RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses | |
chez wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
j4nu wrote:
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Respectfully disagree. My kid is 5 and eats a lot of sugar. AF-S is fine in decent light with the 45. Indoors at night, it does struggle a bit, so I just use MF mode for those situations.
Just get it. 45's awesome.
j4nu wrote:
hco0 wrote:
my thought is, I would like to try the 45 for now. My daughter is ~6 month now, which means she will stay still for at least another 6 months or so. None of the native FE lens at ~$600 range can catch my eyes atm.
In that period I can wait for user reports on the 35 and other new lens, or even save up for 24GM and maybe sell the 45. Its price for used is so low atm, won't cost me too much even if ended up sold eventually
I'd advise against 45mm for AF-C & children... I mean, you will get some keepers but a lot of missed shots too (and AF-S is too slow to capture moving kids). I think any other normal-ish (35-55 mm) will do just fine, not necessarily Sony branded (e.g Samyang 35mm f1.8 if you want to go really low cost) ...
Well, to be honest it's the worst choice from available options for kids(AF-C), unless you always take photos from far away  . If you can live with AF-S then I guess it's ok.
I think this lens has unique qualities, which have been demonstrated here, but fast & reliable AF is not one of them...
Well, to be honest, I think your response doesn't take into consideration that people take photos of kids in a lot of different ways. AF-C is certainly a reasonable option that some might prefer, but that does not make it universally the best option. Just the best option for some who like to shoot that way. IMO, AF-S is also a reasonable option for some people if it suits their style of shooting. Personally, I find MF as the best option for my style of shooting so I am definitely an odd duck, but I find AF-C for me to be the worst choice of the available options for kids.
Why do you find AF-C the worst choice. I love AF-C with eye focus as it leave my attention on getting the expressions rather than worry about focus.
I'm not an AF-C shooter, nor a people shooter (used to be, via MF film) ...
BUT, it would seem that AF-C with eye focus would be a good combination for "mild motion" in folks. Despite the amount of belly-achin' I hear from folks about the sky is falling from lack of AF-C performance, I'd think that if one is in an "intimate" setting (i.e. really watching for expressions, more than hyper movement environment), that even basic AF-C performance should stand a good chance of keeping up with that when mated with a responsive lens.
Sometimes I wonder if people are expecting too much from a given tool. I mean, there are lenses that are designed for speed (different gearing, different motors, multiple motors, different glass mass, etc.), and others that aren't. So, it just seems silly to me when folks complain about a Volkswagen not accelerating like a Ferrari.
|
