Random Stuff

[Kayaker72]

I've been wanting to post some things I've seen go by, but never quite did it....so here are three things that I've seen go by this week that peaked my interest:

TDP centric:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/N...spx?News=15598

I have a Gitzo traveler tripod and it does exactly what I want it too. Fits in my carry on suitcase. Nice and light. Easy to set up. For those of you that don't know, that is high praise from me. The only issue I've ever had is a screw loosening up. But, now, they have just introduced taller/lighter tripods that claim to be stronger. If I wasn't already happy, I'd be tempted.

TDP and OLAF from lensrentals merging? Lensrentals generates some great data and now some of the most interesting, the OLAF MTF charts, are on TDP (from what Roger said in a recent post, it seems as if TDP has much more online storage than he does).

The dataset is still being completed, but one of the first comparisons I made: the 24-70 II to the 24 mm f/1.4 II and how about the might Zeiss 55 Otus?

It's not hard to see why many consider the 24-70 II to be "prime-like." To my eyes it is on par with the 24 f/1.4 at equivalent apertures and the Otus at the center (Otus wins the edges). EDIT--I am also noticing that the Otus has much closer merdian and sagittal lines compared to the 24-70II...


Sigma 24-35 f/2A

People seem to be loving the Sigma 24-35 f/2 A. It may have too much vignetting at f/2 for what I'd want it for (nightscapes), but I've read about a wedding photographer calling it one of the best zooms he's ever used and I've seen some very impressive reviews. One website having it on par if not sharper than the 24A/35A and another singing it's praises.....

I am not sure what interests me more, a f/2 zoom? Another zoom on par with primes? Or that Sigma continues to introduce some high quality optics?

[Sean Setters]

I'm glad someone enjoyed the Gitzo Traveler Tripod post...it was a pain to put together (time consuming with all the formatting and links).

I saw where Zach Sutton reviewed the Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art, and he made some good points. Basically, he said it performed very well (optically) but that there wasn't enough difference between 24-35mm focal lengths to justify losing the one stop aperture to the Art primes (in other words, it would be better to simply own one of the primes and move yourself the x-distance to equal the other focal length). Of course, sometimes that's not possible (as with small spaces).

If it had been a 24-50mm f/2, it would have been bigger, heavier, more expensive...and maybe three times more practical.

Keep in mind, I'm definitely a fan of what Sigma has been doing with their Art lenses. They aren't perfect, but for the money – they're amazing. If I didn't already own the Sigma 24 and 35mm Art lenses, I might be tempted by the 24-35 zoom. But as it is, the primes aren't going anywhere.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Part of the trade off is that most of the really high performance lenses are getting huge. I don't have any wide angle primes right now, but if I did I wouldn't want to replace to them with a comparatively very large 24-35 f/2.

Dave

[Kayaker72]

I'm glad someone enjoyed the Gitzo Traveler Tripod post...it was a pain to put together (time consuming with all the formatting and links).

I saw where Zach Sutton reviewed the Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art, and he made some good points. Basically, he said it performed very well (optically) but that there wasn't enough difference between 24-35mm focal lengths to justify losing the one stop aperture to the Art primes (in other words, it would be better to simply own one of the primes and move yourself the x-distance to equal the other focal length). Of course, sometimes that's not possible (as with small spaces).

If it had been a 24-50mm f/2, it would have been bigger, heavier, more expensive...and maybe three times more practical.

Keep in mind, I'm definitely a fan of what Sigma has been doing with their Art lenses. They aren't perfect, but for the money – they're amazing. If I didn't already own the Sigma 24 and 35mm Art lenses, I might be tempted by the 24-35 zoom. But as it is, the primes aren't going anywhere.

Ha...I don't blame you. And the lens I would like to see is actually something like a 70-135 f/2 with good IQ/bokeh (maybe IS?), etc or an UWA f/2 lens.

Regarding Zach's conclusions....choices like these are always going to be about circumstance, settings, and shooting style. I was a little disappointed he didn't include some of that perspective in his review. It looks like Zach's images were outside, on a sidewalk, where he had plenty of room to walk forward and back, and a subject that allowed all the time in the world (at least, she doesn't look impatient). Even in the comment section, people were disagreeing with his conclusions and pointing out, from their perspective, that their is a big difference between 24 and 35 mm. If he had tried out the lens in a tight room with some faster action, (i.e. a wedding) then he might have appreciated the zoom a bit more. For me, that would be a kids birthday party.

Part of the trade off is that most of the really high performance lenses are getting huge. I don't have any wide angle primes right now, but if I did I wouldn't want to replace to them with a comparatively very large 24-35 f/2.

Dave

Yeah, some of these are getting to be beasts. But some of them a great options. For the 24-70 II, I am able to justify the size/weight pretty easily. But, I am finding I haven't sold my EF 50 f/1.4 yet just for this reason and I'd consider it one of the advantages the EF 35 f/2 has over the Sigma 35A f/1.4 (both great lenses). But, for example, size/weight are some of the issues I have with the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 (bigger and heavier than the Sigma 24-35). Otherwise, seems like a remarkable lens.

That said, it would get down to use...if the Sigma 24-35A really did replace two prime lenses, then the combined size and weight is lower.

[Sean Setters]

If he had tried out the lens in a tight room with some faster action, (i.e. a wedding) then he might have appreciated the zoom a bit more. For me, that would be a kids birthday party.

I completely agree. I purchased the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art when it first came out and, after using it for a couple of years, I realized the need for a 24mm f/1.4 prime (and it's why I preordered the Sigma 24 A). The Sigma 24 A stayed on my camera for almost 90% of the time during the last two wedding receptions I shot and it was instrumental in capturing the getting-ready shots in relatively cramped quarters.

[Busted Knuckles]

So after using the 5DSR I found myself digi zooming quite a bit. If the 24-35 is sharp enough for this I would see a wedding person getting the 24-50 effective range perhaps have to push the stop a bit but, with a tiny bit of fill/ambient flash.....

EDIT: so IF IF IF it is all that sharp - I have no idea and have suspicions. Save the money/sell the existing from the 24 & 35 primes & 5DIII and use it to buy up to the 24-35 and 5dsr? If you are happy w/ 20 ish megapixel and the odd perspective of a cropped 35 mm being the same as a 50mm sell the 50 too. This all hinges on the pixel peeping sharpness/desire of the 24-35 solution. This might take care of your short end and you have what ever your long end solution was prior ++ more resolution???

[Sean Setters]

So after using the 5DSR I found myself digi zooming quite a bit. If the 24-35 is sharp enough for this I would see a wedding person getting the 24-50 effective range perhaps have to push the stop a bit but, with a tiny bit of fill/ambient flash.....

EDIT: so IF IF IF it is all that sharp - I have no idea and have suspicions. Save the money/sell the existing from the 24 & 35 primes & 5DIII and use it to buy up to the 24-35 and 5dsr? If you are happy w/ 20 ish megapixel and the odd perspective of a cropped 35 mm being the same as a 50mm sell the 50 too. This all hinges on the pixel peeping sharpness/desire of the 24-35 solution. This might take care of your short end and you have what ever your long end solution was prior ++ more resolution???

It might. Then again, all of that would require significant effort (selling used gear) and shelling out the up-front costs for the new gear. I just moved from my boyhood home to a new place, and my bank account is feeling the effects of the move (the moving van cost twice as much as we were originally quoted because of unavailability at a specific retailer and other various moving-in expenses have exceeded my estimates).

As such, right now my gear is what it is. I'm not changing anything for the time being. :-)

[Sean Setters]

There were benefits to the move, though. I have a brand new (and much larger) studio to work with. :-)

[Kayaker72]

Mike, any impressions or pictures from your trip to Glacier?

So after using the 5DSR I found myself digi zooming quite a bit. If the 24-35 is sharp enough for this I would see a wedding person getting the 24-50 effective range perhaps have to push the stop a bit but, with a tiny bit of fill/ambient flash.....

I suspect this already happens with 18/22 MP cameras, so the ability would only be enhanced with a 50 MP body. In fact, this is one of the most tempting aspects of the 5DsR to me. It could essentially combine the benefits (reach) of a crop sensor, sacrificing fps, with the noise performance of a FF sensor.

But, as for actual pro wedding photographers, I would see this doing two things, first, the memory/transfer time for 2,000-4,000 shot events would be pretty significant. The second, I would expect Pros, especially on low margin work, to be about saving time (as time = $$). So, cropping a larger number of photos would be adding a good amount of time to post. The benefit of the zoom is hopefully they'd actually crop less than, say, if they just used a 24 mm prime. But they could still crop to give a FOV of 50 or 70 mm. In the link to the wedding pro earlier, he was using the 24-35 f/2 on a 5Ds R and a 100 mm L macro on a 5DIII. I can see that being a very useful combination for a wedding.

BTW, I saw yesterday Bryan posted his initial IQ of the 24-35 mm f/2 A. Not on the 5Ds R (yet??), but scrolling through those are very consistent with what I saw in other reviews. It looks like an interesting option. Not sure it will ever fall into my bag, but I can understand why it would for others.

It might. Then again, all of that would require significant effort (selling used gear) and shelling out the up-front costs for the new gear. I just moved from my boyhood home to a new place, and my bank account is feeling the effects of the move (the moving van cost twice as much as we were originally quoted because of unavailability at a specific retailer and other various moving-in expenses have exceeded my estimates).

As such, right now my gear is what it is. I'm not changing anything for the time being. :-)

Ouch....what's the saying, anything with a house, 4x longer and 2x more expensive than you think?

There were benefits to the move, though. I have a brand new (and much larger) studio to work with. :-)

See, all worth it.