File :-(, x, )
Canon 5D Mark II spotted in the wild Anonymous
it's true
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution1 dpVertical Resolution1 dpImage Created2008:09:08 19:38:29Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width640Image Height427
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution1 dpVertical Resolution1 dpImage Created2008:09:08 19:36:28Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width640Image Height427
>> Anonymous
wow too bad it says sony on it
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
hahah

sage
>> Anonymous
>>250303

that was kind of the point
>> Anonymous
repost
>> Anonymous
lol squishy face.
>> Anonymous
RIP AND TEAR!
THAT CAMERA IS HUGE! THIS MEANS IT HAS HUGE SENSOR!
RIP AND TEAR YOUR SENSOR!
>> sage
>>250330
dude take a hit and calm down
>> Anonymous
A900 + all new Zeiss lineup = shit's over for Nikon and Canon

game over
>> Anonymous
>>250346

No.
>> sage
>>250346
how good is the (sony or minolta)50 1.4? im considering upgrading from my 50 1.7, becasue its not sharp wide open
>> Anonymous
>>250349
pretty bad at f/1.4 according to photozone, just keep the 50/1.7 or get the Sigma one.
>> Anonymous
>>250346
Zeiss lineup needs moar lenses before shit's over. And less price.
>> sage
>>250351
well i could get the 50 f2.8, i know thats needle sharp, at any speed. how does the sigma rate?
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>250361
The Sigma 50/1.4 is the best 50/1.4 there is, assuming that wide-open sharpness is your criteria. Check out dpreview's lens review on it. Still not as sharp as I'd like, but better than anything else available.

Downsides: Cost, size, weight, takes 77mm filters.
>> Anonymous
pruneface
>> Anonymous
>>250609Still not as sharp as I'd like

i fucking LOLd

prime example of an amazing photographer right here, obviously too good for his equipment
>> Anonymous
>>250615

it's known for being soft..
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>250616
Exactly - all 50s are soft wide open. The Sigma less so than the others, but still - it has trouble comparing to 85s, 70-200s@70, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>250616(Not just re: this post but in general)
Same with any other fast lens wide open. And yet, people still shoot with them. Why? Because there's a particular look to it that's more important than sharpness or acutance or tonality or whatever the fuck people are jonesing over these days.
>> Anonymous
>>250609
>The Sigma 50/1.4 is the best 50/1.4 there is, assuming that wide-open sharpness is your criteria.

Holy shit, you are a fucking idiot.
For currently-produced 50/1.4s, the Pentax-FA is probably better.

LRN2Not-Be-Such-A-Brand-Whore
>> Anonymous
>>250638

thanks, captain obvious. tell us now how quicker shutter speeds reduce blur.

the whole point is that the sigma is softer wide open than its competitors. and yet, it's the same price.
>> Anonymous
>>250654the whole point is that the sigma is softer wide open than its competitors. and yet, it's the same price.


uuhhhhhhh it's not
>> Anonymous
>>250652
Theres a lot of fail in this post. suprised no-one has jumped all over it.

Sigma 50mm f1.4 is possibly the greatest 50mm f1.4 EVER.
And its more expensive than all of them except for the Zeiss I believe.
>> Anonymous
>>250658

not what? the same price if not more expensive than say the canon 50mm 1.4?

or not soft as shit?

because i assure you, it's both.
>> Anonymous
>>250662

rofl ^has no idea what he's talking about
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>250662
Sigma 50mm f/1.4:
- More expensive than the Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc 50/1.4s.
- Sharper than the others, except at very small apertures (the Canon is sharper at f/8, for exmaple).
- Less vignetting on full frame than the others.
- Has Sigma's HSM motor, which is awesome - quiet, fast, FTM, etc.

It's something like 50% more than Canon's, triple Pentax's, etc. Eh, all that extra glass and new design costs something, whodathunkit?
>> Anonymous
>>250654
Why hello. It seems you've stolen my

IIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNYYYYYYY
>> Anonymous
Regardless of the known issues, I still intend to go for the Sigma 50/1.4 when I can afford it. Awesome enough to justify, IMO.
>> Anonymous
>>250690
Major ditto here. I usually like what Canon has to offer more, but in this case the Sigma kicks all of Canon's 50s butts. *hasn't tried the 1.2*
>> Anonymous
It's true that every Canon 50mm suck. They have big problems which don't come public that often. 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 have a problem with the autofocus motor locking up or even pushing out of the barrell.

As much as i appreciate Zeiss, i really can't honestly believe they were stupid enough to co-operate with Sony. Although there's nothing Zeiss really has for the alpha that CaNikon doesn't offer.

*Proud owner of his 85L II, hehe.*
>> Anonymous
>>250768
Just to add. I personally don't like a bit that a company like Sony who has had problems with they're liability before (rootkits etc) is somewhat popular in /p/.

They do make other companies like Canon to clean their act up, but i presume it comes with a cost. Camera makers are too keen to just beat everyone elses cameras that the end result which is the only thing that matters to the photographer becomes compromised.

My 0.02$