Sigma 14-24 F2.8 First Impressions

Brev00

Forum Pro
Messages
12,020
Solutions
9
Reaction score
5,999
Location
Tulsa, OK, US
I have had this lens for less than a week but have had the chance to do many test chart and real world shots with it. I have posted many of these images here. My initial impression from the chart shots was not that great. The sharpness did not seem as high as I had seen in the reviews I have read. But, the evenness across the frame was very good and the ca's were remarkably low--as compared to my Sigma 24 1.4. When I took a shot with the sun off frame and saw the flare, I was leaning toward returning it. At 14mm, f 2.8:



At 14mm, f 8:



My 24 1.4 showed no flare (but it is a 24mm lens). At 24mm, the flare of the 14-24 was greatly reduced. These shots were of the wall not the chart. I wanted to see if the barrel distortion which was very high at close distance was less further out and that is the case. You can also see the vignette at f 2.8 and how it lifts at f 8.

These next two shots show barrel distortion before and after correction. The correction is my best effort. It is manual as Elements does not have any lens info and On1 has no info on this lens. I can save it as a preset in On1 but not in Elements. All of these shots are processed in Photoshop Elements 18. The second version was editied in DxO Filmpack 5 after distortion correction. At f 8.







The flare may be off putting, but the lens does better with the sun in the frame and I also like the sunstars:







I corrected for the slight ca's in the first but did no ca correction in the sunstar shot. Both my Sigma 24 1.4 and my Tamron 35 1.8 would show easily noticeable ca distortion in such backlit branches. There is some purple flare running off to the lower right. Not objectionable to me.

I was starting to have fun with the lens. I took a break at Antoinette's Bakery. Had a lemon tart. And, as I have done before, I took shots both with my phone and with the lens I had on hand. Here is one at the minimum focusing distance (which put me just inches away with the hood almost touching the plate). This is slightly cropped:



Here is a shot a little further back:

928ed385c398486fa79dcd12c0922ed4.jpg

Here is a shot using the 24 1.4 at an earlier time at 1.8. Being faster, it can blur the background more completely though that is not always desirable. I wish I took a picture of the lettering with the 14-24 as I did here, a much better target than meringue.



I stayed out late on my second day downtown and, after another stop at Antoinette's, tested out the bokeh circles:



I was surprised at the quality. They were nice and round with pretty smooth surfaces and a pretty negligible rim. Probably not important to most people, but I may go for shallow dof at any time.

The 14-24:



The 24 1.4. Not shot at the same time. The 24 required ca correction, the 14-24 did not. Both were sharpened to some degree.



One last one. Another brick wall shot with distortion correction. I used a vivid picture control rather than diving into DxO. Some ultra sharp mask applied. I shot it in live view to take advantage of the level indicator. I did that pretty often during the shoot. It does wear down the battery. I took shots both with the af and manually in live view during both the test chart series and the real world shots. I saw no difference in the results. I may do some more precise testing to see if I need to fine tune the lens with the dock.

300d4f054938486b80f36aaa7f2e206a.jpg

Any observations would be appreciated. I like using the lens. Most of my misgivings have fallen to the side. The lack of ca's is amazing to me. I don't know if the sharpness is quite as high as I thought it would be given that some say it is better than the Nikon version. The upper left corner seems a tad worse than the rest--less sharp and contrasty. My tendency so far is to add more sharpening than I do with the Sigma 24 prime. Maybe I am expecting too much. The barrel distortion at 14mm is correctible as is the vignetting at 2.8. The close focusing and bokeh are nice. I don't mind the weight. I did use a tripod for the alley shots and the camera was on a table in the bakery. The sunstars are nice and it does well with the sun in the frame. I can probably reduce the flare with a well placed hand. The build quality is amazing. The focus ring is huge and smooth.

I have until February to decide as B & H extended the period during the Christmas season. They also offered a nice $300 discount: $899. I will probably be so deep in taking pictures with it that I don't even notice when the return period ends. I will give it 4 stars right now with an option to update the score.

Thanks for reading and Happy Holidays and a great New Year!

Larry







--
 

Attachments

  • 3836889.jpg
    3836889.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836919.jpg
    3836919.jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836918.jpg
    3836918.jpg
    2.4 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836882.jpg
    3836882.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836887.jpg
    3836887.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836885.jpg
    3836885.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836877.jpg
    3836877.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836884.jpg
    3836884.jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836878.jpg
    3836878.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836879.jpg
    3836879.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 0
  • 3836888.jpg
    3836888.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 0
It's probably time I did a stabilised v non stabilised walkaround with a high resolution body. Because my later escapades were with high MP bodies and also stabilisation, and you can't get away with as much on high MP bodies. Who knows, I might be able to get away with 1/8s much of the time on 12MP bodies but only 1/15s on 36MP ones.
A good point. Something I have read about but not tested myself. I could have when I had both a D7100 and a D90 (still have the D90).
I assumed the kind of person who is fussy enough to get a $1000+ lens for landscape would not be satisfied with a rough and ready standard. If you want to submit such photos to stock sites or galleries, I don't see why you would take the risk of hand-holding the camera anyway.
I have had success blowing up handheld images before but specifically my shallow dof flower shots. Now that I have a really good uwa, I plan on using it a great deal for landscapes and incorporating my tripod into much of this work. In fact, in the past, I would use my tripod with my DX cam/Tokina 12-24 for many of those special sorts of landscape moments. Just makes sense to me, too.
Another use for ultrawides is shooting buildings without needing to tilt the camera upwards and then you can do a good correction of verticals in software. If you end up needing to tilt the camera upwards then the correction is not so perfect and experts can guess you didn't have a shift lens. Since shift lenses are clunky and not so cheap an ultrawide can be a handy stand-in at the cost of some resolution because you lose some of the frame when you have to crop after the warp.
I have been shooting level with wide angle settings and cropping for a good while now. I have never considered a tilt shift camera. Maybe if someone started paying me thousands for my pics or bankrolling trips to far off countries. Getting a lens with a very wide fl really helps with such an approach. I guess the Sigma 12-24 might be even better that way but I liked its brother more and the price was also far better. Iain Foulds, a good friend from this site, suggests that a 16x9 aspect ratio may be a natural for this lens. I have cropped a few nice and wide like the street art shot. That way, when doing a central crop, I also use the sharpest and least distorted part of the image. In general, I do like to use every inch of frame that I captured at the time. Very early advice that I got when I started delving deeply into this hobby was to fill the frame. Pixel preservation!
 
The only complaint of these lenses is their protruding front element, making using screwin filters impossible. Drop-in filter should be included in these lenses. Look at the efforts made by Irix and Venus Laowa.. Nothing is impossible
 
I don't think you need be jealous with a Sigma 14-24. I'm with digitalcameraworld on the 15-30:
"Image quality is mostly similar to that of the original lens. Sharpness is impressive at the centre of the frame but comparatively lacklustre towards the edges and corners, unless you stop down to f/5.6 though most of the zoom range, and f/8 at the long end. Those are the findings of our lab tests but, in real-world testing, we often found the Tamron to be quite soft across the whole frame when shooting wide-open at f/2.8. The Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 lens is superior in this respect."
The Tamron is really a very convenient 15.7mm-30mm, not a true 15mm. If you want to trade that much on the wide end and sharpness to get stabilisation, better flare and backlit fringing resistance then go ahead. The Tamron bokeh is messy inside if that matters to you.
So, I’ve seen this mentioned before that Tamron 15-30 is not a true 15mm, but spec sheet says it has angle of view of 110.32-71.35 degrees for both G1 and G2 lenses.

Some other 15mm lens data (angle of view):

1) Venus Optica Laowa f/2.0 - 110 degrees

2) Zeiss Milvus 15mm f/2.8 - 110 degrees

3) Irix Blackstone 15mm f/2.4 - 110 degrees

So, my question is why is Tamron 15-30 G1/G2 with specified 110.32 deg angle of view, that is in fact slightly wider than above 15mm lens examples, not a true 15mm? Are none of the above lenses a true 15mm? Is specification data supplied by manufacturers incorrect - if so they could be held accountable for that? Is the discrepancy due to focus breathing or something else?
 
RMcL...thank you for thses information. It looks we all live in a world of narrowed angle of view ...That a 100.4 angle of view became 100.?
 
It's probably time I did a stabilised v non stabilised walkaround with a high resolution body. Because my later escapades were with high MP bodies and also stabilisation, and you can't get away with as much on high MP bodies. Who knows, I might be able to get away with 1/8s much of the time on 12MP bodies but only 1/15s on 36MP ones.
A good point. Something I have read about but not tested myself. I could have when I had both a D7100 and a D90 (still have the D90).
I assumed the kind of person who is fussy enough to get a $1000+ lens for landscape would not be satisfied with a rough and ready standard. If you want to submit such photos to stock sites or galleries, I don't see why you would take the risk of hand-holding the camera anyway.
I have had success blowing up handheld images before but specifically my shallow dof flower shots. Now that I have a really good uwa, I plan on using it a great deal for landscapes and incorporating my tripod into much of this work. In fact, in the past, I would use my tripod with my DX cam/Tokina 12-24 for many of those special sorts of landscape moments. Just makes sense to me, too.
Another use for ultrawides is shooting buildings without needing to tilt the camera upwards and then you can do a good correction of verticals in software. If you end up needing to tilt the camera upwards then the correction is not so perfect and experts can guess you didn't have a shift lens. Since shift lenses are clunky and not so cheap an ultrawide can be a handy stand-in at the cost of some resolution because you lose some of the frame when you have to crop after the warp.
I have been shooting level with wide angle settings and cropping for a good while now. I have never considered a tilt shift camera. Maybe if someone started paying me thousands for my pics or bankrolling trips to far off countries. Getting a lens with a very wide fl really helps with such an approach. I guess the Sigma 12-24 might be even better that way but I liked its brother more and the price was also far better. Iain Foulds, a good friend from this site, suggests that a 16x9 aspect ratio may be a natural for this lens. I have cropped a few nice and wide like the street art shot. That way, when doing a central crop, I also use the sharpest and least distorted part of the image. In general, I do like to use every inch of frame that I captured at the time. Very early advice that I got when I started delving deeply into this hobby was to fill the frame. Pixel preservation!
Yeah, when I ventured back into the serious hobby of photography, started off with a DX format camera. Was quite startled to see how much more challenging FX photography is in terms on demands on frame edge sharpness. Cropping is very tempting. Not only because it will often lead to a better overall composition, but because it will eliminate the weakest portions of the image. In some ways UWA lens with high MP camera is a shotgun approach that affords a high degree of flexibility. Aka “wiggle room”.
 
Last edited:
RMcL...thank you for thses information. It looks we all live in a world of narrowed angle of view ...That a 100.4 angle of view became 100.?
No. I’m contesting statement from fishy wishy that Tamron 15-30 G1/G2 is actually closer to a 16mm minimum focal length lens. On reviewing specs for other 15mm lenses they all state very similar angle of view. So, I want to understand the solidity of argument, if any, behind this claim. It may be true, but I want to understand it.

Seen a similar review stating that Nikkor 24-70mm ED VR is actually closer to a 28-80mm lens, yet specified angles of view correspond well with other 24-70 lenses. Focus breathing is one thing I can think off that may lead to these observations, but that would only apply at specific focal distances. Taking pictures of brick walls at a few feet may give rise to such observations? At-least the OP’s shots had a nice red color and the photographer’s silhouette to make them a bit more interesting :-D
 
Last edited:
RMcL...thank you for thses information. It looks we all live in a world of narrowed angle of view ...That a 100.4 angle of view became 100.?
No. I’m contesting statement from fishy wishy that Tamron 15-30 G1/G2 is actually closer to a 16mm minimum focal length lens. On reviewing specs for other 15mm lenses they all state very similar angle of view. So, I want to understand the solidity of argument, if any, behind this claim. It may be true, but I want to understand it.
You could of course do your own measurements if you get one. Otherwise you'll have to pick up anecdotes like on here
next that people should know is that this lens is not a true 15mm lens. When I first started to use it, I noticed it was almost exactly the same viewing angle as the Nikon 16-35 F4 lens and that my Fujifilm 10-24 F4 lens was wider. The Fuji lens is a 15mm lens on the wide end so when I used the Tamron, I could clearly compare the two together and the Tamron is simply just not as wide as it should be. It is hard to calculate but I guess this lens is a 15.7mm lens and Tamron is being consistent and rounding the number down.
Guy could be wrong but it's a claim I've seen repeated elsewhere. Everybody might be copying someone else rather than doing their own measurements! Maybe I should do one too.

If it is 15.7mm, it's not as if it isn't ultrawide, it's mainly an issue if you're going to compare it to other ultrawides and think how much spare room you could get at the edges to do corrections. Personally I don't really want 14mm for nature scenics, but if I'm in a square opposite a big building then when I see space around the subject I know I have the best chance of correcting the perspective later.
 
RMcL...thank you for thses information. It looks we all live in a world of narrowed angle of view ...That a 100.4 angle of view became 100.?
No. I’m contesting statement from fishy wishy that Tamron 15-30 G1/G2 is actually closer to a 16mm minimum focal length lens. On reviewing specs for other 15mm lenses they all state very similar angle of view. So, I want to understand the solidity of argument, if any, behind this claim. It may be true, but I want to understand it.
You could of course do your own measurements if you get one. Otherwise you'll have to pick up anecdotes like on here
next that people should know is that this lens is not a true 15mm lens. When I first started to use it, I noticed it was almost exactly the same viewing angle as the Nikon 16-35 F4 lens and that my Fujifilm 10-24 F4 lens was wider. The Fuji lens is a 15mm lens on the wide end so when I used the Tamron, I could clearly compare the two together and the Tamron is simply just not as wide as it should be. It is hard to calculate but I guess this lens is a 15.7mm lens and Tamron is being consistent and rounding the number down.
Guy could be wrong but it's a claim I've seen repeated elsewhere. Everybody might be copying someone else rather than doing their own measurements! Maybe I should do one too.

If it is 15.7mm, it's not as if it isn't ultrawide, it's mainly an issue if you're going to compare it to other ultrawides and think how much spare room you could get at the edges to do corrections. Personally I don't really want 14mm for nature scenics, but if I'm in a square opposite a big building then when I see space around the subject I know I have the best chance of correcting the perspective later.
I could have used 14mm but I had 15-30mm only.



648dc6cf553e413e99e79ff752073cb3.jpg

This tree is only 1300 years old and 310 feet high.

--
If I don't respond to your post after you responded to my with NEGATIVE remarks that means you are on my Ignore list.
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com
 
RMcL...thank you for thses information. It looks we all live in a world of narrowed angle of view ...That a 100.4 angle of view became 100.?
No. I’m contesting statement from fishy wishy that Tamron 15-30 G1/G2 is actually closer to a 16mm minimum focal length lens. On reviewing specs for other 15mm lenses they all state very similar angle of view. So, I want to understand the solidity of argument, if any, behind this claim. It may be true, but I want to understand it.
You could of course do your own measurements if you get one. Otherwise you'll have to pick up anecdotes like on here
next that people should know is that this lens is not a true 15mm lens. When I first started to use it, I noticed it was almost exactly the same viewing angle as the Nikon 16-35 F4 lens and that my Fujifilm 10-24 F4 lens was wider. The Fuji lens is a 15mm lens on the wide end so when I used the Tamron, I could clearly compare the two together and the Tamron is simply just not as wide as it should be. It is hard to calculate but I guess this lens is a 15.7mm lens and Tamron is being consistent and rounding the number down.
Guy could be wrong but it's a claim I've seen repeated elsewhere. Everybody might be copying someone else rather than doing their own measurements! Maybe I should do one too.

If it is 15.7mm, it's not as if it isn't ultrawide, it's mainly an issue if you're going to compare it to other ultrawides and think how much spare room you could get at the edges to do corrections. Personally I don't really want 14mm for nature scenics, but if I'm in a square opposite a big building then when I see space around the subject I know I have the best chance of correcting the perspective later.
Wouldn’t surprise me if there is something behind his observations. Maybe he was comparing lenses at a specific focal distance and focus breathing was affecting the angle of view? There aren’t many lens reviews that directly handle this subject, let alone make actual measurements to verify observations. I have the G2 version of the lens, and I guess I could attempt to measure angle of view, if and when I get time and energy to do that.
 
RMcL...thank you for thses information. It looks we all live in a world of narrowed angle of view ...That a 100.4 angle of view became 100.?
No. I’m contesting statement from fishy wishy that Tamron 15-30 G1/G2 is actually closer to a 16mm minimum focal length lens. On reviewing specs for other 15mm lenses they all state very similar angle of view. So, I want to understand the solidity of argument, if any, behind this claim. It may be true, but I want to understand it.
You could of course do your own measurements if you get one. Otherwise you'll have to pick up anecdotes like on here
next that people should know is that this lens is not a true 15mm lens. When I first started to use it, I noticed it was almost exactly the same viewing angle as the Nikon 16-35 F4 lens and that my Fujifilm 10-24 F4 lens was wider. The Fuji lens is a 15mm lens on the wide end so when I used the Tamron, I could clearly compare the two together and the Tamron is simply just not as wide as it should be. It is hard to calculate but I guess this lens is a 15.7mm lens and Tamron is being consistent and rounding the number down.
Guy could be wrong but it's a claim I've seen repeated elsewhere. Everybody might be copying someone else rather than doing their own measurements! Maybe I should do one too.

If it is 15.7mm, it's not as if it isn't ultrawide, it's mainly an issue if you're going to compare it to other ultrawides and think how much spare room you could get at the edges to do corrections. Personally I don't really want 14mm for nature scenics, but if I'm in a square opposite a big building then when I see space around the subject I know I have the best chance of correcting the perspective later.
I could have used 14mm but I had 15-30mm only.

648dc6cf553e413e99e79ff752073cb3.jpg

This tree is only 1300 years old and 310 feet high.

--
If I don't respond to your post after you responded to my with NEGATIVE remarks that means you are on my Ignore list.
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com
That’s one huge tree. Sequoia NP?
 
RMcL...thank you for thses information. It looks we all live in a world of narrowed angle of view ...That a 100.4 angle of view became 100.?
No. I’m contesting statement from fishy wishy that Tamron 15-30 G1/G2 is actually closer to a 16mm minimum focal length lens. On reviewing specs for other 15mm lenses they all state very similar angle of view. So, I want to understand the solidity of argument, if any, behind this claim. It may be true, but I want to understand it.
You could of course do your own measurements if you get one. Otherwise you'll have to pick up anecdotes like on here
next that people should know is that this lens is not a true 15mm lens. When I first started to use it, I noticed it was almost exactly the same viewing angle as the Nikon 16-35 F4 lens and that my Fujifilm 10-24 F4 lens was wider. The Fuji lens is a 15mm lens on the wide end so when I used the Tamron, I could clearly compare the two together and the Tamron is simply just not as wide as it should be. It is hard to calculate but I guess this lens is a 15.7mm lens and Tamron is being consistent and rounding the number down.
Guy could be wrong but it's a claim I've seen repeated elsewhere. Everybody might be copying someone else rather than doing their own measurements! Maybe I should do one too.

If it is 15.7mm, it's not as if it isn't ultrawide, it's mainly an issue if you're going to compare it to other ultrawides and think how much spare room you could get at the edges to do corrections. Personally I don't really want 14mm for nature scenics, but if I'm in a square opposite a big building then when I see space around the subject I know I have the best chance of correcting the perspective later.
Wouldn’t surprise me if there is something behind his observations. Maybe he was comparing lenses at a specific focal distance and focus breathing was affecting the angle of view? There aren’t many lens reviews that directly handle this subject, let alone make actual measurements to verify observations. I have the G2 version of the lens, and I guess I could attempt to measure angle of view, if and when I get time and energy to do that.
Do you know how to do it?
 
RMcL...thank you for thses information. It looks we all live in a world of narrowed angle of view ...That a 100.4 angle of view became 100.?
No. I’m contesting statement from fishy wishy that Tamron 15-30 G1/G2 is actually closer to a 16mm minimum focal length lens. On reviewing specs for other 15mm lenses they all state very similar angle of view. So, I want to understand the solidity of argument, if any, behind this claim. It may be true, but I want to understand it.
You could of course do your own measurements if you get one. Otherwise you'll have to pick up anecdotes like on here
next that people should know is that this lens is not a true 15mm lens. When I first started to use it, I noticed it was almost exactly the same viewing angle as the Nikon 16-35 F4 lens and that my Fujifilm 10-24 F4 lens was wider. The Fuji lens is a 15mm lens on the wide end so when I used the Tamron, I could clearly compare the two together and the Tamron is simply just not as wide as it should be. It is hard to calculate but I guess this lens is a 15.7mm lens and Tamron is being consistent and rounding the number down.
Guy could be wrong but it's a claim I've seen repeated elsewhere. Everybody might be copying someone else rather than doing their own measurements! Maybe I should do one too.

If it is 15.7mm, it's not as if it isn't ultrawide, it's mainly an issue if you're going to compare it to other ultrawides and think how much spare room you could get at the edges to do corrections. Personally I don't really want 14mm for nature scenics, but if I'm in a square opposite a big building then when I see space around the subject I know I have the best chance of correcting the perspective later.
I could have used 14mm but I had 15-30mm only.

648dc6cf553e413e99e79ff752073cb3.jpg

This tree is only 1300 years old and 310 feet high.
That’s one huge tree. Sequoia NP?
Armstrong Redwoods State Natural Reserve near Santa Rosa.

--
If I don't respond to your post after you responded to my with NEGATIVE remarks that means you are on my Ignore list.
Photography Director for Whedonopolis.com
 
I just realized that I was not evaluating the sharpness accurately. I went to Best Buy and looked at my Street Art shot on a current release 27" 5K monitor. Much sharper than on the standard 21.5" monitor right next to it. So much more easily visible texture. I am suddenly really impressed with myself as well as my lens! Just have to pull the trigger on a new computer. My discount on the lens will help. A little. As Rosanne Rosannadana would say: It's always something.
 
I just realized that I was not evaluating the sharpness accurately. I went to Best Buy and looked at my Street Art shot on a current release 27" 5K monitor. Much sharper than on the standard 21.5" monitor right next to it. So much more easily visible texture. I am suddenly really impressed with myself as well as my lens! Just have to pull the trigger on a new computer. My discount on the lens will help. A little. As Rosanne Rosannadana would say: It's always something.
Hang on, you jumped from a lens maybe not as good as you thought, to seeing it on a high resolution monitor, to then thinking the lens is better than you thought and now you need to upgrade your computer as well? Why not just buy the screen you like? Why complicate your life more than you need to? Every new system is a small PITA to configure depending on how you do it and brings new aggravation.

I still use Win 7 where I can.
 
Last edited:
RMcL...thank you for thses information. It looks we all live in a world of narrowed angle of view ...That a 100.4 angle of view became 100.?
No. I’m contesting statement from fishy wishy that Tamron 15-30 G1/G2 is actually closer to a 16mm minimum focal length lens. On reviewing specs for other 15mm lenses they all state very similar angle of view. So, I want to understand the solidity of argument, if any, behind this claim. It may be true, but I want to understand it.
You could of course do your own measurements if you get one. Otherwise you'll have to pick up anecdotes like on here
next that people should know is that this lens is not a true 15mm lens. When I first started to use it, I noticed it was almost exactly the same viewing angle as the Nikon 16-35 F4 lens and that my Fujifilm 10-24 F4 lens was wider. The Fuji lens is a 15mm lens on the wide end so when I used the Tamron, I could clearly compare the two together and the Tamron is simply just not as wide as it should be. It is hard to calculate but I guess this lens is a 15.7mm lens and Tamron is being consistent and rounding the number down.
Guy could be wrong but it's a claim I've seen repeated elsewhere. Everybody might be copying someone else rather than doing their own measurements! Maybe I should do one too.

If it is 15.7mm, it's not as if it isn't ultrawide, it's mainly an issue if you're going to compare it to other ultrawides and think how much spare room you could get at the edges to do corrections. Personally I don't really want 14mm for nature scenics, but if I'm in a square opposite a big building then when I see space around the subject I know I have the best chance of correcting the perspective later.
Wouldn’t surprise me if there is something behind his observations. Maybe he was comparing lenses at a specific focal distance and focus breathing was affecting the angle of view? There aren’t many lens reviews that directly handle this subject, let alone make actual measurements to verify observations. I have the G2 version of the lens, and I guess I could attempt to measure angle of view, if and when I get time and energy to do that.
Do you know how to do it?
 
I just realized that I was not evaluating the sharpness accurately. I went to Best Buy and looked at my Street Art shot on a current release 27" 5K monitor. Much sharper than on the standard 21.5" monitor right next to it. So much more easily visible texture. I am suddenly really impressed with myself as well as my lens! Just have to pull the trigger on a new computer. My discount on the lens will help. A little. As Rosanne Rosannadana would say: It's always something.
Hang on, you jumped from a lens maybe not as good as you thought, to seeing it on a high resolution monitor, to then thinking the lens is better than you thought and now you need to upgrade your computer as well? Why not just buy the screen you like? Why complicate your life more than you need to? Every new system is a small PITA to configure depending on how you do it and brings new aggravation.

I still use Win 7 where I can.
A couple of issues. One, I have been thinking of replacing my computer for a while. A new one would be much faster. I bought Luminar 18 but had to get a refund because it wouldn't work with my old graphics card. I get notifications from Elements and DxO that they have to disable certain functions because of this. I use On1 less than I would like because of the lack of speed. And they recommend using a much more advanced computer than mine for full functionality.

But, it still works and looks great as long as I am not looking at a 5K monitor right next to it. Last, I use Macs so the monitor is part of the package. Just getting a second monitor would be only a partial fix.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top