Photos The Full Resolution Picture Thread

Interesting thoughts. One of the main problems with the Sigma 50 1.4 (and all other Sigmas tbh) is the "pot luck" issue - it takes a fair bit of luck to get a copy that focuses correctly and performs consistently, and based on that chestnut I chose to consider the lens rather than go by what the reviews said (and I mean first hand reviews on forums from pro togs, in which the lens was often slated). Furthermore, the alternatives at the time were either the Canon 50mm 1.4, also £300, or the 50mm 1.2L, rather more pricey at £1,000... so I got both the Canon 1.4 and Sigma 1.4 and kept the better performer. I got very lucky indeed and got a peach of a Sigma.

And I should probably add that my main reason to get the Sigma in the first instance was the quality of its bokeh; isolation/bokeh were a higher priority for me than across-the-frame sharpness because of my style and the work that I bought the lens for (lifestyle portraiture and weddings).

The Nikkor 50 1.4 looks marvellous and if I was a Nikon guy (who knows - maybe soon after all this convincing ) I'd definitely get it.

 

But if it's pot luck, aren't you just as likely to get a crap one? Paying £290 and hoping I get a good one doesn't strike me as an attractive deal... call me old fashioned, but it just doesn't

Seeing as the Canon 1.4 is the same price why not go with that?...
It may not be in the same league as the Nikkors, but it's still better than the Sigma by all accounts.

The Canon 50mm 1.2L is an unmitigated disaster of a lens by the way, and anyone who pays the price for that needs their bumps felt. Compared to the Nikkor 50mm 1.2 and noct-nikkor 58 1.2 it's a joke. The irony is, that the Sigma 50mm 1.4 massively outperforms the Canon 50mm 1.2L.

Canon really need to get their shizzle together with lenses really.


Sorry.. this all sounds like I'm dumping on your Sigma. I'm not.. it's a reasonably good lens.. it's just not stellar value for money in Nikon F fit, but in Canon fit I can see the attraction, as Canon's 50s suck! The similarity priced 1.4USM is still a better lens though.

 

You're right... I took a big risk, but I'm in the habit of selling things very quickly so I justified it and I got lucky. Although sharpness on the Canon 50 1.4 was better, I found contrast and bokeh to be worse than the Sigma which is why I kept it. At least I have the consolation that my bumps do not need to be felt LOL.

 

So long as you have the right lens for YOU.. that's all that matters. Bokeh seems to be something hobbyists concern themselves with... I've never been able to tell good bokeh from bad, as the whole point of shallow DOF is to make the viewer IGNORE the background and pay attention to what's in focus. I don't WANT them looking at the blurred background Contrast is something that can be enhanced or attenuated post production, just as you always could by selecting what paper to print on back n the old days. Sharpness however... that's either there or it's not.. you can't add it later

 

Just to take this thread back to its original purpose...

About as sharp as I can get the kit lens and this cam at the moment, but I am a newbie.

Canon 1100D with 18-15mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens at 1/2500 F7.1:

 

Exactly, which is what makes bad bokeh "bad" - it's distracting! Taste is present to an extent (as always) eg. don't even get me started on the donut bokeh of reflex lenses... suffice to say, cheap lenses tend to duplicate and multi-outline the OOF areas rather than blur them; good lenses make OOF areas look like blended soft pastel, and I find that EX Sigmas excel in that regard.

@ Krikkit, that's not half bad for a kit lens.

Here's some erstwhile macro shizzle and also some from a nice Sigma zoom I used to have...

Canon EOS 50D, Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro, shot at f/10 in JPEG



Canon EOS 50D, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-f/4.0, shot at f/4.0

 

Interesting discussion. I'd hate to derail the thread any further though.. maybe start a new thread. There are two photographers in me however: There's the technician, who takes commercial photography, and it's this side of me that craves sharpness and optical excellence, and then there's the artist who sees this as a barrier to creativity... the part of me that still prefers to shoot film. Imperfections are also something that are desirable. Seeing an exhibition by someone like Anders Petersen for example - 35mm, fast black and white film, printed big.. far too big really.. it's technically ****... but my God.... you lose yourself in those images. They're genius. I don't think for one minute that Petersen gave a crap about Bokeh or resolution. Essentially... ultimately, if you regard photography as an art form, none of the crap we're discussing here is actually of ANY importance.

But then again... when I get a commission to shoot something mundane.... a pair of shoes, or a car... it all becomes very important because it's not art. No one wants to lose themselves in a pair of shoes, but the client may want it printed as a 40 sheet billboard... so then it does matter.

Part of me loathes hobbyist photography - yet part of me is fascinated by it. The lack of artistic intent, or rather the photographers lack of understanding of what even constitutes art in the first place - whether through lack of an art education, or lack of interest, often creates the most wonderful art.

I'm starting to sound like an elitist ***** now... and I'm aware that there are hobbyists reading this who are probably sharpening knives.. so I'll STFU.

[edit] p.r.i.c.k is a swear filter target? Wow.. what if I wanted to quote Roland Barthes? "The punctum is that which will ***** me; wound me". Oops... sorry Roland.

The world is a funny place.

ANyhoooo..... @Krikkit. As kit lenses go, that's putting up a good fight!

 

Another one, this time from my Dad's Sony NEX-5 with 16mm pancake lens @ 1/50 f7.1

 

Snip

 

Doh hit quote not edit lol.

 

Brightness +50
Contrast +25
Tone Curve - medium contrast


??
Surely that's not how it comes off the camera is it?


Damned sharp though.

 

Thats the profile set on my camera is straight convert to jpg

it is a damn sharp lens .

 

Kinda misses the point of the thread though, doesn't it? It's supposed to be completely unmeddled, just-to-jpeg shots.

Also, I believe that's what L'Oreal would call "clumpy lashes".

 

That's what I was thinking.

 

@Krikkit and Pookey, not quite - from my original post:

My original idea was to discourage people from adding a billion filters and blending countless layers to make the image unrealistically sharp. I don't mind people adjusting (i.e. correcting) fundamental things like exposure, contrast, WB etc., which can all be done very quickly in LR/PS or ACR.

 

Ahhh... OK. I think we need to draw the line at anything that can enhance or perceivably enhance sharpness though.

 

There was no editing, it came off the camera & got converted to JPG, so would you like me to reset my camera to default as well?

As above.

All my adjustments are done in camera saves farting about in LR, set the WB with a WB card, set exposure, has a slight contrast tweak as thats what gives the best results.

Or stop being a dick ?



I'm not sure how this game works now so I'm out .

 

I wasn't the only one questioning whether or not it was right to be posting stuff that's basically been enhanced (in camera or otherwise). If you're doing stuff that can make things perceivably sharper then there's not really much point in this thread at all. This thread ain't about the images.. it's about the technical quality of the cameras isn't it?

I don't see the need to be insulting... just don't do anything to make things look sharper, otherwise the thread is pointless.

 

Let's keep posting pics people - it's a worthwhile thread to keep alive IMO.

Canon EOS 5D, Nifty Fifty, shot at f/8