Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Lenses

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Comparing original Jon's images from clip and Panny's grading ones - for my eyes later look like overall moved to a little bit unnatural redish spectre. Jon's sample looks to me very similar to Leica R rendering color approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now onto a lo-fi lens - this video was shot with a Tarcus/Navitar 16-160mm/f1.6 c-mount zoom on a Blackmagic Pocket - almost completely at wide open aperture because of the low light:

The lens is a heavy beast that needs a lens support. Since it was made for 1" sensors, it fully covers the sensor of the Pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Digitaliant said:

 

 

This is my first post in this great forum. 

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

Thanks Jon Pais, great colors, great and smooth outfocus zones.

On my GX-80 it will be more a 35 mm F/1.4 field of view equivalent.

I just bought it and I can't wait to receive it.

Please, when you have some time can you compare it to the 12mm Leica F/1.4. I know that the field of view is different and it's like to compare apples with oranges but it would be great if you can say something on the distortions of both lenses. I tried the 12mm a while ago and I found it quite impressive in this sense and with really great colors and bokeh. In fact, it's still in my shopping list.

Thanks

 

 

@Digitaliant I don't know about distortion, but the Leica's considerably more contrasty than the Sigma, and they render color differently. They're both incredible lenses. If you've already got the Leica and a GH5, you could always use ETC mode to get the equivalent focal length - but you'd be sacrificing the pleasing bokeh of its older brother. =) The Leica is also all-metal construction, it's got an aperture ring, it's more compact, and I believe it's some 4 oz. lighter than the ginormous Sigma. Then again, it's around $800 more expensive than the Sigma...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@anonim Flattening or compression is not the fault of the lens, it is related to focal length. This from SLR Lounge, the authority on all things photographic. =)

As you shoot with a longer and longer focal length lens we are required to step back in distance in order to keep our subject the same relative size in the frame. This change in distance to the subject, is what actually gives rise to the “distortion” phenomenon. Why? Well, when you are shooting on a wide angle lens, we have to be close to our subject to keep the subject large in frame.

As we step back on a longer focal length lens, the distance to from the camera to our subject changes, but the distance from the subject to the background doesn’t. With each step up in a longer focal length, our distance from the lens to the subject becomes proportionally larger than the distance from the subject to the background. This creates a sort of “flattening” effect, where not only do the background objects appear larger, but it also appear closer to the subject.

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, anonim said:

It is that simple - even Shane says the wider angle lens makes the background look farther away, ie, more depth. geez...

Edit: That's why, when I posed my student, I often shot at an angle - I like depth as much as you do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, be it simple for whom is simple... without that annoying "3D pop" pseudosecret and its silly followers :)  so effect of image depth depends exclusively of focal distance and Sigma's goal of ultrasharpness is not paid by any collateral -effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people say the wide Sigmas don't have as much pop as Leicas, I say it's because the Leicas have greater depth bcs they're wider.

When people say telephoto Sigmas don't have as much pop as Leicas, I say it's because longer lenses have creamier bokeh. ;=) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jonpais said:

@Digitaliant I don't know about distortion, but the Leica's considerably more contrasty than the Sigma, and they render color differently. They're both incredible lenses. If you've already got the Leica and a GH5, you could always use ETC mode to get the equivalent focal length - but you'd be sacrificing the pleasing bokeh of its older brother. =) The Leica is also all-metal construction, it's got an aperture ring, it's more compact, and I believe it's some 4 oz. lighter than the ginormous Sigma. Then again, it's around $800 more expensive than the Sigma...

 

Thanks John,

I watched your video on a LG 55 screen (LG 55B6V) and I could say that the Sigma looks quite good for color and contrast.

Yes I noticed too that there is a quite sensible difference btw the Sigma and the Leica with ETC which has less contrast (without it is the usual splendid performer, no doubts about it).

If i had the GH5 I'd most probably use the ETC when I need to be closer to the subject with a tele lens so to get an extra reach. I am not fully convinced of the ETC with wide or normal lenses.

I don't remember if you did a video testing of the Sigma 30 with ETC in comparison with the 42.5 Leica. I will check now.

Thanks again, very kind of you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jonpais, Jon, do you also own the 15mm 1.7? Would love to see that in the mix.  I think your testing shows off lenses exellently. Thanks again for that. One suggestion, maybe keep the ratio of expanation and showing an even 50 to 50 to have a perfect balance of the two.

@cantsin  looks like a fun lens definately. What´s up with the sound at 7.50 with the DJane holding the cellphone, is she recording off the amp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Alex T
      I'm looking to swap my Zeiss ZF.2 lenses for the equivalent Canon mountable Zeiss ZE lenses.
      Each of my lenses comes with 16:9 adaptors (which adapt the lenses to EF bodies, with de-clicked aperture and AF confirmation). 
      I have the following ZF.2 lenses: 21mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/2.0 (Makro Planar), 100mm f/1.4 (Makro Planar).
    • By kidzrevil
      Excellent condition Nikkor 28mm f2.8 ais. No scratches,dirt,oil or fungi. 
      https://www.ebay.com/itm/292167203393 



    • By kidzrevil
      https://www.ebay.com/itm/291899495412 
      Another gem from my contax lens set
    • By kidzrevil
      https://www.ebay.com/itm/291899495412 
      Contax zeiss 28mm f2 hollywood for sale. Item is in great condition you can buy it off my eBay 
    • By Anamatis
      I'm really considering making a big upgrade to the URSA, but I've already invested in a fleet of Canon FDs. I've been doing some research on FD to PL mounts without a lot of luck. I know ARRI make an FD adapter to the ARRI mount (PL??) but besides that seems there's zilch out there. Some talk about machining the lenses to fit the new flange but I was hoping someone here knows of something...
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...