Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       4       5       end
  

1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?
  
 
popinvasion
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


We all want a nice sharp lens. I think the 24 and 35 primes are great lenses to have, but the added stop or so of light seems to be the main benefit. The bokeh is generally average at best on wider lenses, and most wider lens need stopped down for sharpness, so.. What's the point? I think the Sigma 35 1.4 had great potential but I recently got a super sharp copy and it often would hunt for focus=missed shots. I wish it also had weather sealing but that's just nit pickin. Anyway the 35/2 IS looks on paper especially at the recent $549.99 price like a gem, sure it's not an L build or a 1.4 but again if it's sharp at 2.0 what's the difference really?


Oct 06, 2013 at 04:53 AM
Larate
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


I have been using the 35/1.4 L for months, even more since I switched to FF (I often used the 24/1.4 L on crop bodies). I really enjoy this lens, and 35 mm is one of my favourite focal.
Recently, I noticed that after a whole day of shooting, I was not steady enough for photos at about 1/40 s. It was a pain for example inside churches, in spite of taking a burst of shots to reduce the noise. I had several burst completely useless because of my shaking.
So after many nights thinking of that, looking for reviews and so on, I finally decided to buy the new 35/2 IS. I'm not planning to forget my old L (I need more time to compare these two lenses). But now, at the end of the day, or inside monuments with poor lighting, I'm much more confident. I even have the opportunity to choose a slower speed if required.
The best of both worlds ?




Oct 06, 2013 at 05:19 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Not wasted.

I am a bit old school in that I'll try and let light, shutter speed, or ISO, take care of things rather than IS.

Related to this, I am all for low noise sensors but there comes a point when the light has gone and there's no colour, little contrast, it's dark - go home.



Oct 06, 2013 at 05:44 AM
popinvasion
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Larate wrote:
I have been using the 35/1.4 L for months, even more since I switched to FF (I often used the 24/1.4 L on crop bodies). I really enjoy this lens, and 35 mm is one of my favourite focal.
Recently, I noticed that after a whole day of shooting, I was not steady enough for photos at about 1/40 s. It was a pain for example inside churches, in spite of taking a burst of shots to reduce the noise. I had several burst completely useless because of my shaking.
So after many nights thinking of that, looking for reviews
...Show more

How do you like the 35/2 IS?



Oct 06, 2013 at 05:54 AM
popinvasion
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Paul Mo wrote:
Not wasted.

I am a bit old school in that I'll try and let light, shutter speed, or ISO, take care of things rather than IS.

Related to this, I am all for low noise sensors but there comes a point when the light has gone and there's no colour, little contrast, it's dark - go home.


I hear ya. At some point it is just time to go home. As for the lens, a 1.4 that is sharp at 2.0 vs a 2.0 that is also sharp at 2.0 and includes IS seems like a no brainier.



Oct 06, 2013 at 05:56 AM
Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


popinvasion wrote:
I hear ya. At some point it is just time to go home. As for the lens, a 1.4 that is sharp at 2.0 vs a 2.0 that is also sharp at 2.0 and includes IS seems like a no brainier.


But the Sigma and also a few others are very sharp already at f/1,4



Oct 06, 2013 at 06:10 AM
Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


And to say that the bokeh is generally average at best on wider lenses is ridiculous. It's not. But you probably talk about the background blur and not the bokeh (I would guess)


Oct 06, 2013 at 06:14 AM
popinvasion
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Sven Jeppesen wrote:
And to say that the bokeh is generally average at best on wider lenses is ridiculous. It's not. But you probably talk about the background blur and not the bokeh (I would guess)


Bokeh means blur. I am talking about oof areas. The sigma can be sharp at 1.4 but I also experienced a lot of missed focus.



Oct 06, 2013 at 06:21 AM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Brighter viewfinder, lower ISOs, older huge pixeled sensors...to name a few reasons...and there's that killer bokeh, the massive and ultra thin DOF...I want some fast L's, a 24 and 85 to start would be nice...they don't make you go blind do they


Oct 06, 2013 at 06:33 AM
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


popinvasion wrote:
Bokeh means blur. I am talking about oof areas. The sigma can be sharp at 1.4 but I also experienced a lot of missed focus.


It's more like bokeh is "the way the lens renders out-of-focus parts of the image & light. And the aesthetic quality of the blur you get.
When you say it's average on all wider lenses it's not true. You probably mean that wider lenses gives you less background blur than tele or normal lenses.

The Zeiss ZE 35/1,4 is known for having excellent bokeh. The bokeh on the Sigma 35/1,4 and Canon 35/1,4 is also ok.



Oct 06, 2013 at 06:37 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



popinvasion
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Lasse Eriksson wrote:
It's more like bokeh is "the way the lens renders out-of-focus parts of the image & light. And the aesthetic quality of the blur you get.
When you say it's average on all wider lenses it's not true. You probably mean that wider lenses gives you less background blur than tele or normal lenses.

The Zeiss ZE 35/1,4 is known for having excellent bokeh. The bokeh on the Sigma 35/1,4 and Canon 35/1,4 is also ok.


Ok is the key word. Not distracting is another way to put it. The oof is there but being a wide it's just there nothing amazing but not surprising either. Now an 85 1.2.... Stunning, but it should be.



Oct 06, 2013 at 06:40 AM
Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


What you talk about is the fact that a tele lens blur the background much more than a wider lens. That's another thing than the quality of the bokeh. If using a long super tele lens it will blur the background amazing even at f/8 or f/11


Oct 06, 2013 at 06:49 AM
popinvasion
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Lasse Eriksson wrote:
What you talk about is the fact that a tele lens blur the background much more than a wider lens. That's another thing than the quality of the bokeh. If using a long super tele lens it will blur the background amazing even at f/8 or f/11



I understand compression. I still contend that WA and UWA lenses have just ok oof, nothing bad but nothing great either.



Oct 06, 2013 at 06:57 AM
Erik_J
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


f/1,4 = Not wasted
Bokeh = Great on many f/1,4 wide angle lenses
Sharpness = Excellent on many wide lenses at f/1,4 (like the new Sigma 35)



Oct 06, 2013 at 07:48 AM
Larate
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Erik_J wrote:
f/1,4 = Not wasted
Bokeh = Great on many f/1,4 wide angle lenses
Sharpness = Excellent on many wide lenses at f/1,4 (like the new Sigma 35)


Not so much when moving to borders.



Oct 06, 2013 at 08:58 AM
Erik_J
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Larate wrote:
Not so much when moving to borders.


I don't agree. Neither does Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals or Lloyd Chamber at diglloyd in their reviews of the lens. Roger even compared the only Sigma lens he had against the best copy of 100 Canon 35/1,4 lenses he had tested before. The Sigma was very sharp and better in the center and also clearly better at the borders and corners. Photozone also say it's very good in the corners and borders



Oct 06, 2013 at 09:14 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


popinvasion wrote:
I still contend that WA and UWA lenses have just ok oof, nothing bad but nothing great either.


I dunno - they're pretty special when used well.

Erik_J wrote:
I don't agree. Neither does Roger Cicala...


Neither do I. I love the way my Sigma 35 f1.4 renders images.



Oct 06, 2013 at 09:19 AM
David Baldwin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


My 24L f1.4 Mk2 will be sharper at f2 and f2.8 than the non L version. Maybe not by a huge amount, but whether that cost is worth it to you is a matter of opinion. Am editing this to add that the speed/quality difference between f1.4 and f2 wide lenses isn't as important as it used to be because full frame camera bodies can be set to higher and higher ISOs rendering the faster lenses a little less useful than they used to be back in the day. Thats because both lenses can be stopped well down where their performance is much more equivalent.

By the time we get to, say, the 5D Mk5 then even low light photographers will be totally happy with f2.8 lenses, at least in terms of getting great exposures in low light.

Of course bokey is a different issue.



Oct 06, 2013 at 09:19 AM
David Baldwin
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Here is a comparison between the 24L and new 24mm at f2.8:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=480&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=788&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

24L does better in the corners.



Oct 06, 2013 at 09:36 AM
Erik_J
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Roger Cicala compares the Sigma 35/1,4, Canon 35/1,4, Canon 35/2 & Canon 35/2 IS here.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon



Oct 06, 2013 at 09:46 AM
1
       2       3       4       5       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       4       5       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password