Lives in Canada Montreal, Canada
Works as a Student
Joined on Feb 6, 2007
About me:

Equipment: EOS 7D/BG-E7
EOS 40D w/BG-E2N grip
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II
EF 24mm f/1.4L USM
Lowepro slingshot 200
Sigma 2x EX TC
Gary Fong Lightsphere II Cloud
Lowepro Vertex 200 AW
Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM

Canon EOS 350D/Rebel XT with BG
EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 II
Lowepro EX180
Sigma AF 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro


Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

the mono eye: I'll personally view this review with a pinch of salt. I don't think it accurately represent the real situation of image output, especially for the iPhone and Lumia, they certainly can do better than that if you know what you are doing. If this test was not taken with the focus point tapped on the same spot, then it is even meaningless to read.

In what way is the article not representing the "real situation of image output"?

There are both handheld and tripod shots in good light and bad light, tests in contrasty light and shade and a flash test. All are on their default settings, same focus point chosen, etc.

What else must be done exactly?

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2013 at 03:49 UTC
In reply to:

tvstaff: I was expecting more from the Samsung. Too bad

It seems to have the best performance of the group overall, where is it not meeting expectations?

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2013 at 03:45 UTC
In reply to:

panchoskywalker: I wish they'll come with equivalent lens for FF bodies.

They already exist and have for a long time, only with more range:


Thats what's cool about this Sigma, APS users finally have somewhat of an equivalent lens to those ubiquitous 24-70s

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2013 at 02:05 UTC
In reply to:

beenthere: $$$?

I'd guess they'll sell it at around the price of the C/N 17-55s; asking more for a Sigma still may be a tough sell to the people who think Sigma products are inherently inferior, but any less is impossible, given the construction. So I'm guessing a street price of $1200-1400

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2013 at 01:56 UTC
In reply to:

TheChefs: Can the equivalence police tell me how it compares to my square format hasselblad 501c 80mm f2.8 lens. I want to see how all of you will calculate that one out!

Here's a bit of a LOL at all of you :)

Its about equiv to a 44mm f/1.6 in 35mm or 30/1.0 in APS-C (with somewhat rough calculation, but close enough)

How is this a LOL to anyone?

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2013 at 01:39 UTC
In reply to:

rxbot: Just 4 comparison, Adorama pricing
Nikon crop 17-55 f2.8 565 grams $594
Nikon ff 17-35 f2.8 745 grams $1769
Tokina FX 17-35 f4 600 grams $575
Sigma crop 17-50 f2.8 565 grams $594

Pentax crop 16-50 f2.8 limited 565 grams $1500
Pentax crop 17-70 f4 485 grams $489
Tamron crop 17-70 f2.8 343 grams $474
Pentax ff 31mm f1.8 limited 345 grams $990

Remains to be seen what the new Sigma will cost.

The Nikon is 755g and $1399, which Nikon are you talking about?

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2013 at 01:32 UTC
In reply to:

moimoi: 18 is not wide enough on APS-C. But Sigma is clearly putting an interesting new set of lenses.

I shoot a 24/1.4 on APS-C 90% of the time (as close to 35/2 on 35mm as possible); a lens like this will significantly increase flexibility of framing while more or less maintaining the DOF and low-light performance that my pricey prime gives. I've been planning on going FF for a while now, but this may (again) delay the move. I'm at least going to consider it.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2013 at 23:41 UTC
In reply to:

photog4u: What a boat anchor! I would no sooner lug that mess around as I would an anvil.

Gorgeous models though...

It's 800 grams; a lot for a standard zoom I guess, but hardly an issue for most (I'm 5'6" and 125lbs soaking wet), especially if you're used to lugging around a 70-200 all day.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2013 at 23:36 UTC
On article First Impressions: Metabones Speed Booster (356 comments in total)
In reply to:

jhinkey: Much more interested in how this works with wide FX primes and zooms. Also, when the m43 version comes out how well this works too.

Love to be able to use a 20/2.8 AIS on my GH-2 and get a 20mm-ish f/2 equivalent.

You would get a 20mm-ish f/2.8-ish equivalent lens. The converter actually creates a 13.5mm-ish f/2.0ish lens with APS-C, which ends up being equivalent to the original 20/2.8 specs on 35mm.

What it does is allow you to have the FL and DOF that the lens was intended to have on 35mm on APS-C. This is useful because there aren't equivalents out there to many lenses including your 20/2.8 (where was the last time you saw a 13.5mm f2 DX lens?)

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2013 at 06:10 UTC
On article Just posted: Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM lens review (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

doctorbza: You mention that the Canon & Nikon counterparts are weather sealed. The Canon 35mm f1.4 is not weather sealed.


All L series lenses designed in the last 10yrs or so are weather-sealed (except the TS-E ones), but the 35L came out before Canon was applying weathersealing to their lenses. It is not officially weather-sealed and lacks a rubber gasket at the lens mount.

That being said, I have the equally non-sealed 24L mk1 and it has been accidentally soaked several times without issues: I think there is a certain amnt of sealing despite not having the gasket on the mount.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2012 at 18:05 UTC
On article Just Posted: Hands-on Nikon D600 preview (376 comments in total)
In reply to:

pitaw: Can not use this as a back up to my D700, battery and cards are not compatible...sigh.

There will never be another camera that uses the EN-EL3e battery, as it doesn't comply with the battery laws that some countries have created recently. Hence the D800's new battery

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2012 at 04:25 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: So long as it takes 52mm filters.

It should; all the superteles do from both C and N. Only Sigma makes outsized screw-on filters, everyone else is 52mm drop-in.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2012 at 03:08 UTC
In reply to:

Cariboou: Now the 5.6 between 3-4 years 4.5 and in 10 years 2.8, sure if they give as the 2.8 immediately we to buy the last and nothing else, then I like know the real cost to the production, how much for one gram of the lens... I know that is a mystery, like a car nobody know...... only thing we can do is buy and pay eh...


Where exactly did you get your calculations from?

800/2.8 is 286mm. 898mm would give it f/0.9.

Nevertheless, it isn't going to happen anytime soon. The Canon 1200/5.6 is probably as big as can be made at 214mm.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2012 at 03:06 UTC
On article Zebras on the MacBook Pro - how the picture was taken (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

tongki: this is how a professional do the job,
perfect gear, perfect tools (chopter) and perfect moments

EOS 1N is the latest EOS film, right ?
this one with the eye focus system ?

No the 1v was the latest. The 1n was the previous model with only 5 point AF. Shows you don't need much fancy if you know what you're doing. Though af wasn't critical here

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2012 at 04:23 UTC
On article Blackmagic Designs announces Blackmagic Cinema Camera (353 comments in total)
In reply to:

artnaz: Zeiss ZF? That means Nikon F-mount. Why don't they say "Nikon F-mount" which covers all possibilities including the Zeiss ZF?

Or am I missing something? Maybe because the ZF are mechanically the same as the old Nikon Ai(s) lenses?

They probably don't want to say F-mount because you won't be able to mount a G lens and control aperture. They could have just specified that, but I guess they found it easier to write ZF.

At any rate, it makes the most sense to just buy it in EF mount and mount F lenses via adapters if need be (then you can use a G lens)

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2012 at 03:08 UTC
In reply to:

gordon lafleur: ewelch
Your Nikon 14-24 compared to the 18mm Zeiss

Autofocus, electronic coupling, equal image quality, and a range of focal lengths that would require 3 Zeiss lenses to match. Only the amateur gear weenies buy ridiculous stuff like these Zeiss lenses, and only because it says Zeiss on it. Same as when there was the Contax/Yashica. I remmember the tests showing that there was nothing special about the Zeiss lenses except the price.

The Nikkor has amazingly great resolution (esp for a zoom), but also suffers from strong distortion, lots of CA and lots of flare, making it a non-starter for some. The Zeiss lenses (and Canon 14L and 17 TS-E) are good alternatives partly for those reasons

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2012 at 04:47 UTC
In reply to:

Francis Carver: Ha-ha-ha-ha, THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a single focal length f/2.8 lens that is definitely not made in Germania but somewhere in the Far East.

Heck, you can almost buy a 35mm cinema lens for this much dough.

There are actually quite a few single focal length f/2.8 lenses made in the far east that are much more expensive than that. All the way up to $13k.

Since when does Made in Germany carry more clout than Made in Japan anyways?

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2012 at 04:34 UTC
In reply to:

LukeDuciel: A beautifully crafted piece of glass, while I doubt the usability though.

For Nikon, we already have the amazing 14-24/2.8, which offers more sharpness and color than I can beg for. The only shortage of the 14-24 is that I cannot use filter system easily. This Zeiss 15 does not look strong in filter usage either.

For canon, the EF14 is also very much capable, but with all the easy breezy filter options.


The Nikkor's heavy distortion ruins it for architecture (at 14mm). The Zeiss, being a prime and being related to the 18,21,25 distagons, should have very little distortion. That's one niche where the Zeiss should appeal.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2012 at 04:32 UTC
Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »