Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › *Post Lens Comparison Photos* (Previously) I had no idea Camera (Canon DSLR) lenses were that expensive!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*Post Lens Comparison Photos* (Previously) I had no idea Camera (Canon DSLR) lenses were that... - Page 6

post #76 of 97

As I skim the 50mm shots again, I can see that there's overexposure in the stonework in the brush picture. The tonal balance is clearly not wrong on that picture either. That's the second picture, just in case I wasn't clear.

Also, see this link.
dxomark comparison


Edited by Planar_head - 11/18/10 at 9:04pm
post #77 of 97

Very interesting site.... very interesting indeed.

 

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/640%7C0/(appareil2)/628%7C0/(appareil3)/676%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Leica/(brand2)/Nikon/(brand3)/Pentax

post #78 of 97

The difference in picture quality between the 50mm 1.4 and the 1.8 is well worth the $200 more for the 1.4.  Also for low light situations that 1.8 has trouble locking on to your subject.  

 

For portraits a 85mm 1.8 is another great lens for the price and is more of a portrait lens.   The 1.2 is amazing but is absurd in both price and size unless you need that size of glass to look like a professional in front of your half naked subjects.  

 

Other wise the 25-105mm with IS is the best all around lens for the price especially if you do most of your work outside.

 

Stick with the canon lenses.  

post #79 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioslave909 View Post

Stick with the canon lenses.  


Disagree. Maybe in years past 3rd party lenses were all lousy, but that just isn't the case anymore. Most Tokina AT-X Pro lenses are very competitive with and in some cases better than the Canon equivalents, and many Sigma EX lenses are also very good. There are also some superb Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses. All are very much worth consideration, unless you like to spend several hundred extra dollars so your lens says "Canon" on it.

post #80 of 97

Replying to title: And that's why I stick to bridges.

post #81 of 97
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioslave909 View Post

The difference in picture quality between the 50mm 1.4 and the 1.8 is well worth the $200 more for the 1.4.  

 

Stick with the canon lenses.  

 

At say F2.0 to 2.8 range, will 50 F1.4 have better colors and contrast to 50 F1.8, and what's this I read about 50 F1.4 exposing a third stop brighter than other lenses (is that a problem?).  Anyway, I already got some snow after the rain :)

 

 

snow2c.jpg
post #82 of 97
Thread Starter 

 

It's ski season here in SoCal :)
 
Canon t2i Canon 50mm F/1.8
snow3o.jpg
 
 
 
With my new toy Canon S95 wide angle.  
 
s95snow.jpg

Edited by Jon L - 11/22/10 at 9:03am
post #83 of 97
Thread Starter 

I broke down and ordered both Canon 35mm F/2 and Canon 50mm F/1.4.  I wanted to try Sigma EX 30mm and 50mm, but just way too many have reported QC issues.  And I really do need something faster than F/2.8.  Anyway, still passing time with 50mm F/1.8.  almatube.jpg

 

almatube2.jpg


Edited by Jon L - 12/1/10 at 10:08pm
post #84 of 97

I can vouch for the Sigma EX 30mm f/1.4, I've got one and it's lovely. But yeah, smart skepticism with the QC issues; luckily I was able to play with a used copy in the store.

 

How's the 50mm f/1.4 treating you? I've been thinking about it myself, the f/1.8 seems like it requires very very ideal conditions in order to be impressive

post #85 of 97
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunToys View Post

I can vouch for the Sigma EX 30mm f/1.4, I've got one and it's lovely. But yeah, smart skepticism with the QC issues; luckily I was able to play with a used copy in the store.

 

How's the 50mm f/1.4 treating you? I've been thinking about it myself, the f/1.8 seems like it requires very very ideal conditions in order to be impressive


If I could play with a used Sigma 30mm and buy one that works at a decent price, I would do it.  Have you compared the Sigma to any Canon primes side-by-side?  It can be suprising when lenses are compared directly.  

 

Canon 50mm F/1.4 is still in the mail, and I do not expect it to outdo 1.8 by much at all.  I do hope to gain a little more low-light sharpness and color stopped down at aound F/2 to F2.2...

post #86 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunToys View Post

I can vouch for the Sigma EX 30mm f/1.4, I've got one and it's lovely. But yeah, smart skepticism with the QC issues; luckily I was able to play with a used copy in the store.

 

How's the 50mm f/1.4 treating you? I've been thinking about it myself, the f/1.8 seems like it requires very very ideal conditions in order to be impressive


I'm surprised that you like the 30mm Sigma. I haven't used one myself, but the lab results I've seen do not impress me in the slightest. Vignetting is a big problem through F2.8 (although many Canon primes are not champs here either), and resolution in the corners and extreme corners at wide apertures, well there's no other word for it really, it sucks. It sucks through to F5.6. I suppose if you just want to chop out the center of your images it might do, but I expect a hell of a lot better out of a $400 prime. The Canon 35mm F2 is way better.


Edited by DaveBSC - 12/3/10 at 3:37pm
post #87 of 97
Thread Starter 

Received my Canon 35mm F2, so here's some comparisons with Canon 50mm F1.8.  Top is 35, bottom 50.  

The lighting was pretty poor due to heavily overcast sky, but here it goes.

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

 

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

This doll was shot indoors with both lenses at F/2 to see low-light performance.

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

ImageShack, share photos, pictures, free image hosting, free video hosting, image hosting, video hosting, photo image hosting site, video hosting site

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Jon L - 12/4/10 at 10:52am
post #88 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by FunToys View Post

I can vouch for the Sigma EX 30mm f/1.4, I've got one and it's lovely. But yeah, smart skepticism with the QC issues; luckily I was able to play with a used copy in the store.

 

How's the 50mm f/1.4 treating you? I've been thinking about it myself, the f/1.8 seems like it requires very very ideal conditions in order to be impressive


I'm surprised that you like the 30mm Sigma. I haven't used one myself, but the lab results I've seen do not impress me in the slightest. Vignetting is a big problem through F2.8 (although many Canon primes are not champs here either), and resolution in the corners and extreme corners at wide apertures, well there's no other word for it really, it sucks. It sucks through to F5.6. I suppose if you just want to chop out the center of your images it might do, but I expect a hell of a lot better out of a $400 prime. The Canon 35mm F2 is way better.


Haven't been in the photography game for too long, so this is actually only the third lens I've ever owned and it looks pretty good to my relatively untrained eye. However, while I'll admit to corner softness, I haven't seen any vignetting, not even at f/1.4. I suspect the photos you saw had the lens mounted on a full frame camera; Sigma has mentioned that even though it's not technically an EF-S lens, it's designed for crop sensors, and using it with full frame presents some problems (probably the vignetting).

post #89 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunToys View Post

Haven't been in the photography game for too long, so this is actually only the third lens I've ever owned and it looks pretty good to my relatively untrained eye. However, while I'll admit to corner softness, I haven't seen any vignetting, not even at f/1.4. I suspect the photos you saw had the lens mounted on a full frame camera; Sigma has mentioned that even though it's not technically an EF-S lens, it's designed for crop sensors, and using it with full frame presents some problems (probably the vignetting).


According to lab results on a Canon crop format camera, the Sigma shades by 1EV in the corners when wide open. Than in itself is actually not bad compared to the Canon 35mm primes. Even the mighty 35mm 1.4 L shades by about the same amount wide open on a crop format camera. The difference is vignetting is still an issue on the Sigma until you hit F4. On the Canon 35mm L its a non issue at F2, and on the 35mm F2, it's a non issue at F2.8.

post #90 of 97
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveBSC View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by FunToys View Post

Haven't been in the photography game for too long, so this is actually only the third lens I've ever owned and it looks pretty good to my relatively untrained eye. However, while I'll admit to corner softness, I haven't seen any vignetting, not even at f/1.4. I suspect the photos you saw had the lens mounted on a full frame camera; Sigma has mentioned that even though it's not technically an EF-S lens, it's designed for crop sensors, and using it with full frame presents some problems (probably the vignetting).


According to lab results on a Canon crop format camera, the Sigma shades by 1EV in the corners when wide open. Than in itself is actually not bad compared to the Canon 35mm primes. Even the mighty 35mm 1.4 L shades by about the same amount wide open on a crop format camera. The difference is vignetting is still an issue on the Sigma until you hit F4. On the Canon 35mm L its a non issue at F2, and on the 35mm F2, it's a non issue at F2.8.


Is vignetting such a large issue these days with peripheral illumination correction and all that?  I'm more and more into center contrast, vividness, and "pop" these days, and by darn, the Canon 35 F2 and 50 F1.8 REALLY look very, very similar.  I was hoping the more expensive 35 F2 would give me a little extra here in terms of contrasty "pop," but not to be.  The Zeiss 35mm F2 did have a tiny more of that but not worth $1000+, especially with no autofocus.  What other "normal" lenses would do that for less money..?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › *Post Lens Comparison Photos* (Previously) I had no idea Camera (Canon DSLR) lenses were that expensive!