topic Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS? in EF & RF Lenses

sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

iphonemaster93 — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:23:37 GMT

So I took this shot, shown below, with my 17-55 2.8 and later on, I tried doing it with the Sigma 35mm 1.4 and none of the shots came out to be this focused. Does anyone know if it's because there's no IS on the 35mm or is it because I just got unlucky with all of my photos? Is it possible to get this clean shot with the 35mm 1.4 or do I have to be on a smooth road to do this? I was trying it on 280N from Pacifica up to South SF trying to shoot a random drift car and all of them were too shaky. Thanks!

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

ScottyP — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:39:08 GMT

Hmmm. Interesting variation on the question. Shooting from a moving car, and how much that increases camera shake.

I have never tried shooting from a moving car. All the reciprocal shutter speed rules of thumb are based on standing on foot, so perhaps they are inivalid when you are sitting in a vibrating machine travelling over rough pavement. Same with the stuff about wide-ish focal lengths like 35mm not needing IS when handholding.

Canon claims 3 stops of IS on the 17-55.

Increased shutter speed is obviously the answer. The question is just how much is needed? Presumably, then, if you can gain 3 stops of shutter speed you can get the equivalent clarity from the non-IS Sigma lens as you are getting from the IS lens. Open the aperture 2 stops and double the ISO once (or vice-versa) and your non-IS should be as blur-resistant as the IS lens.

Perhaps you don't need to go to 8x the shutter speed (3 stops) though. You may not really need all 3 of those stops. Try doubling the shutter speed (1 stop), then quadrupling it (2 stops) if double is not enough.

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

ScottyP — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:31:55 GMT

Also,

Were you shooting the same aperture and same 35mm focal length on both cameras both times? If you were shooting one lens at f/2.8 and the other at f/1.4 your depth of field at the same focal length would be a whole lot shallower on the f/1.4 lens, so nailing focus would be a lot harder, and a lot less of the subject would be in focus even when you nailed focus.

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

iphonemaster93 — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 23:43:34 GMT

I was shooting at around 1/30 at F10-F15 with the 17-55. I've been told by a professional to try shooting at 1/125 or faster at F10 but I don't know if he uses IS or not.

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

cicopo — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 01:50:19 GMT

There are other variables in play here. Were you shooting in Tv mode with the AF set to AI Servo? Were you able to see the viewfinder well enough to set the AF spot on a target like the door handle or an emblem? With both cars in motion you need to do some of the work, and the more you can do the better. IS will help a bit but not much in this situation.

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:36:40 GMT

When you take a picture out of the side window of a moving car you must account for the difference between the speeds of each car. The resulting photo will be as blurred just like you were standing still while a car driving by you. What really matters is the difference of the speed between to two vehicles. When you shoot out of a car, the closest to you objects will be blurred most, the ones farther away will be blurred less.

It also matters where you shoot from. The front and back are better while the sides are worse. Of course at an angle with be proportionate.

Again you stripped the exif data from the sample but if you were really at 1/30 that is way too slow. I mean way, way too slow. I would "guess" 1/1000 would be more where you should be. Give or take a stop or two. You need to select an aperture and ISO that lets you maintain that SS. Smaller the better, IE. f8+.

A myth about IS, is it enables you to “freeze” fast-moving objects at slower shutter speeds. This is a totally false myth that gets propagated by the web. IS is a crutch. It is there to help get sharper pictures in certain circumstances. It is also variable and gets less helpful as the SS gets slower. In other words it works best at 1-stop. Much less well at 3-stops. It is highly inaccurate to say, you get 3-stops if you use IS. You might and you might not. From a moving vehicle, it may actually be working against you. I would turn it off.

The focus spot will be critical. Use just the center spot and turn all the others off.

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:38:27 GMT

Don't forget my cardinal rule, great photography is 1/2 camera/lens, 1/2 post editing and 1/2 YOU !

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

cicopo — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:18:48 GMT

You can't shoot at a high shutter speed & get the right effect. You need motion blur on the wheels / tires / background.

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

iphonemaster93 — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:26:12 GMT

Nope, I was using full manual and always shoot with AI servo for rollers. I tried using shutter priority and let the camera do the guess work with aperture but after doing some rolling sessions, I realize that full manual allows me a higher chance of getting more in focus shots. I always look through the viewfinder for rolling shots, I never use the LCD screen (I usually use the window as a body mount and I'm always hanging about a third out of the car). I also had the AF zone set on the right third of the view finder.

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

iphonemaster93 — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:31:35 GMT

1/1000 is way too quick haha. I'm trying to get the effect where the car is in 100% focus and the background in a blur, to give it that sense of speed. One of the most popular methods is to be shooting at half the speed limit (in this case, we were doing about 60-65 mph) so I was shooting at about 1/30-1/40, sometimes even slower than that. And then the aperture, the smaller the aperture, the more wheel spin you get (others on car forums recommend anywhere from F9-F18, depending on the look you want to get). I've tried both 1/125 and quicker at a small aperture and 1/30 and slower at a larger aperture (both with the 17-55) and I realize that I get more of the rolling shot feeling at a slower shutter speed. I know a pro who does it at 1/125-1/160 and his rolling shots look amazing. I'm still currently working on getting rolling shots with the 35 and 10-22 (another website recommends using a wide angle).

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

iphonemaster93 — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:32:20 GMT

I know haha, but i'm working on the last 1/2 XD

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

iphonemaster93 — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:34:19 GMT

exactly. that's why when I attempt to shoot at 1/125 or faster, I turn up the ISO and turn down the aperture. Otherwise, if I'm shooting at 1/125 at F9, I get absolutely no wheel spin and no speed effect in the background. The one thing that's bothering me is not being able to use the 35mm for sharper rolling shots. In the photo above, I bumped up the clarity to make the car look that sharp. I don't know if there's a way to make the car look sharper without having to bump up the clarity in PP.

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:27:00 GMT

In your original post you said, "... none of the shots came out to be this focused."

That is what I assumed you wanted. You did not mention wheel blur. Did you?

IMHO, it is s mistake to use IS. It is a mistake to use so many focus points. Also I would not use AI-Servo. If you want advice from me that is what I would do.

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:30:54 GMT

Wheel blur and a sharply focused photo may require Photoshop. A fairly easy task to do. 1/2 of the triangle!

The other issues I mentioned are still valid. You will have to find a compromise between the two as blur and sharp are opposites.

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

iphonemaster93 — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:41:03 GMT

My bad. Yeah I wanted wheel blur as well as the background to be blurred with the car body in complete focus. I've tried using single point auto focus and when I did that, the portion of the car I was aiming at was perfectly in focus, while the rest of the vehicle was actually starting to be blurred as well. I'll try turning off IS next time but I definitely do need Al servo because
One Point will make the entire photo blurred and Al Focus will still make the camera use Al Servo. Thanks for the tip though! 🙂

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

iphonemaster93 — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:41:41 GMT

Yeah i'm still using LR and PS to do PP for the rolling shots (this one at the beginning of the thread was through both LR and PS).

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

ebiggs1 — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:03:54 GMT

"I've tried using single point auto focus and when I did that, the portion of the car I was aiming at was perfectly in focus, while the rest of the vehicle was actually starting to be blurred as well."

This is not a cause of single point focus. It is impossible. When you use multi-point all you are telling the camera is to use the "single point" it can mostly focus on. This is usually the closest. Multi-point does not expand what will be in focus. It simply allows more choices.

Show below is now what I beieve you want. Yes, no?

Or maybe the car instead?

Either way both photos were sharp to begin with. The rest is all Photoshop! It is under Motion Blur.

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

cicopo — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 01:51:58 GMT

OK lets try to clear a few things up. The desired motion blur comes from the low shutter speed & a perfect pan. With both vehicles in motion the pan becomes more or less like shooting a still BUT as such the camera & photographer can't be in motion as in having road vibrations transfer to the photographer because he / she is leaning onto the side door or window.. Also lets be clear in that the Canon lenses with IS that go really wide DO NOT have a panning mode & for this kind of use IS may CREATE fuzzyness, but that's just a guess based on my own experiences with my 24-105 when shooting race cars with the IS on. IF you really want to do this kind of photography well you need to spend BIG money on a camera stabilizersuch as sold by Kenyon.

http://www.ken-lab.com/

These are used by pros to shoot air to air & car to car etc. NOW re the AF idea that multiple points is a better choice that is not correct. The camera can ONLY focus to one distance at the moment the photo is taken, not 2 or 3 different distances which seems to be what you are thinking. DOF gives you that extra area in focus, not multiple focus points. You need to decide on what you need in DOF & use an F stop small enough to get that much DOF from your shooting distance. There are DOF calculators on line or you can get an Ap for it to use when needed.

Correct settings and technique are the difference between getting a photo of a car that looks to be parked or one at speed. Both cars in these photos are going VERY fast but one looks to be stopped because the shutter speed was too high (intentionally).

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

iphonemaster93 — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 02:54:23 GMT

The second photo is what I'm looking to do with the 35mm. Btw, I can open the link but nothing shows up. I'm not sure, for whatever reason, zone AF works better for me in comparison to single point AF. I've seen the shot of the blue cobra (?), I know that one was done through editing.

Re: sigma 35mm 1.4 IS vs non IS?

iphonemaster93 — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 02:55:37 GMT

sorry laptop glitch. hasn't been resolved yet. anyways, ebiggs I know your second picture was photoshopped, I'm looking for the result in your first photo.