• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 HSM DC ART ...


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#41 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 09 June 2017 - 11:43 AM

And you people call me the evil proofreader. :)



#42 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,838 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 09 June 2017 - 12:01 PM

Now guess who's called the "bastard equivalencer from hell"? :lol:  (like in thew old days of internet the bastard operator from hell


  • Rover likes this

#43 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 09 June 2017 - 02:46 PM

Now guess who's called the "bastard equivalencer from hell"? :lol:  (like in thew old days of internet the bastard operator from hell

Ooh, I remember that stuff from so many years ago (drat... I feel old like the damn Methuselah). Thanks for reminding me. :)



#44 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,428 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 10 June 2017 - 03:19 AM

So it's not a 5* lens ;-)


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#45 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,428 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 10 June 2017 - 03:21 AM

And yes, it is an APS-C lens, not an APS-H lens ...


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#46 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,838 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 10 June 2017 - 08:47 AM

15% more diagonal distance (APS-C vs APS-H), costing 50% more for the camera... If one doesn't need the "biggest Foveon sensor Sigma ever made", one can save 400 bucks and invest it in a lens. So, meanwhile I see the sd quattro H as very hypothetical. Also, each exposure means 40 MB more on a sd-card (110 vs 150MB, if the camera is set to DNG).

 

My idea of getting a sd quattro H and 18-35 + this 50-100 for landscape has become close to pointless - I really can stay with a light tripod, 3 old Sigma Merrills + dp0 quattro, save weight, money and disk-space.  ^_^ Only if I ever would get the idea, landscapes are more interesting with a 100-400 lens, I will try to remember there's one combo for that.



#47 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:11 AM

And yes, it is an APS-C lens, not an APS-H lens ...

Does it have hard vignetting anywhere when mounted on an APS-H camera (I had no idea you owned one anyway)?



#48 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,428 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:19 AM

Does it have hard vignetting anywhere when mounted on an APS-H camera (I had no idea you owned one anyway)?

 

It's not the vignetting that makes it an APS-C lens ;-)


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#49 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:33 AM

It's not the vignetting that makes it an APS-C lens ;-)

So what does? (I'm honestly confused - are you referring to the sharpness falloff, then?)



#50 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,737 posts

Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:44 AM

It's not the vignetting that makes it an APS-C lens ;-)

 

   What parameters other than coverage make it an APSc only lens "pray tell" Klaus?

 

 

 

 

https://www.flickr.c.../[email protected]/



#51 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,428 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 10 June 2017 - 11:21 AM

Vignetting: 

 

50mm f/1.8 FF: 11.4 stops 

100mm f/1.8 FF: 4.88 stops

 

50mm f/1.8 APS-H: 1.7 stops

100mm f/1.8 APS-H:1.7 stops

 

Just from a vignetting perspective APS-H is feasible.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#52 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 10 June 2017 - 10:15 PM

So only 0,3 stop more vignetting at 100mm than the 16-35 III has at 16mm. :D

Does it get better or worse stopped down? I'm not asking for precise figures, just an estimate. :)

#53 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,428 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 11 June 2017 - 12:59 AM

I doubt that APS-H vignetting is an issue one stop down.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#54 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,428 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 11 June 2017 - 01:00 AM

   What parameters other than coverage make it an APSc only lens "pray tell" Klaus?

 

 

 

 

https://www.flickr.c.../[email protected]/

 

What goes downhill towards the edges of the frame as well ?


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#55 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,737 posts

Posted 11 June 2017 - 07:10 AM

What goes downhill towards the edges of the frame as well ?

 

    The "lot" no doubt.!!



#56 backcountryskier

backcountryskier

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 88 posts
  • LocationCalgary, Canada

Posted 14 June 2017 - 04:22 PM

Here is a review from a user shooting APS-H

http://www.nonchoiliev.com/blog/4120

Seems like this is a fine lens for APS-H shooters.  Too bad Canon discontinued this format.


  • Rover likes this

#57 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,832 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 14 June 2017 - 07:30 PM

Here is a review from a user shooting APS-H
http://www.nonchoiliev.com/blog/4120
Seems like this is a fine lens for APS-H shooters.  Too bad Canon discontinued this format.

pretty impressive.

#58 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,428 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 15 June 2017 - 12:36 AM

The review will be up tonight. It's hopeless but at least I have to try proof-reading ... ;-)


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#59 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 15 June 2017 - 10:42 AM

Here is a review from a user shooting APS-H

http://www.nonchoiliev.com/blog/4120

Seems like this is a fine lens for APS-H shooters.  Too bad Canon discontinued this format.

I did contemplate this lens, would be a nice two-lens tele solution with a 100-400. However, I like my 70-200/2.8 IS too much to swap it out (if someone had been willing to get mine).

As for the format itself... I guess there's enough copies of the 1D Mark IV floating around in the used markets - so go grab one! They probably last forever unless the owner chooses to abuse them (and even then...) I know I'll be using mine until it falls to pieces, or until I kick the bucket myself. With the ridiculous toughness of the 1D series, I'm not entirely sure which is going to happen first... maybe my nephew Yuki is going to inherit my battered unit some day. :)






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de