|
Shellman posted:I suspected he might be a little stubborn when I came home with one of these and he told me he bought a Canon so he could use Canon lenses, not Sigmas. Sweet lens. Take better pictures than him and then rub 'em in his face.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
Shellman posted:Awesome, good to hear! My roommate who got me into photography looks down on non-canon stuff, though from what I've read lurking here it seems like a lot of goons swear by it. I suspected he might be a little stubborn when I came home with one of these and he told me he bought a Canon so he could use Canon lenses, not Sigmas. Three years ago I might've agreed with him with maybe one or two caveats. Now, there are a whole lot more caveats. In some situations (especially the telephoto and supertelephoto arenas) Canon's going to rule the roost, but the lines are blurring substantially in other lengths.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
dakana posted:Three years ago I might've agreed with him with maybe one or two caveats. Now, there are a whole lot more caveats. In some situations (especially the telephoto and supertelephoto arenas) Canon's going to rule the roost, but the lines are blurring substantially in other lengths. Actually, Sigma's 120-300 f 2.8 kicks Canon's rear end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Shellman posted:I suspected he might be a little stubborn when I came home with one of these Great buy, that lens seems amazing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
dakana posted:Three years ago I might've agreed with him with maybe one or two caveats. Now, there are a whole lot more caveats. In some situations (especially when minimizing the performance/cost ratio or trying to have as little DR as possible) Canon's going to rule the roost, but the lines are blurring substantially in other lengths. fixed it for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
From my standpoint of using cameras primarily to shoot video, I think going Canon has a few distinct advantages: 1)3rd parties have unlocked tons of functionality especially in the newer DigicV bodies 2)The lenses are also usable on other systems like Blackmagic Cinema or RED. 3)There are tons of video-focused 3rd party accessories that are available only for Canon bodies. For stills though the only advantage I can think of, and this is limited to the newer stuff, is ridiculous low light sensitivity for event shooters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Great buy, that lens seems amazing. All the reviews I've read of it have been glowing, and I feel the same way...I've only had it a few weeks, but I'm basically shooting with it and my nifty fifty these days. It's a little jarring going from the Sigma's near-silent AF to the full-of-bees 50, though. And sad to think that it couldn't make the jump to full-frame with me if I ever decide to go that way.  I drove an hour one way to get it from the nearest Sigma retailer and it was still totally worth it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Canon is seriously retarded in that they prevent you from downloading EOS Utility if you don't have the CD key. Seriously, who keeps CDs anymore? For anyone else who finds themselves with this problem, this video explains the work around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
I learned with my 20D to make an image of the CD as soon as I received it, and then put it back in the box. I've done the same with my 7D and 5DIII, though I haven't actually installed the software in years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Canon is seriously retarded in that they prevent you from downloading EOS Utility if you don't have the CD key. Seriously, who keeps CDs anymore? For anyone else who finds themselves with this problem, this video explains the work around. I believe it would be easier to download the EOS Digital Solution Disk Software, your serial number from the camera will be used to verify the download.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 09:04
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Canon is seriously retarded in that they prevent you from downloading EOS Utility if you don't have the CD key. Seriously, who keeps CDs anymore? For anyone else who finds themselves with this problem, this video explains the work around. http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/sdl/data/dpp100-e.exe
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 10:26
|
|
|
erephus posted:I believe it would be easier to download the EOS Digital Solution Disk Software, your serial number from the camera will be used to verify the download.  Pablo Bluth posted:When I had that issue a couple of years ago, I downloaded v1.00 from Japan, which has no such issues, then upgraded to the latest version. I still think it's dumb
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 13:16
|
|
|
Hardware companies requiring registration for their software is just dumb in general. Who the gently caress is going to steal Canon software? People with counterfeit Canon gear?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Actually, Sigma's 120-300 f 2.8 kicks Canon's rear end. In what way? The IQ and focus speed of the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 300 2.8 IS (I and II) are untouched as far as I know. Sure, they're expensive, but for the people using them professionally there really isn't any competition. The 400 2.8, 500 f/4, and 600 f/4 pretty much stand alone as well. Don't get me wrong: the 120-300 2.8's an astoundingly good lens, especially considering the price point, but it really doesn't measure up for professional photographers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
dakana posted:In what way? Go read the digital picture's review of the latest version. The 300 prime doesn't beat it for IQ, or speed, or IS, but is less versatile. Comparing a 200mm zoom to a 300mm zoom ignores the 50% greater reach.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
According to that review (and also their test chart photos), the 70-200 2.8 II and the 300 2.8 I and II all beat the 120-300 in IQ. The reviewer also calls it simply "capable" and adds that its (lack of) speed "keep this lens out of the best-available category".
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
dakana posted:In what way? I'm really curious about the 70-200 IS II's autofocus. I just got the original 70-200 2.8 non-IS and it's fast (at least to me). I"m really looking forward to the potential Sigma 24-70 f/2. A full extra stop of light for that lens would be really welcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Hardware companies requiring registration for their software is just dumb in general. That's what blows my mind: by its very nature, you are a customer of Canon. If you weren't, you wouldn't want the software.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
spog posted:That's what blows my mind: by its very nature, you are a customer of Canon. If you weren't, you wouldn't want the software. Probably some over-zealous software engineer. Trust me, I deal with those types of people a lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Oh no the sigma zoom isn't quite as sharp as the prime lens that costs literally twice as much. Why would anyone buy it over the quality Canon provides. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
dakana posted:According to that review (and also their test chart photos), the 70-200 2.8 II and the 300 2.8 I and II all beat the 120-300 in IQ. The reviewer also calls it simply "capable" and adds that its (lack of) speed "keep this lens out of the best-available category". So, you take one quote, "keep this lens out of the best-available category," leave out this, "With well over 1,000 shots of galloping horses evaluated, I would not hesitate to use this lens for professional needs. Focus accuracy is very good." And, on IQ, this: "I've been comparing the Sigma 120-300 OS with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens and the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens most directly throughout this review. These are Canon's most-similar models from a feature perspective. The two Canons cover much of the Sigma's overall focal length range – the pair leave a 201-299mm gap and pick up the 70-119mm range. They also share the f/2.8 max aperture and have image stabilization. The Sigma has the focal length range convenience advantage. The Canon 300 L II has the image quality advantage, though this is not huge. If forced to pick, I'd take the Canon AF systems." I think saying it doesn't measure up for professional photographers is simply Canon snobbery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
I just went through the trouble of getting the latest Magic Lantern with dual ISO on my 5d2. It's a pretty cool feature but my little test actually isn't all that awesome. I'm a little disappointed. _MG_7993-426 by spf3million, on Flickr I tried to do a comparison between the various options vs what you could expect with simple ISO 100 and pushing the shadows up. I spot metered in the open window with ISO 100 and used LR4 auto tone correction to keep it consistent. I added only color noise correction on the ISO 100 sample and kept noise correction at 0 for the dual ISO tests. All of the dual ISO photos have a green cast, getting worse as you get more severe, this despite auto WB in LR4. This green cast makes 100-1600 is pretty unusable in my opinion but 100-800 isn't as bad. I'll give it a whirl in some every day situations to see how I like it. Anyone else using dual ISO?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
I'd take green cast over nasty reddish splotches over everything
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Just get a D800 or D600 and don't gently caress around with weird DR hacks like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 11:01
|
|
|
It simply added too much work to my work flow to process the dual ISO business. And I agree with you - the extra dynamic range simply wasn't worth the effort. Or the moire effects. It's a fantastic idea on paper but not in practice. The thing keeping my on Canon now is that the only 2 companies with mirror less and DSLRs bodies, and lenses that work on both, are Sony and Canon. I already tried the NEX though and simply didn't like it, had it for 3 months. If Canon comes out with a 70D grade EOS M I will seriously be considering it. I'd like to keep the option to have a full frame SLR on hand for when I want it, and the M for pocketing. (with the option of using full size lenses should I desire better optics) It'd allow for quite a lot of flexibility without having to invest in an entirely new system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 11:28
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:So, you take one quote, "keep this lens out of the best-available category," leave out this, "With well over 1,000 shots of galloping horses evaluated, I would not hesitate to use this lens for professional needs. Focus accuracy is very good." Mr. Despair posted:Oh no the sigma zoom isn't quite as sharp as the prime lens that costs literally twice as much. Why would anyone buy it over the quality Canon provides. It's not about snobbery. For a professional sports photographer or photojournalist, that extra few grand will be a worthwhile investment to give yourself the absolute best chance of getting every shot you need. Missing a shot can mean losing out on a lot of money in licensing. Why give yourself anything other than the fastest and most reliable autofocus and best image quality? Couple that with the perks from CPS -- if your lens goes down, is Sigma going to overnight you a loaner while yours gets an expedited repair? I'm not saying everyone should always pick the Canon. My current wide angle is a Tamron because the price to quality point was a lot better. Sure, the 16-35 2.8 II focuses faster, has less distortion, and better IQ, but my 17-35 2.8-4 was about $250 and is a phenomenal lens for the price. The CA is correctable and the focus is fine for my needs. If I was a professional photojournalist who was churning out images under deadline and couldn't afford missing any shots due to focusing, I'd buy the 16-35 for sure. Probably for most people, the Sigma is going to be a much better choice. A 300 2.8 alone at that price point and IQ/focus speed is amazing. Add in the flexibility of the zoom and you've got an absolutely killer lens. But for the top few percent of the most demanding users, it's not the best choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Y'all are fuckin weird man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
Why are you still shooting Canon? The Canon Thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
I have no idea what the sigmas resell for, but the fact I can sell all my most expensive Canon glass for the nearly the same price I paid for it (or in some cases even more) is now a significant factor in my choice of lens purchasing as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
The three IS USM primes that Canon put out last year just got price drops: The EF 35mm f/2 IS USM is now $599, down from $789. The EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM is now $549, down from $649. The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM is now $599, down from $699.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
Slightly less shameful prices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
They were pretty steeply priced for most users. I understand wanting to price it for the FF crowd, but they could have released a crop sensor version if they wanted something more downmarket. They hardly even seem to try with their crop lineup and I don't get it, since soccer moms aren't buying full frame. The NEX 35/1.8 is $450 and that's probably the competitor for a stabilized 35mm prime. You pay a bit more, but you get film/full frame and SLR-level autofocus. It's slightly but noticeably cheaper than the Sigma 35/1.4. I think it's probably priced about right. Until Sigma rolls out a new 35mm f/1.0 OS or something, of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:They were pretty steeply priced for most users. I understand wanting to price it for the FF crowd, but they could have released a crop sensor version if they wanted something more downmarket. They hardly even seem to try with their crop lineup and I don't get it, since soccer moms aren't buying full frame. Soccer moms don't buy primes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Canon treats the crop market like it's for kids so don't expect anything good soon. Thankfully Sigma remember us 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 11:44
|
|
|
No lies if Nikon made a 35/2 VR I'd snap it up at the speed of light.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 12:22
|
|
|
Some more Canon price drops: The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is now $879, down from $1049. (Refurbished is now only $703) The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is now $649, down from $759.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
star trek abstinence parakeet you're not telling the whole story: Canon price increases •EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM went from $1149 to $1349 •EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM went from $1399 to $1599 •EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM went from $1899 to $2199 •EF 17-40mm f/4L USM went from $739 to $839 •EF 50mm f/1.2L USM went from $1439 to $1619
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Soccer moms don't buy primes. I dunno. Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me, Canon doesn't offer jack poo poo in their consumer pricerange (nifty fifty, kit lens, and a couple slow zooms), so they don't sell any primes. I'm pretty sure Nikon sells those 35/1.8 DXs like hotcakes, including to soccer moms. You're really telling me no one ever wants to stop action or takes pictures of their kid playing music at church (where flash isn't appropriate), or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You're really telling me no one ever wants to stop action or takes pictures of their kid playing music at church (where flash isn't appropriate), or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
Seamonster posted:star trek abstinence parakeet you're not telling the whole story: Ugh. I was strongly considering the 70-300 as a tax return purchase next spring.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2013 17:46
|
|
