Disney Information Station Logo

Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Just for Fun > Photography Board
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS UpdatesDIS email updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 09-03-2013, 11:58 PM   #31
traylorc
DIS Veteran
 
traylorc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,818

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronfin View Post
Yes, I know I directed him to one thread for a reference, and didn't think it was necessary to post 5+ more to prove a point. (again) I like that lens. It's tack sharp when it gets the focus right, but for the particular type of shooting he's looking to get into I would not, and still would not, go with that lens for that type of shooting at Disney. I'm not trying to make anyone feel salty about owning a Sigma 35mm. It's an amazing lens, and I can easily link sites raving about it too. Your point about the OP being careful about making his decision is more based on the fact that you own this particular lens, and you yourself have not have any issues focusing with it. It's not just bad copies that are having the issue. Some Nikon users were reporting that this lens liked to hunt a lot, and front focus, so yes, I have concern for someone that's looking for a low-light lens heading to Disney when there are better ones available.
If we made purchasing decisions based on negative comments about a lens or any other piece of photography equipment, then nobody would ever buy anything. There are always going to be negative comments. You have seen negative comments on this issue, I have also seen a few negative comments but I have also seen an overwhelming amount of positive comments. And yeah...I actually have the lens and tested it on two different bodies in low light conditions. I can speak from actual experience of owning the lens. I understand that doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. Perhaps there was an issue when that has been or can be rectified by a firmware update. Perhaps the problem is limited to a certain bodies. My point is the OP should make sure he does his due diligence on current information regarding this lens so he can make an informed purchasing decision.
traylorc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 12:09 AM   #32
ronfin
Mouseketeer
 
ronfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by traylorc View Post
If we made purchasing decisions based on negative comments about a lens or any other piece of photography equipment, then nobody would ever buy anything. There are always going to be negative comments. You have seen negative comments on this issue, I have also seen a few negative comments but I have also seen an overwhelming amount of positive comments. And yeah...I actually have the lens and tested it on two different bodies in low light conditions. I can speak from actual experience of owning the lens. I understand that doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. Perhaps there was an issue when that has been or can be rectified by a firmware update. Perhaps the problem is limited to a certain bodies. My point is the OP should make sure he does his due diligence on current information regarding this lens so he can make an informed purchasing decision.
The title of this thread is "Opinions on a lens choice"

You just don't get it. Yes, I have seen negative comments about the lens and it's performance in low light conditions, gave the OP an example of such, and then told him about a few other lenses that are better, hence the whole "opinion on a lens choice" from a Photographer with low light experience at Disney, on Disney rides, with examples of his work, and having worked with many different lenses. The problem I see here is that I might have touched a nerve with you because you took offense that I gave negative criticism for the 35mm based on the Communities I'm a part of, and having used better lenses that I've shown examples within. The OP asked for opinions, and he got a very good one from someone experienced with the very photography he's looking at capturing. I do not need a copy of the 35mm, although I'd love to squeeze it in my bag if I got rid of something else, to know how it performs in low light situations, or that a particular issue is prevalent to this specific topic. Had the OP said he needed opinions on good daylight primes with amazing bokeh, and was looking to shoot portraits, the Sigma 35mm would've been on my list of lenses to look into. The overwhelming good comments I've seen for the 35mm pertain to well lit subjects. It's a tack sharp lens on most bodies, and is an excellent lens for THAT PARTICULAR AREA. Thank you.
__________________
2012 Trip Report: Entry #1
2012 Trip Report: Entry #2
2012 Trip Report: Entry #3


Like pictures of Disney? Check-out my Flickr by clicking HERE.
ronfin is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 09-04-2013, 05:44 AM   #33
nbaresejr
Mouseketeer
 
nbaresejr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 285

Tom Bricker reviewed the Sigma 35 1.4. He is the Disney authority around here and the world as far as I am concerned. He didnt report any issues with this lens. I see no issues why this lens would not be perfect for what the OP is looking for.

Shooting at ridiculous ISO is not practical (5dii, 7d, t2i). There is only so much noise reduction can do. Looking at images in web size is 1 thing but past 3200 maybe 6400 on a crop and 10-12k full frame looks to be the limit.
__________________
Visits: Every Summer as a kid up until the age of 16
Adult Visits: April 07- Wilderness Lodge, April 2008- Wilderness Lodge, July 2010 Disneyland, Dec 2010- CBR,, Oct 2011 CBR, April 2013 CBR
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57234495@N03/
nbaresejr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 06:25 AM   #34
ronfin
Mouseketeer
 
ronfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by nbaresejr View Post
Tom Bricker reviewed the Sigma 35 1.4. He is the Disney authority around here and the world as far as I am concerned. He didnt report any issues with this lens. I see no issues why this lens would not be perfect for what the OP is looking for.

Shooting at ridiculous ISO is not practical (5dii, 7d, t2i). There is only so much noise reduction can do. Looking at images in web size is 1 thing but past 3200 maybe 6400 on a crop and 10-12k full frame looks to be the limit.
That is called an opinion. If you consider him to be YOUR authority on photography [here], that's great. Just because [he] didn't report what many others did concerning low light focusing issues with the 35mm doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I was giving the OP MY OPINION with my experience, and what I had heard concerning the Sigma 35mm front focusing in low light, which is MORE prevalent than with other lenses. Look at some of my exif data and tell me shooting at high ISO is ridiculous. The 7D can handle it. I owned the 7D and know what it can and can't do.

Also, you should look up Jared Polin, and what he says on "noise". There is absolutely NO reason you can't leave a photo with noise. Reducing it too much in post will kill the clarity. I don't get the whole "too noisy" complaint. Shooting over 6400 is NOT impractical. smh
__________________
2012 Trip Report: Entry #1
2012 Trip Report: Entry #2
2012 Trip Report: Entry #3


Like pictures of Disney? Check-out my Flickr by clicking HERE.
ronfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 06:48 AM   #35
Daisy14'sDH
DIS Veteran
 
Daisy14'sDH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,497

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronfin View Post
That is called an opinion. If you consider him to be YOUR authority on photography [here], that's great. Just because [he] didn't report what many others did concerning low light focusing issues with the 35mm doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I was giving the OP MY OPINION with my experience, and what I had heard concerning the Sigma 35mm front focusing in low light, which is MORE prevalent than with other lenses. Look at some of my exif data and tell me shooting at high ISO is ridiculous. The 7D can handle it. I owned the 7D and know what it can and can't do.

Also, you should look up Jared Polin, and what he says on "noise". There is absolutely NO reason you can't leave a photo with noise. Reducing it too much in post will kill the clarity. I don't get the whole "too noisy" complaint. Shooting over 6400 is NOT impractical. smh
But noise is not grain (edited). Great example is your Spaceship Earth shot.

You've expressed your opinion on your preference to not use the Sigma. Now you seem to be trying to pushing very hard to assert your opinion... let it go. This is a fun space.
__________________
Our Halloween Pirate Display

Click here to see more from TkO Digital Imaging on Facebook

"Lightbulbs die my dear, I will depart!" As said by Mr. Magorium
Daisy14'sDH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 07:32 AM   #36
ronfin
Mouseketeer
 
ronfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 161

I'm not trying to push anything except the fact that I gave an opinion based on experience and knowledge, and shouldn't have to keep defending it. Did you seriously need to chime in with your opinion to tell me to drop it? Soon as people [here] stop trying to use their opinions as fact we can all drop it. How many that have chimed in have experience in what the OP was looking for? There are better alternatives for what he's looking to do, and I commented on it. smh
__________________
2012 Trip Report: Entry #1
2012 Trip Report: Entry #2
2012 Trip Report: Entry #3


Like pictures of Disney? Check-out my Flickr by clicking HERE.
ronfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 08:08 AM   #37
traylorc
DIS Veteran
 
traylorc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,818

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronfin View Post
The title of this thread is "Opinions on a lens choice"

You just don't get it. Yes, I have seen negative comments about the lens and it's performance in low light conditions, gave the OP an example of such, and then told him about a few other lenses that are better, hence the whole "opinion on a lens choice" from a Photographer with low light experience at Disney, on Disney rides, with examples of his work, and having worked with many different lenses. The problem I see here is that I might have touched a nerve with you because you took offense that I gave negative criticism for the 35mm based on the Communities I'm a part of, and having used better lenses that I've shown examples within. The OP asked for opinions, and he got a very good one from someone experienced with the very photography he's looking at capturing. I do not need a copy of the 35mm, although I'd love to squeeze it in my bag if I got rid of something else, to know how it performs in low light situations, or that a particular issue is prevalent to this specific topic. Had the OP said he needed opinions on good daylight primes with amazing bokeh, and was looking to shoot portraits, the Sigma 35mm would've been on my list of lenses to look into. The overwhelming good comments I've seen for the 35mm pertain to well lit subjects. It's a tack sharp lens on most bodies, and is an excellent lens for THAT PARTICULAR AREA. Thank you.
Based on your response to me, and your responses to other forum members....I think you are the one that doesn't "get it".

You point the OP to an eight month old thread, and then provide information regarding one photographer who had some issues with this lens. You have come to the conclusion this lens has issues in low light even though you have no first hand experience with this lens. Your knowledge of this lens is based on the hearsay of other photographers. That's fine...it's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

Conversely others are entitled to their opinion. You haven't touched a nerve based on citing some negative features of this lens. My enjoyment of any piece of photography equipment is not based on what you or anyone else thinks. If I like a lens that others universally pan...so be it. I shoot for myself and no one else. I was simply pointing out to the OP there are other folks who actually own this lens who have not reported this issue with low light. Just because other forum members have an opinion that differs from yours does not make those opinions any less valuable.
traylorc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 08:14 AM   #38
traylorc
DIS Veteran
 
traylorc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,818

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronfin View Post
I'm not trying to push anything except the fact that I gave an opinion based on experience and knowledge, and shouldn't have to keep defending it. Did you seriously need to chime in with your opinion to tell me to drop it? Soon as people [here] stop trying to use their opinions as fact we can all drop it. How many that have chimed in have experience in what the OP was looking for? There are better alternatives for what he's looking to do, and I commented on it. smh
No one is asking you to defend you opinion....but you need to understand that when engaging in a discussion others may have a different opinions.
traylorc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 08:32 AM   #39
nbaresejr
Mouseketeer
 
nbaresejr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 285

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronfin View Post
That is called an opinion. If you consider him to be YOUR authority on photography [here], that's great. Just because [he] didn't report what many others did concerning low light focusing issues with the 35mm doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I was giving the OP MY OPINION with my experience, and what I had heard concerning the Sigma 35mm front focusing in low light, which is MORE prevalent than with other lenses. Look at some of my exif data and tell me shooting at high ISO is ridiculous. The 7D can handle it. I owned the 7D and know what it can and can't do.

Also, you should look up Jared Polin, and what he says on "noise". There is absolutely NO reason you can't leave a photo with noise. Reducing it too much in post will kill the clarity. I don't get the whole "too noisy" complaint. Shooting over 6400 is NOT impractical. smh
The majority of your low light images are way way to high in noise IMO. Fro is awesome and I know what he says about grain but your images show noise not grain. The 25k shots are not useable for anything other then web viewing. I edit on my calibrated for print monitor and view at 100%to see if the noise is to high or not. This could be your editing making the noise greater, only you can answer that. If you are happy with your images that's all that matters but since you asked my opinion I responded.

Also Tom bricked is the Disney authority and that is not an opinion. Ask anyone around here and they will tell you the same.
__________________
Visits: Every Summer as a kid up until the age of 16
Adult Visits: April 07- Wilderness Lodge, April 2008- Wilderness Lodge, July 2010 Disneyland, Dec 2010- CBR,, Oct 2011 CBR, April 2013 CBR
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57234495@N03/
nbaresejr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 08:34 AM   #40
ronfin
Mouseketeer
 
ronfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 161

Exactly, and that's all they are, yet yourself, and the guy who used the Appeal to Authority fallacy, both tried to discredit what I was saying on this topic using the "I own it", and "I know a Pro with it" arguments, which are both invalid. I also know a few Professionals with the lens. It doesn't change how it front focuses on same camera bodies poorly in ambient light. I don't need to own a Ferrari to know Ferrari owners and get an idea if how it performs right? I owned the 7D, and many different lenses with it. I know what the OP is looking for, so gave him my opinion based on that knowledge. you guys are t happy with that. There are discussions about how the Sigma 35 was performing in low light, and I told the OP to stay away from it since there are better options. That's all. If he wants to get it and try it for himself I'm all for that. Just wanted him to know what else is available.
__________________
2012 Trip Report: Entry #1
2012 Trip Report: Entry #2
2012 Trip Report: Entry #3


Like pictures of Disney? Check-out my Flickr by clicking HERE.
ronfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 08:42 AM   #41
ronfin
Mouseketeer
 
ronfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by nbaresejr View Post

The majority of your low light images are way way to high in noise IMO. Fro is awesome and I know what he says about grain but your images show noise not grain. The 25k shots are not useable for anything other then web viewing. I edit on my calibrated for print monitor and view at 100%to see if the noise is to high or not. This could be your editing making the noise greater, only you can answer that. If you are happy with your images that's all that matters but since you asked my opinion I responded.

Also Tom bricked is the Disney authority and that is not an opinion. Ask anyone around here and they will tell you the same.
You're gonna get noise, and the grainy look in any low light shot using a high ISO while moving and trying to compensate. The shots you're looking at have been run through Lightroom, compressed, and filtered. The RAW images aren't nearly as noisy, but to pull out more color, clarity, and exposure I used a few filters that added the grainy look and a ton of noise, non of which is bad.
__________________
2012 Trip Report: Entry #1
2012 Trip Report: Entry #2
2012 Trip Report: Entry #3


Like pictures of Disney? Check-out my Flickr by clicking HERE.
ronfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 08:58 AM   #42
ronfin
Mouseketeer
 
ronfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 161

Quote:
Originally Posted by traylorc View Post

Based on your response to me, and your responses to other forum members....I think you are the one that doesn't "get it".

You point the OP to an eight month old thread, and then provide information regarding one photographer who had some issues with this lens. You have come to the conclusion this lens has issues in low light even though you have no first hand experience with this lens. Your knowledge of this lens is based on the hearsay of other photographers. That's fine...it's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

Conversely others are entitled to their opinion. You haven't touched a nerve based on citing some negative features of this lens. My enjoyment of any piece of photography equipment is not based on what you or anyone else thinks. If I like a lens that others universally pan...so be it. I shoot for myself and no one else. I was simply pointing out to the OP there are other folks who actually own this lens who have not reported this issue with low light. Just because other forum members have an opinion that differs from yours does not make those opinions any less valuable.
I gave the OP and educated opinion based on not just an 8 month old thread, what I've been reading about how it performs in low light for a lot of people, my own personal experience with the 7D, and the other options available that I've personally used. Don't like it? Move on. I'm tired of bickering with people over who knows better, or backhanded shots at the quality of my own images in an attempt to discredit my original advice. Trust me, I get "it", and I'm down helping on [here]. It's more aggravation dealing with the holier-than-thou mentality, and the forced opinions than I care to deal with.

OP, go buy the 35mm. Forget everything I said. Enjoy.
__________________
2012 Trip Report: Entry #1
2012 Trip Report: Entry #2
2012 Trip Report: Entry #3


Like pictures of Disney? Check-out my Flickr by clicking HERE.
ronfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 10:30 AM   #43
jimim
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NEPA
Posts: 1,177

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWDAD View Post
I don`t know if the 35 is. But the new Sigma 30 1.4 DC has the ability to hook up to your laptop through a USB adapter to set focus points.

Kevin
The 35 has the dock option. I'm not even going there though! Lol

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards
__________________


Animal Kingdom Lodge Jambo House June 13th for the week.

Planning Old Key West for Columbus week for 6 nights and then off to a Disney Cruise for 3 nights!
My Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/60184887@N08/
jimim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 10:32 AM   #44
jimim
DIS Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NEPA
Posts: 1,177

Quote:
Originally Posted by traylorc View Post

No offense intended....I am not trying to flame you....but let's not forget that's one thread. Yes it's Dpreview...but it's still only one thread. There is 18 responses in that thread, and the guy who had the issue posted his comments 8 months ago. The were a number of people in that same thread who claimed they did not have the same issues as the OP. To be honest, I have the Sigma and have not noticed any of these issues on my d800 or D4 when taking low light shots. I should also mention that Sigma has a USB dock which allows the user to easily update the firmware of the lens.

There is a thread on Photography on the Net (Canon Digital Photography) where there is a 279 page thread where folks are simply raving about this lens. When doing my due diligence I wanted to know what Canon shooters as well as Nikon shooters thought of this lens.

Are there a few complaints about this lens....sure there are. But let's be honest, if you hunt long enough you can find complaints about every lens. But when I see Canon users who routinely purchase Canon's top of the line "L" series glass raving about this third party lens...I take notice. Particularly when those same folks sell their Canon 35mm L glass to finance the Sigma. Additionally I know some folks who sold their Nikon 35mm f/1.4G lenses in order to purchase the Sigma.
Ah an owner. Exactly what I was hoping for. U like it? I found that thread with canon users raving too. I think I'm set on it after reading for an hour or so. I have shot with it also and deff think its worth the money. E en though **** plastic it's very solid and I felt it was fast with focusing.

What r ur feelings?

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards
__________________


Animal Kingdom Lodge Jambo House June 13th for the week.

Planning Old Key West for Columbus week for 6 nights and then off to a Disney Cruise for 3 nights!
My Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/60184887@N08/
jimim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 11:18 AM   #45
traylorc
DIS Veteran
 
traylorc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,818

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimim View Post
Ah an owner. Exactly what I was hoping for. U like it? I found that thread with canon users raving too. I think I'm set on it after reading for an hour or so. I have shot with it also and deff think its worth the money. E en though **** plastic it's very solid and I felt it was fast with focusing.

What r ur feelings?

Sent from my iPhone using DISBoards
First of all....let me apologize for contributing to drama on this thread. I hope when you read back through my responses you understand my intent was to encourage you to complete a through due diligence of this lens to determine if the "low light" issue identified by Ronfin was valid. Additionally I think feedback from people who actually own the lens provide can provide some valuable insight. Ownership of the lens doesn't mean other forum member's opinions are not valuable...unfortunately Ronfin doesn't seem to understand that.

To be perfectly honest I think Sigma has done a great job with this lens. It's tack sharp and the build quality feels higher quality than what we have seen from Sigma in the past. The lens is not built of metal, but it's a high quality plastic that does not give the impression of being the typical consumer lens. I have shot this lens on two different bodies in daylight and low light conditions. I have not experienced the issue described by Ronfin. That doesn't mean those issues do not exist, I simply have not seen them. Additionally, I have not heard friends of mine complain about any low light issues. In fact, I have not seen a single published review, professional or otherwise, mention this issue. Again I can only discuss the information I have seen on this lens. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the low light issue may have been something that was addressed with a firmware update to the lens. By the way, I love the having the ability to update the firmware.

Overall I really like this lens, it has given my a better appreciation of the 35mm focal length. And while the Sigma is not currently my favorite lens at the moment (that honor goes to Nikon's new 80-400mm f/4.5 - 5.6) I believe this is a very viable alternative to Nikon's and Canon's 35mm offerings.
traylorc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.