Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

sigma 30mm 1.4?

  • 12-12-2006 01:00AM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,356 ✭✭✭


    anyone shot with this? thinking of getting one for gigs on the D1X
    any pros/cons?
    thanks


Comments

  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    would be excellent on a dx1, i had my doubts about it for my d50 as i read that lower spec cameras struggle with the shallow dof it produces, but you're wouldnt have that, , i think it'd be an ideal purchase for gig stuff.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,356 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    my main worry was onlt having up to iso 800,and there's no noise reduction on the camera at all,guess i'll have to try it out!
    i'd love to use the 17-35 2.8 but with no flash i don't think i'd get away with it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭eas


    i had my doubts about it for my d50 as i read that lower spec cameras struggle with the shallow dof it produces, but you're wouldnt have that, , i think it'd be an ideal purchase for gig stuff.

    I dont understand how a camera could struggle with fast lenses DOF. Can you point me towards some info?

    Also, I would think the d50 is a more capable camera than the D1 in this sense?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    I have this lens in a Canon mount, would highly reccomend it, especially for gigs.


    At 1.4, you really have to use your focus points in low light, but other than that, it focuses grand.

    Check some of the latter gig shots on my flickr for examples :)


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    eas wrote:
    I dont understand how a camera could struggle with fast lenses DOF. Can you point me towards some info?

    Also, I would think the d50 is a more capable camera than the D1 in this sense?

    i'm looking now, all i remeber is when i was was looking at lens with low ap online a reviewer did mention that the af or something struggles with such shallow DOFS, and some of the more expensive cameras cope better with it.
    it makes sense tho, as the field is so shallow any slight moverment before the shot is taken mwans that the af wont have time to refocus and the image will look blurred, as the margin for error on these is slim.


    I'm not saying this is true only what i recall and my own ideas about it, flame away :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭eas


    flame away :D

    ha, no flames. I dont know enough about focus senors to flame anything.

    I would be surprised tho if it had much noticable effect to the user as long as there was enough light hitting the sensor. Of course it's main use would be low light - where any camera's auto focus system can start acting wild.

    I'd be curious to see if there is an issue tho.

    I thought maybe you meant the cameras coulndt produce the images or something....that's what confused me.

    cheers


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    Maybe the reviewer was refering to some cameras ability to have a more precise AF from 2.8 onwards?


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    i'm pretty sure it was along the lines of certain cameras have a hard time coping with such shallow dof...'pretty sure' is a far as i will go, i'm looking for the comment at the mo, was somewhere like ken rockwell


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,356 ✭✭✭punchdrunk


    hmmm just regards the d50 vs a d1x,well the d1x would eat up a d50 in the metering,focusing and image quality stakes,
    actually i prefer it to the d70s too


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,332 ✭✭✭311


    I'm probably wrong about this ,but when I use my lens the pictures are almost always blurred ,if I have the lens less than 2.0 .But only with subjects that are outside the focus distance of the lens ,i.e infinity.

    Sometimes it feels like I'm trying to put thread through a needle when the lens is at 1.4. Nice lens ,but it needs a keen eye.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭eas


    punchdrunk wrote:
    hmmm just regards the d50 vs a d1x,well the d1x would eat up a d50 in the metering,focusing and image quality stakes,
    actually i prefer it to the d70s too

    Focusing for sure, The D1X uses the Multi-cam1300, the D50 uses the 900 (same as the d100, + d70s).

    The D50 uses a newer version of the metering system in the d1x - I would think newer = better ( I know, not always)

    As far as image quality, again the D50 uses an updated version of the sensor used in the d1 cameras. Same physical size, slightly higher resolution. Dont know for a fact, but would say the d50 would at least match the d1 here.

    as always, expecting to be corrected by someone who knows more than me

    :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    _Brian_ wrote:
    I'm probably wrong about this ,but when I use my lens the pictures are almost always blurred ,if I have the lens less than 2.0 .But only with subjects that are outside the focus distance of the lens ,i.e infinity.

    Sometimes it feels like I'm trying to put thread through a needle when the lens is at 1.4. Nice lens ,but it needs a keen eye.

    Aye, it's not the kinda lens made for focusing to infinity, but when you're up close, it does a great job!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 410 ✭✭mervifwdc


    Certainly on the Cannon 1's, if the lens is 2.8 or faster, the AF works better. Also easier to MF when the viewfinder is a lot brighter. So it's still worth getting fast glass, even if you decide to stop down to F2 or F2.8.

    I got the 20mm F1.8 sigma, and it's good, but not brilliant. I'll certainly keep it as it kicks the 17-40F4's ass in low light where I cannot flash. You can get away with a lot, but oof is not one of them (usually).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    I was actually looking at the 20mm... Looks a fantastic wedding lens!

    Ugh...I'll have to add it to my list.

    Wedding/gig/event/model/fine art/documentary photographer? Anyone? I won't be too pricy? Please?


Advertisement