Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

Then it would be silly. In that situation, I'd use the flash full on with a slip on diffuser, if I needed flash.

I spent most of my time during the Olympics doing that too, but I have to say that when it comes to the noise the camera makes, the professional film bodies of the mid 90s with their 8fps and the whine of the winder, that's how a gaggle of press photographers should sound. :p
 
Can't you just switch it off but leave it screwed on?

And are you sure they're pointing straight up? It isn't uncommon to use flash outdoors in those kind of situations. They probably have it there so they're ready no matter what.
 
So there's finally real pricing on all of Sigma's new lenses (except the 85/1.4 which is clearly being released last)

50-500mm OS - $1600 (already reviewed by Juza, basically the same IQ as the previous Bigma, now the same price as the Canon 100-400 which pretty much has more/the same resolution at 400mm as the sigma does at 500mm, and he says the OS on the sigma is only good for one stop (disappoint!) and the 12 year old Canon is good for two stops stabilization. So the price is a bit steep and the OS isn't that useful, but the prices on the old Bigma should go down so that's good [edit]Also it's two kilograms. Why lift weights when you can be a photographer?[/edit])

70-200mm OS - $1700 (they seriously better have made it considerably sharper than the non-OS for that money and considering that the Bigma has the same IQ as the non-OS Bigma I doubt it... that's a 100% price increase over the old one FFS. On the plus, it's still quite a bit less money than the new and even more expensive Canikon 70-200 2.8s)

8-16mm - $700 (that kind of insane wide angleness doesn't come cheap, but nevertheless it's a good price being a bit less than the Canikon 10-2x zooms)

17-50mm OS - $670 (that's fair. I'm anxious to see some tests of this sucker, curious to see if Sigma finally has something to put a dent in Tamron's rivers of cash coming from their 17-50. I bet lenstip gets it first (by gum their reviews are useless, poorly done, poorly presented, and they use a random assortment of bodies so it's not even possible to compare lenses, but they somehow tend to put up sample images before anyone else even touches new lenses))


Come on Tamron and actually release your new 70-300 already!
 
Last edited:
70-200mm OS - $1700 (they seriously better have made it considerably sharper than the non-OS for that money and considering that the Bigma has the same IQ as the non-OS Bigma I doubt it... that's a 100% price increase over the old one FFS. On the plus, it's still quite a bit less money than the new and even more expensive Canikon 70-200 2.8s)
You could buy a used 9+ Nikon 70-200 VR I from B&H for $1,629.00, so that Sigma better be sharper and a lot less CA.

EDIT: *splurt* *chuckle* *snicker* *pbpbpbpbpbpb* :rofl:

Ramseus, were did you get that $1700 figure?

See: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/70-200mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-sigma

$2,470.00

That's Canikon territory. Who the heck is going to buy Sigma's poor-quality-controlled lenses when they can buy the Canon or Nikon for the same price or less and be guaranteed that it will work out of the box? Seriously, Sigma's only selling point for most of their lenses is price.

17-50mm OS - $670 (that's fair. I'm anxious to see some tests of this sucker, curious to see if Sigma finally has something to put a dent in Tamron's rivers of cash coming from their 17-50. I bet lenstip gets it first (by gum their reviews are useless, poorly done, poorly presented, and they use a random assortment of bodies so it's not even possible to compare lenses, but they somehow tend to put up sample images before anyone else even touches new lenses))
Stabilization is nice, but not really necessary at that range. I'm still more interested in the Tokina 16-50 for the wider range.
 
Last edited:
Hand holding sharp photos at 1/15s at EFL 80mm is entirely without purpose, yeah, true.

:p
 
I got the prices from Adorama. MSRP ? actual price, luckily.

The Tokina 16-50 would probably be worth it for the build quality alone, but it went largely ignored and reviews are hard to find. Plus the corners are weak until f5.6.
 
Ramseus, were did you get that $1700 figure?

See: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/70-200mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-sigma

$2,470.00

That's Canikon territory. Who the heck is going to buy Sigma's poor-quality-controlled lenses when they can buy the Canon or Nikon for the same price or less and be guaranteed that it will work out of the box? Seriously, Sigma's only selling point for most of their lenses is price.

LOL@ thinking anybody sells them for anywhere approximating "MSRP" :p
 
Hand holding sharp photos at 1/15s at EFL 80mm is entirely without purpose, yeah, true.

:p

Quotes, man, quotes! Nobody knows who you're responding to. All I'm saying is that it's not as necessary or useful as it is on a longer telephoto lens.

LOL@ thinking anybody sells them for anywhere approximating "MSRP"
Yeah, yeah. I just think it's ridiculous that Sigma has the gall to even mention a price that high.
 
Last edited:
Quotes, man, quotes! Nobody knows who you're responding to.
It came right after your own post where you adress image stabilization.

:p
 
It came right after your own post where you adress image stabilization.

:p

Yes, but, what often happens is that someone will reply to an above post without a quote and there will be another post in between, rendering your post nonsensical.
 
If so, I usually edit.
 
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Got a 617 back from a friend for my Cambo to do ultrawide panoramics with my 65/5.6 Super Angulon - and discovered that since the back uses a recessed film plane, my camera won't collapse far enough to focus the 65mm. I may have to fabricate some kind of super-recessed lensboard. Agh!
 
I find this interesting:
http://www.zefrank.com/youngmenowme/

Look at the "young" shots and then look at the "now" shots. Do you know I what I notice overall? That people used to actually pay attention when they took photos because they had to do more than just "derp derp i can pres da picsher botten hurr hurr look i can cammra lol". Not to mention, 35mm cameras don't constantly give you that hideous infinite DoF at every focal length and aperture.
 
Don't be a nostalgia jerk, seriously. Those old shots are random as anything, it's supposed to be about the old to new and what's between not about dof. I know many "pros" feel insecure about how many people have access to their media and would rather go back to the days where film was expensive and was not sold to peasant and making photos meant hours of fumes, but you just can't.

Fuck. Why I'm telling everyone what to do today. *insert banned facial expression*
 
I don't see that at all, I just find these pretty dull (both old and new). Don't get me wrong, there are some nice shots (and it's an interesting concept) I just don't think they "work" in this format. If these were actually printed and arranged in an album I may think differently.
 
Don't be a nostalgia jerk, seriously. Those old shots are random as anything, it's supposed to be about the old to new and what's between not about dof. I know many "pros" feel insecure about how many people have access to their media and would rather go back to the days where film was expensive and was not sold to peasant and making photos meant hours of fumes, but you just can't.

I'm not saying that's what this website is about; I'll openly agree that's it not. I was just making an observation and I'm hardly being nostalgic. Heck, I started on digital only two years ago.
 
Last edited:
I find this interesting:
http://www.zefrank.com/youngmenowme/

Look at the "young" shots and then look at the "now" shots. Do you know I what I notice overall? That people used to actually pay attention when they took photos because they had to do more than just "derp derp i can pres da picsher botten hurr hurr look i can cammra lol". Not to mention, 35mm cameras don't constantly give you that hideous infinite DoF at every focal length and aperture.

Every 3rd post from you these days is you hating on amatures, its getting old.
 
I have nothing against amateurs ... I am an amateur. What bothers me is people bringing down photography as a whole by not giving a rip. Whatever the case, the point has been taken, foot in my mouth, I get it, I'll tone it down.

[Dr. Cox] I need to find someone more qualified to talk about hate, anyways [/Dr. Cox]

Now, where's the janitor?




-------------------------------------

New topic... lesson learned about landscape / nature shooting yesterday: I need to start scouting more often so I can have a good location in mind. I was literally seconds too late for the bit of good light during a break in the rain clouds yesterday :( I waited another half-hour or so before I realized that there wasn't going to be another break before sunset (there wasn't).
 
Last edited:
I have nothing against amateurs ... I am an amateur. What bothers me is people bringing down photography as a whole by not giving a rip.

By amateur i meant people who don't care. The point is you come across as having a highly elitest attitude, where you seem to be constantly raging on people who snap away and are happy with the results, whether they be any good or not.
 
Top