sonicfantom
08-04-2011, 12:34 AM
tl;dr I need lenses.
So today at the PSNZ conference, I was magnetically drawn to the Canon & Sigma trade stands. I had the great opportunity to shoot with a few different lenses, and a rundown of my initial impressions follows.
Disclaimer: I only had a few hours, and didn't shoot enough for a proper test. These are my impressions and opinions only.
First up is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L. When I first read about this lens, I wondered whether a third of a stop was worth an extra $1500 over the f/1.4 USM. I still wonder. I haven't had a chance to use the 1.4 USM, but I do have my trusty 1.8 II to compare to.
It definitely felt like a solid hunk of glass and metal, especially compared to my little plastic fantastic. Focusing was smooth, well damped, and silent. Unfortunately autofocus wasn't very fast, which is more than slightly irritating considering the razor-thin depth-of-field wide open. After all, if you didn't buy this lens to shoot wide open you really shouldn't have wasted your money, because it's wide open where this lens really shines.
Optically, the two 50mm primes are suprisingly similar, considering that one costs about twelve times the other, except for in one field; bokeh. The 1.2L's creamy, buttery bokeh is an absolute delight to the eyes; I suspect it has a rounded aperture, though I didn't test it past f/2.8. The 1.8 II, on the other hand, gives harsh, choppy blur (a result of it's five-bladed, non-rounded iris) which genuinely does detract from the image.
I didn't have a chance to test the 1.2L's light gathering capability, but I'm guessing it is very, very impressive.
The 1.2L is EXPENSIVE. I seriously doubt that the $2500 ~ price tag is worth it to all but professionals and the most hardcore prime-lens lovers. That money really could be better spent elsewhere, and coming from someone that uses a 50mm focal length 95% of the time, that's a pretty harsh recommendation. The value for money is completely nonexistant.
Verdict: Would love to own, refuse to buy - until money starts growing on trees.
Next (in no particular order) is the Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM. I tested the Canon mount, obviously.
This is one hefty lens, about 2kg by my reckoning. For anyone who's used the Bigma (50-500), this is even longer and heavier (EDIT: similar weight. It's definitely longer). Build quality is fine - nowhere near Canon L, for sure, but it does feel like it'll put up with a fair bit of wear and tear (Note: I've been told that this lens doesn't recieve the EX designation as Sigma reserves that for constant-aperture lenses, but build quality seems pretty similar). Nothing wrong with focus - smooth, quiet, and accurate (this copy was, anyway). Pleasantly quick. I do think that zoom was on the stiff side, but as it was quite smooth and of a constant resistance throughout the zoom range, I can let that one go. There is a zoom lock at 150mm to combat lens creep, which I didn't test for.
I'm very surprised at the optical quality of this lens. Considering the very, very affordable price (more on that later), it's absolutely superb. I would be happy to make A3 prints at 500mm, where this lens is weakest. This lens almost matches the 100-400L at 400mm, but softens slightly at 500mm. I'm not a pixel peeper - the largest I view images is full-screen on a 22" monitor - but I'm not wanting sharpness with the 150-500, and it sharpens up beautifully at f/8 or so. (Note: oddly, the Sigma 150-500 looks sharper than the EF 50/1.2L, but that might be focusing issues). Coloring, contrast, and saturation look fine to my eye, as far as I can tell.
I didn't test the image stabilizing, as in a real-life situation I never use it.
Now onto the downside. This lens is SLOW. Starting out at f/5 at the (relatively) wide end, it ends up at f/6.3 at the long end. That means this is a daylight lens for action-stopping sports shots. In lower light, even with the image stabilizer running, you'll have to wind up the ISO to keep that blur down. I had to resort to B&W, maximum ISO (6400 on a 30D) to obtain a 1/200 shutter speed indoors. Fortunately I do have a very steady grip.
Now, the best piece of news. This lens is an absolute steal at about $1300. Yes, it's one-and-a-third stops slower than the EF 500mm f/4L (which I also had the great fortune to try out). Yes, it's not as sharp, nor as solidly built, nor as impressive looking, if that's important to you. But, it's portable, zooms, and most importantly doesn't cost as much as a good second-hand car. I highly recommend it to anybody looking for a long tele without breaking the bank, or a casual-use sports lens (Note: I have heard that it performs unpredictably in AI-Servo. I have not tested this, and have no ability to do so). The 150-500's long reach and fast AF really shine in this area.
Essentially, Sigma's away laughing with this one. Canon doesn't make anything similar other than the 100-400L, which costs a fair bit more, but is slightly faster and shorter.
Verdict: Will consider owning, as I'll rarely use the 200mm + focal length, and I won't like being stuck at f/6.3 (I don't own a lens slower than f/2.8, though I did borrow an EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 for a concert. I did not enjoy the night).
Still to come:
EF 85/1.2L
EF 500/4L
EF 70-200/2.8L IS II
And others I have forgotten.
So today at the PSNZ conference, I was magnetically drawn to the Canon & Sigma trade stands. I had the great opportunity to shoot with a few different lenses, and a rundown of my initial impressions follows.
Disclaimer: I only had a few hours, and didn't shoot enough for a proper test. These are my impressions and opinions only.
First up is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L. When I first read about this lens, I wondered whether a third of a stop was worth an extra $1500 over the f/1.4 USM. I still wonder. I haven't had a chance to use the 1.4 USM, but I do have my trusty 1.8 II to compare to.
It definitely felt like a solid hunk of glass and metal, especially compared to my little plastic fantastic. Focusing was smooth, well damped, and silent. Unfortunately autofocus wasn't very fast, which is more than slightly irritating considering the razor-thin depth-of-field wide open. After all, if you didn't buy this lens to shoot wide open you really shouldn't have wasted your money, because it's wide open where this lens really shines.
Optically, the two 50mm primes are suprisingly similar, considering that one costs about twelve times the other, except for in one field; bokeh. The 1.2L's creamy, buttery bokeh is an absolute delight to the eyes; I suspect it has a rounded aperture, though I didn't test it past f/2.8. The 1.8 II, on the other hand, gives harsh, choppy blur (a result of it's five-bladed, non-rounded iris) which genuinely does detract from the image.
I didn't have a chance to test the 1.2L's light gathering capability, but I'm guessing it is very, very impressive.
The 1.2L is EXPENSIVE. I seriously doubt that the $2500 ~ price tag is worth it to all but professionals and the most hardcore prime-lens lovers. That money really could be better spent elsewhere, and coming from someone that uses a 50mm focal length 95% of the time, that's a pretty harsh recommendation. The value for money is completely nonexistant.
Verdict: Would love to own, refuse to buy - until money starts growing on trees.
Next (in no particular order) is the Sigma 150-500 f/5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM. I tested the Canon mount, obviously.
This is one hefty lens, about 2kg by my reckoning. For anyone who's used the Bigma (50-500), this is even longer and heavier (EDIT: similar weight. It's definitely longer). Build quality is fine - nowhere near Canon L, for sure, but it does feel like it'll put up with a fair bit of wear and tear (Note: I've been told that this lens doesn't recieve the EX designation as Sigma reserves that for constant-aperture lenses, but build quality seems pretty similar). Nothing wrong with focus - smooth, quiet, and accurate (this copy was, anyway). Pleasantly quick. I do think that zoom was on the stiff side, but as it was quite smooth and of a constant resistance throughout the zoom range, I can let that one go. There is a zoom lock at 150mm to combat lens creep, which I didn't test for.
I'm very surprised at the optical quality of this lens. Considering the very, very affordable price (more on that later), it's absolutely superb. I would be happy to make A3 prints at 500mm, where this lens is weakest. This lens almost matches the 100-400L at 400mm, but softens slightly at 500mm. I'm not a pixel peeper - the largest I view images is full-screen on a 22" monitor - but I'm not wanting sharpness with the 150-500, and it sharpens up beautifully at f/8 or so. (Note: oddly, the Sigma 150-500 looks sharper than the EF 50/1.2L, but that might be focusing issues). Coloring, contrast, and saturation look fine to my eye, as far as I can tell.
I didn't test the image stabilizing, as in a real-life situation I never use it.
Now onto the downside. This lens is SLOW. Starting out at f/5 at the (relatively) wide end, it ends up at f/6.3 at the long end. That means this is a daylight lens for action-stopping sports shots. In lower light, even with the image stabilizer running, you'll have to wind up the ISO to keep that blur down. I had to resort to B&W, maximum ISO (6400 on a 30D) to obtain a 1/200 shutter speed indoors. Fortunately I do have a very steady grip.
Now, the best piece of news. This lens is an absolute steal at about $1300. Yes, it's one-and-a-third stops slower than the EF 500mm f/4L (which I also had the great fortune to try out). Yes, it's not as sharp, nor as solidly built, nor as impressive looking, if that's important to you. But, it's portable, zooms, and most importantly doesn't cost as much as a good second-hand car. I highly recommend it to anybody looking for a long tele without breaking the bank, or a casual-use sports lens (Note: I have heard that it performs unpredictably in AI-Servo. I have not tested this, and have no ability to do so). The 150-500's long reach and fast AF really shine in this area.
Essentially, Sigma's away laughing with this one. Canon doesn't make anything similar other than the 100-400L, which costs a fair bit more, but is slightly faster and shorter.
Verdict: Will consider owning, as I'll rarely use the 200mm + focal length, and I won't like being stuck at f/6.3 (I don't own a lens slower than f/2.8, though I did borrow an EF-S 55-250/4-5.6 for a concert. I did not enjoy the night).
Still to come:
EF 85/1.2L
EF 500/4L
EF 70-200/2.8L IS II
And others I have forgotten.