File :-(, x, )
sage !i/euDJmWr2
Someone was asking about the Sigma 17-35 the other night; here's a shot (shots, actually) from tonight using it. If it isn't rainy tomorrow, I'm going to try to get outside with it.

Two diffused continuous lights, minimal work in Lightroom and Photoshop (healed out a few spots, lowered blue saturation)

C&C? Background is distracting, I know.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:14 22:18:45F-Numberf/9.1ISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/9.1Focal Length32.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width716Image Height1074
>> Anonymous
This is amazingly bad. What is in the cup, diarrhea water? The glass looks streaky and dirty, specularity sucks, colors are goofey, and the background is wrinkled. I'm impressed.
>> Anonymous
Background is bleargh, the cloth folded up.
The cup looks too foggy. You never see foggy glass in alcohol ads.
Liquid inside isn't very appealing.
Light is refracting and splitting up in a bad way at the bottom of the liquid.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>205711
The glass was extremely streaky, I did the best I could with a T-shirt to clean it, missed a lot though from the look of it. Colors are true to life, this particular wine just didn't really go to well with the pink-tinted glass.


>>205715
Yeah, I couldn't help the backdrop much, it had been folded up. I think the fogginess is because the glass is tinted, but fogginess noted. I agree about the refraction at the bottom of the glass, but that's more the design of the glass itself and as far as I know there isn't much of a way for me to work around that.

I'll give the backdrop time to straighten out fully and try this again with a clear glass.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>205723
>>go to well
should obviously read
>>go too well
>> Anonymous
i didn't know it was possible for a lens to be this soft
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
>>205750
I get the feeling that half of the people that complain about softness have never actually seen a truly soft image. It's not the sharpest lens on earth, no, you don't buy a wide-normal zoom if that's what you're looking for.

Here, have some USM'd version.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:14 23:20:16F-Numberf/9.1ISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/9.1Focal Length32.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width716Image Height1074
>> Anonymous
I have seen soft images and this is not a soft image.
>> Anonymous
I have seen a Ken Rockwell images and this is not a Ken Rockwell image.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>205817
I have seen a horse and this is a cult.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
THIS is soft. Some old tamron zoom.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern707Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:02:09 17:08:38Exposure Time1/180 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1000Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashComment(c) Antti HakkarainenColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height803RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
My cheap 100-300 sigma + very cheap 1.5xTC Kenko is a hell of a lot softer. But that is about $50 of plastic, er glass.