I have a theory that the better you get at photography the wider you are able to shoot. It is much easier to just throw on a 200mm F2 onto the camera and fire away and not care much about backgrounds etc but when you shoot wide, you just have to have more of an "eye" for what you are capturing.
I don't know if that makes any sense but you are doing really well with this lens and I feel a great shot with the 35mm beats a great shot with the 200mm F2.....
You're a 110% correct on that, my friend!
It's funny you mention that because I used to LOVE compressed shots! 70-200, 135/2, 200/2, etc.
I rarely use the 105E now simply for that reason. Sometimes I even fight with 35 vs 58, trying to decide which one to use.
The thing is, I love shooting wide open, yet I want more OOF elements in my scene. That's when 24mm f/1.4G and 35mm f/1.4G come into play!
newtophoto wrote:
Are the 58 and 35 different enough to keep both? They both seem to excel in portraits with lots of background in play.
My environmental portrait lenses are 35mm indoor and 58mm outdoor. With 85mm when longer reach is needed. Otherwise 24/58 is also tempting but 35mm is an easier focal length for people.
b/g got to enjoy cocktail hour. they were originally torn on whether they wanted to partake in CH or do their portraits during this time.
the man in the clouds took care of the decision.
