its a good job when sony has only released 1 aps-c lens in 5 years and that was pritty average

Thanks!

Sorry, need to ask: what is b/c?

Jason Vong did a quick comparison against the FE 85/1.8 on FF and I must say the sigma at least matched it in pretty much every aspect all in a smaller package. Really impressive!

Nice combination...you're going to love it (but potentially wishing for OSS/IBIS)

I'm dying.

@@ronaldbenz_ Me Too! --In almost a hundred Frost videos I don't think I've ever heard him say that! I paused to ask myself; "Did he just say that?" XD Now I *gotta'* get that lens

I had to replay that part too! LOL

Which focal reducer do you use?

@@attentionaddicts The Metabones. It's fairly expensive but you don't lose much quality compared to cheaper speedboosters. It also seems to be more compatible and reliable with most lenses.

hey, its better than nothing;)

Yes, there are already two good candidates: 18-35 1.8 and 50-100 1.8. Even though not designed for mirrorless flange distance, but for DSLR, they are still worthy for getting native Sony E mount variants.

@@tubularificationed how about 16-50 f/1.8 (equivalent FOV 24-70 f/2.7)

They did it (18-50 2.8)

Hi, I agree, see 3:25 line bending!

I haven't tested the 60mm lens I'm afraid

yes it will :)

''Ass': a hoofed mammal of the horse family, which is typically smaller than a horse and has longer ears and a braying call.'

As a British person, if I'd meant the other kind of 'ass', then I'm happy to confirm that, of course, I would have spelled it with an 'r' ;-)

@@christopherfrost so..... This lens is not PETA approved. 😔 🐴

@@joshuacornelius25 THAT'S RIGHT ;-) well the review, the lens is fine

This lens does not have OSS. On Sony lenses which /do/ have OSS then the IBIS and OSS work together.

Maybe one day :-)

theizza68 Same here.

Nah, I don't want to go down that rabbit hole really. I have done in the past but it's always the same - on FF you get very heavy vignetting. Might as well get a lovely FF lens if you've spent the money on a FF camera. Happy new year to you too though anyway! :-)

if the output of the last element doesnt have the size of 35 to 36 mm there is not much of improvement you also need a higher density of megapixels to read out the smaller glass/light output all cameras i know fixed up the image for the light they got available , you dont see that only using the camera but on the output from the lens last lens-glas element upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Sensorformate_KB.svg

Seeing as my 30mm 1.4 is one of my absolute favorite lenses to use on full frame, I would have loved to see it as well. It's a bit of a hack, but goodness gracious does it yield great results.

@@Wabajak13 did you have to remove a baffle or something? That lens was my favorite when I was on apsc but the vinetting was extreme on FF

I've got the Sigma 16mm F1.4 is super nice. At FF equivalent of 24mm it is basically a fantastic vlogging lens if you're into that or just some landscapes..etc.

@@mikeway8188 I've heard all three are fantastic. Im still on a dslr so I got the Rokinon 16mm F2 instead. I'm a bit too poor for the Sigma lenses too.

@@TheMetalButcher you don't need fancy glass to take great pictures! Save up your money and buy it later but it won't be holding you back!

@@mikeway8188 Ehhh yes and no. I didn't have to have the Rok, but I instantly started to like the pictures out of it well better than my 18-55. That wide aperture really helps a lot. I also do a lot of video in low light. The T2i's sensativity is pretty poor, and the difference between Iso 1600 and 400 is huge. So it was well worth the $130 I spent.

What do you mean by "it performance"?

Oh, also I shoot with an a6500 + adapted sigma 30 1.4 A currently (adapted AF speed sucks), so looking for a new, best-value lens for my new system. Thank you in advance

Yes and No. You go from 24 mp to 10 mp when you use Super 35mm on your full frame e-mount

It does mount to full frame bodies. Vignetting if you use FF mode. The file size will be 10mp in crop mode on 24mp FF bodies.

Two totally different classes of lenses there. The sigma has more reach even when the 70-200 has the tele converter and will be faster at that length too. The Canon will be sharper in the overlapping range without converter. Likely a toss up in sharpness in with the teleconverter, but the sigma will be faster.

I do the tests on the a5100 because its sensor (24pm) is higher resolution than the a7Rii in crop mode (18mp) so you can get more indication of the lens's sharpness

I'd like to see a back to back but I'd go to Vegas with the odds that the Sigma is significantly better than the STM 50 1.8 which isn't that sharp to start with. I would like to see a back to back though as I'd like to replace my STM 50 1.8. Also the Sigma is 10mm shorter and 2mm smaller in diameter than the STM 50 with adapter.

Yes, when it's available

@@christopherfrost Is aviable already ...💪🤗

Urgh I'm not getting into that again! ;-) (it's f/1.4)

By default the FF camera will enter aps-c mode, but you can disable it to use the full sensor (with vignetting)

I am testing that lens - a review will come out quite soon.

Optical design for image stabilization seems to spoil bokeh quality too easily. That's probably also, why most good lenses with good bokeh don't have it.

@@tubularificationed Is IBIS better than in the lens IS? If it is the same, then all cameras with IBIS are nowhere as good as non IBIS cameras because of this. I learned my lesson that I need IS because handling a big and heavy camera with heavy glass tend to ruin my picture. Tripod is not a solution for every scenario, but probably having work out in the gym would do.. Or simply having the IS.

@@@gunsts If you are a bokeh connoisseur, then yes, the lenses you find interesting will likely have no OIS, so having IBIS would be better then if you shoot low-light and rather immovable subjects. Because for moving subjects, you would have to go for short shutter speed and high ISO anyway to freeze their action. Then you wouldn't benefit neither from OIS nor IBIS much for your own shake. Unless you use long tele having big shake amplitudes. The scenario you describe sounds like that: big and heavy camera with heavy glass: that is supertele-zooms, isn't it? For these tele scenarios, optical stabilization is actually better than IBIS, because - the correction leeway of IBIS sensors is quite small, maybe too easily too small for long teles's larger shake. OIS in the tele lenses instead are designed to cope with this larger shake which could overwhelm an IBIS. - especially in small bodies like the a6500, there's not much room for the sensor. I suspect, that this is the reason, why Sony IBIS has a worse reputation than e.g. Olympus, even though the CIPA value looks decent in the Sony spec sheets. I suspect, the A6500 was designed to just cope with the standardized CIPA shake, but no "micrometer" more than that. Where in practial applications, the actual shake may well exceed this (esp. with longer exposures). This is also the reason, why stabilized video looks much better stabilized on bigger APSC- bodes (e.g. Fuji X-H1) than on Sony bodies. Because doing video while you walk requires big correction amplitudes beyond CIPA standards, which Sony's IBIS doesn't seem to support too well. That must also the reason, that the OIS takes precedence over IBIS, if you attach an OIS lens to an IBIS body (such as the a6500). So that the IBIS is reduced to do only rotational corrections, which are usually negleglably small or absent.

@@tubularificationed you made everything clear about the OIS/IBIS. I use Canon 5dmk3 and some L lenses that are heavy, I don't shoot very long tele, but I do have 70-200 LII F2.8 that is too heavy for me to hold in longer time. But I think I blame it all in my physical weakness, my hands are not as steady as they used to be. So, I prefer the IS lenses. But some good lenses such as Sigma's don't have it, and Canon doesn't have IBIS. So I was wondering why Canon doesn't make IBIS? But your explanation made me think that Canon might know that IBIS is inferior than OIS hence they doesn't make such thing in their cameras. I also love to shoot macro, and what I have is macro lens without IS, and I find it so difficult to work with. I tried to use the tripod, but that doesn't work well for non static objects. Well, I think I have to practice more...

Sigma doesn’t put IS into their primes, for better or worse. Being someone who really values IS however, the bodies that work best for me are the Sony a7 line, the a6500 and the Nikon Z6 or Z7. Canon have stated many times that they think lens IS is superior to IBIS. But since they keep releasing important lenses without it (the RF 50mm 1.2 and the RF 28-70mm 2), it doesn’t really matter what Canon thinks. It’s rumored that the sequel to their EOS R will finally have IBIS, however. *shrug*

A review is coming

Take a look at my review of that lens for the full details :-)

Yes but the angles at which you'll see it are reduced

Fuji 56/1.2 for a bit softer and less clinical look.

The intensity (brightness) of the light does not change. But the depth of field does.

@@christopherfrost super thanks !!

Which giveaway was that?

@@christopherfrost Hi Chris it was the camera and lens one.

@@paultrunfull3324 Not me. I think you might be thinking of Chris Winter

What was the question? Whether you should buy an A7R iv or an aps-c body? 😬

Always on lightroom U do ur post right??

@@StorytellerImphal Luminar.. Yes but for instant photo jpeg sharing in body corrections are necessary

Ok. I dont have a5100 i have 6300 , it has inbuilt correction

Watch the video. I talk about close-up image quality

no.

Good question. Occasionally people ask me to review the 'microcontrast' of a lens and I always say the same thing: 'Please tell me a way to empirically test for it and I will'. And they never, ever get back to me...because it's a total myth. There are two factors to consider when talking about sharpness: resolution, and contrast. There is no such thing as microcontrast - it's made up by amateur photographers (and one or two others who should know better) who want to sound like they know what they're talking about. Very often Zeiss and Leica fanboys will claim their lenses have amazing 'microcontrast' because they're trying to justify to themselves the ridiculous amount of money they've spent on their lenses hehe.

Yes, but only in crop sensor mode - it's an APS-C lens