hardlyboring Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
tonyhart wrote:
Thanks for the replies guys, really helped my thought processes. Yep, Canon do have a 28 1.8 but not sure what the optical quality is like - it's quite an old lens and I think it's beneath what I'm used to in terms of IQ.
Doug, interesting - I feel like 21 might be a bit TOO wide for me and I could get gimmicky with it without being careful. I don't have the 16-35, I have the 17-40. It's an f/4 and while that's not the end of the world. There are times that I want faster. Particularly in churches. For me the 17-40 is largely there for the wide end, it's a specialist lens for me and I'd rather have what is essentially a wider 35.... something that is my go to lens for a LOT of the wedding day and I can have on my person without the if's buts and maybe's of a slower zoom lens. Also, I just prefer primes. I want to work for my composition, not have the crutch of "hey, I'll just zoom out a little more". Sure, I could just work for my compositions within the confines of 35mm but I find that I'm butting up against the limits of that FL quite a bit.
I've given it some thought overnight and I think 28mm might be really nice, but I think in all honesty 24mm is where it's at for me. It allows me to juxtapose things without going crazy wide like 16-17mm.
Any other FMers got experience with the Siggy Art 24?...Show more →
Ah sorry I guess I didn't read well at the beginning
The 21 can be gimmicky but it does not distort so it really is just a slight wider 24. Perfectly sharp across the frame etc. I love it for getting ready stuff in tight quarters. Really lets you get some of the stuff on the sides in if you have to work close.
|