not being able to afford even bread........I've always wanted to know what would drive a person to own three or four 35mm lenses (especially 3 of them being 1.4)..
Would it be the single fact that YOU CAN? (money being no object)
In what sort of area in photography would one be involved that requires the presence of three or four 35mm lenses. How do they differ from one another? and please don't give me that 'bokeh' bullsh|t.
You don't shoot 35mm @ 1.4 for bokeh unless you're a fast aperture snob and the type of person that hopes to make up for the lack of composition in a photo with the usage of 'bokeh'.
I can accept other technical explanations regarding CA, "soft corners",overall sharpness & all sorts of 'terms' circulating this forum...but not the bokeh theory...
I am not addressing these questions to a specific person and I am not trolling this thread.
I know that probably now Lars Johnsson thinks i'm refering to him,but I am not aiming my questions/thoughts at him. (even though HE owns those 3-4 35mm lenses).
I just wanna make it clear that I don't want to offend him or judge his choice in lenses. It would be rude & impolite.
But I'm just trying to figure this out..
Surely, if I could afford it, I would probably own 10 LENSES or 15 LENSES. But surely I would not own two identical focal length lenses..
If I could afford it I would definitely get a TS-E, a dedicated macro lens,a UW fast lens, a wide one, short tele,mid tele, super-tele (such as a 400 etc).
So I'm not having these questions just because NOW I can't afford three 35mm 1.4 lenses, and if I could afford, I would do it.
No, if I could afford, I wouldn't do it, but I'm trying to understand why some do it...
Are we not becoming too focused on pixel peeping and gear faggotry?
And in the end, I would hope that you understand that I don't wanna offend anybody. I just have some honest questions and I don't want somebody who owns 20 lenses or 5 35mm 1.4 lenses to feel offended by my post,just because they FEEL that they FIT in my description...
I tried all three. The sigma definitely seemed the sharpest, but not so much so that I would give up in camera lens profiles. I also preferred the 1.4 L colour. So I went with the canon.
adrianb wrote:
not being able to afford even bread........I've always wanted to know what would drive a person to own three or four 35mm lenses (especially 3 of them being 1.4)..
Would it be the single fact that YOU CAN? (money being no object)
In what sort of area in photography would one be involved that requires the presence of three or four 35mm lenses. How do they differ from one another? and please don't give me that 'bokeh' bullsh|t.
You don't shoot 35mm @ 1.4 for bokeh unless you're a fast aperture snob and the type of person that hopes to make up for the lack of composition in a photo with the usage of 'bokeh'.
I can accept other technical explanations regarding CA, "soft corners",overall sharpness & all sorts of 'terms' circulating this forum...but not the bokeh theory...
I am not addressing these questions to a specific person and I am not trolling this thread.
I know that probably now Lars Johnsson thinks i'm refering to him,but I am not aiming my questions/thoughts at him. (even though HE owns those 3-4 35mm lenses).
I just wanna make it clear that I don't want to offend him or judge his choice in lenses. It would be rude & impolite.
But I'm just trying to figure this out..
Surely, if I could afford it, I would probably own 10 LENSES or 15 LENSES. But surely I would not own two identical focal length lenses..
If I could afford it I would definitely get a TS-E, a dedicated macro lens,a UW fast lens, a wide one, short tele,mid tele, super-tele (such as a 400 etc).
So I'm not having these questions just because NOW I can't afford three 35mm 1.4 lenses, and if I could afford, I would do it.
No, if I could afford, I wouldn't do it, but I'm trying to understand why some do it...
Are we not becoming too focused on pixel peeping and gear faggotry?
And in the end, I would hope that you understand that I don't wanna offend anybody. I just have some honest questions and I don't want somebody who owns 20 lenses or 5 35mm 1.4 lenses to feel offended by my post,just because they FEEL that they FIT in my description... ...Show more →
, I loved reading this post/question.
I think a lot of people may have a problem with your post, but I don't. I am also one of those guys who uses bokeh to cover up bad composition. In fact, almost every party I shoot for a local magazine is shot wide open at 1.4 because they like those shots. Many of the crappy backgrounds are de-emphasized for better looking shots in print. I spend most of my time trying to make sure my subjects are within the DOF and that's about it. I don't own multiple 35mm lenses, but I've got duplicates in other focal lengths that just sit in the closet. I think I'm the guy you're talking about,
adrianb wrote:
not being able to afford even bread........I've always wanted to know what would drive a person to own three or four 35mm lenses (especially 3 of them being 1.4)..
Would it be the single fact that YOU CAN? (money being no object)
In what sort of area in photography would one be involved that requires the presence of three or four 35mm lenses. How do they differ from one another? and please don't give me that 'bokeh' bullsh|t.
You don't shoot 35mm @ 1.4 for bokeh unless you're a fast aperture snob and the type of person that hopes to make up for the lack of composition in a photo with the usage of 'bokeh'.
I can accept other technical explanations regarding CA, "soft corners",overall sharpness & all sorts of 'terms' circulating this forum...but not the bokeh theory...
I am not addressing these questions to a specific person and I am not trolling this thread.
I know that probably now Lars Johnsson thinks i'm refering to him,but I am not aiming my questions/thoughts at him. (even though HE owns those 3-4 35mm lenses).
I just wanna make it clear that I don't want to offend him or judge his choice in lenses. It would be rude & impolite.
But I'm just trying to figure this out..
Surely, if I could afford it, I would probably own 10 LENSES or 15 LENSES. But surely I would not own two identical focal length lenses..
If I could afford it I would definitely get a TS-E, a dedicated macro lens,a UW fast lens, a wide one, short tele,mid tele, super-tele (such as a 400 etc).
So I'm not having these questions just because NOW I can't afford three 35mm 1.4 lenses, and if I could afford, I would do it.
No, if I could afford, I wouldn't do it, but I'm trying to understand why some do it...
Are we not becoming too focused on pixel peeping and gear faggotry?
And in the end, I would hope that you understand that I don't wanna offend anybody. I just have some honest questions and I don't want somebody who owns 20 lenses or 5 35mm 1.4 lenses to feel offended by my post,just because they FEEL that they FIT in my description... ...Show more →
What would drive a person from Burkina Faso that can't afford bread to buy computers and camera equipment
Snopchenko wrote:
Let's see what Ken Rockwell has to say about this; he's known to have been on a crusade against Sigma (sometimes with rather preposterous justifications).
JohnBrose wrote:
Shield, there are tons of people that don't mind manually focusing a lens and many actually prefer it for video and also stills. There are many wonderful images all manually focused b4 AF became popular in the late 80's/early 90's. Might not work for everyone, but then nothing does. Try some time to create a photograph instead of just capturing time. Manually focusing will help you slow down and think a bit more.
This is pretty offensive to me - I didn't realize we knew each other well enough for you to know if I shoot manually or not, or if I've "tried sometime to create a photograph instead of just capturing time". I didn't realize YOU and I went out shooting together and I just hurriedly mash the shutter button and don't think before I pull the trigger. You always this pompous and pretentious? Sorry you had to waste your uber-artistic time to bother replying to my post.
To answer your question, pal, I shoot MF all the time for video. I shoot AF to capture my kids, which would be extremely difficult in MF mode (they're 3 and 6 years old).
Shield wrote:
This is pretty offensive to me - I didn't realize we knew each other well enough for you to know if I shoot manually or not, or if I've "tried sometime to create a photograph instead of just capturing time". I didn't realize YOU and I went out shooting together and I just hurriedly mash the shutter button and don't think before I pull the trigger. You always this pompous and pretentious? Sorry you had to waste your uber-artistic time to bother replying to my post.
To answer your question, pal, I shoot MF all the time for video. I shoot AF to capture my kids, which would be extremely difficult in MF mode (they're 3 and 6 years old)....Show more →
"Extremely difficult!!"
Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds to us oldies who used to shoot sports and kids all the time with manual focus lenses? It is a wonder we ever got in-focus images!
marko1953 wrote:
"Extremely difficult!!"
Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds to us oldies who used to shoot sports and kids all the time with manual focus lenses? It is a wonder we ever got in-focus images!
Unless you're an MF ninja you didn't get anywhere near as many shots in sports as you can now with modern AF systems. Although pre-focus can still be very useful.
marko1953 wrote:
"Extremely difficult!!"
Do you realise how ridiculous this sounds to us oldies who used to shoot sports and kids all the time with manual focus lenses? It is a wonder we ever got in-focus images!
How does manually focusing vs. auto focusing suddenly make something a photograph vs. "just capturing time" though? Oh crap - I used AF - it's suddenly no longer a photograph!
The pretentiousness of some "pure" photographers cracks me up.
As a rental I went with the Canon because I don't want to worry about the AF issues the Sigma has, but if I were buying I'd have to think about it longer.
It's a shame that Sigma can't get this AF thing under control, a constant issue with their otherwise top notch lenses.
I owned both version (canon and Sigma) the sigma is much better in every aspect.
Here you can see some full size sample taken at full aperture I uploaded on my blog : Vincent Bourrut photographie
I've been debating this for a while.. mostly between getting the 35L or not getting the 35L. The Sigma and the 35 f/2IS were not really on my radar since they were so new.
I pulled the trigger on the 35 f/2 IS over the weekend.. long story short I love it. I sold my EF 28/1.8 and 50/1.4 to get it. The AF is awesome, the corners are ridiculously sharp. No problem nailing fast moving kids, etc.. at f/2. (The old 35/2 at f/8 was not as sharp as the new one at f/2.) It's main obvious flaw at f/2 and somewhat at f/2.8 is the vignetting, but as far as I'm concerned that is the least obnoxious & easiest to correct lens issue. My thought is Canon probably even biased the lens towards vignetting if they had to tradeoff one issue versus another since it is so easy to correct vignetting.
On a lot of shots the vignetting is not even annoying though, and I've already got some tack sharp shots I took at 1/4 or 1/5th of a second handheld. The other issue here is it is still a lot smaller than the f/1.4 lenses. The whole point of me getting this was to reduce the size of my indoor/low light kit down to 2 lenses, a 35 and an 85/1.8. The f/1.4 lenses are almost as big as zooms.
The cost of the f/2 IS still seems a little nutty but it didn't seem very painful considering I unloaded some of my old stuff at a good price.
I would get the sigma.
It seems to be as good as the canon L optically, still looks pretty good for a sigma, and cost less, and I appreciate F/1.4 over OS.
Pros
- Amazing build quality (compared to past Sigmas)
- Heavy (which I prefer to balance on the camera)
- SHARP at 1.4
Cons
- Heavy (some people might like a lighter prime)
- Slow focus (I think this is typical with Sigma lenses, but mine tends to take it's time)
- Sometimes back-focusses
Regarding the focus, I think a calibration would help out on this, as well the back focus (though I'm not sure if it's a real problem yet). I have NOT compared it to the 35L, so I can't speak for differences. Focus speed in low light is not fast, but it's not like an 85L either.
Overall this lens is fantastic. The build quality is AMAZING. It feels like a CZ. For the price NEW, it's incredible, and even still $100 cheaper than the cheapest, and oldest beat up 35L I've seen around here.
, I loved reading this post/question.
