Jump to content

Dr. G

Members
  • Posts

    671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Member Title
    Neuer Benutzer
  • Country
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I’ve had good luck selling on the Fred Miranda forum.
  2. It's a very slight waviness in the vertical lines towards the edges. I would think it would only matter if you're doing super critical architecture photography, urban landscapes, etc.
  3. I posted a wildlife shot I took with it yesterday in the SL2-S image thread. I still can't believe I took it with my own camera... magic indeed
  4. Jump to around 1:28:30 to see the APO 21 vs the 14-24 at 21mm.
  5. I'm often traveling with my 50 Lux-SL. The Sigma looks like a lighter, smaller solution, but I'm not sure the falloff and out of focus rendering compares to the Lux. Granted it's 1.4 to 1.2, but whenever I use the Lux people ask me what lens I used when I took the photo - so apparently there is some magic in it that's not just apparent to photographers.
  6. Were you getting inconsistent critical focus results before it died?
  7. I did…. sort of. It’s a very good lens. Sharp to the corners with good contrast/microcontrast. Plus, it’s 1.4. I need to see if I still have any of the photos I took with the Sigma 20 1.4, but I was primarily testing it to see how it handled stretching at the right and left edges of the frame. The only test shots I took to determine that were in my living room about 12 feet back from my front wall. I figured this was close enough to evaluate it and, since it was a flat field, I would be able to see if any stretching outside of objects closer to the camera along the edges would occur. I had a door on the right side of my frame. With the Sigma 20mm the door was clearly much wider than what it should have been. With the 21 APO it pretty much just looks like a door. It’s been reported that there is some in camera correction happening with the 21 APO. That may be the case. In fact, when Red Dot did their recent video on ultra wides they compared the 21 APO to the 14-24 zoom at 21mm and the Zoom was slightly sharper in the corners. This may be because whatever correction is happening in the camera on the 21 APO is creating a perceived decrease in resolution. I’m just speculating, though.
  8. If 1.4 is erotic, what would you consider .95-1.2?
  9. This is not going to be received well, but before you do that try a 67mm glimmerglass filter on the 90 for portraits.
  10. I hear you, Mark. I’ve only sold two Leica lenses, one of which was… the original 50 APO Summicron M. I’m not going to tell you how much I sold it for, but I kick myself everyday for doing it. I’ve also had every Q camera and sold them all. Not because I didn’t think they were great, but because I do not like 28mm. I’ve tried.
  11. I have a few APO lenses. Almost all of them make a faint whirring type of sound when the firmware is updated. My 50 APO makes a very different sound - kind of like you’re describing - a vibrating, grinding type of sound that is much louder than my other APO lenses. My 50 APO sometimes appears to be not as sharp as my 50 Summilux-SL, which makes me think there may be something wrong with the focus motor. I’m probably going to send it in for service.
  12. What would be the advantage to having a monochrome DNG from the SL3? Wouldn’t you lose the ability to adjust the color channels? I realize you don’t have that ability with the Monochrom cameras, but you’re gaining dynamic range, shading gradation and effective resolution with those sensors.
×
×
  • Create New...