• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 HSM DC ART ...


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#21 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,353 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:30 AM

This is 100mm f/1.8 on the EOS 5Ds R (quick n' dirty).

 

 

 

 

Attached Files


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#22 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:33 AM

Let me answer that question for you:

https://dustinabbott...hsm-art-review/

Scroll down to the "Mounted on Full Frame" section.

I would've totally got this for use on the 1D series but I'm already pretty well set lens-wise.



#23 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,353 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:34 AM

On their website, they only advertise APS-C. You also don't know whether a full format lens isn't full format+ (e.g. in order to achieve better vignetting/bokeh).


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#24 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:34 AM

So?

 

You can do the same game with a 300 mm on a FF and on a 4×5" camera. The FF lens will give a worse picture than yours on the 4×5" camera.



#25 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,353 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:36 AM

Which is why it is pointless to have a debate - the Sigma 50-100mm is an APS-C format lens. The 1.5x (Sigma figure) applies and from here on we can do the equivalence game again - like it or not.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#26 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:42 AM

1.6 to 1.34! The lens also covers the new Sigma Foveon APS-H. 

 

You were referring to the lens, not to the limits or crop factor of Canon APS-C size. Ignoring the speed of the lens, which is the reason for it's size, price and weight is the result of this silly equivalence games.

 

You also would not "equivalent" a remote controlled model racing car going up to 100 km/h to be 2000 km/h fast because the genuine "FF"-car model is 20 times bigger. 100 km/h = 100 km/h.

 

Also, FF is just one of many sensor sizes. Given the amount of phone cameras and their sensor sizes, there's no reason to declare FF to a reference. Not many of today's daily camera users ever took pictures on film - or full frame cameras, which are NOT the center of photographic world anymore. So, I think it's better to use the true specifications and not equivalence numbers.

Very often we talk about cellphone cameras in equivalent to FF terms. 

 

"True specifications" say NOTHING what so ever, without reference point. In fact it says so little, that Apple will not even bother mentioning the focal length(s).

Sorry that it irks you so much, when people want to know what a lens compares to on other formats. But yeah, people DO want to understand how lenses compare. They DO want to know that an iPhone 6s has a "31mm FF equivalent" lens, so they understand "ohhh ok, so kinda moderate wide angle".

 

But you say you rather have the "true specifications". Ok, the iPhone 6S has a 2.65mm lens. That is not that informative, is it?

 

And that is just for the front lens. The back lens is 4.15mm. Informative, right? And what does that tell you? 

Hmm.. not much. It seems much less wide. But luckily, we can talk about what it is equivalent to. 29mm FF equivalent. So, wider instead of less wide. Yay for equivalence!

 

We just use FF as reference point, because it is an easily understood reference point. But we can use any other reference point. But none make more sense, most just make things less clear. Because most people with any idea about photography do know what 35mm on FF will mean, or 50mm, or 200mm.



#27 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:44 AM

This is 100mm f/1.8 on the EOS 5Ds R (quick n' dirty).

Thanks for the quick and very dirty info, Klaus!



#28 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:45 AM

f/1.8 = f/1.8 and remains so, no matter which sensor is used - like it or not.  :P

 

On Sigma's website they already show the massive vignetting at f/1.8 - so the few millimiters more from APS-C to APS-H will not impact much.



#29 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:46 AM

Let me answer that question for you:

https://dustinabbott...hsm-art-review/

Scroll down to the "Mounted on Full Frame" section.

I would've totally got this for use on the 1D series but I'm already pretty well set lens-wise.

Thanks Rover! So yeah, heavy vignetting, but usable in certain cases. 



#30 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:48 AM

f/1.8 = f/1.8 and remains so, no matter which sensor is used - like it or not.  :P

f1.8 for 50mm = 27.77777777777777777777

f1.8 for 100mm = 55.55555555555555555555



#31 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 08 June 2017 - 11:16 AM

I would not care about that any... for example, what relevance does the equivalence to FF - a format I've never been using and likely will not be using in any foreseeable future - have for me? Not any more than MF or LF for that matter. Of course, everyone's case is different...

 

I tend to refer to my lenses not by any FL or much less their equivalence to anything, but as "DA WIDE", "DA LONG", "DA WIDE FOR DARKNESS" and "DA ULTRAWIDE". :) There's also "DA LENZ TO PUT IN DA BAG JUST IN CASE", which is the 24-85. :) Soon maybe to be joined by "DA CURVED".


  • JoJu likes this

#32 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 June 2017 - 11:24 AM

I would not care about that any... for example, what relevance does the equivalence to FF - a format I've never been using and likely will not be using in any foreseeable future - have for me? Not any more than MF or LF for that matter. Of course, everyone's case is different...

 

I tend to refer to my lenses not by any FL or much less their equivalence to anything, but as "DA WIDE", "DA LONG", "DA WIDE FOR DARKNESS" and "DA ULTRAWIDE". :) There's also "DA LENZ TO PUT IN DA BAG JUST IN CASE", which is the 24-85. :) Soon maybe to be joined by "DA CURVED".

Still, for you it is handy to know that iPhone 6S' back camera lens is equivalent to "DA WIDE", but not so much to "DA WIDE FOR DARKNESS".

Or, that when you read, out of whatever interest, about for instance a Fuji GXF, that "23mm" means more or less a lens between "DA WIDE" and "DA ULTRAWIDE" (18mm FF equivalent).

So, still equivalence, but you pick a different reference point. 

 

Equivalence is not about FF, but how does X compare to Y. You can pick X and Y freely. To make things easier, usually people pick FF 135 format as Y.



#33 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,115 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 08 June 2017 - 01:44 PM

Ok ok ok
Equivalent or not equivalent that's not the issue.
In my shoes would you get Sigma/tamron 70-200f2.8 IS and use it on 5D or this one on 750D ?

#34 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,353 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 08 June 2017 - 03:04 PM

Will tell you next week ;-)


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#35 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 08 June 2017 - 04:39 PM

Ok ok ok
Equivalent or not equivalent that's not the issue.
In my shoes would you get Sigma/tamron 70-200f2.8 IS and use it on 5D or this one on 750D ?

Why not the 70-200 on the 750D? My 70-200 performed admirably on whichever APS-C and APS-H bodies I attached it to, and it has been a lot of different cameras - at least seven that I can remember. :)


  • Brightcolours likes this

#36 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 June 2017 - 05:04 PM

Why not the 70-200 on the 750D? My 70-200 performed admirably on whichever APS-C and APS-H bodies I attached it to, and it has been a lot of different cameras - at least seven that I can remember. :)

The only valid reason would be, to go for most shallow DOF ability on the 750D.



#37 Paul1980

Paul1980

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts

Posted 09 June 2017 - 09:47 AM

Thread Title: Shouldn't it be "DC" if it is a crop lens? I had high hopes for a sec.. :)



#38 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 09 June 2017 - 10:18 AM

Correct, the Sigma description is 50-100mm F1.8 DC HSM

 

Art is not used in the description. Impressive, already 14 Art lenses since the first came out 5 years ago...



#39 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,353 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 09 June 2017 - 10:39 AM

https://www.sigma-gl...rt/a_50_100_18/

 

Art - see also the A on the barrel.


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#40 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 09 June 2017 - 10:48 AM

There's an A on the barrel, also correct, but this A is not part of the lens' name which is

  • in a different font
  • in a different color
  • on a different place
  • in a different orientation

on the barrel. At the moment, there's only one type available as Sports or Contemporary type: The 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM needs the S or C to be fully specified. Consequently used, you're right. With "Description I was referring to the dropdown list of lenses, which contains "Art", "Contemporary" or "Sports" only at the first lens in the row.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de