natures-pencil

How wrong can you be! I have gotten rid of most of it. Only the 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 1.4x extender remain. The hardest thing was deciding whether to keep the 24-70 or the 16-35, but a quick check in LIghtRoom confirmed that the 24-70 would be by far the more useful, especially as it doubles as a Macro lens ... not in the same league as a dedicated Macro, but it does save on weight. The remaining zoom has been joined by two new primes: Sigma 50 f/1.4 DG EX and EOS 135 f/2 L. In my case less is more. I expect that before I am done with photography I will go full circle and end up using a single Prime lens, as I did when I started out over half a century ago.

Think how much more difficult it is too choose focal lengths in Prime lenses! If you need the range 16-24 for your photography, or you need to be able to go from fairly wide to modest telephoto then the choice is obvious. If you want a zoom lens for convenience, but ca not decide between 16-35 and 24-70 then IT DOES NOT MATTER WHIHC YOU CHOOSE. When I am heading out with a single lens, whether I put a 16-35 or a 24-70 on a camera, once I am shooting I do not feel restricted in any way. Actually I could use nothing more than a prime lens in just about any focal length from 24 to 135 and I would still be happy enough.

<p>I looked at the awful corner sharpness of the EOS 17-40 and the 16-35 f/2.8 lenses, looked at the prices of the 11-24 f/4 L and the 14 f/2.8 L and promptly bought the 16-35 f/4 L IS (second-hand, but looked like it had never been used). </p> <p>It is fantastic. Sharp at all apertures everywhere in the frame, almost no chromatic aberration (and only a tiny bit at the edges in the most extreme contrast situations ... usually there is none), very little and easily correctable distortion and a nice colour rendering that matches my other Canon lenses. It is weather sealed too, so need not be molly-coddled.</p> <p>The Image stabilisation is bonus. As wide-angle lenses are already the most easily hand-holdable of lenses giving one IS as well means that I hardly ever need to use a tripod. Finally it is quite modest in size and weight ... about the same as the 24-70 f/4 L IS.</p> <p>If I was forced to choose just one lens for the rest of my life this could well be the one.</p>

<p>My <em>actual</em> EOS collection is:<br> <strong>Zooms</strong>: 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS<br> <strong>Primes</strong>: 35 f/2 EF, 50 f/1.8 EF II, 100 f/2.8 USM Macro, 300 f/4 L IS<br> <strong>Other</strong>: Canon 1.4x extender II<br> Everything was bought second hand at bargain prices, and everything looks good and works perfectly. I am very happy. With these and a pair of EOS 1-series DSLRS (one full 35mm frame, the other APS-H) there is nothing that I want to photograph that I cannot photograph. I don't envisage adding to this lot, or disposing of any of it, for many years to come, if ever.</p>

<p>I started using the Sigma SD1 6 months ago, and was impressed by the level of detail in the images, but often found the slow AF and even slower buffer-clearing times frustrating. So I got myself a Canon EOS 1 Dii N at a bargain price for everyday photography. Apart from being a joy to use I was surprised by how good its 8Mp Bayer-demosaiced images looked beside the SD1's 15Mp, full-colour, non-demosaiced results.</p> <p>Intrigued, I acquired a 16.7 Mp Canon EOS 1Ds mark ii (at less than 10% of its price when new). There is very little to choose between the images I get from that camera and those from the SD1. The SD1 files have a little more clarity and marginally more detail, but you cannot see it until you make huge enlargements, and even then it is not a huge difference.</p> <p>From all the theoretical arguments about sampling frequency, colour accuracy, and anti-aliasing I believed that the SD1, with its 45 million sensors in 3 layers ought to be equivalent to a Bayer-matrix based camera of about 30Mp, but with more fine detail in large coloured areas. The reality is that it it outperforms a 16.7 Mp Bayer-matrix camera in IQ by only a small margin, and not by the theoretically predicted 40% (or so) better linear resolution.</p> <p>I have no explanation, but my guess is that three factors are involved:</p> <p>1) The Foveon is not getting full colour information, because the colours captured at each layer are not pure<br> 2) The software engineers that work on Bayer-Demosaicing are very very good at getting accurate values for the interpolated pixels.<br> 3) My Canon Prime lenses are better than the Sigma 17-70 that I have for the SD1. With a good prime lens or Sigma's recent 18-35 zoom the SD1 might show a bigger difference in IQ</p> <p>The SD1 is still a nice camera, provided you can work within its operational shortcomings, and it does deliver a images with a different, somewhat intangible "look", but it delivers a 15Mp image ... NOT a 30 Mp image</p> <p>The real problem with the SD1 is that it is not a general purpose SLR. If you photograph a range of subjects you still need another system. It would have been much nicer to have the SD1 with a Canon EOS mount, then it could be added to a Canon system as a special-purpose body, and it would not be necessary to duplicate lenses in two different systems.</p>

<p>Update March 2015<br> After more experience with this lens, the blurry/smeared corners that are especially bad and uncorrectable at wide angle settings are a bigger problem than I thought. </p> <p>This defect really spoils landscape shots. I would happily trade some of the exceptional centre detail for better edges and corners.</p> <p>I would no longer say that I am completely happy with the lens, as one reason for buying it was to make use of the extremes of the wide angl range.</p> <p>I am now looking for a Sigma-fit wide angle of 24mm or less that is sharp right into the corners<br> <br />Does anyone have experience with any of these:</p> <ul> <li>Sigma 24mm f/1.4 Art</li> <li>Sigma 18-35 f/1.8</li> <li>Any 3rd party lens available (or adaptable) to Sigma, that has execeptional optical performance.</li> </ul>

<p>I have been using this lens (Sigma 17-70) on a Sigma SD1 for several months. It is not perfect, but it is practical and versatile, and I am very happy with it. Here is what I have found.</p> <p>It seems well matched to the x3F Merrill sensor. Images are mostly crisp and sharp down to the single pixel level and show no artefacts.</p> <p>Used wide open corner and edge sharpness at all focal lengths vary from acceptable to not quite as good as I'd like. Stopping down improves the performance a lot.</p> <p>At 17mm there is quite a lot of barrel distortion and there can be noticeable CA at the edges and corners. Both are easily fixed in LightRoom or Photoshop. However there is some "smearing" - slight at the edges but quite pronounced in the corners, and this cannot be fixed. Fortunately it is un-noticeable in most shots up to quite large display or print sizes.</p> <p>By 24mm the distortion is un-noticeable, but the smearing persists, although it is much reduced.</p> <p>By 35mm there is no perceptible distortion. Also, at f/5.6 to f/11 corner and edge sharpness and resolution are not much different than at the centre. CA is least at f/11, but f/5.6 and f/8 resolve a tiny bit more detail.</p> <p>Performance remains great up to 50mm, and CA continues to be less of a problem.</p> <p>By 70mm CA is absent in most shots and hardly noticeable where it does occur. Less detail is resolved at f/11, but not so much that anyone but a determined pixel-peeper would notice. There is also pin-cushion distortion but again it is easily fixed in post-processing.</p> <p>The "sweet range" is 35mm to 50mm at f5.6 or f/8. Here the lens comes close to the performance of Sigma's excellent 35mm f/1.4 Prime [but it cannot come close to that lens's abilities at larger apertures]. At wide angles (17-22mm) the SD1 and 17-70 camera/lens combination is optically some way behind the DP1 Merrill, in which the prime lens is almost entirely defect free and perfectly matched to the sensor, but in the "sweet range" it seems every bit as good as the DP2. In any case the less capable optics at the extreme ends of the zoom range are compensated by the Optical Stabilisation. Sigma claims an extra 4 stops of stability. That might be a bit overoptimistic, but 3 it is definitely worth 3 stops.</p> <p>Please bear in mind that this is the lens performance with the Sigma SD1 Merrill. It may perform differently on a Canon, Nikon or Pentax body using a conventional Bayer array and anti-aliasing filter.</p><div></div>

<p>It is late 2014 and I am still perfectly happy to use an EOS 10D for everything except fast action and highly detailed landscape and architecture.</p> <p>Most of the time I shoot at ASA 100 to 400, and at those speeds image quality from its 6 Mp is superb. There is very little noise, and colour is excellent. Files will stand a lot of up-ressing to avoid jaggies and get smooth gradation of colours in large prints. Up to A4 is no problem at all. Of course if you only ever use your photos on-line then even an ancient 3+ Mp point and shoot (e.g. Canon A80) is more than good enough.<br /> <br />The 10D is light, tough and easy to use. The exposure metering is spot-on in most situations, battery life is good, and it takes Canon's entire range of 35mm lenses. Those lenses might be bigger than comparable EF-S lenses, but buy wisely and you'll have just what you need if you ever "upgrade" to a full frame camera.</p> <p>The 10D may be slow compared to its successors, but that is not an issue unless you are shooting fast action. It is defintely not "a pile of junk" as some idiots on other forums have written. It is still a superb picture taking machine. You might also find it slow if you llke to go pixel-peeping after every shot - but that is something that many of us brought up on film feel no need to do.</p> <p>For fast action I have an EOS 1Ds mk ii N. That is also quite old, and "only" 8Mp but it still gives superb results, and it can shoot at lightning speed (over 8fps). But all the 1D cameras are heavy and bulky - the price of indestructible build quality - so mine stays home unless I especially need its toughness or fast frame rate. And despite a metal frame, which makes the 10D tough enough to stand some rough treatment, the 10D is a fairly light camera, especially if you use small Prime lenses like the excellent 35mm f/2 EF or the 50mm f/1.8 that costs little and seems cheaply made, but is a fantastic performer.</p> <p>Finally the 10D is a very nice size for the average man's hand whereas I find the very small and light entry-level SLRs that are being made these days just too small to handle comfortably.</p> <p>Below is an example of what it can do - but this is a very much reduced image, as required by photo.net. You can see full sized images here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/101372616@N08/sets/72157649133779112/</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>My main "all-purpose" camera is an EOS 1D mk ii N with "just" 8.5 Mp. It produces wonderful images for any purpose other than enormous prints. And for those you can always up-res. Of course that does not put in the missing detail, but that is not the point - it is to prevent jaggies and individual pixels from becoming visible in the final print.</p> <p>My backup camera is an "ancient" EOS 10D. These days you can buy one with years of life left in it for less than $100. It is not tough enough to survive a drop onto concrete from head height (as the 1D series can) but it is still pretty tough, and quite light for the level of build quality). By present day standards it is rather slow handling, with a small buffer that (again by 2014 standards) takes ages to write to. Nevertheless it is a nice-to-use camera and it is possible to get superb prints up to A3 size from its RAW files. They may be only 6 Mp but they are high quality pixels.</p> <p>The resolution and other aspects of technical quality from digital cameras, and especially digital SLRs has been good enough for most purposes for years. Of course camera makers like to make us feel that our cameras become obsolete and hardly worth using after 2 or 3 years, because otherwise they'll be back where they were with film cameras, where you buy a Nikon FM2 or F3 or Leica M6 and use it for the next 50 years.<br> But it just ain't true.</p>

<p>Accidental double posting</p>

<p>I have dropped an EOS 1D mk ii N from four feet onto a concrete pavement. [Not deliberately I must add]. The camera survived with just a few small dings in the body, and continued to work perfectly. The attached EF 35mm f/2 lens also survived undamaged and also in perfect working order. Even the filter threads were undamaged. Amazing considering that the lens cap was battered and the attached UV filter was totally destroyed.<br> <br />This is one very good reason why professionals - when they cannot afford to miss any shots - use 1D... cameras in preference to the much lighter amateur and semi-pro (e.g. 7D) bodies that can capture equally good, and sometimes better, images.<br> <br />The weather sealing and ability to control all the shooting settings with buttons and dials rather than using a menu also count for a lot. My pro-level cameras have always functioned perfectly no matter how dreadful the conditions (wet, cold, boiling hot and/or dusty). By contrast I recall from many years ago my old Nikon F-801 taking on water and going dead on board the "Maid of the Mist" (It recovered after pouring out a cupful of water and leaving it to dry in the sun for an hour or two) and an F-80 suffering terminal damage in a mild sandstorm.</p> <p>Finally we must not forget the amazing shooting speed, great high-ISO results, and huge buffers of the ID non-s models.</p>

<p>it seems to me that the people most critical of Sigmas Foveon based cameras have either never used one, or never critically compared the results with those of a higher resolution Bayer-Matrix camera, or both.</p> <p>I agree that the original price was silly, but the SD1 Merrill is now good value. Second hand it is even better. I recently acquired an SD1 for just 600 GBP and a Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS HSM lens for an equally low price of 104 GBP !!<br> <br />It is true that the camera is slow handling and takes a very long time to write to memory. it is also true that the camera is only useful up to 400 ASA and is by far at its best at 100 ASA. But if you want rapid fire shooting in available darkness you would use a Canon 1D (mk ii ii or iv) but then you would not get the very fine colour gradation, incredible detail, and complete freedom from artefacts that the SD1 (and DPxMs) give you.</p> <p>In any case, as someone that learned photography on fully manual rangefinders and SLRs (Nikon F3, FM2) and shot mostly Fuji Velvia (50 ASA) the so-called shortcomings do not affect me when I am shooting anything other than rapid action in good light. The SD1 is a lot quicker and more convenient than most of the 35mm film cameras that I once used.<br> <br />It is simply not suitable as an "only" camera ... so I still have a pair of recent Canon DSLRs and a Canon G12, but for those subjects and shooting conditions that suit it the Sigma SD1 is a wonderful image making machine.</p>