babart

babart

Lives in United States ME, United States
Works as a Pharmacist
Has a website at www.brucebartrug.com
Joined on Jun 23, 2008

Comments

Total: 123, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Not to be a complete cynic, but I wonder if this is one of those "suspicions confirmed" moments? At least as that might apply to some of the Sony/Zeiss lenses. Especially the wide-angle zooms, although part of the poor test results with those lenses could be due to the short flange distance. (Why wouldn't that be a known factor in the design equation?)

Truthfully, some of the Sony/Zeiss lenses are outstanding, but there are more than a couple that really don't test well enough to justify their price.

I guess the best way to buy a lens today is to wait for reviews by reliable testing facilities, such as DXO, photozone, and Lens Rentals. Then hope you don't get a lens copy that is decentered.

BAB

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 22:58 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

JackM: Interesting, but if I'm going to carry this kind of weight and bulk, it may as well be a 24-70. And if I'm going to limit myself to 24-35mm, I'd rather just carry 2 small light primes.

I agree. I have a 20/2.8 and a 24-50/4. There will probably be a few that need the faster lens in this range.....wedding photographers and journalists perhaps. But it seems a lens for a narrow market to me.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:45 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: I would rather just get a Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS.
Take a step back for wider coverage and a step forward (or crop) for a tighter shot.
IS mostly overcomes the 1 stop advantage of a f/2.0 lens, as you can easily shoot handheld at 1/8s with the IS lens.
It's less than half the size and weighs 3.5x less than the 24-35.
In terms of sharpness I can only look at the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 crop to compare it with, and the 28mm trounces that lens when it's also set to 28mm f/2.8.
I'm thinking Sigma has kind of lost the plot here and are going for the spectacle of having a wider aperture zoom than anything else. With a lot of sacrifices though...
Anyway, just my thoughts.

You are both right, and both have explained the different scenarios faced by photographers and why different photographers choose different equipment. So top arguing :).

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:41 UTC
In reply to:

Raven 777: I think Sigma made a mistake
Their next Art lens has to be 24-70 f2
This lens has much better chances to be successful in the market
Obviously if they fix all issues with AF!!!

I know what you mean. I have two mirrorless bodies currently, a Fuji X-E1 and a Sony a7. Lenses for the latter are indeed heavier, being full-frame, and I use this body mainly for architectural work with a 28mm shift lens. My main camera system currently is the APS-C Fuji. The body and three lenses (18-55, 55-200, and 27 pancake) fit into a small camera bag, the total weighing about 3 lbs (1.2kg). I'm impressed with the a7 and it's easy to use. I have a slew of Pentax lens for it. But the Fuji is the camera I carry, especially when traveling. I sold my micro4/3 gear to buy the Fuji, as I was tired of the noisy sensors. But I do miss those tiny lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:35 UTC
In reply to:

lapomattiabarambaniviendalmare: Really too limited range...
Why should i buy this one instead of a good and much lighter prime?

Me, too. I have a 24-50/4 and a 20/2.8. Much lighter.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 18:19 UTC
In reply to:

kadardr: If you wanna carry the weight carry the weight. This is an image product for the buyer and for Sigma two. For those whom the gear is more important. For those who really want to buy it the good news is it can be sold only significantly below the price of 24-70/2.8 zooms. Because the one stop advantage do not equalize the reach advantage.IMO.

I'm with you. A 20-35 f/3.5 (Canon FD) or even 4.0 (Pentax), or even a 24-70 f/2.8 would be much more practical. And much less expensive.

However, I'm sure there will be pros that find this range very useful for things like wedding photography, especially since it has stabilization.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 18:17 UTC
In reply to:

Raven 777: I think Sigma made a mistake
Their next Art lens has to be 24-70 f2
This lens has much better chances to be successful in the market
Obviously if they fix all issues with AF!!!

Only problem is you might not be allowed to carry it onto an airplane. Or carry it at all :).

To each his own, but I prefer lighter lenses, especially for todays much lighter mirrorless cameras. When a lens begins to weigh 2 pounds (900gm) it's time to think about f/4 zooms and maybe a prime or two at f/2.8. Just my opinion.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2015 at 18:11 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Salvas: Based on comments by DPR members, no lens manufacturer ever makes a rational decision on a new product. All lenses are too expensive, or have maximum apertures which are too narrow or are too wide, are the wrong focal length, or don't have necessary features like AF. And that's not to mention that other manufacturers may even be selling similar lenses, in contradiction to all the rules of commerce.

And yet, lenses get sold. And even bought by DPR members, at times. It's amazing.

Samyang, you don't know what you're doing. Just ask our experts.

It sometimes (many times?) amazes me the trivial detractions that appear in online forums. I just read a review of a sling strap where one of the reviewers didn't like it because the rivets on his Levis scratched the LCD. Umm....the strap is adjustable and/or wear a different pair of pants.

What limited reviews I've seen of this macro lens indicate it is at least as good as the Canon 100mm macro, listed as one of the ten sharpest lenses in Foto. And new costs about 60% of the Canon. I'm seriously considering buying it after I see a good review like DXO or Photozone.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 23:36 UTC

What next? Pay a copyright fee to look at items in a store window?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 19:16 UTC as 146th comment
In reply to:

Light Pilgrim: A strange move by Sigma. I have a feeling it is not really well thought. Not fast enough and you can get 24 1.4 and 35 1.4. Also not long enough, it goes from 24 to 35. Compromise all over, but why would anybody need a lens like this?

In architectural work, a 17to20 - 35 QUALITY zoom at f/2.8 (for full-frame) is a prize, as much interior work is shot in that focal range. Such a lens any faster than f/2.8 is a waste. A 24-35 is less useful, especially at f/1.4, which would never be used with close subjects like interiors.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 11:37 UTC
In reply to:

epozar: frankly I'd like 24/2 IS -- no zoom, no overweight
However, this one is tempting :)

Or even a 24/2.8 art lens. Smaller, lighter, and most of the time wide-angles can't be used at 1.4 because of vignetting/soft corners. True to a certain extent with the latest 24/1.4 art. I use WA lenses for architecture and landscape and always have them stopped down for depth of field. I don't quite understand the current f/1.4 craze. Just me I suppose, but it seems a waste.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2015 at 11:32 UTC
On Lensbaby expands offerings to Fujifilm X mount article (18 comments in total)
In reply to:

5andi: Am I missing something or are these lenses only for people who can't use Photoshop?

@Martinka. I need to give freelensing a try. With a 50/1.4 Pentax film lens and a Sony a7 body it should be a very interesting experiment. The effect is possible with some of the Lensbaby products. Thanks much!
BAB

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 22:16 UTC
On Lensbaby expands offerings to Fujifilm X mount article (18 comments in total)
In reply to:

5andi: Am I missing something or are these lenses only for people who can't use Photoshop?

@Martinka: very creative image. Done with tilt/shift in Pshop?

That said, however, certain lensbaby products will blur all around a spot aimed at a certain part of an image, which I'm not certain is a feature of the t/s function. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I've not used that filter on Pshop. Thanks.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 14:07 UTC
On Lensbaby expands offerings to Fujifilm X mount article (18 comments in total)

Interesting post by Martinka, even though the technique is not mentioned. Most likely done with the tilt/shift function in Photoshop? Very creative image.

However, those posting here are indeed missing the point of Lensbaby's products. They are for those photographers wanting lenses that perform special effects, varying with f/stop and direction in which the "spot" of Lensbaby lens is pointed or tilted. The lenses are very successful and are widely used by those wanting a different look to their photos. If that's not a desired quality in a lens, then one should look at traditional lenses.

There are those, of course, who would argue about anything, but I suspect the comments here are made without knowing a bit about Lensbaby.

Cheers,
BAB

Direct link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 14:04 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

babart: Thanks for an interesting article that certainly states what I think is (is becoming?) the kernal of questions about noise. I.e., sensors being relatively equal the larger will give less noise problems, and exposing to the right (anathema to those of us who shot transparency film for decades) is the better way to expose digital sensors.

However, I often encounter areas of endeavor where a sizable segment of the image I want to capture is at the low end of the spectrum, and yet I don't want to clip what highlights there are. Think architectural photos of large spaces where lights would be fairly useless. How does the use of HDR affect the overall noise in those areas with less light? Yes, one is merging several images, one or two of which expose the darker areas of the scene at a brighter, less noisy, exposure value, but how does merging it with the darker frames affect the noise ratio in the darker portions of the image?

I don't believe any of the current HDR software is capable of "seeing to the right," which would certainly be a great idea. There are, however, ways to use two photos to combine one shot to prevent highlight clipping and a second shot to dig out the data on the dark end. An example is Photo Merge in Photoshop. However, these aren't always so great in merging, so I have used stacked images with masks to combine the photos.

It would be great if there were a merging software/plugin that would retain both the lowest and highest values between two images, then combine the two middles by blending, without the necessity for creating masks. It would also be great to have some control over that blending algorithm. Even using Smart Object snapshots (Photoshop) requires a mask to combine the two images.

Without such a program, HDR is all that's left. Hence the question. I'll be interested in the reply as well.

Thanks for writing.

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2015 at 18:56 UTC

Thanks for an interesting article that certainly states what I think is (is becoming?) the kernal of questions about noise. I.e., sensors being relatively equal the larger will give less noise problems, and exposing to the right (anathema to those of us who shot transparency film for decades) is the better way to expose digital sensors.

However, I often encounter areas of endeavor where a sizable segment of the image I want to capture is at the low end of the spectrum, and yet I don't want to clip what highlights there are. Think architectural photos of large spaces where lights would be fairly useless. How does the use of HDR affect the overall noise in those areas with less light? Yes, one is merging several images, one or two of which expose the darker areas of the scene at a brighter, less noisy, exposure value, but how does merging it with the darker frames affect the noise ratio in the darker portions of the image?

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2015 at 13:35 UTC as 30th comment | 2 replies
On Winds of Change: Shooting changing landscapes article (52 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Absolutely terrific images. Traveling to all these places, however, could very well cost more than a new Leica and a slew of lenses. It's great that photographers can reach these areas, and I've been to Iceland myself. I suspect, however, that most landscape photographers would find equally good images close to home if they paid attention. I know. No one looks at anything close to home, right. But there is the place you know best in all it's many varied faces, and it's there one should start.

Too, I'm wondering if landscape photography has become the province of the wealthier among us, just like the latest good equipment. Pardon my mild cynicism, but I'm retired and have to be more frugal. If that sounds envious, well it is, frankly.

I've noticed this is the new way to make a living shooting photos. Ask a few people to finance a workshop so you can travel in exotic places, make a few bucks, and get your 15 seconds of fame in some photo magazine. (It use to be 15 minutes, but this is the digital age.)

@Gediminas: Iceland may be "out" but that's a good thing. Don't have to compete with high-priced tours or workshops. :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 12:14 UTC
On Winds of Change: Shooting changing landscapes article (52 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Absolutely terrific images. Traveling to all these places, however, could very well cost more than a new Leica and a slew of lenses. It's great that photographers can reach these areas, and I've been to Iceland myself. I suspect, however, that most landscape photographers would find equally good images close to home if they paid attention. I know. No one looks at anything close to home, right. But there is the place you know best in all it's many varied faces, and it's there one should start.

Too, I'm wondering if landscape photography has become the province of the wealthier among us, just like the latest good equipment. Pardon my mild cynicism, but I'm retired and have to be more frugal. If that sounds envious, well it is, frankly.

Very true. Wouldn't deny that at all. I guess I'm just envious of those who can afford the best of everything, including the time to wait for the best light, etc. I would love to go back to Iceland, though.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 00:33 UTC
On Winds of Change: Shooting changing landscapes article (52 comments in total)

Absolutely terrific images. Traveling to all these places, however, could very well cost more than a new Leica and a slew of lenses. It's great that photographers can reach these areas, and I've been to Iceland myself. I suspect, however, that most landscape photographers would find equally good images close to home if they paid attention. I know. No one looks at anything close to home, right. But there is the place you know best in all it's many varied faces, and it's there one should start.

Too, I'm wondering if landscape photography has become the province of the wealthier among us, just like the latest good equipment. Pardon my mild cynicism, but I'm retired and have to be more frugal. If that sounds envious, well it is, frankly.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2015 at 18:55 UTC as 15th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

babart: Think I'll pass. It's already annoying there is no way to turn the auto viewfinder switch off. The two-second delay seems just fine. A remote shutter trigger, as with my Pentax equipment, would certainly be a better idea. AND, Sony, you can charge $40 for the trigger device. You can make it so the battery can't be changed, so you can make another $40 every couple years. Pardon my cynicism.

Yes, there are, but they appear to be priced at $50 to $100 for the a7. There could be off-band less expensive options as well, but the 2-second delay is fine for me, as I mainly use the a7 for architecture where it is locked down tightly on a heavy tripod. Thanks, however, for the information.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2015 at 15:34 UTC
Total: 123, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »