighting, but as you can see, it's sharp as a tack, and I was using the autofocus. My impression of the lenses are these: Canon is a touch faster to autofocus ...


11

The lens is a varifocal lens. Basically, it's a lens that changes focus as the focal length changes and it's quite common. Parfocal lenses, ones that maintain focus on zoom change, exist but are typically more expensive as a result. Long story short, it's normal for a large number of consumer zoom lenses.


9

The price reflect quality not brand, although brand name traditionally have the luxury of charging a premium, that premium is small in comparison to what they can charge for quality. Sigma has been managing very well because they are doing exactly the right thing to get a lucrative portion of the market. What the did was enter the market with low quality ...


9

If your interest is primarily the optics, you need to look at individual lenses, not brands as a whole. You can't depend on a Nikkor (or Canon, Pentax, Sony, etc.) necessarily being sharper than something like a Sigma, Tokina or Tamron. OTOH, unless you're pretty sure you're buying a lens to keep it forever, the third party lenses don't seem to be nearly ...


9

Short Answer - buy the high-end Canon lens. If you're actually working and making money shooting, then the amortization works out to be negligible difference in costs. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact based on experience. A few decades ago - when zoom lenses were rare and prime lenses ruled I did some airplane to airplane photography. the relatively worn ...


8

First off, the Sigma doesn't cost double - it may LIST as double, but it runs closer to $500 US. Second, as others have spoken, you're paying for quality. You're also paying a combination of two other things - what the market will give and reputation. The bokeh on the Sigma is well known to be extremely smooth and it considered an excellent portrait ...


7

Some key points: Focus points are larger than the LED that lights up. As a result, the camera will pick anything within the area, usually the with the most contrast (often what is closest yet not too far on the edge of the AF sensor). Depth of field is larger with a shorter focal length, and of course with a smaller aperture. What this means is that ...


7

Here are some reviews, with data for the Tamron, but not the Sigma: http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Lenses/Lens-Test-Sigma-18-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-Macro http://www.popphoto.com/tamron/2010/03/lens-test-tamron-sp-17-50mm-f28-xr-di-ii-vc-af And here with data for the Sigma, but not the Tamron: ...


7

The alternatives are: Nikon 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 Nikon 12-24mm f4 Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 Sigma 10-22mm f3.5 If budget is your only consideration, Tamron seems to be the best fit. Fullframe lenses like the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 also exist, but these are much more expensive and bulky.


7

I have been shooting Sigma DSLR's for a number of years, since the SD-9. I got into the system when I was moving out of film SLRs into digital and did a lot of research before I made the leap. I too came across the the Foveon chip and the design of it struck me as much more sound than the Bayer design on a conceptual level; plus I really liked the images I ...


7

From the review it looks like while the Sigma is pleasantly clear of any weird distortions, it's not excellent in terms of resolution and color fringing. If you really want top quality I'd suggest to go with a true macro like Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro.


7

Q1 Yes Q2 When used on an Canon APS-c sensor the lens has the same field of view as an 136mm lens on would have on a full frame body. The focal length is an intrinsic property of a lens and so doesn't change when mounted on a different camera. However most people use focal length [incorrectly] as a measure of field of view. Q3 There are pros and cons to ...


7

I have the Sigma 85mm lens and I am using it on a Canon APS-C sensor camera, the Canon 30D. Q1 - Does it work? Oh Yeah! I have been so impressed with the performance, I consider it the best lens I own right now. Q2 - If you put this lens on a "full frame" camera, you get the normal 85mm photo. If you put it on your 60D, you get what appears to be a ...


7

No you don't The number one reason for a beginner to get a 50mm lens is that on Canon and Nikon (don't know about other brands) the 50mm f/1.8 is cheap (the Canon 50 1.8 is the cheapest, smallest and lightest lens they make) - so it's a cheap introduction into the world of fast primes and it's so much better than the kit lens. You already have a 40mm and a ...


7

First of all It all depends on what kind of photography you are doing the most. Personally I can recommend you Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS USM: pluses: Fast focus Good light (fast lens) Sharp Very good standard range Goes nicely together with 10-22 you are planning minuses: Big & might be heavy (~0,5kg) It is not cheap either, but I wouldn't put it as ...


7

I have that exact lens, the APO DG version even. Its ... 'ok'. It has really poor contrast is my biggest gripe and the autofocus is dreadful slow. For pics of slow moving wildlife in reasonable light - it does pretty ok with a little contrast help in post production. Example below: For macro pics..its well, not very macro. It just doesn't get as ...


7

Here's a little context for comparing the various versions of the Canon 70-200mm "L" lens series: EF 70-200mm f/2.8L was introduced in March 1995. This design is almost 20 years old! EF 70-200mm f/4L was introduced in September 1999. The design is almost 15 years old. EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS was introduced in September 2001, over a decade ago. EF 70-200mm ...


6

The lenses you list aren't very wide on a 50D, so I don't think they'd be particularly good for tight-quarters indoors shots. Your kit lens is already quite a bit wider; it's good advice to see how you fare with that, then you can work out where to go next. If the kit lens doesn't turn out to be wide enough, then one of the best options going are the ...


6

Comparing two very similar lenses like the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro and the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 SP XR Di II LD VC Lens in terms of sharpness can be difficult. Often one lens will perform better at a particular focal length and aperture, while the other will perform better at other focal length and aperture combinations. Even at the same focal length ...


6

I've not used the Sigma, but I own the Tamron 17-50 VC. It really is quite sharp, just as sharp as the than the 50mm 1.8 prime, comparing both at f2.8, in my experience Also, when you're using slower shutter speeds, the VC does help prevent motion blur from camera shake. As always, it's a lot sharper at f4 than f2.8, but all lenses are.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible