Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
--Yeah, the Sigma isn't as good as the kit lens...I zoomed in and
looked at the detail in the center flag pole...kit seemed the
better of the 2 and between the 2 zooms...the kit appears to have a
touch more contrast.
That said...what does it prove?
The kit lens is selling for pennies with the body...so if the
comparison is cost...kit wins...range...kit wins...f/stop...Sigma
wins.
So like everything else, it's whatever works for you IMHO!
--
Joe Sesto
I stitched the shots together using Panorama Tools and PTGui assuming the 50/1.8 is actually 50mm. Then I looked at the FOV necessary (calculated by the optimizer) to make the shots match.Curious, what was the equation you used to get 47mm?
You can't.how can you judge sharoness from a downsized pic? Dom
Lee Jay
You could tell yourself all day long that the 2.8 Canon isn't motion blurred but it is. It is easilly done by pressing on the shutter release a tad too hard. It happens to me every time I am too lazy to get the shutter release cable out of my bag.No, there's not. The center of the same image (which you clearlyIt's clear on the Canon 2.8 that there is severe motion blur.
didn't look at) is tack sharp, and the photo was taken at 1/1600.
Just how shaky would the camera have to be to get blur at that
shutter speed? My tripod's pretty sturdy, and the wind was very
light that day.
You've got to get over this 'old design:new design' thing. What you need to do is get a shutter release cable, and use that much touted fancy matte screen and manual focus so we can have a real test to judge.I believe what you're seeing is comatic aberration. Remember, the
50's a very old design.
You really think we're all a bunch of idiots? It is clear that whatever you meant to focus on both lenses missed the mark. The Sigma Fronted (Surprise Surprise) and the Canon overshot.Also,
They are focused on the Commerce Bank building in both cases. Allon the Canon F8 shot it is focused on infinity (look at the
Transamerica Building) while the Sigma F8 is focused far further
foward (look at the street lamp in the very front of the shot).
photos are sharp in the center. That distance and aperture puts
both buildings within the DOF.
I am not jumping to any conclusions. I don't own Canon stock! I downloaded the full size photos and examined them for myself. I am in the market for a 18-50 2.8 (the Sigma 18-50 3.5 5.6 can't focus on a barn at five paces) and someone with this lens can help me; but not the test you did. I know you tried, but instead of digging in you should be learning what went wrong on the first test and go back and repeat.The only "blur" is in the corners of pictures. They are all sharpBlurred shots and variable focus points tell us nothing about
either lenses, but they do give us a 'stunning' point of view as to
who and how others are judging (or rather misjudging) lenses.
in the center. You really shouldn't jump to conclusions based on
your preconceptions. I didn't. I never expected the results I got.
I looked at all of these very sorry tests. It only shows me that most people take a few snapshots and call it a test. Heck, sounds like something I might do to kill an hour if someone asked me to sample two lenses. I would be knowing though that something much more substantial is required to be called a 'real' test.Perhaps you might look at fStopJojo's test, which predated mine andThe Sigma may yet still win, but a much better test than this
fatally flawed one will be needed to prove it.
shows the same corner softness for the Canon 50mm f/1.8. I thought
his test was probably flawed, until mine confirmed it. The only
flawed test I've seen is Jason Livingstone's, where some of his
samples are much much sharper wide open than stopped down. Clearly
there was focusing error in his tests.
I am very open minded. There are times when I prefer the photos from my 55-200 II over the 70-200 4L!Be skeptical, yes. But you should keep an open mind, too.
--
It's clear on the Canon 2.8 that there is severe motion blur.
You may have a sloppy technique and be lazy, but you will never get motion blur on just one part of the frame. Since the center of the picture have no motion blur, draw your conclusions. Have you ever played with loose optics in your spare time? Unproperly aligned elements look exactly like what you see in the corner crop of the 50/1.8. They can have a winning design and stunning glass elements, if they can't manage to align them and have them stay aligned in day to day use, the lens is no better than what you see in Stephen's pics.You could tell yourself all day long that the 2.8 Canon isn't
motion blurred but it is.
Despite the fear of being berated for saying this, I thought that I
should add that I did some informal tests with the same lenses and
found the same results. The canon was sharper in the middle except
wide-open when it equalled my sigma. But the sigma was very close
in the middle, and consistantly sharper in the corners. The place
when the canon beat the sigma was contrast.
Marcus
notice the 18-55 also lies. it looks just like 50mm (unless the 50
is actually 55)
Lee Jay
Lee Jay
Notice a difference?
Lee Jay
angle aCb. tan(aCb) = Ca/ba
it was accurate within about a degree
notice the 18-55 also lies. it looks just like 50mm (unless the 50
is actually 55)
Lee Jay
Lee Jay
Notice a difference?
Lee Jay
--Despite the fear of being berated for saying this, I thought that I
should add that I did some informal tests with the same lenses and
found the same results. The canon was sharper in the middle except
wide-open when it equalled my sigma. But the sigma was very close
in the middle, and consistantly sharper in the corners. The place
when the canon beat the sigma was contrast.
Marcus
That there is "L glass" on the Pro1 is just marketing hype. Like
automakers, Canon markets one way for the expensive products and
another way at the budget end of the line.
