Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Cao Sale,
imamo mi kanal ja youtube ali nemam nikoga ko bi bio dovoljno harizmatican, umeo dobro Engleski i razumeo o cemu govori a da mogu da ga platim. Pocinjemo polako neke serije tutorijala a i nadam se skorom uvodjenju nekih korisnih widgeta za komparaciju starih objektiva.Sigma 35/1.4 je kvalitetan objektiv ali dosta veliki i tezak. Neki moji ortaci se zale da posle dve godine pocinje polako da se “raspada”. (odlazi auto focus, pokeraju se sociva i sl.) Mislim da je to preterana ocena, verovatno se radi o malom procentu ali pogledaj malo po webu sta kazu ostali.
Kad ne bi lova bila problem, odlican je i mali Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM.
Uzivaj na i ispod mora,
ViktorHi mate,
sorry for the late reply. Both lenses are great portrait lenses each with its own set of features. It might sound boring but in this focal length, most recent lenses are good enough and stunning portrait depends much more on your model, expression, light, composition and other creative factors, than on the technical limits of the lens.
Sigma is very sharp and has high contrast, while Samyang is softer wide open with more creamy bokeh. Sigma gives you AF ability, while Samyang don’t. Sigma is more expensive and probably better made, but Samyang is made well enough.
My preference will go toward Sigma, because I highly value its almost apo chromatic performance, similar to my Otus 85/1.4.I hope you are doing well under sea, wherever you are diving now!
Cheers,
ViktorP.S. Mozes da pises i Srpski, mnogo postilaca na forum ne dolazi, ne uspevam da ih privucem.
Most of them are Russian lenses, Helios 40, 44, Tair 11 etc.
-
This reply was modified 7 years ago by
viktor pavlovic.
Hi Anhony,
sorry to see this post late. I think that the main problem of any theory discussing 3D pop, is that there is nothing that would qualify 3D pop in the semantic way.
There were many attempts to define it, but I haven’t seen anything yet, that will deliver reliable proof of its existence, especially in relation to the lenses.We can speak about overall characteristics of older vs newer lens renderings though. The main difference is higher micro and global contrast, primarily due to the reduced back reflections, which are done both with improved coatings and used glass.
Another important aspect of optical evolution is much improved correction of lateral CA and astigmatism and to some amount Longitudinal CA in the newer lenses. This usually depends on the usage of special glass with high refractive index and complexity of the lens design.
In a result, what we can see through modern lenses is very high acutance – high edge contrast of the subjects in focus. This alone would suggest better subject separation (3D pop?), but the problem is that high contrast is rendered also in the blurred areas, creating thus entirely image with usually harsher transition between subject and background and evoking certain “flatness” could it be so described.
Much more important though than lens performance itself, is the composition of other aspects, such as lighting, contrast in luminescence and colors of the subject and background, distance form the subject and background and related amount of blur etc. than the lens performance alone. My Otus lenses are extremely complex and modern, but since they were calibrated for much wider light spectrum than other designs usually are, they can create extremely high acutance without increasing global contrast, making subject isolation very unique and distinctive (3D pop?).
Some older lenses with under or over corrected SA will in contrary create sort of swirly bokeh, helping subject isolation and stimulating subject isolation in the mid frame zone.
In short, there is nothing like 3D POP magic with old lenses, simply because the 3D pop is subjective and highly dependent on many other factors than lens rendering performance alone. Many modern lenses have higher micro and global contrast creating thus potentially harsher transitions between focus and out of focus areas and in some instances, creating sort of technical – sterile look.
This is all my opinion of course.
Cheers,
ViktorHi Pawel,
They are both nice lenses, also 50/2 MC Rokkor-PF is very sharp, however, with all legacy lenses, it really depends on particular sample. I have Zeiss Distagon 50/1.7 C/Y which looks pristine but is very soft wide open, while identically looking second sample is one of the sharpest 50mm lenses (in the center) that I own.
Cheers,
ViktorHi Thea,
it looks interesting, but as I already wrote to you, I am afraid it’s expensive gimmick at the end.
Cheers,
ViktorHi,
Sony A7Mii is very good camera and its dynamic range shouldn’t limit anyone. High ISO is not great but not bad either. I think that you’ll be satisfied with it (until Mark III doesn’t come :-))Chees,
ViktorHi,
best one for every day photography would be certainly Sony A7r MII (recently). It can do most of what other bodies are capable of and something more. For photography, high ISO performance of Sony A7S (and A7sii) is very similar of what Sony A7r MII can do, downsized to 12mpx.In video, Sony A7s and A7sii will have some edge in high ISO from approx. ISO 3200, but A7r MII will hold well up to ISO 12800 and there about. It has best AF from all A7x bodies IMHO, it has highest resolution which is not only great for super large prints, but also for extensive cropping when needed.
Another nice camera for everyday use is A7 MII which except 4K video, ISO above 6400 and ultra high resolution has most of the features of A7rii for significantly lower price.
For video, A7s and A7s MII have quite some benefit, mainly due to the larger pixel size, allowing light to be more efficiently collected. Difference between those two is mainly in the ability to record 4K video internally (A7s needs external recorder for 4K video).
Sony A7r is brilliant value as a landscape camera that will be mostly used from tripod or in situation where careful composing and setting is not a problem. At barely 1200 USD (for good condition used bodies) it benefits from a very capable sensor, but it lacks in almost every other regard.
Sony A7 original is still very capable and versatile camera, that at recent price point represents most affordable entrance ticket to the Sony A7x family.You can hardly make anything wrong choosing any of those cameras, unless you start to think about money. Buying A7r MII will not only set you back for some 3K USD, but you’ll need top quality lenses to fulfill its sensor potential e.g. Also value depreciation will be probably highest in total amount considering its starting price.
All the best,
Viktor-
This reply was modified 8 years, 2 months ago by viktor pavlovic.
Think of it this way:
Full frame is better for low light (night, interior, underwater etc.) and for shallow DOF (portrait, close-ups)
APS-C is good for wildlife/sport (better reach in general), macro, travel (smaller size), budget (lenses are cheaper)
Both systems are good for landscape e.g (full frame has marginally better dynamic range at base ISO)
Lenses can make great difference in the resulting images. In general, differences between lenses will be more significant than between two same generation cameras.
Shooting portrait with 50/1.2 and 50/3.5 lens on the same camera, will result in entirely different subject isolation and surrounding context.
Shooting same portrait with the same lens and at same comparative DOF, with Sony A7r and A6000 might not show as much differences in comparison.I really don’t know what do you expect from your setup (there is no universal solution – best for everything type of setup), so maybe you should first put list of priorities on paper and than proceed with selection.
Out of the box, I would suggest Sony A6000 with kit lens and few additional lenses bought second hand – SEL 50/1.8 and SEL 55-210. This is very affordable setup (Sony is about to announce new APS-C camera, probably A6100, thus prices of A6000 are very low now) with great capabilities and the resale value shouldn’t drop too fast. Using this system for month or two, you might find its limits for particular situations. That is best way to figure out what you really need and separate it from what you want.
Hope it helps,
Viktor-
This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by viktor pavlovic.
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by viktor pavlovic.
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by viktor pavlovic.
Hi Seadog11,
24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 are part of so called “Holly trinity” set-up. (14-24/2.8 will complete it). While this reference is usually related to original Nikkor lenses, it also represents needs of commercial photographer, one who is shooting events, weddings, corporate portraits, familly, kids, pets and similar assignments.
Those photographers needs fast AF, solid image quality from widest aperture, good build quality, durability, some sort of weather sealing, in other words – reliability in every situation.
While prime lenses will mean another small step in image quality improvement and more importantly faster aperture (usually), versatility of the zoom is more important for them, because their work is very much about speed and readyness. You’ll see them many times to literally throw their camera anywhere nearby, lift another body and keep shooing. Bride will never repeat her walk, ring will never be put again on that finger, father will cry only few seconds, etc.Holly trinity line-up is made for that type of photographers at the first place.
Superzooms are consumer graded lenses. They are designed for those who doesn’t like to switch lenses in the field, who are shooting mostly in full daylight, who doesn’t need superfast auto focus and who can live with slight image quality compromise.
If such a lens will be at least. f/2.8, I believe that many above mentioned pro photographers will use it too, but unfortunatelly superzoom lens is rather slow.
Superzoom is great for traveling, but the biggest question is, why would you need it, considering bridge camera offers, that are cheaper, smaller and often full of extra features, such as 4K video (Sony RX10ii e.g.)
Superzoom is not a good option for interior scenes (need lot of light), architecture (usually pronounced distortion at wide end), action/sport (to much glass to move during focusing and thus slower auto focus) and images where imagequality is priority.In general, you are comparing “pro” with “consumer” grade products.
I have original Nikkor and Canon holly trinity set-ups, but I have heard about Sigma and Tamron being also very good optically, at least their recent 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 offers (not sure about AF consistancy).
Problem with AF and third party lenses is usually not in the accuracy, but in consistancy of AF accuracy. In other words, you can have 4 shots in perfect focus and 1 shot with shifted focus, but problem is that you never know when. that 1 shot will come. (That’s at leats my experience with Sigma and Tamron lenses that I had chance to try).
Cheers,
VktorUnfortunatelly, I can’t help you much with third party options, except for Zeiss, which is manual focus only (for Nikon) and even more expensive than native lenses.
Main problem which I historically had with Sigma, Tamron, Tokina was quality control and auto focus compatibility issues.
I am even not following much their recent offer, but I would suggest you to look for the reviews on photozone.de, because Klaus is making good quality tests and his findings are usually in line with my experience.
I like Samyang lenses for their optical qualities – 14/2.8 (not for architecture, but great UWA for landscape), 24 and 35/1.4, both are great astro-photography lenses because of superbly corrected coma, 135/2 is amazing short tele and even 85/1.4 is interesting, because of very smooth bokeh.I tried few Sigma lenses, 85/1.4, 35/1.4 art, 50/1.4 art and new 150-600 Sport e.g. They were all nice lenses optically.
I had before Tamron 70-300 VS USD and it was nice budget lens too, better than its Canon counterpart.
Tokina had great 11-16/2.8. With all those however, it was problem to pick the piece that wasn’t de-centered and that will focus accuratly. Not that I spent too much time looking for good samples…
Cheers,
ViktorHi there,
srecna Nova Godina tebi i tvojoj porodici!If you are comsidering to shot lot of interirors and architecture, I would suggest Canon lenses (if you intend to do this professionally). I am doing lot of that type of commecial work, over 30 shooting days oer year and I am using Sony A7 systm with Canon TS-E 17/4 L, Canon EF 14/2.8 L II and Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye. (Using Metabones Smart Adapter).
Canon TS-E 17/4 is most used lens for those projcts (over 80% of shots). It’s rather unique lens on the market and it has great features and very solid IQ. Shift control allow not only for perspective view point correction, but also for panorama stiching without necessity to solve parallax problems. Using lens for panorama will give a horizontal angle of view of approx. 12mm lens.
Canon EF 14/2.8 L II is the UWA lens with best distortion corrction that I know about.
Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye is very good value for money and fisheye sometmes gets handy.
I am using Sony A7 system because of the very good EVF and LCD live view, which is far more comfortable for this type of shots than optical view finder. Possibility to tilt LCD is also very convinient.
Nikon D810 is great camera, but more orientd toward Wildlife or sport or othr situations where super tele lenses or fast AF is needed (as well as weather sealing). To use most of it, you’ll need top quality (top price) lenses.
All the best,
ViktorHi Anthony,
I am afraid that you won’t get many user replies on our forum. We are not promoting verybigforum enough to get regular visitors.
While our pages have over 1000 unique visits per day, only very small margin is visiting forum section. This is unfortunate, but we will need help and time to make it more frequent place for visitors.
It is however good platform for all discussions at least with me, because it allows unlimited amount of threads, good filtering and embedding of images and active links.
Comments bellow articles (posts or pages) are limited in number and posting comfort. That’s why I am encouraging everyone to use the forum instead of sending me email or posting comment bellow article.
To your original question, I have no idea how someone would base his lens choice on “stops of light” don’t know what that means either – f-stops, T-stops? Could be that it is related to the choice between f/4 and f/2.8 lens e.g. and his comment was about average speed needed to keep image sharp, when camera is hand helg (minimum shutter speed?)
I don’t have scientific system when choosing what lenses to take on tour, but it usually depend on the destination and travel purpose.
If I am going for landscape photo shooting trip,I am usually taking Holly trinity in any approx.form – 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200.
There are however many other factors to consider – size and weight, weather and dust protection, filter mounting comfort etc. This is my frequent choice for the locations that I am visiting for the first time.
If I repeatedly visit such a location, I usually select one – two primes for each segment (14mm, 21mm, 35mm and 50mm) and 70-200 zoom. If I know location very well, I might choose only one or two lenses.
My choice of zooms for the first time visit is based on the fact that I am not sure about which FL will work best and that I will most probably use apertures between f/8 and f/16 which minimize any optical disadvantages of the zoom lenses.
Later use of primes is led by particular idea of the images that I want to try to capture, so I am putting more emphasize on absolute image quality and mobility.
If I go for a tourist trip, I am usually taking my A6000 with SEL 10-18, SEL 24/1.8, SEL 50/1.8 and SEL 55-210. This is very compact, one average bag suited system, ready to cover most of my photographic needs on trip like that. I never expect to make artistic shots from a holiday, nor I am trying to do so.
On most other situations, I know exactly what I am going to shot and I base my lens selection on that. (Testing lenses for verybiglobo e.g. :-))
When you consider your field of view percentage coverage, you are counting with angular FOV. You should however (IMHO) think of dimensional field of view related also to expected subject distances and minimum focus distances of your lenses. (That’s where it starts to be complex for any mathematical based selection method).
Think of your big gap between 50 and 90mm…
If your subject is 100m away, than yes, gap between those two focal lengths will be notable. In order to equalize dimensional field of view of 90mm, you’ll need to move closer for some 40-45m with your 50mm lens.
But at the regular portrait distances, gap between those two lenses will mean in practice, that you should come closer to your subject by less than 1/2m. Because both of those lenses are often used for portraits, this gap is not that huge in practice as it might look from your percentage cover differences.
However, thinking of difference between 14 and 18mm, which you might want to use for architecture (outside or inside), can be crucial. To equalize dimensional field of view at the subject distance of only 10m you’ll need to move backward with 18mm lens for approx. 5m.
This might be decisive limitation in some situations. (no space)Finally, you might not put “safety of being fully covered at all focal lengths” nowhere near your selection priorities. From my experience (depending on the purpose and destination of your trip of course) convenience of a small size and comfort of lesser lens swapping on the go, will prioritize fewer lens choice, giving you more relaxed shooting experience and usually better final results. At the end, you don’t need to adapt yourself to the subject, as a creative photographer, you can simply adapt subject to yourself.
With all that being said, I am always struggling to make decision when packing my gear 🙂
Cheers,
ViktorI don’t know much about that zoom, in general I don’t like those super zooms. Optical qualities as usually very compromised and I prefer standard, so called holly trinity range – 16-35 (or 14-24), 24-70 and 70-200. So I can’t comment on that one, but I believe that buying bundle with kit lens and 55-200 will be better option.
Nikkor 85/1.8 G AF-S is great value for money. Lens is made in China though, so you should try it before the purchase in order to eliminate quality control problems.
From the 2 WA zooms, I would suggest Sigma, but you also might consider Tokina 11-16/2.8 II as it is slightly sharper and most importantly faster for approximately same price. Gap between 16 and 18mm (where kit or your preferred super-zoom starts) is not that big in a real life.
Cheers,
ViktorP.S.
Be sure to check other shops as well. In EU you have 14 days to return items bought on internet, so you might test your lens and if it doesn’t fit within specification, you should be able to return it without problems.
Here is the link for one of those lenses at cheaper price than Fotoskoda from also reputable seller – http://www.aaron.cz/produkty/sigma-10-20-3-5-ex-dc-hsm-nikon
But you can find even lower prices (don’t know about seller reputation though) – http://www.elektrocr.cz/product/objektiv-sigma-ex-35-1020-dc-hsm-nikon
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by viktor pavlovic.
It’s a fine kit. You should however check if there is any underwater body that will accommodate Tamron 17-50.
In this set, you might miss WA zoom or prime. Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 10-20 as originally proposed. WA lens will be useful for landscape and architecture.
You might also consider Nikkor 85/1.8 G AF-S as a main portrait lens.
Cheers,
Viktor -
This reply was modified 7 years ago by
