|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 25th, 2009, 06:37 PM
|
#31 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada
Posts: 1,051
|
Bruce, What did you disliked on the Sigma 30mm? Am looking for one myself.
__________________
Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib |
|
|
|
November 25th, 2009, 07:59 PM
|
#32 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
|
I'm also interested in why you returned the Sigma. I own the 28/1.8 and might be able to let you know if it has similar weaknesses or not.
__________________
Jon Fairhurst |
|
|
|
|
November 25th, 2009, 08:02 PM
|
#33 |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 4,449
|
I'm considering the 20mm Sigma. A 30 isn't wide enough.
|
|
|
|
|
November 26th, 2009, 08:38 AM
|
#34 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada
Posts: 1,051
|
Jon, do you like the 28mm?
I am considering buying it or the sigma. What I want to know is how the focus ring operates for video use, is it precise and well damped? Does the lens breath?
__________________
Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib |
|
|
|
|
November 26th, 2009, 11:09 AM
|
#35 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 2,211
|
Hadn't noticed that they had done a 1.4 24mm but I think the 24mm focal length is just great - I had a 24mm for my old Nikon F's years and years ago and found myself using it much more than I had thought I would.
Interesting that the convergence of DSLR and video brings this kind of discussion into the video realm. I think the big deal of this convergence is that now it opens up the use of a vast number of reasonably priced lens options to the video community - no reason not to have 180 degree fisheye videos anymore. Even the expensive DSLR lenses are cheap by video interchangeable lens standards. Absolutely wonderful creative opportunities IMHO. Now if I could just get a shoulder mount video camera with an APS sensor and a standard Nikon or Canon lens mount. DSLR form factor sucks for video - again just my humble opinion |
|
|
|
|
November 26th, 2009, 11:46 AM
|
#36 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 218
|
Is there anything out there faster than 2.8 and wider than 24mm? Apparently the sigma 20mm 1.8 is soft wide open. It needs to be tack sharp; the Canon 24 1.4 has spoiled me!
__________________
Canon 5D Mark II || L-Series Lenses || Steadicam Pilot || Final Cut Studio www.lovestorymedia.com |
|
|
|
|
November 26th, 2009, 02:10 PM
|
#37 | |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
|
Quote:
It feels very much like the 85mm f/1.8 mechanically. It supports all of the Magic Lantern eRack Focus parameters. The focus motion is smooth. It has full-time-manual-focus, so the ends can move, if you push past the stop. Travel is around 110 degrees. I don't find this to be a problem on a wide lens, since the DOF isn't crazy thin. The lens, like most photo lenses, breathes, but it's pretty subtle. I just compared it to my other lenses, and it's probably the best. From best to worst: 28/1.8, 200/2.8L, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro. The macro breathes like crazy, but that's not surprising, since its focus range is so extreme. Photographers rate the 28/1.8 poorly because it's not super sharp. For video, it's more than sharp enough. Falloff is middling, losing a stop in the corners of an APS-C at f/1.8, and losing a stop on full frame corners at f/2.8 and above. Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Lens Vignetting Test Results
__________________
Jon Fairhurst |
|
|
|
|
|
November 27th, 2009, 10:24 PM
|
#38 | ||
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 949
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
November 28th, 2009, 07:09 PM
|
#39 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Beijing
Posts: 665
|
Quick one, I tried a new Sigma 20mm f1.8 yesterday and it seemed much better wide open than older Sigma 20mm f1.8 lenses that I'd tested. Didn't have time for a full test but it may be worth checking out the latest version in case they have done something to improve it.
Dan |
|
|
|
|
December 1st, 2009, 03:52 AM
|
#40 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pembroke Pines, Fl.
Posts: 1,842
|
Jean Phillipe,
I tested the Sigma in a shoot out with the Canon 50mm 1.4 and the 17-55 f2.8, both of which I have. I was shooting photos and noticed that the sigma was nowhere near as sharp in comparison. And since it's not really wide enough, I decided to return it. I also bought the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, which is a real nice lens ( I had the 12-24 f 4 version originally). The Canon 24mm f 1.4 sounds like a great lens, but way expensive. I'm going to check out the Sigma 20,, 1.8. Bruce Yarock |
|
|
|
|
December 1st, 2009, 07:39 AM
|
#41 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada
Posts: 1,051
|
Bruce, is the lack of sharpeness visible only for photo work and ok with video? If it's the case, could you please elaborate on the focus ring of the Sigma? This focal lenght is really what I am looking for. Is the focus ring is good for manual focussing? how it compare with the focus ring of the 50mm 1.4?
Thanks,
__________________
Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib |
|
|
|
|
December 1st, 2009, 07:51 AM
|
#42 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pembroke Pines, Fl.
Posts: 1,842
|
I only did one video test in a low light situation, and the focus looked good. The real difference was when I shot the pictures with each lens. Unfortunately, I returned it before trying it out in a real life job situation.
My thinking was that I have the other lenses, and though I'd love to have the speed, I'll wait and see. Bruce Yarock |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
