Sir_Loin Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
darbo wrote:
In February I bought a Canon 35L II. It is insanely sharp and very well corrected against distortion/aberrations. BUT, I have not been loving it.
And, a few weeks ago, I ordered the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art and used it alongside my 35L II and you know what? My images with the Sigma absolutely wowed me. By contrast the 35L II just feels like one of those techie nerd guys that know all the answers but have zero personality. So, in spite of the technical superiority of the 35L II, I'm a little turned off by it right now.
Anyway, just writing this to suggest that maybe having Sigma switch them is the best way to go....Show more →
Bingo!! This is something I've been saying for a while. State of the art lenses that have reduced aberrations to a minimum and have insane sharpness can sometimes leave me cold.
I have 3 lenses that are considered to be the best in their class: 24-70 f/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and 100mm f/2.8L Macro. Insanely sharp and are examples of optical engineering at its finest. But as good as they are, I sometimes find them too clinical. However, when I put my 24mm f/1.4L II, 50mm f/1.2L or 85mm f/1.2L II on my camera and shoot them wide or close to wide open, despite their faults, they produce images with far more character. I've learnt to use these 'faults' to create images that stand apart from the norm. People with this obsession that sharpest is best are wrong (IMHO) and they'll give themselves an ulcer if they carry on trying to count the individual hairs on a head taken with a 50mm lens from 50ft away and viewed at 100%!
|