nilangsu mahanty

Mark, I will be using the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 lens with the 350D.

 

Dominik, I am not sure. Is it possible to handhold them? I will be always shooting with the camera tripod-mounted.

 

Thanks for the replies.

I want to start using GND filters made by Singh-Ray (to reduce post processing work). They make these in two

sizes: 84 X 120 and 100 X 150. I will use the filter with a lens that has a diameter of 77 mm.

 

Can the smaller size be used with 82-mm lenses?

 

Thanks for any information in advance.

 

Regards,

NIlangsu

I use a Rebel XT (350 D). During the past week, whenever I am trying to use the buit-in flash, Err 5 is flashing, and I

am having to switch the camera off and restart. Also, a strange noise is coming from the flash area, as if the flash

is trying to lift, but is being prevented. Any ideas as to why this is happening?

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

For $100 more, you get a lens with optics that's close, if not, equal to that of the $1000 17-55/2.8 IS and 4-stop IS. I really can't think of a reason why you should buy the original kit lens.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

" Sheesh, just buy a Nikon DSLR if you wanta use the lens that badly..."

 

I wasn't thinking about myself, Puppy. I'm yet to outgrow the limitations of the 1.6X-crop Canon system. :)

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

Nikon's new 14-24/2.8 G appears to be a great lens from the brief review at 16-

9. The link is:

 

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

 

Hubsand is very critical of WA lenses, so Nikon owners have reason to be

euphoric. He also talks about a very efficient adaptor. For those landscape

shooters using the 5D/1DsII + Contax wide-angle glass combination, this new

Nikon lens, with the adaptor, presents interesting possibilities.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

A similar thread at FM:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/591255

A lot of people have perhaps missed the point altogether. An "L-like" lens that has questionable dust-sealing and anti-flare properties just cannot be attractive to people who are looking for quality and are willing to compromise features such as build (What is build anyway? My Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 EX DC HSM has better build than its Canon counterpart, but cannot take sharp pictures : of course, not all Sigma 10-20's are bad, it's more a conformance issue than a performance one),bigger and constant aperture and better contrast/color for the $800 less that they have to pay.

 

If one can manage with the 50/1.8 II, this lens should be OK. The 50/1.8 II, which I use, doesn't look likely to break apart anytime soon.

 

What is PTlens (a $15 software)for, if not barrel distortion and vignetting correction?

 

If the 18-55/3.5-4.5 IS is as good as the resolution numbers at PZ show, it may well eat into the sales (a point made above by Alistair) of Tamron's incumbent blockbuster, the 17-50/2.8, another great value-for-money lens, if not into that of Canon's "L-like" option (for which the hood is an optional accessory).

 

Regards, Nilangsu

I use DPP which I have updated to the latest version. If you have DPP, you will not want to use Zoombrowser,unless you want to see the autofocus points used in the shot (that's the only special use of Zoombrowser that comes to my mind offhand).

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

Paul, why does Brent (the original poster) have to SET the WB, when he can always tweak the RAW file later?

 

-Nilangsu

>>> Bill Mussett - "I don't know why AF would focus to the left of the vertical mark for a far away subject. It might be worthwhile to do a focus test on the lens"

 

After asking these questions last night ( at India, we are around 10 hours ahead in time), I did some controlled MF tests ( tripod, MLU , self-timer) at 10 mm focal length today. The sharpness of objects in the far distance remains the same regardless of the alignment of the focussing ring at the 1 m mark in the DOF scale and at the infinity mark. That seems possible because of the extreme depth of field. This was corroborated by Bob Atkins' DOF calculator.

 

>>> Samuel Parker - " I have had the same issue with wide angle lenses in the past. My working theory is that at those focal lengths, the depth of field is so great that minor differences in the actual infinity focus position won't really make any noticeable difference in the image. I'm not completely comfortable with that, but I haven't found a better solution."

 

Very true. Even major differences ( 1 m and infinity) don't seem to matter.

 

>>> Adam Rosser - " I would advise against focussing at infinity with a wide angle lens. Doing so greatly reduces your depth of field for nearer objects. With a wide-angle lens like the 10-20, even at 20mm, the depth of field is so extreme as to not require focussing at infinity."

 

This is also what Bob Atkins' DOF table shows. At 16 mm focal length (in 35 mm format, not 1.6 X), and an aperture of f/11, if I focus at infinity , the DOF will be from 0.775 m and infinity. At 16 mm focal length (in 35 mm format, not 1.6 X), and an aperture of f/11, if I focus at 1 m , the DOF will be from 0.441 m and infinity. That's very interesting.

 

>>> Alan Myers - "One other thing, have you tried using "focus confirmation" with your camera? Most EOS have this, shown by a green LED that lights up in the viewfinder, and often with a confirming "beep" (that some people find annoying and turn off)."

 

Yes, I do note the beep. But I wasn't very confident of the AF itself. Thank you for taking the trouble to post a long and detailed explanation.

 

>>> William W. (Retired)- "I am unclear in what way you were unhappy with the results. Does the AF not work accurately, (i.e. does it NOT focus of the focussed point?)"

 

I had the nagging doubt that the AF wasn't working properly. But after today's trials, I will attribute the lack of sharpness in those photos where I thought the AF wasn't accurate to such a mundane thing as hand-shake. Everything today was blazingly sharp (however, note that I didn't use AF, but I am sure that THAT isn't the issue).

 

Thank you all so much for enlightening me. Thank you, Bob Atkins for your wonderful DOF calculator. Photo.net is a great place to visit.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

Sorry, I've attached the photos in the wrong order. The caption on the first should have read," Smooth movement of ring stops here". This one shows the ring parked at the infinity mark. :)<div></div>

I shoot a lot with my Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 EX DG HSM lens. Almost all my

compositions involve a very high depth of field. Earlier, I had been using AF,

but I wasn't too happy with the results. I have now switched to manual

focusing, and my question pertains to that.

 

Question 1: When I auto-focus (with the central AF point) at an object in the

far distance, the indicator on the distance scale sometimes stays between 3 ft

and infinity after the focus freezes. That surprises me ! What is the problem?

 

Question 2: In manual focus, the focusing ring turns smoothly to a point

beyond the infinity mark ( See both the photos attached). At this point

(around 5 or 6 mm to the right of the infinity mark), the smooth action stops

but the ring can still be rotated , though the movement becomes very tight.

Where should I stop to attain perfect infinity focus, at the infinity mark or

the point where the smooth movement of the ring stops?

 

I shoot in poor light a lot of times, and with the combination of small

maximum aperture of this lens, the 350D's dim viewfinder and the smallness of

the distant objects, I have to fully depend on the distance scale.

 

This is the first time I am using a lens with a distance scale and a smooth

and wide focusing ring. So I am new to using MF.

 

Any help will be sincerely appreciated.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu<div></div>

Oh, I never thought, Frank, that it's going to be that bad. I had been meaning to use it at focal lengths between 10 and 20 mm, particularly the wide end. I'll have now do a different type of search. Oh !

 

Regards, Nilangsu

Now that you say that, Ellis, I do remember coming across that observation earlier. I'll read up on it. Thanks.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

"Psychologically-reassuring" should be good enough. :)

 

Apparently, Heliopan (also) has convenient-to-use markings to indicate the angle of turn.

 

Thanks, Nilangsu

Thanks, Juergen, for your suggestion. Thanks, Kevin.

 

What about the contruction quality of the B+W? Is it confidence-inspiring?

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

After I started this thread, I did some more research here and came across this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HuIZ

 

That's not a nice experience. Then again, I don't think B+W can help it.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

I want to buy a 77 mm circular polarizing filter for my Sigma 10-20/4-5.6

lens. Of these two filters, which one should I go for? Apart from getting what

is optically the best, I want the filter to last a very long time ($150 plus

is a lot of money for me), and I read in a review site

(www.photographyreview.com) that B+W ones aren't built that well. However, I

have seen members here at PN swear by B+W. :-)

 

Also, since I use the UWA lens at its widest focal length for 90% of my needs,

I will need a slim mount filter to avoid vignetting. How would I put a cap on

one? Is it correct that B+W CPLs come with a rubber cap of their own?

 

Any help will be sincerely appreciated.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

Thank you so much, Jordan and Johannes. I checked out the links that you'd sent. I also did some research on Panasonic models in general, and it appears that noise levels are higher across all models in comparison with, say, Canon. My choice would been the now-discontinued Fujifilm Finepix F31fd, the de facto image quality leader. I am undecided now.

 

Thanks again.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

I want to suggest a digital compact for my friend who has so far shot only

film. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX100 looks an attractive option, but I couldn't

find any reviews on the net. A wide-angle lens and relatively noise-free sub-

ISO 400 shots are important for him (and not the number of pixels).How would

it rate against the Powershot A710IS?

 

Your experience with this camera will be insightful for me.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

My suggestion would be the Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM and EF 24-105/4 L IS USM. The Canon UWA is worth its extra price. I have the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 EX DC HSM myself. It has L-like build and kit-like optics (It is not to be generalized, though: mine is a bad sample but I couldn't ship back to Amazon because I had it bought in US by a friend who brought it back to India, where I live). But the hassle of copy-to-copy variations and lower resale value don't make the $200 price difference attractive enough. As for the other lens (which I don't have but have researched), it's reputedly very good, albeit with distortions at the wide-end, and slighly higher CA.

 

As suggested by Glen Flower, you can read up the Photozone reviews. Also, the FM user feedbacks (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews) are pretty comprehensive.

 

Regards, Nilangsu

Yes, Sitthivet, the wide-angle lenses need more correction, in fact, a lot more correction.

 

Thank you so much, Bob, for the link to your site, and Mark, for the link to an immensely impressive software. I am stunned to see what PTlens achieves. I wonder what the trade-off is.

 

Thank you, Wes, for your response.

 

Regards,

Nilangsu

Apparently it supports all Canon digital bodies. Please see the attached screenshot (cropped to minimize size).

 

-Nilangsu<div></div>

It is, as you say Bill, greyed out. I use the Sigma UWA lens with the 350D body and need to correct distortion. Hard luck, I guess.

 

Thanks,

Nilangsu