• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

next PZ lens test report: Fujinon XF 16mm f/1.4 R WR


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 August 2016 - 02:19 PM

"how can we make an excellent lens affordable?" or "how often you really need those seals?" or "how long do they remain sealing? (no lifetime for sure)" or "who makes art in the rain anyway? Sports, yes, but art?". It's not that a couple of snowflakes or raindrops would crack the lens.


  • obican likes this

#22 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 20 August 2016 - 09:34 PM

"how can we make an excellent lens affordable?" or "how often you really need those seals?" or "how long do they remain sealing? (no lifetime for sure)" or "who makes art in the rain anyway? Sports, yes, but art?". It's not that a couple of snowflakes or raindrops would crack the lens.

"how often you really need those seals?" - a lot of time, when I'm shooting in rainy / dusty conditions. I know it's neither mandatory for a lens to survive, nor really a bulletproof solution, but I feel a little more secure when going outside.

"who makes art in the rain anyway?" - define art. I'm not shooting tits in a studio - I'm often working on evening/nighttime outdoor missions where the 1.4 aperture is handy (I'm not using it until I get really desperate though, but when I'm in challenging lightning I'm using the 24 at f/1.8 or f/2, just to rein the aberrations in some). At any rate, omitting sealing in some lenses just because they're "supposed to be used in a studio" (or whatever the excuse would be; I don't think we got an official one anyway) sounds pretty lame to me. Modern Canon L lenses are all sealed, whether we're talking of a 50/1.2 or 100-400/4.5-5.6 II. I imagine that Sigma would come to this eventually and release the second versions of their Arts... fixing what they left out intentionally in the first iterations, in a misguided belief that the Arts are not going to be used in anything that resembles challenging conditions.

 

A practical example: a few nights ago I spent over an hour on a rooftop in light rain, waiting for a ship that I needed to photograph. I had the 70-200/2.8L IS lens mounted on my 1D Mark IV, all of that on a tripod. The ship unfortunately never turned up - I nabbed it two days later when the weather was thankfully fine. Would I dare to use a non-sealed lens like that? No. Probably would've had to wrap it in a poncho or a plastic bag.

 

Now, all that I've said may not be a dealbreaker should I decide to switch to a Sigma. But it's rather vexing that I can't get everything in one package from a company that has otherwise made great strides towards being an unashamedly top league manufacturer. Look at Tamron - they're giving us the best of ALL worlds with their latest offerings, but Sigma always finds a way to shoot itself in a foot eventually.



#23 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 20 August 2016 - 09:51 PM

I really should use more smileys  ^_^ I was pretending to be a simple minded marketing guy, but no, again, they take it serious  :lol:

 

Sigma uses seals, just only in their sports edition. You know, I always said this rubber gaskets round the bayonet don't do a super reliable trick, especially because I nowhere found a real warranty in which Nikon says "half an hour rain of not more than 50 liter per m2 is alright, just not more than twice a day". Therefore i'm not less careful with the lenses you guys think it's sealed.

 

There are standards for sealing electrical parts, like IP57, IP68. I'm sorry, I simply cannot see a reason why camera manufacturers get away with this "some sort of sealing" - exceptions like Pentax and Olympus don't need to rely on myths, they actually show wet lenses and bodies in their advertisements and would get in trouble if they's lie there.

 

You will not find an official picture of a wet Nikon on their website...

 

Oh and since we're a "throw away society" - you get two Sigmas for one Canon.

 

Oh 2: if you would have shot "tits in a studio", you maybe would have come up with a solution for unsealed lenses:

i-nhN4B8G-M.jpg



#24 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 22 August 2016 - 02:05 PM

You naughty boy!  ;) I should have used more smileys as well. :)

I really should use more smileys  ^_^ I was pretending to be a simple minded marketing guy, but no, again, they take it serious  :lol:

 

Sigma uses seals, just only in their sports edition. You know, I always said this rubber gaskets round the bayonet don't do a super reliable trick, especially because I nowhere found a real warranty in which Nikon says "half an hour rain of not more than 50 liter per m2 is alright, just not more than twice a day". Therefore i'm not less careful with the lenses you guys think it's sealed.

 

There are standards for sealing electrical parts, like IP57, IP68. I'm sorry, I simply cannot see a reason why camera manufacturers get away with this "some sort of sealing" - exceptions like Pentax and Olympus don't need to rely on myths, they actually show wet lenses and bodies in their advertisements and would get in trouble if they's lie there.

 

You will not find an official picture of a wet Nikon on their website...

 

Oh and since we're a "throw away society" - you get two Sigmas for one Canon.

 

Oh 2: if you would have shot "tits in a studio", you maybe would have come up with a solution for unsealed lenses:

i-nhN4B8G-M.jpg






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de