In early June, I went to the Kola Peninsula, visited the Khibiny mountain range and my favorite Raslak cirque.
I took only the Sigma 17/4 everywhere. It copes well if you need to make a panorama and then take a shot from a minimum distance, and can replace a macro lens in some cases.
Compact, lightweight, with a great picture. I recommend taking a closer look at it if you are faced with choosing the only lens for light hikes.
00demontver00 wrote:
In early June, I went to the Kola Peninsula, visited the Khibiny mountain range and my favorite Raslak cirque.
I took only the Sigma 17/4 everywhere. It copes well if you need to make a panorama and then take a shot from a minimum distance, and can replace a macro lens in some cases.
Compact, lightweight, with a great picture. I recommend taking a closer look at it if you are faced with choosing the only lens for light hikes.
Lots of great shots with the Sigma small primes. Just wondering why no-one shoots with the 50/2 though. I have the 35/2, and want to partner it with the 50 if the resolution and rendering are the same. Any thoughts/samples would be much appreciated.
ArveyAll wrote:
Lots of great shots with the Sigma small primes. Just wondering why no-one shoots with the 50/2 though. I have the 35/2, and want to partner it with the 50 if the resolution and rendering are the same. Any thoughts/samples would be much appreciated.
The difference in FL coverage between the 50mm and 35mm lenses is too small, IMHO. I would go for the 65mm f/2 if I were you. It offers a more compressed effect, a better separation between the subject and background, making it suitable for portrait purposes over the 50mm. And, it is a lovely lens.
Good point AGeoJO. I like the 35/50 combo though, and 65 is bit too long for me. I like the sigma rendering, just wondering if the 50/2 has some flaws/caveats.
