04-22-2017, 07:50 PM
Actually, under the same circumstances, everything else being the same, a sharper lens will always provide more sharpness (or resolution if you prefer). Whether you shoot at 1/100s or 1/1000s is immaterial in that case.
IOW, it is always worth it from a resolution POV. There are many factors for which it may not be worth it, like weight, size, budget/price, etc.
As to higher iso, if you really still care about the difference between, say 100 iso and 800 iso in digital, you should only be using a very sturdy tripod. People talk about noise as if it is a zillion times worse: it actually isn't. And compared to film it is completely laughable to worry about noise up to 6400 iso at least, and that is taking 7 year old cameras into account too..
As to x-sync, sorry, but if you use flash you will in principle always have a sharp image, as flash duration is very short, unless you use it purely as fill-in flash.
Funnily enough, I never struggle - I use whatever iso is required for a certain shooting situation. That has nothing to do with sharpness, unless you get to really high noise levels, enough to diminish or obliterate sharpness.
As to 1/300s with F/1.8 vs 1/150s at F/2.8: whether it gets sharper depends. How much DoF do you need to get the everything you want in focus? How much sharper is the lens at F/1.8 vs F/2.8? Is that what yoiu are looking for in your final image?
You were talking about getting the most sharpness out of it, and in that case it requires certain steps and procedures. If you do not intend to follow those, the benefit is still there, but it will not be maximum sharpness. BTW, you NEVER get close to lab MTF values, unless you do lab testing.
I don't see your point either. As mentioned, a sharper lens will always give sharper images provided the circumstances stay the same, so you do benefit from sharper glass. Quantity of light has nothing to do with it. It si about the same circumstances.
The real question is whether you personally will benefit enough from it to make it worthwhile to you. For me personally it isn't, to be very honest. I own a 135L, and that lens is very very sharp from wide open, it renders beautifully, and is not terribly heavy, and according to lab tests the Sigma is only marginally better. In short, I will not "upgrade".
Kind regards, Wim
IOW, it is always worth it from a resolution POV. There are many factors for which it may not be worth it, like weight, size, budget/price, etc.
As to higher iso, if you really still care about the difference between, say 100 iso and 800 iso in digital, you should only be using a very sturdy tripod. People talk about noise as if it is a zillion times worse: it actually isn't. And compared to film it is completely laughable to worry about noise up to 6400 iso at least, and that is taking 7 year old cameras into account too..
As to x-sync, sorry, but if you use flash you will in principle always have a sharp image, as flash duration is very short, unless you use it purely as fill-in flash.
Funnily enough, I never struggle - I use whatever iso is required for a certain shooting situation. That has nothing to do with sharpness, unless you get to really high noise levels, enough to diminish or obliterate sharpness.
As to 1/300s with F/1.8 vs 1/150s at F/2.8: whether it gets sharper depends. How much DoF do you need to get the everything you want in focus? How much sharper is the lens at F/1.8 vs F/2.8? Is that what yoiu are looking for in your final image?
You were talking about getting the most sharpness out of it, and in that case it requires certain steps and procedures. If you do not intend to follow those, the benefit is still there, but it will not be maximum sharpness. BTW, you NEVER get close to lab MTF values, unless you do lab testing.
I don't see your point either. As mentioned, a sharper lens will always give sharper images provided the circumstances stay the same, so you do benefit from sharper glass. Quantity of light has nothing to do with it. It si about the same circumstances.
The real question is whether you personally will benefit enough from it to make it worthwhile to you. For me personally it isn't, to be very honest. I own a 135L, and that lens is very very sharp from wide open, it renders beautifully, and is not terribly heavy, and according to lab tests the Sigma is only marginally better. In short, I will not "upgrade".
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....