[QUOTE=bopie;30833210][url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/isaacbrownbridge/5646126063/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5301/5646126063_340c4bacee.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/isaacbrownbridge/5646126063/]IMG_1163[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/isaacbrownbridge/]Isaac Brownbridge[/url], on Flickr[/QUOTE]
The lens I used that for was on my film camera, and using a 58mm lens on a crop sensor would have been impossible in that street situation. I plan on buying either a 30 1.4 or a 17-50 2.8 soon.
30 1.4
2.8 has surprisingly little DOF-options, almost doubly so on a crop sensor.
30 1.4 will be better.
I heard the 30mm f/1.4 is soft as fuck though in totally the wrong way.
I'm not complaining with the 35mm 1.8 for half the price of the 30. Sharp as a tack but the bokeh is still dreamy. Not sure what Kai from DigitalRev was talking about when he regarded the bokeh as 'sandpaper'. He kept looking at pictures of trees with light peeking through in tiny detailed specks, of course the bokeh's gonna be wonky
Two pictures I took in terminal 5.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/OE6Eq.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/C9ZXx.jpg[/IMG]
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/433645/moon/garage700.jpg[/img]
will be getting proper scanner
[QUOTE=daijitsu;30837688]I'm not complaining with the 35mm 1.8 for half the price of the 30. Sharp as a tack but the bokeh is still dreamy. Not sure what Kai from DigitalRev was talking about when he regarded the bokeh as 'sandpaper'. He kept looking at pictures of trees with light peeking through in tiny detailed specks, of course the bokeh's gonna be wonky[/QUOTE]
I would get the 35 1.8 if it wasn't for Nikon mount only. The main reason I'm probably going to get the 30 1.4 is for the crop friendly focal length and not the f/stop.
County fair at night is awesome! Felt so official strolling in there with a damn heavy tripod.
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5893428690/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5269/5893428690_59c22d098f_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5893428690/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/60520758@N08/]-Mark Wilson-[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5892860237/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6006/5892860237_0946d7970a_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5892860237/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/60520758@N08/]-Mark Wilson-[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5892859865/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6021/5892859865_7bdfdafc68_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5892859865/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/60520758@N08/]-Mark Wilson-[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5893427494/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5077/5893427494_a98436b6a5_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5893427494/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/60520758@N08/]-Mark Wilson-[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5893426666/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5068/5893426666_a298459810_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5893426666/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/60520758@N08/]-Mark Wilson-[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5892858105/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5152/5892858105_51c1635ff4_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5892858105/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/60520758@N08/]-Mark Wilson-[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5893425246/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5034/5893425246_9b33930a87_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5893425246/]Flynn Wheel[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/60520758@N08/]-Mark Wilson-[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/keiththomsondigital/5893707252/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6009/5893707252_00398994ee_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/keiththomsondigital/5893707252/]Alps[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/keiththomsondigital/]KeithThomsonDigital[/url], on Flickr
[QUOTE=Hirouzamaki;30843686]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5892858105/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5152/5892858105_51c1635ff4_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5892858105/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/60520758@N08/]-Mark Wilson-[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5893425246/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5034/5893425246_9b33930a87_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60520758@N08/5893425246/]Flynn Wheel[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/60520758@N08/]-Mark Wilson-[/url], on Flickr[/QUOTE]
Would be far better without the random dude.
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/cheesepuff/5893800878/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5313/5893800878_c490616988_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/cheesepuff/5893800878/]edinburgh panorama[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/cheesepuff/]codenamecueball[/url], on Flickr
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;30834491]I heard the 30mm f/1.4 is soft as fuck though in totally the wrong way.[/QUOTE]
I think it's actually a pretty sharp lens, especially at f1.4
[editline]2nd July 2011[/editline]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndehaan/5787660865/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5265/5787660865_ebc73287d9_z.jpg[/img][/url]
Shot at f1.4
Don't see any problems with sharpness ;)
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/cheesepuff/5893305619/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5196/5893305619_0a93c5f9c3_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/cheesepuff/5893305619/]beware of falling rocks[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/cheesepuff/]codenamecueball[/url], on Flickr
sooc
I personally see the 30 1.4 to be pretty soft and massively affected by CA, this is one with default raw settings at 100%
[img]http://s.hzy.im/0546.jpg[/img]
The CA is pretty obvious yeah but it seems the focus is behind the model.
I had to correct my focus in-body because it was backfocussing
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/cheesepuff/5893885572/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5076/5893885572_521d44b43e_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/cheesepuff/5893885572/]The Chemistry Crew[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/cheesepuff/]codenamecueball[/url], on Flickr
[editline]2nd July 2011[/editline]
pH... geddit?
from what i heard before sounds like sigma lenses tend to quite often have af problems and people end up sending them back for another copy
[editline]2nd July 2011[/editline]
sometimes more than once
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;30846234]from what i heard before sounds like sigma lenses tend to quite often have af problems and people end up sending them back for another copy
[editline]2nd July 2011[/editline]
sometimes more than once[/QUOTE]
Sigma is fucking shit up at the quality control all the time. It's like they have a conveyer belt and go like 'Yep, that's a lens', then ship it through to get it sold.
even the tree branch behind her upper left arm (the light grey-ish one) looks to be the most in focus part of the image seems pretty blurry
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;30846157]The CA is pretty obvious yeah but it seems the focus is behind the model.
I had to correct my focus in-body because it was backfocussing[/QUOTE]
I only have a 1000d so if the focus is off, I'm fucked.
[QUOTE=B-hazard;30847399]I only have a 1000d so if the focus is off, I'm fucked.[/QUOTE]
Well obviously you can always use the return policy or get it fixed at Sigma.
Canon should just steal Nikon's 35mm f1.8
I wish they would, I don't need the extra 1/3 stop at all, I just need a crop-sensor standard lens under f/2.
there is a canon 28mm f/1.8 in existence
[editline]2nd July 2011[/editline]
though from what i heard it's worse than a good copy of the sigma 30
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;30847592]there is a canon 28mm f/1.8 in existence
[editline]2nd July 2011[/editline]
though from what i heard it's worse than a good copy of the sigma 30[/QUOTE]
It's always give or take with lenses. It's just a matter of which lens can satisfy you the most
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/5893634651/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5302/5893634651_d1af761f3f_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/5893634651/]DSC_0137.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/dannimagn/]Dannimagn[/url], on Flickr
This was just a quick snapshot of my two tablets for a comparison, but I like the lighting. Don't judge too harshly, I know its bad.
[URL="http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/270056_209022485808492_100001022273345_625476_7701364_n.jpg"][IMG]http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/270056_209022485808492_100001022273345_625476_7701364_n.jpg%3C/a%3E[/IMG][/URL]
[QUOTE=Airdoo;30849104]This was just a quick snapshot of my two tablets for a comparison, but I like the lighting. Don't judge too harshly, I know its bad.
[URL="http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/270056_209022485808492_100001022273345_625476_7701364_n.jpg"][IMG]http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/270056_209022485808492_100001022273345_625476_7701364_n.jpg%3C/a%3E[/IMG][/URL][/QUOTE]
It's a little underexposed and the different color temperatures are mismatched. I would have turned off the lights and done a slightly longer exposure.
But yeah I like that lighting too.
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;30847592]there is a canon 28mm f/1.8 in existence
[editline]2nd July 2011[/editline]
though from what i heard it's worse than a good copy of the sigma 30[/QUOTE]
It's more about price if anything, and the 28 f/1.8 is more expensive.
[QUOTE=B-hazard;30843405]I would get the 35 1.8 if it wasn't for Nikon mount only. The main reason I'm probably going to get the 30 1.4 is for the crop friendly focal length and not the f/stop.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=B-hazard;30847528]I wish they would, I don't need the extra 1/3 stop at all, I just need a crop-sensor standard lens under f/2.[/QUOTE]
Canon 35/2? It's only a tiny amount less light than a 35/1.8, 1/3rd of a stop to be precise. Not a big deal really.
[editline]2nd July 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;30846137]I personally see the 30 1.4 to be pretty soft and massively affected by CA, this is one with default raw settings at 100%
[img]http://s.hzy.im/0546.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
It's fairly sharp in the area that's in focus (The tree behind the model)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
