You last visited: Today at 07:06 AM
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|11-06-2012 02:02 AM|
Here is the direct link on picasa with proper naming
I understand that a picture on an open wide lens will be blurry. But still want to know if my result is general for the lens.
What I found out from my test pictures:
Hyperfocal rule doesn't work very well. Maybe it would if we compare small sizes. But if we are talking about big size image it doesn't work. You can check it on my pictures. the Hydrant is about 1.5 feet, the beam is about 3 feet. Focusing on 3 feet doesn't give the same sharpness as on 10 feet if we are talking about not so close objects. It's even better on infinity IMO. Maybe I got frontfocus a little bit?
And sharpness on 3.5 and 5.6 is still sad as for me. Could you determine if it is generalsituation for the lens? Post few more pictures of a guy with the same lens on F/3.5
Seemed to me much better situation.
|10-19-2012 05:18 PM|
|10-19-2012 06:08 AM|
Edit: I made it work. Copy and paste the address into a web bar, and delete the www, as "photos" is already the sub-address. But, the camera/lens combo still doesn't record EXIF data, so my post still stands, if I understood your description correctly.
Without seeing your photos, I'll still try to give some advice. First of all, use a depth of field calculator to understand where your depth of field is:
Please understand that you do not need such extreme apertures on a wide angle lens to get an extreme depth of field. Even if you stop down to f/5.6 on a Canon T2i, and you focus the lens to "only" 2 feet away, everything from 1 foot all the way to infinity will be in focus. So, understanding this hyperfocal distance:
You SHOULD NOT be focused at infinity, unless you were taking photos of galaxies far away! If you were focused as close as 3 feet away, then infinity would still be in focus! Notice that when you focus to a specific distance, the lens is focused much further past the focus distance than it is in front of it. Second of all, diffraction starts to take hold on smaller-sensor cameras like your T2i. You should not be stopping down past f/8 or so on ANY lens, as you start introducing diffraction into your photos, which means that although you get a greater depth of field, you get less sharpness overall.
So, the problem is that you need to learn how to use an ultrawide lens. It is going to be a wholly different experience from using an 18-55mm lens. The lens is such a moderate aperture not only because it's cheaper to produce, but because it is a reasonably "mistake-proof" aperture for beginners. Whereas, once you start getting more serious lenses, you need to use them with greater discipline, or you will start getting very disappointing results. Once you compounded wildly incorrect focus with diffraction, you started seeing what you consider "poor" results. Input your infinity tests into the DOF calculator, and you will find that they all have near identical depth of field. Sorry, you were using your lens incorrectly.
|10-19-2012 05:33 AM|
I am unable to find the photos you are speaking of. Could you label them with some title that we can notice. Like ZZZZ. You don't need to speak Russian to see three or for letters the same.
|10-19-2012 01:09 AM|
I bought the 8mm lens. A build quality is good. But i'm a little bit upset by images.
I attached a link of test pictures.
Sorry for russian interface but you don't really need to use it as everything is pretty much simple over there.
1 First of all I am a little bit confused with focusing of the lens.
There are 4 pictures which were taken with 0,4;1;2,5;infinity.
in order 9272,9274,9274,9275
I can see a little bit of difference with 0,4 ; 1 and 2,5
But there is no difference for me between 2,5 and infinity
Diaphragm is 11 as I remember. Is the sharpness good on the pictures?
2. And the most sad part is shown on 9255,9256,9258,9259.
Took them on infinity.Diaphragm was in 3,5 5,6 8 11 order.
3,5 - is awful.
8 and 11 almost the same in quality for me. Don't see a difference between them. And I wouldn't say that they are very sharp as well. What do you think about it?
|10-17-2012 06:09 PM|
Mine is still processing too. May cancel too if it doesn't ship soon...
EDIT: Just got an e-mail saying it was backordered and they should get more in 1-3 days.
|10-17-2012 12:16 PM|
|Artemk||My order status for the fisheye still shows processing... Anybody's shipped yet? I am thinking about canceling and waiting for a deal on the chipped one...|
|10-16-2012 01:44 PM|
|who8mahrice||Dangit, waited too long on the 8mm. Coupon code doesn't work anymore|
|10-16-2012 07:57 AM|
|10-16-2012 06:58 AM|
|10-15-2012 10:51 PM|
|10-15-2012 06:06 PM|
|imot||All these posts are really making it difficult for people who actually click this thread to find more information about the lenses that are referenced in OP|
|10-15-2012 05:38 PM|
You mentioned the Sigma sharper wide open many times. Yes, it is! But did you mentioned this Sigma lens is known for focusing problem? Not to mention the odd filter size of 62mm where might be hard for some to get their filters (at least you ain't gonna be able to share your filter with your other lens.) And the Sigma 30mm is a "DC" lens, which people call it the "Digitally Crippled", it design for cropped frame only. You might say" Who cares, I am gonna use crop-frame for life." Since full-frame bodies are becoming more and more popular. I will bet in the future the Canon 28mm EF will have a higher resell value. And the fact that Sigma is a 3rd party, Canon has no responsibility to make their future products to work with 3rd party lens.
I am not sure how many would actually shoot at wide open at all time. Experienced photographers always shoot 2-stop down for best IQ (the sweet spot for most lens). At f/2.8 and higher, the 28mm out-performs the Sigma 30mm. Here's a comparison: http://www.focalplane.
The 28mm has internal focusing element meaning no extruding element during focus and complete seal makes it more weather-proof. I do street-photography, so it matters for me.
The Canon 35mm 1.4L is one of Canon best/sharpest lens, and it was designed 14 years ago. It still haven't been replaced by a new version. Why? A good design is a good design. Good design doesn't get replaced.
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|