Lens reviews are at the heart of any photography-themed blog, and today is the review of the Sigma 18-250…with it’s wide focal range, this is a key lens to have in your bag if you want your SLR to reach it’s best potential. While Point and Shoot and camera phones may be great for some scenarios, it’s the bigger sensor size of the SLR that will garner you better photos…yet these photos are only as good as the glass they’re captured through! So, without further ado, let’s take a look at the Sigma 18-250! Read more
For today, I am happy to bring to you the latest hardware gear review – from none other than the folks at Sigma, with their 85mm f1.4 lens. Let’s just jump right in:
1. Focal Length – I’ve talked at length on the blog before about fixed focal length versus variable length zooms. Their differences, both pros and cons of each are duly noted, and for the most part, I think we can skip the formalities of the technical explanations. It’s an 85mm lens. This means you are not going to be able to zoom with the lens, rather with your feet. It also means that you will gain pros in IQ (See #8 below). Normally I am shooting with either a 10-22 for wide angle landscapes or a 70-200 for portrait work, so this took a bit of adjusting.
When I did shoot portrait work, I kept on having to step further back to bring more of the subjects face into the scene, and with landscapes, I found myself rotating into portrait position (vertical) and instead of trying to get everything in one shot, rather capturing several shots, with the acceptance that I would have to stitch together in post production.
It’s not perfect for either, but a good compromise in focal length to try and meet the needs of both ends as much as possible. If I had to choose my favorite focal length, it probably would not be an 85mm, but there are very subjective reasons for that, which probably aren’t as relevant here, so I will defer that for another post. The focal length is what it is. You either like the length or you do not. I was middle of the road on it – sometimes I liked it, sometimes I didn’t.
In the end, I think the focal length was fine for most purposes. Even
2. F-Stop Range – This is the reason I want this lens. Stopping all the way open to an f1.4 gives you amazing results from two key perspectives:
- Depth of Field – When you shoot with a low depth of field, the subject is very easily separated from the background. This also brings up the subject of bokeh quality, and here I was quite impressed as I didn’t see any evidence of jagged lines or aperture opening sizes, which is often characteristic of cheaper lens builds.
- Low Light photography – Low light photography to me means shooting at or near dusk, or in an incandescent environment where you don’t want to introduce flash. You don’t want to be a part of the scene. The photographer wants to blend into the background and be as unobtrusive as possible. Lenses with low f-stop ranges allow you to do this, and the Sigma 85mm f1.4 is no exception!
3. Noise – The motor on this lens is as quiet as one would expect for current technology – whisper! I never heard anything that would cause a distraction, and at this point I am actually considering upgrading the Sigma Macro for this reason – the quieter the operation, the easier it is to concentrate on what you are shooting!
4. Size/weight – About what would would expect for this focal length and aperture. Remember, the lower the aperture (f1.4) the beefier a lens will have to be, because elements will need to be thicker in order to have any sort of stability. It made for near perfect balance in conjunction with the 40D. On a larger camera like the 5D or 1Ds Mark IV, I could see where you might not have as much a balance, but for my purposes, it works!
5. Build – Patented and as expected, the water resistant housing, and non-slip grip that is now almost a trademark feature of Sigma was present so no surprises there. I always enjoy shooting with Sigma gear because the heft of it just feels solid in my hands.
6. OS/IS/VR – There is no built in motion correction here, which is what I collectively use to refer to the proprietary features of Sigma, Canon’s and Nikon’s camera shake correction technologies. ALthough I should probably share that OS = Optical Stabilization (Sigma), IS = Image Stabilization (Canon), and VR = Vibration Reduction (Nikon). Since this lens doesn’t have this motion correction feature, there’s really not much to discuss here.
The one note I would have is that when shooting with this lens, the benefit is primarily in that you can shoot at f1.4 which lets in a lot of light. To that end, the need for motion correction is probably not as needed, except for the most exceeding low light scenarios, but you’ll see in a minute, that’d have to be pretty darn low!
7. Cost – For the benefit of shooting at f1.4, the price of admission is hefty indeed. B&H Photo prices it out at $969. Since this is a new lens in their lineup, you likely will not find it for much less than this, as there is no aftermarket yet to speak of.
8. Image Quality – Here, as always, I like to let the images speak for themselves. I’ve tried to include a few samples that demonstrate both the depth of field capabilities and the low light performance. Keep in mind – every image here was shot hand held!
*Editor Note* This review was done back in 2011, but still holds today after another rental session with this lens. My review still stands!
So, as I start kicking the tires more with the Canon G12, and looking at things like image quality, resolution, post production, and all sorts of tests, one that came to mind was to run some video tests! Since we’ve been talking about the convergence of photography and videography for a while now, that seems to make at least a little sense, right? Okay – so here’s the crazy test #1 that I just decided on a whim to run:
I positioned both my iPhone camera and the G12 at the same position on the kitchen counter. Then, I slid a Sprite can slowly toward the lens of each. This way you can see the video quality as objects move closer to the lens, and the quality of the light that each is capable of as well. Before I get into that though – let’s consider some other factors:
1. How easy was it to export the content?
iPhone: It wasn’t too bad – I have a Dropbox account, so all I had to do was upload it to my Dropbox account, then download from there to my computer before doing a final upload to the blog here for you all to view (no editing, I promise…it’s super boring!)
Canon G12: Also not too bad – I removed the card, and with my FTp client open, simply copied the file up to the blog. Here, I think Canon gets the nod, just because it was a tad easier, but it’s a barely perceptible nod, to say the least!
2. What about the file types and sizes?
iPhone 4s – It saved as an MOV file – no big surprise there, after all, that’s the Apple way of handling video files for as long as I can recall with Quicktime, right? The file size is for about 21 seconds and comes in at 50 MB. Not gargantuan, but for the super impatient, this could be a deal breaker for that short a set of footage. Youtube loads stuff pretty quick, so not a huge fan of this. But, let’s see what the G12 can do…
Canon G12 – It also saved as an MOV file – which for some reason, surprised me…I don’t know why I thought it would be an mp4, but anyway, that’s what it did. The file size for about 30 seconds and also comes in right at about 50 MB. So, it seems to handle video processing just a little bit better than the iPhone. I guess not a huge surprise since Canon has been in the video biz for as long as I can remember – longer than Apple for sure! It may not seem huge, but it can take a few seconds and for the impatient types out there, that could be a deal breaker, esp for a 30 second boring video of a Sprite Can, so here again, I would have to give a slight nod to the G12…
Now, let’s take a look at the actual video qualities (ready to sip some coffee?):
Canon G12: So, what did we learn from this? Well, for me I saw that the G12 handled the horribly low and bad lighting better than the iPhone. Youtube wanted to clean it up for me, but in the interests of keeping things as close to original quality as possible, I said “no”. As for focusing and such – the Sprite can lost focus rather quickly which surprised me. I would have thought that the G12 would have stayed sharper longer.
Apple iPhone 4s: Hmmm…another boring video of a Sprite can sliding across a counter. Again, horrible lighting, but what’s this: the focus stayed on longer for the iPhone than the G12?!?! It also seemed to handle the low lighting well enough – even though it’s still pretty garish, but dare I say that in terms of rough video quality from this very non-scientific comparison, the iPhone gets a bit of a nod instead of Canon! Interesting!
What say ye all? Which one wins the first round? More tests should be forthcoming, but it looks like the G12 gets a nod in 2 out of 3, but the critical 3rd – quality – the upstart iPhone 4s takes the cake. All things considered, my knee-jerk is to give the entire round to Apple! Is this deserving? What’s the collective think?
Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.