Photoclubalpha

Hi all,

I hurried for those who asked, but everyone is welcome to take a look of course.

A ´random´ selection of shots taken with the lens in subject can be found here:
http://www.stil-pictures.com/Photograph ... 1187_sZegd

@Olaf: the first 15 are at apertures 1.4 and 2.0 to give an idea, but I think I´ll add a few better samples before next week.

Same disclaimer as for the 70 macro: I´ve put some rudimentary protection on it, hate to see even lousy pictures abused commercially for free. Then again, I think looking at X3Large will show enough detail without emptying your wallet; EXIF data is of course accessible as well.

Cheers!

Beautiful shots, Jasper.
Do you Post Process a lot?

Thank you Jasper_D for demonstrating what the 50mm can do .
-Clarke

Dr. Harout wrote:Do you Post Process a lot?

Depends on what you call a lot of course, but I objectively think not that much. I´m an old fashioned guy, like to get it right to start with, keep the shutter activations as low as possible.
I usually shoot raw now, import into Aperture (referenced), set ´highlight hot and cold areas´ and use the recovery and black point sliders to get rid of them. Recovery is usually done before 0.3, black point somewhere between -1 and +1. Of course, sometimes there´s a few exceptions requiring the max.
When getting really picky - happens sometimes with macro and close ups - I add some definition up to .35, maybe some vibrancy, rarely adjust anything else, like contrast, brightness or saturation.

I´ve added a dozen meanwhile at the end of the gallery, taken when coming back this morning from a company event at the other side of the lake, so on French territory. A few comparative shots for the wide apertures - all handheld, don´t hang me on it please! - and a few illustrating what I´m saying above. All 12 not PPed at all, just exported straight after import and selection, quality 11/12.

For an example of heavily postprocessed images take a look on the next linked gallery - a bonsai exhibit which took place in a sports hall under awful light, everything much too red, even to the naked eye. I only had the 900 for about 2 weeks, so to be sure, shot all in XFine jpeg mode. Wish I hadn´t!
Needed WB tweaks, colors and levels adjustments, definition, mid-tone contrast, in short almost all available sliders to be presentable (Aperture ones that is, still learning but not applying PSe):
http://www.stil-pictures.com/Convention ... 6507_Tz4yK

The absence of vignetting in the Sigma AF 50 mm 1:1.4 EX DG HSM at full aperture truely is impressive! So is the flatness of field at close distance. I really could use such a lens---the only thing that is keeping me from ordering one is: it's a Sigma

I guess everybody has read the horror story on dpreview.com about the A850 which allegedly got damaged beyond repair from using AF micro-adjustment with a Sigma lens. I wonder how much truth really is in this story ... but until further clarification what actually has happened I am not ready to buy anything with the Sigma name on it.

-- Olaf

I really think we should be careful with taking for granted what only one user has reported so far. If his autofocus is really broken, I´m fully convinced it´s a coincidence and has nothing to do with using MFA on other than Sony / Minolta lenses. Moreover, if it were true, I´m sure Sony would issue the much awaited FW update or recall the cameras: think about it, all they warn against is using third party lenses which may cause disfunctioning of brand dedicated lenses. Next conclusion should then be that it will be fine using third party lenses only, as there´s no warning against that, driving people having the flaw away from purchasing SALs and stick to 3d party...

Now, how intelligent can hardware be, discovering some lens is a genuine Sony / Minolta hence punish according to the book, because also remembering a Sigma has been mounted before?
It really does not make sense to me; the conflicting IDs story however gives a logical explanation which suits me fine. Or to quote Spock, when all has been explored, the only remaining valid explanation, however unbelievable, must be the truth. Here, I think it´s not even unbelievable. I will of course not buy a Sigma 120-400 because of it, if that were the only difference with other similar lenses, as it´s likely to conflict with my Sigma 50.

Besides, over the last two days, needing to carry light, I had the Minolta 35-105/f3.5-4.5 with me instead of the usual trio. It behaved fine (on AF that is), in line with the above, as it´s not conflicting with anything afaik (ID 2554). I´m fully confident the 70-400G coming soon will do just as fine, as its type ID 53 is not conflicting with anything else either. I´ll let you know when I do. Also note that DxO has a lens module for the Sigma 12-24 for all alphas except the 300.
I wonder though what happens to people having and using both AF DT 18-70mm F3.5-5.6 and AF DT 18-200mm F3.5-6.3. Those have conflicting IDs as well, 40 for the 18-70, 40.1 for the 18-200...

In conclusion, while his problem might be real, I think Roy´s analysis of it is plain wrong and really a non issue...