Upvote
0
Canon APS-C Shooters Rejoice: Sigma to Launch the RF 17-40mm f/1.8 and RF 12mm f/1.4
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sigma
Are you shooting with an R5 or R5c? With the Canon R5c, there is no IBIS(in body sensor-shift image stabilization) only digital IS. The R5 has both IBIS and digital IS. Digital IS crops in slightly to digitally shift and stabilize your footage, similar to applying a stabilizing filter to your video in your editing software (warp stabilizer, etc). This end result is using slightly less of your sensor area for the final recorded image. The Extra Extended IS mode crops slightly more than regular digital IS. You can use the R5's IBIS (not to be confused with “Digital IS”) with manual focus/adapted non-electronic contact lenses, but you must manually set the focal length for it to work properly, there is an option in the menu to do so. There is no 20mm f/1.4 lens with OIS that I know of. Are you trying to avoid using the R5’s IBIS? R5 IBIS cannot be disabled when using a lens which contains OIS. Even if a 20mm f/1.4 lens with OIS existed - you could not use it on an R5 with IBIS off and OIS (optical lens OS) on. This is a Canon software thing. Canon lenses with an OIS switch disable both lens optical IS and internal sensor shift IBIS. It’s all or nothin’.
Have you considered a gimbal?
Upvote
0
I recently purchased the Sigma 16-300 as an all-around lens for travel on my R10. It made its first trip last week, and while I'll say that it's still not the ideal lens for everything, it's a good compromise for the desire to reduce weight when on the road. Image quality was very good for what I shot, though 300mm isn't quite as much as I'd like on the telephoto side of things. But for general travel, I could make do. The one place where it suffers some compared to the shooting I do when traveling is on the wide angle side of things, and I have been considering how to deal with that. My initial idea was the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f/2. I had the MF version of that for my M series, and found the image quality to be well ahead of its price point. The potential for a 12mm f/1.4 for only $200 or so more makes me want to slow down and wait a bit. I've had good experiences with Sigma lenses in the past, and my experience so far with the 16-300 tells me that the 12mm ought to be a winner as well.
Upvote
0
Off topic but have you also used the RF-S 18-150 or 18-45, and if so how do they compare to the 16-300? I was thinking of one myself to replace the 18-150 I gave to my partner, which has left a challenging void to fill.
Upvote
0
The R10 came with the 18-45, which I thoroughly despise. It's not awful optically, but it's not great either, and it just doesn't have that much range. When I bought it, I intended to get the 18-150 kit, but that wasn't available when I made the purchase. I regretted that pretty much right out of the gate.
My favorite lens on the R10 has been the RF100-400, which hits well optically but is a little slow. But that also left me carrying two cameras minimum a lot of the time, as I typically let the R8 and a wider angle lens to the heavy lifting. Before I bought the R8, I had the RP and 24-105, which was a decent combo though far from perfect. I had to sell both to get the R8 body, so I am presently without a "primary" lens for it. I bought a used 24-50 kit lens for next to nothing as a stopgap and I hate it, for all of the same reasons I don't like the 18-45.
I thought a lot about getting the 18-150. It's got the advantage of better optics than the 18-45, and is still pretty small. But that would leave me needing at least two lenses - plus a third wide angle lens - when I travel. That's not a bad thing, but something I was trying to avoid. The 16-300 is decidedly bigger and heavier than the 18-150, but covers a lot more territory and is comparable optically. As a single compromise lens, it seemed like a better choice for me than the 18-150 in spite of its size. I'm still new enough with this lens that I'm not convinced for certain that I made the right decision. Time will tell.
Upvote
0
The 18-150 has plenty of compromise as well so don't feel too bad, for instance it's a bit on the soft side and low on contrast on the long end. It's wonderfully sharp from about 18-50mm though, I did direct tests and it's even sharper than the RF 24mm f/1.8 at shared apertures! The problem is we don't have a good EF-S 15-85mm type thing for RF-S, preferably one with an f/4 or f/2.8. As exciting as this upcoming 17-40mm f/1.8 is, I really hope Sigma eventually comes out with a stabilized version of such a lens, or Tamron at least finally pulls their heads out of their butts and ports over that 17-70 f/2.8 (instead of inferior versions of lens Sigma has already for RF).
Upvote
0
From the reviews I've watched so far, it unfortunately doesn't seem to improve optically much on the 18-35 (granted that lens was already a solid performer), combined with it still being fairly bulky and it's not as compelling an upgrade from it's predecessor as I hoped. Kinda wish they had either doubled down on the focal range expansion and keep it as big as the 18-35, or keep the 18-35 focal range and make it appreciably smaller. Maybe that wasn't possible though.
Upvote
0
It's 300g lighter and smaller diameter. And it's internal zoom, I wouldn't say it's bulky.
Upvote
0
Sorry for a delayed response.
For video, the best dynamic range of my R5 is ISO 800, For photo, that ISO is 100. For moving subject, I need only 1/60th sec for video, and at least 1/320th sec for photo. In very dark places, I shoot only videos.
Any time I have my camera in my hand, my mind constantly asks the same question, do I shoot video or photo? My mind needs to be aware of which one delivers the best result. I have switched to this mindset 10 years ago. I am a hybrid run and gun shooter. Most of the time, within half a second, I switch from one to the other.
No, I cannot use a gimbal. That defeats the purpose.
When I use a crop sensor lens, the footage contains only the center of the frame, which usually is the sharpest part of the lens. Not only that, but it doesn't stretch people's head in the corners. This is the case when I use my R5 and add digital IS. It softens to crop in, but I use the sharpest part and people's head re not stretched.
16mm F1.4 crop makes more sense than a 20mm F1.4 full frame if I need a 24 mm angle of view because of the digital IS. The only issue is that I would have to swap lens when I need to take a photo, so again, it defeats the purpose.
I hope you see how my mind works. I don't see a crop sensor lens being darker than full frame, F1.4 is F1.4, I remain on full frame at ISO 800, I just crop in using digital IS. I don't see the image being softer, maybe just a little. I don't see noisier imagery, I shoot at ISO 800 on full frame, maybe just a little but my eyes don't see a difference.
My only grief is that I cannot use it for both photo and video the way I work. So again, defeats the purpose.
If my camera was 65MP, that would work, but I prefer a 24MP because of noise at dark places.
I hope Viltrox one day will come to RF mount. Their full frame lenses don't stretch people's head. I wouldn't have to put people dead center all of the time.
Upvote
0
I am not sure what do you mean by "panoramic", but yes, I considered tilt/shift. Their F-stops are not bright enough for low light though, I gave up.
I am still waiting for the explanation of the other member, who claims that it is a fact of physics. It is the reason I try to find time to come here; lots of experiences and technical people.
Another reason I didn't go the route of tilt/shift is because my issue is not with a straight line. It has to do with stretching of a surface when a distortion correction is applied. I try to use a leveler more often, but this doesn't help. It happens whether I shot up, down of horizontally.
This is more related to pincushion and barrel distortion. When they try to straighten it, the surfaces at the edges become larger in a non-uniform manner along the height; hence the stretching of heads. It is not vendor specific, it is lens specific. I have two Laowa lenses; one is very bad, while the other one is fantastic.
I agree, when I use a balloon as a practical light for motivation when doing portrait, I don't have the problem. That is because the RF 135mm doesn't have these distortions. I do have it though with the 24mm VCM.
Based on what I see on YouTube, the Viltrox 20mmF2.8 has almost 0 of it, yet it is wider than my VCM. They have bunch of crop sensor lenses that behave the same way. None of them is better than my VCM in other respects, but for this specific issue, they are.
Upvote
0
you can imagine a 45-45-90 triangle and you are standing at the point of the 90 angle.
the point across from the 90 degree angle (the center point of line with both the 45 degree angles) is closer than the point where the two 45 degree angles are.
if you widened the 90 degree angle towards 180, this difference will become larger and thus more noticeable (fisheye) and as the angle approaches 0, smaller and less noticeable
Upvote
0
You take a series of photos with a lens that has no distortion, like a 50 mm lens.
Then you combine those photos into one photo using software.
Of course, you would need enough room to be further back from your subject.
Upvote
0
This is a reasonable description of perspective distortion https://digital-photography-school.com/lens-distortion-in-photography/#:~:text=Extension distortion, also called wide-angle distortion, is when,photography often takes place close to the camera. Barrel, pincushion, and moustache distortion are lens defects, but perspective distortion is a matter of physics. You can cheat mother nature to some degree with a tilt/shift lens, but probably not practical in the use cases you have described.
Upvote
0
But don’t rely on Wikipedia. Personally, I prefer my beer-based demonstration.
APS-C lens mm are correct
Its just common to say "equivalent of blabla on APS-C". Maybe its just the wrong term used but so what? everybody knows what it supposed to mean. You'd think so, but >80 posts here and many other threads on the topic suggest otherwise...
www.canonrumors.com
Upvote
0
Sigma has dropped "DN" from their lens names. It was previously used to differentiate DSLR lenses from mirrorless lenses but since they only produce mirrorless lenses now, "DN" has become superfluous. So the new new lenses are the Sigma 17-40/1.8 DC Art and Sigma 12/1.4 DC Contemporary.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
