Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80

Discussion of lenses, brand or independent, uses and merits
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
agorabasta
Viceroy
Posts: 1198
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:41 pm

Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80

Unread postby agorabasta » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:01 pm

Aram,

The 'deep' profile is the thing that produces the most 'standard' resulting colours. The 'ungreen' profile is lightening the greens and darkens the reds under the higher-K lighting conditions, which may be useful for landscapes.

But, really, if you want to 'dig' the colour, you simply must get yourself a system that delivers the truest possible colour reproduction against the funds you spend on that.

Means you can't get away with just chasing the no-colour-cast lenses...

User avatar
aramkostanyan
Heirophant
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:00 pm
Location: Zurich, Switzerland

Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80

Unread postby aramkostanyan » Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:30 pm

Of course there is no lens that does not have any color casts and is perfect.
I wanted to know the opinion of those who did use those lenses.
Also, what would you say about the "standard" profile of Maurizio?
Sony A55 + Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM, SAM 55-200
Aram

agorabasta
Viceroy
Posts: 1198
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:41 pm

Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80

Unread postby agorabasta » Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:23 am

All profiles by Maurizio are of the 'creative' type. It means that they are imitating some specific 'creative style' of some particular camera, or are trying to create some other specific look.

None of his profiles really produce technically correct neutral colours/tones. The name 'Standard' simply means that the profile attempts to look like the camera's internal 'Standard' style.

Of his 'Standard' profile for the a55 I must say that it's just a simple single-illuminant profile as it is obvious from its 28kB size, so its low-K performance is very poor. It has badly oversaturated and darkened greens, pinks turned into yellows, reds are overbrightened and burnt-out... Very bad.
The daylight performance is better, but there you get the skies shifted towards turquoise and also oversaturated, which means that the sky blue is readily blooming into the clouds white.

Generally, I'd say that using Maurizio's profiles is only justifiable if you need that very particular look they deliver into some specific image; and they are not the general-purpose profiles.

My 'Deep' profile produces a really standard response that may then be modified with custom HSL adjustments or presets. I prefer this approach because introducing too strong adjustments directly into the camera profile leads to limiting the tonal resolution too early in the processing which in turn limits the further adjustments' available latitude.

User avatar
aramkostanyan
Heirophant
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:00 pm
Location: Zurich, Switzerland

Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80

Unread postby aramkostanyan » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:08 am

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation.

I can see your point in the pictures that I was trying to adjust with his profiles.
Those profiles are useful for some creative effects when you need them.
Sony A55 + Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM, SAM 55-200
Aram


Return to “Lens Lore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests