Bought something new and want to share? Post it here. - Page 3

mute · 23rd January 2007, 11:37 AM

Hey s8n any chance of some ISO100 shots some time today?

s8n · 23rd January 2007, 2:02 PM

unforunately not as yet. I will go outside and see if I can take any....im at work (camera with me) but theres no people outside...

dlcx · 23rd January 2007, 6:10 PM

Hey s8n - I can't believe you haven't mentioned the BOKEH this lens produces! It's smoooooth as. Here's some pics I took at f2.8:

EpHeSuS · 23rd January 2007, 7:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mute

Check out how sharp this is @ 100%

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne...9310934&size=l

That's one amazing lens right there

Doesn't look that sharp? Looks over-compressed and over-sharpened.

s8n · 23rd January 2007, 9:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EpHeSuS

Doesn't look that sharp? Looks over-compressed and over-sharpened.

Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate some of your sharp images?

Bokeh above is stunning

FranchiseJuan · 24th January 2007, 12:34 AM

If you want to see some pics of the 135 at F2 at a veriety of ISO settings, then have a look at an old thread of mine where all the telephoto stuff is shot with the 135 here.

EpHeSuS · 24th January 2007, 1:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s8n

Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate some of your sharp images?

Bokeh above is stunning

Well, if we're going to compare my photos to the above - then naturally to make it a fair fight, I'd have to use a 5D eh? More resolution and a weaker AA filter = sharper photo. Bokeh is wonderful - but I can live with slightly different bokeh - can be interesting at times (mirror lenses anyone?)

http://danielgphoto.com/misc/_MG_3725.jpg <- Sigma 105 f/2.8 @ f/2.8. Close to no sharpening added. Sharp enough? $400.

http://www.danielgphoto.com/misc/crop3.jpg <- Sigma 100-300 f/4 @ f/4. No sharpening added.

$1129. Sure, it's 2 stops slower, but I don't shoot low-light, so it's irrelevant. I'll admit openly that it's bokeh is ugly at times - but it looks interesting.

Sharpness is a over-rated anyway. It should only become a consideration if you're planning to print large (16x24"+). At any sizes smaller it just becomes completely pointless.

We can leave it there - or continue pointlessly.

Just a end note - I nearly bought a 135 f/2.0L last year - for $860, but alas - I realised that I didn't need it and buying it just because it was L wasn't going to make my pics any better.

s8n · 24th January 2007, 6:11 AM

I wouldnt waste my time with Sigma again, there lenses have the WORST quality control ever. 10-22, 24-70 f2.8, all were terrible, slow focusing, hunted, soft in corners yada yada..

EpHeSuS · 24th January 2007, 6:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s8n

I wouldnt waste my time with Sigma again, there lenses have the WORST quality control ever. 10-22, 24-70 f2.8, all were terrible, slow focusing, hunted, soft in corners yada yada..

Sucks to be you eh? I must be lucky.

s8n · 24th January 2007, 6:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EpHeSuS

Sucks to be you eh? I must be lucky.

Not at all

I love my L glass and was lucky to sell the Sigma stuff at the price I paid! On a 5D, you'd be nuts to run anything other than L glass.

Not saying the Sigma is junk, but they have quite a few issues (24-70 notorious for having a yellow cast and noisy as one example, 70-200 f2.8 only really sharp from F4 onwards unlike the L)

oli · 24th January 2007, 7:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s8n

Not at all

I love my L glass and was lucky to sell the Sigma stuff at the price I paid! On a 5D, you'd be nuts to run anything other than L glass.

Not saying the Sigma is junk, but they have quite a few issues (24-70 notorious for having a yellow cast and noisy as one example, 70-200 f2.8 only really sharp from F4 onwards unlike the L)

Just cause you had a bad run with a few (you hardly tried many if it was just the 10-22 and the 24-70) it doesn't mean they are all bad. There are some very highly rated Sigma lenses which many people are very happy with.

I have a 5D and a Sigma 100-300 f/4 and I think the optical performance of the lens is excellent considering the cost of the lens. And yes I have L glass to make general comparisons with...

Saying you'd be nuts to use anything other than L glass on a 5D is just like saying you'd be nuts to write off a whole company because you had a bad experience with two lenses.

Here's a photo because nobody posts enough photos:

Click to view full-sized image!
Hosted by UGBox Image Store

s8n · 24th January 2007, 8:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oli

Just cause you had a bad run with a few (you hardly tried many if it was just the 10-22 and the 24-70) it doesn't mean they are all bad. There are some very highly rated Sigma lenses which many people are very happy with.

I have a 5D and a Sigma 100-300 f/4 and I think the optical performance of the lens is excellent considering the cost of the lens. And yes I have L glass to make general comparisons with...

Saying you'd be nuts to use anything other than L glass on a 5D is just like saying you'd be nuts to write off a whole company because you had a bad experience with two lenses.

Here's a photo because nobody posts enough photos:

Click to view full-sized image!
Hosted by UGBox Image Store

Oli, you must have obviously misread what I said, I never said ALL sigma was junk. But they have alot of QA issues, spend some time on dpreview, fred miranda and you'll see. 2 outta 2 lenses for me, thats bad imo. Why would I want to try more Sigma lenses?

I don't see many 5D shooters with Sigma - I guess you get what you pay for.

Sigma does seem to be great for the budget buyers, but I still am of the opinion after trying their lenses that if you want quality and reliability L is the winner by a CLEAR long shot.

Disgree all you want but you just need to look at the facts.

wrobel · 24th January 2007, 10:16 AM

Here's a photo because nobody posts enough photos:

You're right Oli, I might add a photo a day just so people have something to look at. Be warned, it may not be too pretty.

Click to view full-sized image!
Hosted by UGBox Image Store

Better start a new thread.

s8n · 24th January 2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wrobel

Here's a photo because nobody posts enough photos:

You're right Oli, I might add a photo a day just so people have something to look at. Be warned, it may not be too pretty.

Click to view full-sized image!
Hosted by UGBox Image Store

Better start a new thread.

new thread sounds great

perhaps a L vs Sigma debate - as useful as a Holden Vs Ford :P

anthonyl · 24th January 2007, 10:45 AM

How would the 100mm f/2 USM stack up against this lens?

Both f/2..only difference would be the length..(or not)?

23rd January 2007, 2:02 PM	#32
s8n Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Sydney Posts: 2,622	unforunately not as yet. I will go outside and see if I can take any....im at work (camera with me) but theres no people outside... __________________ My Flickr

23rd January 2007, 6:10 PM	#33
dlcx Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Melbourne Posts: 1,574	Hey s8n - I can't believe you haven't mentioned the BOKEH this lens produces! It's smoooooth as. Here's some pics I took at f2.8: __________________ Successful trades with: Petal666, gatekeeper, chilloutbuddy, rockon, xtortion, Revenge, Unners, Locopano, railer, RichoB, brenno9 (and others, to be added when I get a chance :P)

24th January 2007, 12:34 AM	#36
FranchiseJuan Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Somewhere Exotic Posts: 2,618	If you want to see some pics of the 135 at F2 at a veriety of ISO settings, then have a look at an old thread of mine where all the telephoto stuff is shot with the 135 here. __________________ Quad Core Intel i5/20 inch LCD ----- HP 2760P i5 2.3 GHz ----- Phenom II X4/24 inch/20+tb of storage combined. My Photographic Equipment zhenphotography.co

24th January 2007, 6:11 AM	#38
s8n Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Sydney Posts: 2,622	I wouldnt waste my time with Sigma again, there lenses have the WORST quality control ever. 10-22, 24-70 f2.8, all were terrible, slow focusing, hunted, soft in corners yada yada.. __________________ My Flickr

24th January 2007, 10:45 AM	#45
anthonyl Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Brisbane Posts: 9,866	How would the 100mm f/2 USM stack up against this lens? Both f/2..only difference would be the length..(or not)? __________________ I7-2600k \| Antec h2O 920 water cooled \| 16Gb G.Skill RipJaws \| Asus P8P67 Pro \| Dual Gigabyte GTX 670's in SLI \| Samsung S27A950 \|Logitech G500..G15..G35..Z5500 \| X-Fi Titanium Fatality \| 250Gb Crucial M4 SSD \| Galaxy Note

23rd January 2007, 11:37 AM	#31
mute Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Melbourne Posts: 4,178	Hey s8n any chance of some ISO100 shots some time today?

24th January 2007, 10:16 AM	#43
wrobel Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Adelaide Posts: 699	Here's a photo because nobody posts enough photos: You're right Oli, I might add a photo a day just so people have something to look at. Be warned, it may not be too pretty. Click to view full-sized image! Hosted by UGBox Image Store Better start a new thread.