# New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 9, 2014)

Theres a lot of talk and hype maybe rightly so on the new Sigma 50mm , much of it generated by Sigma : making claims they knew would drum up interest.

However having recently given up waiting for its release and the wedding season upon us I decided to go for the new Canon 35mm F2 IS and oh my god what a lens. There is good reason is at the top of DXO marks canon prime ratings ! The sharpness is just amazing, I have since packed up my 24-70 and replaced it with this 35 the 24mm 2.8IS and the 85mm and what a difference, after only a few weddings not carrying the massive 24-70 around it has taken no time at all to adjust and the 35mm spends a lot of time on the camera with the 85 on a second body and the 24 in bag for wider needs.

It is tack sharp from F2 - i used to use the 50 1.2L and that was only any good at F2 onwards. This is better than the 50 1.2L in my opinion and for the price is a steal. No way is the Sigma going to beat this by any great distance. The bokeh is brilliant , it can handle close up nearly as good as a macro lens , it has IS which gives it low light capabilities beyond any other lens i have used and add to that the very good L standard build quality and lovely balanced size and Canon have produced a real gem and all for under £500 !!

Dont pass this up as an option if your looking for a fast standard prime on full frame its a winner.







Shot by Newcastle and North East Wedding Photographer www.andrew-davies.com Canon 35mm F2 IS at f6.3 iso400 on 5Dmk3


----------



## caMARYnon (Apr 10, 2014)

100% agree about 35IS. I am a hobbyist and I bought it in early october 2013 and since then it's glued on my 5D2. It's close-up capability made my 100L macro to collect dust (I'm not a true macro shooter). Beautiful colours, contrast, sharpness, weight, versatility.


----------



## cid (Apr 10, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> I have since packed up my 24-70 and replaced it with this 35 the 24mm 2.8IS and the 85mm and what a difference, after only a few weddings not carrying the massive 24-70 around it has taken no time at all to adjust and the 35mm spends a lot of time on the camera with the 85 on a second body and the 24 in bag for wider needs.


Which 24-70 are you referring to? The original one f/2.8L, or f/2.8L II, or f/4L?


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 10, 2014)

It is a good lens with IS and at a decent price, but nothing more than that.

It delivers consistently but it has absolutely nothing special about it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 10, 2014)

Not sure what this OP has to do with the Sigma 50mm at all??? More of a 35mm vs 35mm topic, or having one very strong 24-70mm vs three decent primes.

Personally, I'd rather use one heavyish lens than deal with changing during a wedding, of all events!

I did sell my 24-70mm v 1 and feel the version 2 is equal to all its hype (eg "like a bag full of primes).

And I love my Sigma 35mm 1.4, as I obviously don't get tired of announcing.

But TOUCHING on 50mm, for many shots, the Canon 50mm 1.4 is great at weddings in low light, with speedy AF, and good sharpness at f/2 - f/8. To me, the Sigma will have to be spectacular to be worth retiring it.

Glad, though, to hear the 35mm 2.0 is so nice.


----------



## caMARYnon (Apr 10, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> It is a good lens with IS and at a decent price, but nothing more than that.
> 
> It delivers consistently but it has absolutely nothing special about it.


Sigma 35 1.4 has something special ?


----------



## SoullessPolack (Apr 10, 2014)

caMARYnon said:


> Sigma 35 1.4 has something special ?



Yeah. 1.4.


----------



## SoullessPolack (Apr 10, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Yeah. 1.4.



And the quality at that 1.4 is amazing too.


----------



## ecka (Apr 10, 2014)

caMARYnon said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > It is a good lens with IS and at a decent price, but nothing more than that.
> ...



Sigma produces much nicer background blur, even at f/2+. The IS is great for videos, but it's not necessary for people photography (in 35mm lens). IMHO, Sigma 35/1.4 is a win-win for the same price, unless you are doing a lot of videos.

P.S. It feels like all the new IS primes were meant for videographers.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 10, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> It is a good lens with IS and at a decent price, but nothing more than that.
> 
> It delivers consistently but it has absolutely nothing special about it.



What a load of cobblers, it is a fantastic lens. To answer the other questions and comments it has replaced a 24-70 2.8L v1 , and i dont have any issue changing lenses as i have two bodies one on my belt and one round my neck. Each to their own if you prefer the lower quality but higher convenience of a zoom then fine but don't go attempting to justify your laziness by saying primes are no good as all top photographers will tell you different.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 11, 2014)

I think being able to catch precious moments--rather than laziness : -- instead of changing lenses is one good reason to use something such as a 24-70mm rather than 3 primes.

But what does ANY of this have to do with the new 50mm Sigma, which your title referred to?

The difference between 35mm and 50mm on an SLR might seem slight to you, but not to models who see the difference in distortion right away. Sure, the 35mm is great for many shots, but, even on a cropped sensor, what is the point of saying x brand of 35 is an option to any brand of 50mm?

Heck, an iPhone is an option to an SLR, but that's kind of a wide net for a topic too.

Why do I feel as if somebody is about to say, "April Fools!"?


----------



## bmwzimmer (Apr 11, 2014)

I own the canon 35 IS but have used the Sigma many times and liked them both. The Canon at the time was $350 cheaper ($550 vs $900) but it wasn't about the difference in cost for me, it was the size, weight, and bonus IS. 
The Sigma wins by a hair in sharpness at f/2 at the corners but the out of focused backgrounds looked better on the Canon to me at the same maximum common aperture. Of course opening up the sigma an extra stop will provide better bokeh than the canon. The thing is when I shoot wider focal lengths like 24-35, I find myself shooting between f/2 to f/8 98-99% of the time. Now shooting at f/1.4 created ok to good bokeh but if I wanted really nice bokeh, I would simply reach for the 50 1.2 or 85 1.2 to really make the subject pop in a way the sigma just can't touch. At f/2.8 on, the sharpness of the canon 35 and sigma were identical to my eyes so I decided to get the Canon. Both are much sharper than the Canon 35L and the 35L like the Sigma is too big for a walk around prime. For me, the 50L is the biggest and heaviest I want to go with a walk around. 

The AF on the Canon was just slightly snappier (although a bit louder) than the Sigma. I did however have problems with AF on the Sigma on dimly lit conditions where the canon had no problems. The Canon 35 acquires focus in the dark about as fast as my trusty 24-70. I felt the AF on the Sigma performed as poorly as the 100mm L in poorly lit conditions. Perhaps it was just the particular copy I used. 
The "initial" build quality of the Sigma is slightly better than the canon but both are excellent. The Canon 35 feels similar to the 100mm IS macro minus the gasket and red ring. It's better than any other non-L canon I've ever tested. In terms of reliability, I'm pretty sure the Canon will be just as good in 10-15 years of use if I take good care of it just like all my other L and non L canon lenses but nobody knows how the Sigma will hold up over time. 

Bottom line is if you shoot at 1.4 a lot with a 35mm focal length, then get the Sigma. If f/2 is sufficient and IS is useful for you, get the 35 f/2.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 11, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> I think being able to catch precious moments--rather than laziness : -- instead of changing lenses is one good reason to use something such as a 24-70mm rather than 3 primes.
> But what does ANY of this have to do with the new 50mm Sigma, which your title referred to?
> The difference between 35mm and 50mm on an SLR might seem slight to you, but not to models who see the difference in distortion right away. Sure, the 35mm is great for many shots, but, even on a cropped sensor, what is the point of saying x brand of 35 is an option to any brand of 50mm?
> 
> ...



You could take the OP in the context of the next arrival in the EF IS prime line ; the 50 IS - assuming it does arrive. Could be a really fine 50. Problem is a lot of people dismiss f1.8 despite the fact that if it's stellar wide open this speed is fast enough 99.9% of the time.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 11, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> I think being able to catch precious moments--rather than laziness : -- instead of changing lenses is one good reason to use something such as a 24-70mm rather than 3 primes.
> 
> But what does ANY of this have to do with the new 50mm Sigma, which your title referred to?
> 
> ...



A floored response. If you are photographing models you have plenty of time to change lenses and seen as primes will always give better quality and quality is a big factor in portrait photography and modelling your assumption that everyone would be happy with a zoom lens is not correct.

During a wedding no moments have been missed whatsover with the 35mm as it is on the camera as already noted and the 85 on my waist on the second camera so i have a similar range but better quality.

Each to their own, personally i have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.

Just to add on the final point , i along with many others will have been weighing up the 35mm and 50mm options including the new Sigma 50 and 35 as wedding photographers and event photographers do use both or one of these lenses for similar purposes and its down to taste which one suits your style as there is little in it which is the reason i added to this thread.

The amount of hype created by Sigma and fed by all these discussions still has no basis in fact until the lens is freely available and has been tested properly in the field. Its not more than a year or two ago everyone avoided Sigma for their rubbish QC remember ? I am reporting on a lens which is not only tested and has received rave reviews but it well priced has excellent QC and a proper pedigree ( canon )


----------



## zlatko (Apr 11, 2014)

The 35/2 IS is a great lens -- one of my favorites. It's just right for image quality, autofocus, bokeh, size, weight, price, etc. But a wide angle is not an alternative to a standard. An alternative to a 50mm is another 50mm or a mid-range zoom.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 11, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Not sure what this OP has to do with the Sigma 50mm at all??? More of a 35mm vs 35mm topic, or having one very strong 24-70mm vs three decent primes.
> 
> Personally, I'd rather use one heavyish lens than deal with changing during a wedding, of all events!
> 
> ...



Well reasoned and succinct response, +1.


----------



## infared (Apr 11, 2014)

zlatko said:


> The 35/2 IS is a great lens -- one of my favorites. It's just right for image quality, autofocus, bokeh, size, weight, price, etc. But a wide angle is not an alternative to a standard. An alternative to a 50mm is another 50mm or a mid-range zoom.



Exactly.


----------



## benherman (Apr 11, 2014)

I have the old sigma 50mm, kicks pants off canon 1.4, especially build quality, but also sharpness. My canon, along with many unfortunate consumers out there, broke from light usage, the focussing mechanisms/moving front element are fragile as. $250 to fix on a $400 lens, no thanks canon especially since the service centre dude said its likely to happen again. Been happy with the sigma for years so any talk about poor quality/qa etc. doesn't exist in my book. I bought the sigma 35 1.4 due to my positive experience with the 50, it is wonderful.
I will look forward to seeing shots from the new sigma 50 and will consider upgrading only if it is phenomenally sharp, my current one is tops.


----------



## beckstoy (Apr 11, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. 1.4.
> ...



+1 (with a bullet)


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 11, 2014)

Some great points and all taken. I was offering an alternative and would counter that to my mind a 35mm lens does not fall in the wide angle category that would be more the 10-24 ranges , the current crop of 35/40/50 lenses are all standards as in they can be kept on camera to take standard shots, many moons ago though 35mm would have been classed as wide as there were very limited options and sometimes a 35 50 or 70+ were all their was to choose from so I can see where your coming from.

I think the way of things now 24 is just on the edge of wide with DSLRs with most opting for the 14-17 areas.

So far that reason and for me anyway the 35 and 50s are competing for a place in my own bag , and having owned the 50mm 1.2L and still owning the rather cheap 50mm 1.4 ( canon ) i can happily say i much prefer the 35mm.

Also out of interest i do shoot the occasional video clip too so the IS as well as useful in low light has come in very handy for the video side too.

Looking forward to seeing some stellar shots from the new Sigma and if the reviews of their recent lenses are anything to go by maybe they have finally nailed the QC problems ?


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 11, 2014)

For info for those interested DXO mark one of the most trusted resources online scores ( in brakcets ) the following lenses based on metrics of sharpness distortion etc

Canon 35mm 1.4L (27)
Canon 35mm F2 IS (29)
Canon 24-70 2.8II L (26)
Sigma 35 1.4 Art (30)

on those specs it would follow that the Sigma will edge the market but whether it is going to be a realistic price is more the question - for me sub 800 would be its perfect position and then it will tempt a lot of people but from what i have heard there are rumours of well in excess of 1000 ?

North East and Yorkshire wedding photographer www.andrew-davies.com


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 11, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> DXO mark one of the most trusted resources online



Whoa ! Steady.

( It's the 11th of April to day. You missed out a 1 ).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 11, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> For info for those interested DXO mark one of the most trusted resources online scores ( in brakcets ) the following lenses based on metrics of sharpness distortion etc
> 
> Canon 35mm 1.4L (27)
> Canon 35mm F2 IS (29)
> ...



Sorry, but no. First off, DxOMark is far from 'one of the most trusted online resources' when it comes to lens scores. For example, DxOMark data show that the 17-40L is nearly as sharp in the corners as the center at f/4, and that the corners at f/4 are sharper than the 16-35/2.8L II's corners at f/8. Anyone who's shot with both lenses knows that's BS. They also said that the 70-200/2.8L IS II was not quite as good as the MkI version of that lens, also complete BS (although they say differently now - when called on their error, they at first defended their conclusions, then over a year later silently updated their data to show that the MkII is much better, a fact well known to everyone else). 

Second, their Lens Score is based primarily on 'performance in 150 lux illumination', and only secondarily on the relevant optical measures like sharpness, distortion, etc.


----------



## bseitz234 (Apr 11, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> For info for those interested DXO mark one of the most trusted resources online



Come on guys, give the guy a break. He obviously just misspelled "least".


----------



## TeT (Apr 11, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> " Canon 35mm F2 IS and oh my god what a lens. "



Poster (?) is correct it is a fantastic lens. Best Bokah amongst all the 35mm Sigma or L's

Gives hope that the new 35 L (II) (IS) probably (II) will be an awesome monster (dont hold your breathe though, you will suffocate... so slowww)

answering the rest of the post... 

Nice pic, you can take that pic with a 24 70 though. and unless you are the little invisible picture guy who darts around weddings like a Grey Man... its nice to have zoom and not have to get in everyone elses way to get a pic... *professionalism almost surely calls for the flexibility of a zoom"


----------



## AudioGlenn (Apr 11, 2014)

TeT said:


> *professionalism almost surely calls for the flexibility of a zoom"



agreed. our lead shooter will pull out the primes (14/50/100 MacroL) for the "creative shot" if the other shooter(s) have the important shots. The usual scenario is one shooter on a 24-70 (I or II), another shooter on 70-200 (I or II). We can get more than adequate shallow DOF with a 70-200 2.8. in a wedding, speed/efficiency is key. primes just don't offer that flexibility. 

That said, there are occasions when I shoot when I'd like to have the option to use a 50mm at f/1.4-2. I'm seriously considering one of these Sigma Art 50mm lenses after I purchase a 16-35 f/2.8L II and a 100mm Macro L.


----------



## zlatko (Apr 11, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> For info for those interested DXO mark one of the most trusted resources online scores ( in brakcets ) the following lenses based on metrics of sharpness distortion etc



If you look at DxO's lens ratings, the highest rated Canon-made lens (after the 35/2 IS) is the 100/2. The 100/2 is a fine lens and a bargain, but is/was it the best among ALL other Canon lenses (before the 35/2 IS existed)? ALL of them — really? I don't think so. Somehow, despite being around since 1991, it didn't win the love and praise of photographers as the BEST Canon lens. Check user ratings on fredmiranda, bhphoto and other sites that have user ratings. If DxO were a reliable match for real world experience, photographers would have crowned the 100/2 as the "King" of all Canon lenses a long time ago.

For a good perspective on the trustworthiness of MTF testing, check out this article: http://toothwalker.org/optics/lenstest.html . The author writes:

"A low-cost lens MTF test has emerged by means of target reproduction photography and dedicated image analysis software. The method is valuable in that it yields measurements of system MTF. One can only admire the efforts that testers put in, because this illustrates how difficult it is to get the most out of your equipment also in everyday photography. Unfortunately the methodology also has serious disadvantages. Since system MTF is measured and not lens MTF, the results are difficult to interpret. Moreover, the method yields lens ratings for reproduction photography, which for many lenses is not the intended application."

I don't know about DxO, but some web sites test lenses as if they were "reproduction lenses" (i.e. for shooting flat subjects at near distances) even though most lenses were not designed as "reproduction lenses" and most photography is not "reproduction photography" (i.e. of documents, flat artwork, etc.).


----------



## zlatko (Apr 11, 2014)

AudioGlenn said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > *professionalism almost surely calls for the flexibility of a zoom"
> ...



I disagree. I happen to like a mix of primes and zooms, but one can deliver equally professional results using either primes or zooms exclusively. It's more a question of personal style and personal preferences than professionalism.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 11, 2014)

zlatko said:


> AudioGlenn said:
> 
> 
> > TeT said:
> ...



Nothing wrong at all with a mix of primes or for that matter using only zooms.

My point is a personal reflection and based on having shot over 200,000 frames with the 24-70 70-200 combo. Eventually it came to a point where i wanted more. 2.8 was just not enough and the distortion and sharpness of the 24-70 is questionable at times. The 70-200 i will still keep in the bag as it still has its place.

However the overly popular duo of 24-70 70-200 which to be honest is the safe choice has now been replaced by a 24 35 85 combo which without question to me is better for low light , sharpness , bokeh and lighter to carry each lens on camera offers the flexibility of the IS on the 24 and 35 also offering better video potential. I do not miss any shots as i plan what i am doing and where and also have the 35 and 85 to hand all the time and to be honest i have not needed to use the 24 anywhere near as much as i thought in most cases just step back with the 35 !

I am Pro Full time wedding photographer and have been for years and the 24-70 has been for many years my go to lens so in no way i am saying its rubbish because its not , but the primes for me deliver more , and the much ado about the Sigma 50mm just goes to show most people are fully aware of how good prime lenses are - it just takes a leap of faith and a bit more thought to use them instead of the safety of the zoom.

It is as has been said personal taste and i personally could not get away with the focal length of the 50mm 1.2L it just did not do it for me or match my style, I was tempted by the Sigma 35 1.4 and I wanted to buy the 35 1.4L canon but it was just so old in the tooth it put me off, so this Canon combo ticked all the boxes.

I have yet to fully get to grips with the 24mm 2.8 IS but it seems very sharp and able to take ridiculous close ups, however it is obvious or seems to be that there is a difference in the glass and the 35mm F2 IS has a better colour to the shots.

Looking forward to seeing the results of the sigma 50mm it will be interesting !

Another example of the 35mm F2 IS







www.andrew-davies.com North East and Yorkshire Wedding Photographer


----------



## EchoLocation (Apr 12, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > It is a good lens with IS and at a decent price, but nothing more than that.
> ...


So, you're a pro, and you just figured out that primes are better than zooms..... ok. got it!

I'm a little confused how you're offering a 35mm f2 lens as an alternative to a 50mm f1.4? The whole idea is a little off.
btw, you sound like a total Canon shill.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 12, 2014)

benherman said:


> I have the old sigma 50mm, kicks pants off canon 1.4, especially build quality, but also sharpness. My canon, along with many unfortunate consumers out there, broke from light usage, the focussing mechanisms/moving front element are fragile as. $250 to fix on a $400 lens, no thanks canon especially since the service centre dude said its likely to happen again. Been happy with the sigma for years so any talk about poor quality/qa etc. doesn't exist in my book. I bought the sigma 35 1.4 due to my positive experience with the 50, it is wonderful.
> I will look forward to seeing shots from the new sigma 50 and will consider upgrading only if it is phenomenally sharp, my current one is tops.



If you're new to the forum, welcome! As for the attributes of the new "art" 50...I would think the quality of the bokeh should carry more weight than its ultimate sharpness. Who needs an f/1.4 lens if the bokeh is not superb?


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 12, 2014)

bseitz234 said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > For info for those interested DXO mark one of the most trusted resources online
> ...



+1 LOL !! ;D


----------



## 100 (Apr 12, 2014)

In this thread I see 2 photos
The first: f/6.3 and 1/2500
The second: f/4.5 and 1/125
You don’t need a f/1.4 lens for those and you don’t need a stabilized f/2 lens either. Any 24-70 zoom will do just fine. 

I think most people buy fast primes because they need fast enough shutter speed in low light conditions and/or want the artistic quality of the out of focus areas wide open. If you want to compare fast primes, compare them where it matters (between f/1.4 and f/2.5 because zooms in this focal length range will do f/2.8.)

The Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS won’t do f/1.4 f/1.6 and f/1.8 so you can’t compare the results to both the Canon 35mm f/1.4L II and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. 
The 35mm f/2 IS might have the nicest bokeh (a subjective quality so others might disagree) @ f/2 but what good is that if you need f/1.4 f/1.6 or f/1.8?

The Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS has stabilization, so you could take handheld shots up to 4 times slower shutter speed. 
Up to 1/40 you don’t really need IS with a 35mm lens on full frame for stills. Shutter speeds of 1/40 and below are too slow for most moving subjects anyway, so the IS on a 35mm lens is only useful for static subjects in situation where you can’t use a tripod. 

If you don’t shoot below f/2.8 – f/2 there is no reason to buy fast (f/1.4 – f/1.2) primes. They weigh more, they cost more and they don’t perform (much) better above f/2.8. 
I don’t doubt the 35mm f/2 IS is a good lens. The stabilization is nice if you like to shoot video, but it’s still a full stop slower than the f/1.4 lenses and that's why it's hard to see a f/2 lens as a real alternative for a f/1.4 lens.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 12, 2014)

100 said:


> Up to 1/40 you don’t really need IS with a 35mm lens on full frame for stills.



The rest of what you have said is perfectly reasonable, but the above statement is at best outdated and at worst inaccurate. You _might_ be able to hand hold _some_ shots at 1/40 with a 35mm focal length, but generally you won't make full use of your 20mp or whatever. 

Shake is quite random, but with the resolution of modern digital FF you really need to be in the region of 2x focal length. Even then you can get random shake. For really critical use nothing beats a genuinely stable mounting platform, but IS is a competent substitute up to a point. Personally I find IS very useful for stills when travelling without a tripod. It allows lower ISOs, greater dof, lower shutter speeds etc when hand held.


----------



## Artifex (Apr 12, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Up to 1/40 you don’t really need IS with a 35mm lens on full frame for stills.
> ...



I have to say I disagree. With a bit of practice, you can easily have no shake at 1/30 up to 1/20 with a 35mm. At least, that's my situation.


----------



## agierke (Apr 12, 2014)

> Shake is quite random, but with the resolution of modern digital FF you really need to be in the region of 2x focal length.



my experience falls in line with this statement. slight motion blur/camera shake can be much more evident at 1:1 (focal length:shutterspeed) than it was with film. can you get a crisp shot at 1:1 situations? yes...but its quite frustrating when you don't and happens more often than i prefer. 

im not in the camp that is insistent on canon including IS on every lens they produce, regardless of focal length, but i do know if i want to maximize my results for crisp images i need to follow the 2x shutterspeed:focal length rule.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Apr 12, 2014)

One other thing not mentioned yet is the Canon 35 F/2 has an actual t-stop of 2. The 35L has a T-stop of t/1.6. So it's not really a full stop advantage when shooting in low light. That would be about a half a stop advantage?? 
So in a low light situation, camera 1 with the 35L would shoot at f/1.4, 1/60, iso 800. Camera 2 with the 35 IS would shoot f/2, 1/60, Not iso 1600, but 1200. Sure theres half a stop more noise but you gain significantly more depth of field which is a huge plus with certain situations.


----------



## 100 (Apr 12, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Up to 1/40 you don’t really need IS with a 35mm lens on full frame for stills.
> ...



At pixel level with smaller pixels you might see a small difference.
The pixel pitch of my 5D mark III (22mp) is 36mm / 5760 pixels = 0.000625mm
The original 5D (12mp) has a pixel pitch of 36mm / 4368 = 0.000824mm
So the pixel pitch of a 22mp FF camera is just 132% of that of a 12mp FF camera. 
If we apply the “old” rule of thumb 1/focal length we get 1/35 second for handheld shots. Multiply that by 1.32 and you get 1/46 of a second which is pretty close to the 1/40 I assumed in my previous post. 

It’s just a rule of thumb and it depends on the photographers skill and the situation they are in how well this rule applies, but I see no technical reason to multiply it by 2 when using a 20mp camera. 
The 2 times focal length rule might apply if you use the Sony/Nikon 36mp FF sensor or a future 40mp+ megapixel camera. 

By the way, if we compare it to the analogue days: 36 mm x 24 mm film is estimated between 4 and 16 million pixels depending on the type of film used. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
At the top end of the estimate, the difference is even smaller.


----------



## 100 (Apr 12, 2014)

bmwzimmer said:


> One other thing not mentioned yet is the Canon 35 F/2 has an actual t-stop of 2. The 35L has a T-stop of t/1.6. So it's not really a full stop advantage when shooting in low light. That would be about a half a stop advantage??
> So in a low light situation, camera 1 with the 35L would shoot at f/1.4, 1/60, iso 800. Camera 2 with the 35 IS would shoot f/2, 1/60, Not iso 1600, but 1200. Sure theres half a stop more noise but you gain significantly more depth of field which is a huge plus with certain situations.



1.6 is not 1/2 stop above 1.4 but 1/3 stop 
The Sigma 35mm Art has a T-stop of 1.5, so that's only about 1/6 of a stop above 1.4


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 12, 2014)

bmwzimmer said:


> One other thing not mentioned yet is the Canon 35 F/2 has an actual t-stop of 2. The 35L has a T-stop of t/1.6. So it's not really a full stop advantage when shooting in low light. That would be about a half a stop advantage??



I got this part, although its actually 2/3 stop.



bmwzimmer said:


> So in a low light situation, camera 1 with the 35L would shoot at f/1.4, 1/60, iso 800. Camera 2 with the 35 IS would shoot f/2, 1/60, Not iso 1600, but 1200. Sure theres half a stop more noise but you gain significantly more depth of field which is a huge plus with certain situations.



This is where you lost me. Are you saying camera 1 with the 35L cannot simply select f/2, 1/60 and ISO 1600 to gain the deeper field of focus?
By the way, while the transmittance of the 35L might not be as higher than the 35IS as advertized, the big DoF advantage (shallowness, when THAT situation arises) still remains unaffected.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 12, 2014)

100 said:


> By the way, if we compare it to the analogue days: 36 mm x 24 mm film is estimated between 4 and 16 million pixels depending on the type of film used. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
> At the top end of the estimate, the difference is even smaller.



My partner in Building Panoramics was in at the dawn of digital imaging business so I know a little about this. I haven't looked at the wiki link, but to all intents and purposes 6 to 8 mp is about equivalent to good 35mm film in terms of resolution. You can scan more meg but you end up recording grain. 

Try taking 5 shots at 1/20 on a 35mm focal length hand held with no support. You will inevitably find that one or two frames have IQ damaging blur when viewed at a reasonable enlargement. ( For me it would be four out of five). You may say these are acceptable odds but when that one frame is important it becomes unacceptable. 

I read many people on here claiming that the new IS primes are aimed at video, but how many people are 'serious' movie makers wanting these primes compared with the amount of still photographers ? Also when you look at the Canon cine focal length lenses for FF you would have to ask why a 24 and 28, and where are the 50 and 85 ?


----------



## zlatko (Apr 12, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Also when you look at the Canon cine focal length lenses for FF you would have to ask why a 24 and 28, and where are the 50 and 85 ?



I suspect that the 50 and 85 with IS are coming. I think it's just a matter of time. Well, I hope they are coming.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 12, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Also when you look at the Canon cine focal length lenses for FF you would have to ask why a 24 and 28, and where are the 50 and 85 ?
> ...



Me too !


----------



## 100 (Apr 13, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, if we compare it to the analogue days: 36 mm x 24 mm film is estimated between 4 and 16 million pixels depending on the type of film used. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
> ...



The 4-16 megapixels are based on findings by Dr. Roger Clark. If you don’t know who that is, please follow the link this time http://www.clarkvision.com/rnc/



Sporgon said:


> Try taking 5 shots at 1/20 on a 35mm focal length hand held with no support. You will inevitably find that one or two frames have IQ damaging blur when viewed at a reasonable enlargement. ( For me it would be four out of five). You may say these are acceptable odds but when that one frame is important it becomes unacceptable.



I didn’t say 1/20, I said 1/40
For (slow) moving subjects like people at a wedding you need at least 1/60 to 1/100
The point I tried to make is that for moving subjects most photographers should be able to get the job done at those shutter speeds with a 35mm lens on a full frame camera without image stabilization. The IS will help a lot if you go down to 1/20 or 1/10 but those shutter speeds will only get you sharp images of non-moving subjects. 
Because a f/1.4 lens is a full stop faster than a f/2 lens you can shoot wide open with double the shutter speed or half the iso and that’s a substantial difference in low light situations. That’s why I prefer my 35mm f/1.4 over a f/2 with IS




Sporgon said:


> I read many people on here claiming that the new IS primes are aimed at video, but how many people are 'serious' movie makers wanting these primes compared with the amount of still photographers ?



I can’t speak for other people but I didn’t say the wide angle IS primes are aimed at video, I said “stabilization is nice if you like to shoot video”. 
Other than video, image stabilization on wide angle prime lenses will only help you with still images of static subjects at low shutter speeds where you can’t use a tripod. 
Where I live the Canon f/2 IS dropped 30% in price after about half a year. Compare that to the 8 year old Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM for which you pay about the same as when it hit the market in 2006. To me that says something about the lack of success of the 35 f/2 IS.


----------



## jd7 (Apr 13, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> bmwzimmer said:
> 
> 
> > One other thing not mentioned yet is the Canon 35 F/2 has an actual t-stop of 2. The 35L has a T-stop of t/1.6. So it's not really a full stop advantage when shooting in low light. That would be about a half a stop advantage??
> ...



I think the point bmwzimmer was getting at is if both cameras/lenses were at f/2 and 1/60, the camera with the 35L would be at ISO1600 while the camera with the 35IS would be at ISO1200, giving a noise advantage in the photo taken with the 35IS. Or alternatively, if you're trying to stop action, it's not a case of saying the 35L can shoot with half the shutter time which the 35IS would require - it's more like the 35L would be at two-thirds of the shutter time the 35IS would require (despite the 35L being at f/1.4 while the 35IS is at f/2).


----------



## Policar (Apr 13, 2014)

Still far from apochromatic with significant bokeh fringing.

Still has major onion bokeh.

Still want it.

Otus does look.... classier.


----------



## zlatko (Apr 13, 2014)

100 said:


> Where I live the Canon f/2 IS dropped 30% in price after about half a year. Compare that to the 8 year old Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM for which you pay about the same as when it hit the market in 2006. To me that says something about the lack of success of the 35 f/2 IS.



The price drop says little about the "success" of the 35/2 IS lens. User reviews on Amazon, B&H, Fred Miranda, etc., suggest that users are very pleased with it and that is what counts. How many they actually sell matters mainly to Canon.

The Canon 35/2 IS came on the market in about November 2012. At that time, 1 dollar could buy about 80 yen. Today, 1 dollar buys about 102 yen. A dollar now buys about 28% more yen than when that lens was introduced. So it's no surprise that its price has dropped. Also, figure that introductory pricing is typically higher.

The Canon 35/1.4L was introduced in December 1998. The introductory price was 205,000 yen. At that time, 1 dollar could buy about 116 yen. So that lens was over $1,700 at introduction. In 2007-2008, it could be bought for about $1,100.

Price changes don't reflect relative "success". Both lenses are successful in that they meet the needs of photographers very nicely. Thank goodness that both are available.


----------



## slclick (Apr 13, 2014)

change the title please! weird thread


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 13, 2014)

jd7 said:


> I think the point bmwzimmer was getting at is if both cameras/lenses were at f/2 and 1/60, the camera with the 35L would be at ISO1600 while the camera with the 35IS would be at ISO1200, giving a noise advantage in the photo taken with the 35IS.



That will only be true if transmittance varies proportionately with change in aperture (that is, when stopped down to f/2, the 35L will become T/2.3. I know it intuitively might feel that way, but not necessarily so.



jd7 said:


> Or alternatively, if you're trying to stop action, it's not a case of saying the 35L can shoot with half the shutter time which the 35IS would require - it's more like the 35L would be at two-thirds of the shutter time the 35IS would require (despite the 35L being at f/1.4 while the 35IS is at f/2).



You're absolutely right (although IMO bmwzimmer didn't say this, you did). However, as I said, for many the distinctive look of a f/1.4 lens comes from its shallow DoF. Which has nothing to do with transmittance whatsoever.


----------



## ecka (Apr 13, 2014)

jd7 said:


> Perhaps my biggest reservation about the 35IS relates to the 40mm pancake. Comparing them:
> ...
> - my think the 35IS has slightly nicer bokeh, but there's not a whole lot in it
> ...



I would argue with that. If we compare bokeh quality (not quantity), then the 40 is producing smoother and nicer bokeh. I really think that 35IS is much worse there.



> - has 67 filter thread, which means you may already have filters you can use on it (unlikely with the pancake)



- the 40 has 52mm thread, which means you can adapt any larger filter. I'm using 52mm-to-58mm adapter, which acts like a lens hood as well . (Hint: ES-52)



> If you have enough light though, the 35IS's IQ advantage doesn't seem to be that great really, so if you're using it in well lit conditions, it's less clear to me whether that advantage is worth the extra cost/weight/size.



Having IS for videos is worth a lot and that's what this lens is mostly good for (in my opinion), but handholdability of the f/2+IS with not-so-good bokeh (which is pretty bad at longer distances) is a no-go for me. I'd choose a lesser evil for stills - 35/1.4 or the pancake.


----------



## jd7 (Apr 13, 2014)

ecka said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps my biggest reservation about the 35IS relates to the 40mm pancake. Comparing them:
> ...



Interesting to hear you prefer the bokeh of the 40. I will have to experiment some more. In particular, I probably haven't looked much at bokeh at longer distances. I think I might have to have a look at getting a 52 to 58 step up adapter too!

And no doubt you're right about IS and videos. To be honest I completely overlooked video! I'm yet to get interested in video and simply forgot about it.

PS - I moved my earlier post to the thread about Dustin Abbot's 35IS review. It seemed more appropriate for the discussion there.


----------



## Fuhrtographer (Apr 13, 2014)

First off I would like to say there is nothing wrong with the 35 f2 IS. It doesn't open up to 1.4 obviously so its not like comparing apples to apples. But if the new 50 is comparable to the 35 by Sigma, the 35 f/2 is not nearly on the same level. I have shot both the 35mm lenses and the Sigma wins hands down. I can hand hold a 35mm on a full frame confidently at 1/60th of second (on a full frame) so I don't understand what IS does at this focal length. If your talking about bang for your buck the nifty-fifty would be just as logical.

The Sigma 50 is being compared with the Otus which is about $4000.00 for around 25% of the cost. This lens is going to be huge for Sigma and for photographers in general. I love to see a third party come in and make Canon realize they need to step up on their hobby (non L) line. I am a hobby photographer and I rarely take the Sigma 35 off my 6d. That being said, I would love to shoot with this new 50, but its to close in focal length to my favorite lens. :-\


----------



## 100 (Apr 13, 2014)

zlatko said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Where I live the Canon f/2 IS dropped 30% in price after about half a year. Compare that to the 8 year old Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM for which you pay about the same as when it hit the market in 2006. To me that says something about the lack of success of the 35 f/2 IS.
> ...



Ok, I should have defined success as “commercial success” for Canon. Sorry about that. 
I don’t doubt the 35 IS is a good lens and users are pleased with it. Canon just priced it too high at introduction. 



zlatko said:


> The Canon 35/2 IS came on the market in about November 2012. At that time, 1 dollar could buy about 80 yen. Today, 1 dollar buys about 102 yen. A dollar now buys about 28% more yen than when that lens was introduced. So it's no surprise that its price has dropped. Also, figure that introductory pricing is typically higher.



Please explain to me why exchange rates matter. I compared the 35 f/1.4 L to the 35 f/2 IS. They are both made by Canon, but only one of them dropped 30% in price last year. Maybe in other parts of the world it’s a different story, but I highly doubt that.






Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM 





Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM



zlatko said:


> Price changes don't reflect relative "success". Both lenses are successful in that they meet the needs of photographers very nicely. Thank goodness that both are available.



Price change are a good indication for commercial success. Take the Canon EOS M. Why do you think Canon dropped the price from $800 to $300 and didn’t even bring the EOS M2 to Europe and the US?


----------



## candyman (Apr 13, 2014)

100 said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...




It is not a fair comparison
You should include the price development for the 35L from 1998 and years after. It may show in the first year(s) also a drastic drop of the price, no?


----------



## bod (Apr 13, 2014)

Hi Andrew
Thank you for your post which has clearly stimulated plenty of comment. I read CR because it is really helpful to learn about the experiences of other photographers both as regards technique and deciding on gear acquisition decisions. Good on you for being prepared to put your thoughts out there. I also enjoyed seeing your images. Your post prompts discussion of a number of options which as you say are a lot down to personal preference:

*Prime v Zoom*. I also like to use primes but have been considering adding a zoom to my kit such as the 24-70 f/2.8 II so was interested to hear of your choices.

*35 and 50 mm focal lengths*. As Justin observed in his review of the Sigma 35 f/1.4, some like a nifty fifty and for others it is 35mm. I have the Canon 50 f/1.4 and consider it to be a good performer and nice and light and compact. However since I purchased a 35 f/1.4 prime, it has not been off the shelf much. Partly this is because I prefer a 35 focal length on a full frame and partly because a lens which is sharp at f/1.4 offers me more flexibility than the 50 f/1.4 since my 50 copy is only sharp from f/2.8. Also I have been using the 40 pancake a lot and continue to be impressed by the optical performance of such a tiny lens.

*35 mm lenses*. I had a real struggle deciding which lens to purchase. I rented the 35L and loved both the design and physical feel of the lens on my EOS 6D and the images, particularly the colour rendition. Really nice to use a lens with plenty of focus distances marked. I debated between the IS of the Canon 35 f/2 and the extra stop of f/1.4. Whilst my heart wanted to buy the 35L, my head said that the Sigma was rated in reviews as sharper wide open and was nearly half the price so I purchased the Sigma. It has been a fine lens so far and has performed really well. I imagine though that I would have also enjoyed owning either of the canon lenses.

I do not yet have a 85 mm lens. It is on my wish list and interested to read that you confirm 35 plus 85 pairing is a good combination.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 13, 2014)

100 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



The EF 35L was introduced in 1998, so it is sixteen years old. No doubt this info isn't on Roger Clarks website but I'm sure you will find it on wiiki somewhere. 

The principal of a 1.4 lens being 'better in low light' is a risky one to hang your hat on. Good exposure, lower ISO and less shake are of little use if your dof is woefully inadequate, and given the focal length of the 35mm and likely distances 'in low light' this is likely to be the case. 

Also in days of old you might buy a 1.4 lens to be better at F2 than an f2 lens, but with modern lenses this isn't the case anymore. Seeing as you like web links I have copied photozone's results for the two lenses and you can see that although the 1.4 lens is sharper in the very centre it is way behind mid and edge of frame, and this continues up to f4.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/847-canon35f2isff?start=1

It's pretty typical of very fast wide lenses compared with slower ones, and why for someone wanting good mid / corner resolution they might well chose a slower lens. ( Though this is changing with the likes of the Sigma 1.4 and Otus ). 

There are situations where a faster aperture is a valid reason for low light photography. Take the 135L, it's often sited as a low light advantage, and given the distances of say indoor sports and the focusing on an individual then that is plausible - assuming you nail focus and ignore the high ISO performance of modern FF cameras.

In real terms the 35L is cheaper than it was sixteen years ago. 

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Real+terms

Of late Canon have been adopting an EOP marketing strategy; I think these new IS lenses have been caught in this; after all they were the first wide IS primes to be introduced. 

http://www.investinganswers.com/financial-dictionary/businesses-corporations/early-adopter-2959

In time they will come to be appreciated as what they are - really good lenses. Look at the crap the 70-300L took on forums such as this at the time of it's introduction. Now it is highly regarded by many. 

Regarding shake - try it at 1/20 or 1/40 or 1/80. It's the principle I am referring to. The amount of frames with shake will reduce as the speed increases, but you will find that even 1/80 on a 35mm focal length from an unstable platform is no _guarantee_ of a shake free shot.


----------



## 100 (Apr 13, 2014)

candyman said:


> It is not a fair comparison
> You should include the price development for the 35L from 1998 and years after. It may show in the first year(s) also a drastic drop of the price, no?



True, but zlatko argued exchange rates changed 28% last year.
If that was the cause of the price drop, all Canon lenses would have dropped 28% in price. 
They didn’t, so we can exclude exchange rates as a cause for the price drop. 

If I compare the 35 f/2 IS to another relatively new lens like the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM I don’t see that big of a price drop. 





Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

From a commercial point of view you only drop prices if your sales are below expectations. Big price drops usually mean it isn’t the commercial success (anymore) you hoped it would be. At the introduction price the 35 f/2 had to compete with the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art. In today’s market (at least where I live) the 35 f/2 is at 500 euro and the Sigma at 720 euro. To me that means the 35 f/2 IS couldn’t compete at the same price level and that’s why the price dropped.


----------



## 100 (Apr 13, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Also in days of old you might buy a 1.4 lens to be better at F2 than an f2 lens, but with modern lenses this isn't the case anymore. Seeing as you like web links I have copied photozone's results for the two lenses and you can see that although the 1.4 lens is sharper in the very centre it is way behind mid and edge of frame, and this continues up to f4.
> 
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff?start=1
> 
> ...



Like you say in the end, it changed with the Sigma 35 f/1.4 art. 
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/848-sigma35f14eosff?start=1
The Sigma @ f/2 outscores the Canon as far as resolution is concerned throughout the entire frame. 



Sporgon said:


> In time they will come to be appreciated as what they are - really good lenses. Look at the crap the 70-300L took on forums such as this at the time of it's introduction. Now it is highly regarded by many.



I agree the 35 f/2 IS is a good lens, Canon just overpriced it. They could have gotten away with it if Sigma hadn’t introduced the 35 f/1.4 at the same price point. 



Sporgon said:


> Regarding shake - try it at 1/20 or 1/40 or 1/80. It's the principle I am referring to. The amount of frames with shake will reduce as the speed increases, but you will find that even 1/80 on a 35mm focal length from an unstable platform is no _guarantee_ of a shake free shot.



At 1/80 I have to be in scarcely lit moving car, a bus or a train without a flash before I need IS on a 35mm. Stabilization can be useful in those situations, but I think they are exceptions.


----------



## TeT (Apr 13, 2014)

The price drop ....


The 35 2.0 IS / 28 2.8 IS & the 24 2.8 IS .... all came out with a big initial price which almost immediately dropped. 

One of the 3 had a larger reduction than the others, dont remember which...

The drop caught many by surprise... Especially those who purchased on day one...


----------



## zlatko (Apr 13, 2014)

100 said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



When a lens is introduced, a manufacturer doesn't know which way the exchange rates will go in the future. They probably overprice it initially because (1) the excitement over a new lens makes it worth more at introduction than a year later, and (2) they can better absorb exchange rate fluctuations without having to give constant price changes to dealers. 

During the same period, some other lenses have dropped and some haven't. Some that haven't dropped in the US market are available at substantially lower prices if purchased directly from sellers in Japan. Exchange rates are important, but don't have an instant impact on retail prices.

Ultimately we don't know what factors go into their pricing decisions, from one lens to the next, from one year to the next. It may have to do with many other factors besides exchange rates, such as the price of certain components and raw materials, the quantity of existing stock, the capacity of certain production lines, the relative profit at a certain price point, the availability of gray market imports at lower prices, etc. It's all economics and we don't know the relevant factors. 

That said, Canon probably did overprice the 35/2IS and other primes. Maybe you're right and the 35/2IS is not a commercial success. That may have more to do with initial overpricing than with any quality of the lens. A business blunder has no bearing on the optical-mechanical qualities of the lens.

The commercial success of a lens is of very little concern to me, unless it leads to its early discontinuance. How many they sell and how much money they make with one lens vs. another lens matters not at all unless one's business somehow depends on it.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 13, 2014)

Interesting theories regarding the price drop. I believe there has to be some truth in the fact that these lenses were originally intended to be quite high market and fill the gap between Ls which have not yet come out ( 35 1.4L II , 50 1.2 II L ) etc and sit above the entry level primes. It seems owning both the 24 and 35 IS that the 35 is ahead of the game glass wise. I have also owned the new 40 2.8 which i did not click with and ended up selling a month or two after getting it. Did not have the sharpness or unique quality that the 35 IS has.

Someone mentioned wondering why i posted two shots that werent at F2 , well simply because a large majority of shots at a wedding are not F2 as its just too shallow at close range. however the abililty to use the F2 when i want to artistically produces better results than the 24-70 2.8 and the added benefit of the IS makes it a great low light lens during church ceremonies and for detailed shots without flash. There is also the added bonus of its great close up ability and its light weight along with its very good build quality and fast af.

Someone else mentioned they were surprised I have just noticed primes. Thats not really the case i have a house full of old cameras with primes and adapters to fit them to my DSLR i have played with for years. It was the leap from the safety of a zoom to the primes which require a little more thought which was always the hurdle. For years i told myself that the 24-70 2.8L was the best lens for weddings ever - probably following the flock a little ! I cannot comment on the new 24-70 2.8II L though as i have not used it so whether that can get close to the prime someone else will need to answer. 

This is a list of the lenses /Cameras I have used extensively from which i am using to judge this 5d3+35 IS combo from when i started with digital around 2004

Pentax istD
Pentax istDS
Pentax k100, k200, k10, k20
Canon 5Mk1
Canon 5Dmk2
Canon 5dmk3

Tokina RMC 17mm - amazing lens for its age 
Sigma 10-20 - staple diet wide angle for many years
Sigma 105 macro - noisy but good if it didnt scare your subject away or squash it
Sigma 70-300 - absolutely diabolical
Sigma 50mm 1.4 old one - poor back focussing issues
Pentax 16-55 - really good expensive lens
Pentax 18-55 - noisy and cheap but did the job
Canon 17-40L great lens but took a wack and fell to bits ! 
Canon 24-70 2.8L mk1 - fab lens used it for years just a bit on the heavy side and could be sharper 
Canon 24-105 F4L still own this one - very sharp and very versatile just struggles in low light , used in the second photographers kit
Canon 50 1.2L never really got on with this one wasn't a range i liked but the glass was good
Canon 50 1.4 still have this as a back up as its not really worth selling , used in the second photographers kit
Canon 40mm 2.8 STM impulse purchase which i ended up sellling again , pretty average on all counts
Canon 85mm 1.8 part of current kit really like this lens lovely bokeh fast focus
Canon 70-200 F4 still have this in our kit good for longer distance work very fast light and sharp
Canon 200mm 2.8L owned this ahead of its time when i just started out and didnt really understand primes that well , wish now i had never sold it as it was a lovely lens and will probably buy another !
Canon 35mm F2 IS - current main lens absolutely love it sharp fast low light and close ups quality equal to Ls
Canon 24mm 2.8IS good landscaper and for wider interiors , glass not as good as the best L stuff but still good

That hopefull demonstrates where i am coming from with the judgement on the 35 f2 IS

Bokeh of the 35 f2 IS is very good , i am not sure i would say it is the best - to be honest i have a Super Takumar from the late 1960s 55 1.8 which has the creamiest bokeh i have ever seen in a lens - if it was AF i would use it all the time ! I would not be suprised if the sigma 35 and 50 art have slightly better bokeh but then i would be looking more for 85 135 or 200 anyway if bokeh was the main concern. For me the main concern was being able to shoot in low light, and thats what this lens is the master of - 35mm F2 with four stop IS , not sure if that will be better any time soon ?


Cheers
Andrew
www.andrew-davies.com


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 13, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> That hopefully demonstrates where i am coming from with the judgement on the 35 f2 IS



Call me slow, but I still have no fricking idea how that has anything to do with the new 50mm Sigma.
One of the most directionless threads I've come across on CR.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 14, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Interesting theories regarding the price drop. I believe there has to be some truth in the fact that these lenses were originally intended to be quite high market and fill the gap between Ls which have not yet come out ( 35 1.4L II , 50 1.2 II L ) etc and sit above the entry level primes. It seems owning both the 24 and 35 IS that the 35 is ahead of the game glass wise. I have also owned the new 40 2.8 which i did not click with and ended up selling a month or two after getting it. Did not have the sharpness or unique quality that the 35 IS has.
> 
> Someone mentioned wondering why i posted two shots that werent at F2 , well simply because a large majority of shots at a wedding are not F2 as its just too shallow at close range. however the abililty to use the F2 when i want to artistically produces better results than the 24-70 2.8 and the added benefit of the IS makes it a great low light lens during church ceremonies and for detailed shots without flash. There is also the added bonus of its great close up ability and its light weight along with its very good build quality and fast af.
> 
> ...



Andrew...after looking through your list of lenses used, I would suggest that you're missing two of Canon's best...24-70ii and 70-200ii.

These two lenses truly are "prime eliminators"....unless you need the extra light below 2.8.


----------



## pwp (Apr 14, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> ...each to their own, personally I have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.


Certainly each to their own. But I have to disagree about simply using your feet. The walking zoom is fine in some situations, but at a wedding in particular, you're often locked into tight positions either dictated by discretion or sheer physical mass of guests or objects. 

While in no way denigrating the brilliant properties of the EF 35 f/2is, the 24-70 f/2.8II is the events shooters best friend, along with the undisputed champion of the world, the 70-200 f/2.8isII. In my view, for events work and indeed a great deal of all commercial work, these two extroidinary zooms make primes an inconvenient irrelevance. 

At a wedding or any commercial job that is dynamic (vs static) I have total responsibility to my client to deliver the magic moments by the boatload. Classy zooms are the strongest tools in my kit.

-pw


----------



## Northstar (Apr 14, 2014)

pwp said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > ...each to their own, personally I have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.
> ...



Just reviewing my post (right above yours) and noticed that we're "in sync".


----------



## pwp (Apr 14, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > That hopefully demonstrates where i am coming from with the judgement on the 35 f2 IS
> ...


...yet it has over 60 replies. In fairness to the OP, he introduced the thread as a discussion on alternatives to the much hyped new Sigma 50.

-pw


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 14, 2014)

pwp said:


> ...yet it has over 60 replies. In fairness to the OP, he introduced the thread as a discussion on alternatives to the much hyped new Sigma 50.
> 
> -pw



Does that surprise you, considering you have over 1400 posts on CR? 
Apart from detailed debates about the 35/2 IS I have not seen any discussion on alternatives to the 50A (and sorry, the 35/2 IS is not an alternative- not in FL, speed or use). Maybe you spotted something I didn't. 
Of course, it doesn't matter. It is a weekend pastime anyway 
I shouldn't have been so harsh to criticize the thread.
Cheers!


----------



## slclick (Apr 14, 2014)

pwp said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Davies Photography said:
> ...


----------



## helpful (Apr 14, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Each to their own, personally i have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.



This is one of the best points I have seen on CR. I am glad to see someone else who has outgrown zoom lenses.

Someone else pointed out in this thread that "the time needed to change lenses" is a downside to using primes. That's not the way it works. Like the OP here suggests, the prime photographer works with multiple camera bodies, each with its own prime attached. Two or three camera bodies provide perfect coverage of every pre-planned vision as well as preparedness for spontaneous moments, and a fourth and fifth body are always nearby, each with its own lens and perfect settings for that lens's focal length. Primes are not necessarily evil, but "the time needed to change lenses" is simply not a factor in the professional workflow regardless of using primes or zooms.

Perspective (i.e., the photographer's position in relation to the subject and scene) is one of the most important elements of photography, and constant zooming is like a disease that can infect any photographer and inhibit their sensitivity to this part of our art.

Zooming easily makes a photographer concentrate on getting the best out of the current situation but be blind to seeing the best situation. Zooming can give the illusion that we are perfecting a composition when in fact we are only compromising it.


----------



## zlatko (Apr 14, 2014)

helpful said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Each to their own, personally i have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.
> ...



Some great insights there. I think you've summed it up some potential disadvantages of zooming very well. I only disagree with the notion of "outgrowing" zoom lenses. They still retain some advantages, no matter how experienced one is. Not everyone can have quick access to up to five camera bodies, each with a different prime. One can reduce the number of bodies and happily use both primes and zooms, being cognizant of the advantages & disadvantages of each. Also, a photographer can learn to treat a zoom as a collection of primes.


----------



## pwp (Apr 14, 2014)

There is no intention here of fanning yet another prime vs zoom flame war here. They both have completely valid places in image making. Whether the shot you deliver to a client was made with a 35 f/2is or 24-70 or whatever, they're not really going to care so long as it's a hot, memorable shot. 

For _any_ events work, I'll stand firmly with the Z team. 8) 



helpful said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Each to their own, personally i have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.
> ...


Hmmm...do you "outgrow" zoom lenses or just alter your preference? 


helpful said:


> Someone else pointed out in this thread that "the time needed to change lenses" is a downside to using primes. That's not the way it works. Like the OP here suggests, the prime photographer works with multiple camera bodies, each with its own prime attached.


Of course lens changes take time. Even a moment can mean a missed shot. Plus, outdoors photographers know that every lens change means potential sensor dust bunnies. And zoom shooters will have either a 16-35 or 24-70 on one body and a 70-200 on another...


helpful said:


> Two or three camera bodies provide perfect coverage of every pre-planned vision as well as preparedness for spontaneous moments, and a fourth and fifth body are always nearby, each with its own lens and perfect settings for that lens's focal length. Primes are not necessarily evil, but "the time needed to change lenses" is simply not a factor in the professional workflow regardless of using primes or zooms.


At an event, fourth or fifth bodies "nearby" isn't really practical. Most photographers will successfully manage two bodies on their person, and occasionally three without getting tangled up occasionally. At a wedding things happen at the speed of light. A magic moment will be past while one photographer is making even a very skilled lens change while the zoom shooter will have half a dozen frames in the bag.


helpful said:


> Zooming easily makes a photographer concentrate on getting the best out of the current situation but be blind to seeing the best situation. Zooming can give the illusion that we are perfecting a composition when in fact we are only compromising it.


Errrm....what a funny thing to say! ??? 

-pw


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 14, 2014)

Northstar said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting theories regarding the price drop. I believe there has to be some truth in the fact that these lenses were originally intended to be quite high market and fill the gap between Ls which have not yet come out ( 35 1.4L II , 50 1.2 II L ) etc and sit above the entry level primes. It seems owning both the 24 and 35 IS that the 35 is ahead of the game glass wise. I have also owned the new 40 2.8 which i did not click with and ended up selling a month or two after getting it. Did not have the sharpness or unique quality that the 35 IS has.
> ...



+1...plus 85*L* II(a magical portrait lens for wedding pros) + 135*L*


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 14, 2014)

personally i'm a 2 body with a zoom on 1 and prime on the other kind of guy

typically for events i'll shoot 16-35 L II on a 5Dmk2 with the sigma 85 1.4 on the 5Dmk3

and for travelling i am either using the eos-M with 11-22 and the 85 or 135 or the tamron 150-600 on the 5dmk3
or the 16-35 on the 5d mk3 and the sigma 35 f1.4 on the M giving about 56mm

depends what i'm shooting if its night or day or if i'm indoors or outdoors

1 thing is for certain I almost always take the 85 and 135 over the 70-200L II

but I agree for certain events the 70-200 is best and for fashion runway it has no equal.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Apr 14, 2014)

I'm wondering if the op is one of those photographers who gets in the way.. right smack in the middle of the aisle taking photos.. swapping this and that camera running around. I'm sure they get the shots! btw the shots posted are posed/static photos. :
I totally agree with having zooms for events. I don't know about you guys but the photographer should not become an attraction to an event. yes? If you've been part of the wedding family or attendees, you don't want to be talking about how annoying the photographer is. Just saying this from too many observations.... 
primes vs zooms.. I love primes and think that they are extremely capable of being creative and unique. But zoom TOTALLY have a place for most photographers. Most photojournalists that I've seen carry zooms. (70-200) why? well, they capture moments. You don't exactly have time to run, compose and capture. back to weddings.. capture the good stuff and doing that with zooms... there's a good reason.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 14, 2014)

pwp said:


> Plus, outdoors photographers know that every lens change means potential sensor dust bunnies.
> -pw



You make a very plausible case for the advantages of zooms at dynamic event work, but I just wanted to point out that someone who uses just primes and changes a lot will get a lot _less_ dust in the camera than someone who is using zooms which change their physical length, and the most popular ones do: 24-105, 24-70 etc. These zooms are constantly pumping air in and out of the camera, and although it's having to pass through the brush weather seal around the barrel, it's far from a dust filter.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 14, 2014)

I had zooms , then went for primes, because "I outgrew my zooms" but now have a mix of them. If you think a 35 IS is a better choice then a 2470 mk2, then wow.. I use my zooms like I use my primes, I choose my focal for the intended perspective, and then I move my feet in the same way I do with a prime. To me the blistering AF of the zooms often outweighs the faster aperture of a prime. But the 2470 can't do what the 85 and the 200 f2 does and they sure is heck can't do what the 2470 can. I'm going to take a wild guess here , but I guess this is why Canon make all the different lenses they do?

A 35 IS will never ever replace a 50 f1.4 for me. And I am one of the worlds biggest fans of the 35 1.4's, but I also happen to be that for the fast 50's also, and they are VERY different.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2014)

helpful said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Each to their own, personally i have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.
> ...



Canon knows that the best, most highly compensated photographers have all "outgrown" zoom lenses. That's why they released one costing close to $12,000. :

I use both zooms and primes, but I'm happy say that I don't _need_ to use a prime lens to *force* me to think about composition and to put myself at the proper distance from the subject to achieve the perspective I want for the shot. I can do that all by myself, even with a zoom lens. In fact, because zoom lenses allow one to vary composition/framing while maintaining perspective, they offer an additional creative tool that prime lenses don't provide, since 'zooming with your feet' changes both framing and perspective at the same time. 

But if those who have "outgrown" zoom lenses need the crutch of a fixed focal length to goad them into thinking about composition, that's fine for them…


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> helpful said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Davies Photography said:
> ...



Excepting that we are not talking about composition specifically we are talking mainly about quality, and in that respect the prime lens offers the client the best quality possible  - which is why there is all the fuss around the Sigma 50 , because everyone wants a prime lens in their arsenal. 

I as most good photographers can, am also easily to compose with or without a zoom after all you are looking through the same viewfinder so why would you think you need a prime or a zoom to compose ? that's all about you and what you want and see from the shot - i think they call it having 'the eye' not having the lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Excepting that we are not talking about composition specifically we are talking mainly about quality, and in that respect the prime lens offers the client the best quality possible



Actually, _you_ were talking about both quality and thinking about composition as advantages of having 'outgrown zoom lenses', but if you want to change your story now, that's ok. 

The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II deliver image quality equal to or better than many prime lenses at equivalent apertures in their respective ranges, particularly when considering real world output and not laboratory test shots. Many primes offer faster apertures, if you're willing to sacrifice some of the maximum IQ of the lens, and if shallow DoF is appropraite for the shot. Many prime lenses are also cheaper than those zooms which deliver excellent IQ.

The generic 'primes have better IQ than zooms' mentality is a bit dated when considering modern lenses.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The generic 'primes have better IQ than zooms' mentality is a bit dated when considering modern lenses.



+1

It took me many years of being dragged from the '70's to accept this, but there is certainly no practical IQ loss with the top end zooms. In fact even the 24-70 f4 IS is as close as makes no difference, especially in something like wedding photography were the detail within the frame is large and quite close. ( Not talking about large brides here ). 

Primes certainly have their place and will continue to do so. (Generally) cheaper, smaller, lighter and faster. Perhaps it is no coincidence, but in the UK at least you can buy a 24 2.8 IS, a 28 2.8 IS, a 35 f2 IS, a 50 f1.4 and an 85 f1.8 all for the price of one 24-70 f2.8 II. 

And if you carry them all together they are about the same weight too  

And now I'll wait for the first person to come along and say that's not surprising because the 24-70II is better than all those primes put together anyway ;D


----------



## agierke (Apr 14, 2014)

the only thing zooms dont offer that fast primes do is the look you can get at F2.0 and wider. thats about it.

there is alot of nonsense in this thread...about outgrowing this/that or what pros know about whatever...

i carry both zooms and primes with me for work. currently i enjoy shooting with primes over zooms but that is ONLY because i seek out opportunities to shoot at wider than 2.8. that is simply a personal preference though. i wouldn't be caught dead on a job without my zooms but if i can, im grabbing my primes first.

its downright silly to make blanket statements about technique (especially in a creative medium) with only a modest "professional" career to back up those statements. 

one of the things i have learned over my years is that you can make all the "rules" you want but a talented creative person will come around and smash those rules to bits. and make you and your "rules" look silly in the process.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 14, 2014)

And if we really want to do the test chart, "35 IS is better than the zoom by far"- comparison, here it is:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

And the 35 is a full stop down while the 2470 is wide open.


----------



## candyman (Apr 14, 2014)

Viggo said:


> And if we really want to do the test chart, 35 IS is better than the zoom by far comparison, here it is:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
> 
> And the 35 is a full stop down while the 2470 is wide open.




In the corner the 24-70 is better, no?


----------



## Viggo (Apr 14, 2014)

candyman said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > And if we really want to do the test chart, 35 IS is better than the zoom by far comparison, here it is:
> ...


Yes


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2014)

Viggo said:


> And if we really want to do the test chart, 35 IS is better than the zoom by far comparison, here it is:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=1&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
> 
> And the 35 is a full stop down while the 2470 is wide open.



"By far?" Not really. It's pretty much a wash, and the Photozone testing shows the same. Also, that's only sharpness. The 24-70 II at 35mm has less distortion, similar vignetting, more CA, and less LoCA than the 35/2 IS. So for overall IQ, I'd call it a draw. 

At any focal length other than 35mm, the 24-70 II has a significant advantage. At apertures wider than f/2.8, the 24-70 II has a major deficit. 

But also, the 35/2 IS wide open is not as sharp as the 24-70 II wide open (link), and that difference is more apparent.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 14, 2014)

Neuro, I think you misread Viggo's sentence- as I did the first time !


----------



## Viggo (Apr 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > And if we really want to do the test chart, 35 IS is better than the zoom by far comparison, here it is:
> ...



I think there have been a misunderstanding, I AM NOT supporting the OP here, I support the 2470 being epic, as well as the 70-200 mk2. I have added ".." to my original post so that it's more clear I was being ironic and quoting, not agreeing ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Neuro, I think you misread Viggo's sentence- as I did the first time !



Ahh, yes - I missed the "" marks around that phrase…but that might be because they weren't there the first time. 

Thanks for clarifying, Viggo!


----------



## Viggo (Apr 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, I think you misread Viggo's sentence- as I did the first time !
> ...



Fair enough!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Fair enough!



It's ok, we have an excuse - you misstated, and I misinterpreted your statement, because we haven't grown up enough to have outgrown zoom lenses! ;D


----------



## Viggo (Apr 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough!
> ...



Ouch! HAHA ;D


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 14, 2014)

Viggo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



While we are talking about misquotes to the handful of people who keep yacking on about the 24-70 2.8 mk2 , there was never a reference to this lens in my post you all just forgot to read it properly, The lens i replaced and compared with is the 24-70 2.8 mk1 and as already stated i am not making assumptions about the mk2 it may well be better than the 35 IS i haven't used it so cant comment.

Just completed another two weddings with the 24 35 85 combo and very happy with the results so far certainly beats the quality that i was getting from the 24-70 MK1 - but as i keep saying i am not dismissing zooms they have their place too and the 70-200 and 24-105 i still have is used by my second photographer , therefore i am covering a wedding with three primes and two zooms most of the time ( best of both worlds ) 

I would be interested to see if Sigma bring out any more tele primes or maybe canon will bring out an 85IS as the first three IS primes have been well received.

www.andrew-davies.com wedding photographer north east and yorkshire


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 14, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> While we are talking about misquotes to the handful of people who keep yacking on about the 24-70 2.8 mk2 , there was never a reference to this lens in my post you all just forgot to read it properly, The lens i replaced and compared with is the 24-70 2.8 mk1



Speaking for myself, I did not miss that point. The problem is that you generalized that to the assertion that 'primes are better than zooms', and further compounded that with the statement that you've 'outgrown zooms', which I hope you can see is a slam against a whole lot of people.


----------



## pwp (Apr 15, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> While we are talking about misquotes to the handful of people who keep yacking on about the 24-70 2.8 mk2 , there was never a reference to this lens in my post you all just forgot to read it properly, The lens I replaced and compared with is the *24-70 2.8 mk1* and as already stated i am not making assumptions about the mk2 it may well be better than the 35 IS i haven't used it so cant comment.
> 
> Just completed another two weddings with the 24 35 85 combo and very happy with the results so far certainly beats the quality that I was getting from the *24-70 MK1*...



_OK!_ There's the difference. Most copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI were unmitigated pieces of shirt when compared to the prime beating MkII. I'm not the only photographer around CR (and elsewhere) who ploughed through five or six 24-70 f/2.8MkI lenses over a number of years in search of one of the rare good copies. 

As a signed-up, paid-up life member of the Z Team, I'd also choose your primes, the 24 35 85 combo over the old MkI zoom for an important job. My first day shooting with the MkII zoom was one of the happiest days of my life. To say I was gobsmacked by the quality across a broad variety of situations is almost an understatement.

-pw


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 15, 2014)

pwp said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > While we are talking about misquotes to the handful of people who keep yacking on about the 24-70 2.8 mk2 , there was never a reference to this lens in my post you all just forgot to read it properly, The lens I replaced and compared with is the *24-70 2.8 mk1* and as already stated i am not making assumptions about the mk2 it may well be better than the 35 IS i haven't used it so cant comment.
> ...



Thats good to hear ! I am however surprised as i was under the impression from lots of reviews and talk over the years that the 24-70 2.8L was the best Canon had - I never got the performance out of it that i wanted and the day i started shooting the 35 IS was an eye opener to see how much sharper it was.

Would you say the 24-70 mk2 can seriously better the 24 35 85 primes ?


----------



## pwp (Apr 15, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > _OK!_ There's the difference. Most copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI were unmitigated pieces of shirt when compared to the prime beating MkII. I'm not the only photographer around CR (and elsewhere) who ploughed through five or six 24-70 f/2.8MkI lenses over a number of years in search of one of the rare good copies.
> ...



Well, the 24-70 f/2.8MkII arrival quickly prompted me selling a great copy of a 24 f/1.4MkII, a 35 f/2 and a Sigma 50 f/1.4. The new lens eclipsed them all in most respects. I very occasionally miss the f/1.4 to f/2 range, but the 5D3 can handle an awesome iso peak when the need arises provided it's perfectly exposed and suitably treated in post-pro. 

On a balance, I prefer the lighter bag and the established zoom credentials. Other than the obvious 15mm less reach, the 24-70 f/2.8 MkII will outperform the 85 f/1.8 but the 85 f/1.2 is clearly in a class/genre of its own. I did have a very sweet 85 f/1.2 for a few years but my shooting style requires rocket fast, very responsive AF so it also got on-sold because of lack of use.

-pw


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 15, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Davies Photography said:
> ...



The photo below was taken with 5D III + 24-70 II, SOOC,JPEG, no flash, zero edit. 

What do you think?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 15, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> While we are talking about misquotes to the handful of people who keep yacking on about the 24-70 2.8 mk2 , there was never a reference to this lens in my post you all just forgot to read it properly, The lens i replaced and compared with is the 24-70 2.8 mk1 and as already stated i am not making assumptions about the mk2 it may well be better than the 35 IS i haven't used it so cant comment.



Hmmm... so if you have never used the mk2 maybe you shouldn't have used the generalized comment below?



Andrew Davies Photography said:


> specifically we are talking mainly about quality, and in that respect the prime lens offers the client the best quality possible


----------



## zlatko (Apr 15, 2014)

pwp said:


> _OK!_ There's the difference. Most copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI were unmitigated pieces of shirt when compared to the prime beating MkII. I'm not the only photographer around CR (and elsewhere) who ploughed through five or six 24-70 f/2.8MkI lenses over a number of years in search of one of the rare good copies.
> 
> As a signed-up, paid-up life member of the Z Team, I'd also choose your primes, the 24 35 85 combo over the old MkI zoom for an important job. My first day shooting with the MkII zoom was one of the happiest days of my life. To say I was gobsmacked by the quality across a broad variety of situations is almost an understatement.
> 
> -pw



The problem with the 24-70/2.8 Mk.I is not that it was a bad lens. It was a very good lens when it was properly adjusted. They were generally fine when fresh from the factory, but would go out of adjustment with regular use. Within a year or two, even the good copies could become bad copies. The more one used it, the more likely it was to go out of adjustment. A heavy user of that lens was well advised to send it in for annual adjustments, even before the blurries started to show up. On the other hand, a light user might not ever see it go out of adjustment. Related to that, the adjustments themselves were not that easy to make. And finally, even when well adjusted, some users reported that the lens liked to focus on a distant background a little too often, no matter how carefully it was focused on the subject. It was a generally useful lens but with some reliability and maintenance issues. 

The Mk.II version is better in all respects and truly prime-like in quality. That said, any lens with a complex zoom mechanism is likely to eventually need a tuneup with heavy use. Primes, being simpler mechanically, generally don't need as much attention.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 15, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...




Honestly, Its a nice shot and well composed however it would not make me want to rush out and buy the lens. The bokeh looks odd and it does not look tack sharp anywhere.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 15, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Davies Photography said:
> ...



You have any tack sharp image @ f3.2(without flash) in similar focal lenght?. Since you shoot wedding for $$$, I just want to know the definition of "tack sharp" from the pro POV. I visited your site, you have beatiful collection. 

Photography is just a hobby for me & take photo of my kids around the house


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 15, 2014)

> Photography is just a hobby for me & take photo of my kids around the house



This is hardly the kit list for someone who take pics of their kids at home
Body: 5D III(x2) -- A7r
Zoom: 16-35L II -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 50L -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II -- Zeiss FE 55mm f1.8

If you are not using that lot to generate some income then there is something wrong !


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 15, 2014)

In fairness to Dylan's example image, the forum algorithm has massacred it, if you download it and then look at it at 100% it is a much more convincing point.

Personally though I find far too much emphasis on "sharpness" nowadays, I am still using the 24-70 MkI, indeed it is my most often used lens, and I have no intention of "upgrading" it for a MkII or a selection of primes. I have never, ever, had a customer consider my images too soft, indeed I often have to soften them somewhat.

Whilst I am a very vigorous proponent of "the gear doesn't matter" school of thought in many applications (with lots of caveats for BIF, ultimate IQ etc etc) and my almost rabid passion in 100 L vs 135 L threads, once you get into image creation, rather than taking pictures, it does become interesting on what you, personally, as the image maker, find compelling. For my money the bokeh of the MkII 24-70 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS are both worse than the lower resolving MkI versions, I would happily trade "up" if the sharpness difference was essential to my images, but it isn't. For me the MkII zooms are squarely aimed at sports shooters and their publications, and a resolution and numbers influenced customer base who value sharpness as the twin cousin of subject. It is so much easier to declare how much "better" a MkII lens is if it resolves more in a review test chart.

Predominantly image makers value subtle characteristics more, some of these are hardware driven, focal length, aperture etc, but the more interesting ones are more subtle, some sharpness, some bokeh, some colour and contrast etc but don't lose sight of the fact that nowadays much of those characteristics are simply created in software, or easy to emulate in software.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 15, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> > Photography is just a hobby for me & take photo of my kids around the house
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are lots of very well equipped hobbyists here on CR, many seem to have very good disposable income, far more than I do as a professional photographer with much more modest gear. There is nothing wrong with that! Indeed they help keep the price down for me. 

Wanting the best is natural, defining what is the best is more nuanced and seems to be learnt from tests and reviews that are generally too numbers driven in my opinion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 15, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> > Photography is just a hobby for me & take photo of my kids around the house
> 
> 
> This is hardly the kit list for someone who take pics of their kids at home
> If you are not using that lot to generate some income then there is something wrong !



Photography is a hobby for me, too, and I also shoot photos of my kids around the house. Here's one, with the 1D X and 600mm f/4L IS II…


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 15, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> > Photography is just a hobby for me & take photo of my kids around the house
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I disagree. I simply enjoy Canon fast L lenses because they offer better in IQ, contrast, color, AF and built quality over kit lenses. This is my reward by using Canon fast L lenses.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 15, 2014)

My main subject is my kids too, I don't make money with my gear either.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 15, 2014)

I'm with Dylan & Viggo on this one. If you have the means and photography is your passion, there's nothing "wrong" with owning nice gear, just as there's nothing wrong with the new Sigma 50 or the 35 f/2 IS.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 15, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm with Dylan & Viggo on this one. If you have the means and photography is your passion, there's nothing "wrong" with owning nice gear, just as there's nothing wrong with the new Sigma 50 or the 35 f/2 IS.



Its a mighty unfortunate waste of talent and kit. And a real shame that talent and kit is not being enjoyed by more people - photography is best when shared  I do agree though if you have the money then why not its up to you.

By the way that photo is much nicer love the creamy bokeh.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 15, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Its a mighty unfortunate waste of talent and kit. And a real shame that talent and kit is not being enjoyed by more people - photography is best when shared


I agree but the unfortunate reality is that there are fewer and fewer ways to make the kind of money needed to purchase high end gear through photography alone. I shoot part-time, but live in a small market and my primary income (IT management consulting) pays 5-10 times what I would make as a full-time photographer.

Of course some people just enjoy photography as a hobby - I know that my personal work is much more enjoyable than the commercial stuff I do. I also know that sharing isn't for everyone - my experience with the "art" world has been rather disappointing and the Internet can be a cruel place for many. Just as standing in a Florida swamp is 180 degrees from shooting weddings, so are people's reasons they enjoy photography.

The great thing is that we all love photography.


----------



## slclick (Apr 16, 2014)

This thread is still active?


----------



## Grumbaki (Apr 16, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I'm with Dylan & Viggo on this one. If you have the means and photography is your passion, there's nothing "wrong" with owning nice gear, just as there's nothing wrong with the new Sigma 50 or the 35 f/2 IS.
> ...



Well actually you could see it the other way around. Not relying on photography for income free up creativity but also the will to share. I don't have any other pretense than to share my foreigner view on "true China" (suburban/rural but not touristy cliché) so I can just "give them away" for viewing and sharing as long as it doesn't cost me anymore money than my gear did.

With no responsability comes great power


----------



## pwp (Apr 16, 2014)

Grumbaki said:


> Well actually you could see it the other way around. Not relying on photography for income free up creativity but also the will to share.
> 
> With no responsibility comes great power



I've often thought along similar lines with respect to amateurs. The status can give freedom for tremendous creativity. Not just photography, but some of the most astoundingly creative and interesting food I've eaten has come from the kitchens of unrestrained and talented amateurs. Same with music. Often without commercial constraints and self imposed genre constrained considerations, some of the most magical, though not necessarily technically perfect music has come from non-professionals. 

And just to add, it sounds like sour-grapes to criticize a non-professional for having the good fortune and good taste to have premium bodies and glass. Some people drop their wealth on fast cars, boats or planes...so why not top-shelf camera gear? You'd be surprised the percentage total sales of L lenses that go into the kits of well-heeled enthusiast amateurs.

-pw


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2014)

pwp said:


> And just to add, it sounds like sour-grapes to criticize a non-professional for having the good fortune and good taste to have premium bodies and glass.



+1

As with mackguyver, my professional career offers excellent compensation, and the consulting I do on the side pays for my photography gear.

I'm fortunate to have a job that I enjoy – although it's not exactly practical to do experiments outside of the lab, I do some science teaching in my free time. I wonder how many professional photographers truly enjoy photography?


----------



## agierke (Apr 16, 2014)

> I wonder how many professional photographers truly enjoy photography?



i do.

my father (incidentally a phd chemist) always told us kids growing up to do what you love, the rest will take care of itself. so i listened...and that's exactly what is happening. i am able to fully support myself on photography alone. i do feel quite lucky though as it isnt easy and i see alot of people struggle with it and fail.

i never understood the comments some people make about not wanting to be a professional and ruin what they love doing. i always thought the best thing you could hope for is to get to do what you love everyday....AND have someone pay you to do it!

but i have absolutely no problem with amateurs buying the best gear...i say why not! at the very least it helps support the company i expect to continue to produce top notch tools for my business. the only issue i have is when an amateur thinks they can take on pro jobs simply because they have the gear and then they do the work for ridiculously low rates or free. that aint cool!


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 16, 2014)

agierke said:


> > I wonder how many professional photographers truly enjoy photography?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Absolutely with you there. The greatest achievement i have made personally is not in technique or equipment but in the ability to turn a creative hobby into a career that allows me the free time to spend with my family. 80% running a business and 20% photography but given the usual 50 hour weeks that means i spend a lot more time and effort on my photography than most amateurs. And I enjoy it - yes there are times it is stressful and times when your standing in the freezing pouring rain waiting for uncle bob to finish on the loo ! But i would not change it.

There are no sour grapes here, in fact a lot of the 'all the gear and no idea' crew i have met pose no challenge to the professionals but simply want to own the best they can afford , some however like some of you guys here take the time to also learn techniques and enjoy creative photography with your gear and some go on to make a living from it or just to enjoy it. 

Still i find it somewhat odd that you would need three pro slrs and a dozen L lenses to photography your kids running round the house , that however you look at it is a complete waste of money and kit. I wager that the person in question does some other work with it too ;


----------



## pwp (Apr 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder how many professional photographers truly enjoy photography?


Maybe some don't, and that will be true of most professions. 

I've always felt so privileged to have cracked it in such a diversely fulfilling field...I figure it beats the hell out of having to work for a living. Life is supposed to be enjoyable!

-pw


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 16, 2014)

agierke said:


> i never understood the comments some people make about not wanting to be a professional and ruin what they love doing. i always thought the best thing you could hope for is to get to do what you love everyday....AND have someone pay you to do it!



I understand the earlier sentiment exactly. There is a huge difference between doing something you love for the fun of it and doing it to feed your wife and kids, ask any fisherman.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > And just to add, it sounds like sour-grapes to criticize a non-professional for having the good fortune and good taste to have premium bodies and glass.
> ...



+1....with Neuro.


Off topic:
@ pwp - don't forget, Costco sells steak & lobster tail at decent price  You can have $75 dinner for less $15.

How to Cook a Steak in a Pan - Gordon Ramsay


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > i never understood the comments some people make about not wanting to be a professional and ruin what they love doing. i always thought the best thing you could hope for is to get to do what you love everyday....AND have someone pay you to do it!
> ...


I think the thing to remember is that not every pro loves photography or chose the profession for that reason. I have friends who do it because it's a family business or because that's what they got their degree in and can't find work that pays as well without going back to school. I know some who are miserable because almost every creative decision is made for them and their management (aka creative director) checks the LCD after each shot. Having your livelihood dependent upon your work is rarely fun and as a part-timer, I've had shoots that were fun and creative and others that were a grind that I barely broke even on in the end. While I toy with the idea of trying to go full-time, I fear it would turn something I love into something I no longer enjoy.

I'm not sure how many of you have read this Onion (a fake news, humor website) article, but there's a lot of truth to it for many of us: 
Find The Thing You're Most Passionate About, Then Do It On Nights And Weekends For The Rest Of Your Life


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 16, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > > I wonder how many professional photographers truly enjoy photography?
> ...



When you shoot a wedding, how many bodies & lenses do you take with you? For what I know, wedding shooters don’t come to a wedding with one camera and one lens. Many will carry at least two bodies, 24-70 for general, 70-200 for extra reach, fast primes for extra speed and shallow DOF, macro & UWA for special shots, lights & a lot batteries etc…Why all those gear needed at the event - because they don’t want to miss the “SHOT”.

As I mentioned, photography is my hobby and photograph my kids. My kids doing: indoor swimming, ballet, soccer and painting. As a father, I don’t want to miss “ THE SHOT & THE MOMENT” due to swapping lenses.

With 2 bodies and two lenses at the event, the chance missing the shot is much less. In my case, I like to carry these combos:

1.	short distance & decent lighting: 24-70 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS II
2.	longer distance & decent lighting: 70-200 f2.8 IS II & 400 f2.8 IS II (in my case, indoor swimming and ballet)
3.	short distance & low light: 50L & 135L
4.	Portrait: 85L
5.	Walk around the town with my kids, A7r + FE 55mm

Wasting is when photographer has too many crappy lenses in the bag and they don’t get use.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 16, 2014)

I am all for GAS - Gear Acquisition Syndrome - provided you can afford it and you actually use it. I don't have kids, I don't eat out, I don't live in a fancy house, my furniture is by and large utilitarian (I am the queen of "assembly required") and I don't drive a fancy car. My current 50mm is a Nikkor AIS 50mm f/1.2 on adapter, a legacy lens, nice small manual focus manual aperture lens with truly impressive aberration wide open (but that's part of its charm in some shooting situations). The poor dear needs its helicoid grease renewed, but is functional. Yet one more DIY project, if I can find instructions on the internet.

Zoom? Prime? They both have their places. I have been debating on whether and which "normal range" zoom to get, I'd like the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II no-IS, I'd like it even better with IS, have been contemplating the options of EF 24-70 f/4 IS and Sigma 24-105 f/4 IS. I have also been sorely intrigued by the Sigma 50 Art, and am awaiting lots of samples of its bokeh. To me, that is the one thing a fast prime gives you nowadays that a top-level zoom can't provide - Bokehliciousness.

I am an amateur, but get to play with delicious optics at work as well - I am a pathologist.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 16, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Still i find it somewhat odd that you would need three pro slrs and a dozen L lenses to photography your kids running round the house , that however you look at it is a complete waste of money and kit. I wager that the person in question does some other work with it too ;



Just an observation from a reader, but you seem to spend a lot of time worrying about what other people do in their photography.

If some like to shoot with zooms, how does that affect you?
If some like to buy expensive pro gear but are not pros, how does that affect you?

In this thread you have used denegrating terms "outgrowing" and "waste" and such several times, when describing what is a personal choice for all of us. I did not understand your original post about the 50mm Sigma and in reading your responses it reads like you consider yourself some how better than the rest of us.

You like to shoot primes. So do I. I don't even own a zoom. But I would never make someone else feel badly if they choose to use a zoom. What other togs do and how they shoot affects me little. 

Just an observation.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 16, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Still i find it somewhat odd that you would need three pro slrs and a dozen L lenses to photography your kids running round the house , that however you look at it is a complete waste of money and kit. I wager that the person in question does some other work with it too ;



That's not odd at all, I have shot concerts, weddings, pitch dark stuff, studio lit stuff, sports and NOTHING comes close to how difficult it is shooting kids playing, and I don't say that as a joke. Small flat faces with low contrast and bright colored clothes running in completely random motion and very unpredictable. You can't sit them down and ask them to smile, you have to be always ready, and for me the AF system of the 1dX is the only one that gives me those fun fast action shots time and time again. And for the fast shutter, a fast lens with great AF is needed. I could go on..


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I wonder how many professional photographers truly enjoy photography?



I think that there is probably more job satisfaction in photography, on the whole, than other professions, though overall earnings are certainly lower than they were twenty years ago in real terms.

However I think the point behind that question is that there is a monumental difference in capturing a picture for your own pleasure of doing it and creating art, and _having_ to get the right picture that is being demanded, and you are being paid to get the result. The later can be quite stressful compared with the former and does indeed take away much of the photography pleasure. 

Until you have the final result and everything is hunky dory. Then that's _more _ enjoyable


----------



## BoneDoc (Apr 16, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Still i find it somewhat odd that you would need three pro slrs and a dozen L lenses to photography your kids running round the house , that however you look at it is a complete waste of money and kit. I wager that the person in question does some other work with it too ;
> ...




...Awesome. I have to use this one next time I have an itch to get a 1DX.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 16, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Still i find it somewhat odd that you would need three pro slrs and a dozen L lenses to photography your kids running round the house , that however you look at it is a complete waste of money and kit. I wager that the person in question does some other work with it too ;
> ...



Its a forum and thats all about healthy debate and learning from others which is what i am doing , If you wish to listen then thats great if not then do not feel the need to speak for other people. Since being on the forum for a year and only making one post yourself maybe you should speak for yourself instead of others a little more ? Surely you have things to share too ?

If just one person read this conversation and took something from it good bad or indifferent then it has done its job as a forum post and i am happy to have helped.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> If just one person read this conversation and took something from it good bad or indifferent then it has done its job as a forum post and i am happy to have helped.



What if a bunch of people read this conversation and took your statements as condescending and/or insulting? Statements like, "I've outgrown zooms," and, "A non-pro having all that gear is a waste," aren't really helping anyone, except maybe helping you feel better about yourself. Good job.


----------



## BoneDoc (Apr 16, 2014)

Sounds like gear envy to me


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 17, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Just an observation from a reader, but you seem to spend a lot of time worrying about what other people do in their photography.
> 
> If some like to shoot with zooms, how does that affect you?
> If some like to buy expensive pro gear but are not pros, how does that affect you?
> ...



+1. AP is definitely speaking for me, at least.
I commented earlier about how this thread is vague and directionless (did I mention never-ending?), but didn't really mind it at that time.
But it does seem that the OP has a flair for making passive-aggressive attempts at offending people and their gear.
I say, passive-aggressive because there is always the switchback as below:



> If you are not using that lot to generate some income then there is something wrong !


then


> I do agree though if you have the money then why not its up to you.


 


> specifically we are talking mainly about quality, and in that respect the prime lens offers the client the best quality possible


then


> as already stated i am not making assumptions about the mk2 it may well be better than the 35 IS i haven't used it so cant comment.



I am afraid the only thing for me to take from this thread is whom to avoid if I am looking for a professional photographer in UK. 'Professional' means more than 'making money' to me.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 17, 2014)

If I remember, this all started with some kind of claim of Sigma generating lots of hype about its new 50mm.

But the longevity of this misleadingly titled thread proves that Sigma need do NOTHING to generate excitement about a worthy, fairly priced 50mm becoming available.

====================================================================
My fingers are crossed. I think my ef 50mm 1.4 is adequate at 2.0, but I've had so many great shots with a wonderful "feel" from my Sigma 35mm 1.4 A, that I hope for more of the same from the new 50.

You'll have to pry my ef 85mm 1.2 L from my cold dead fingers, if you dare, but I thought my copy of the ef 35mm 1.4 L stank up the place.

I only offer these opinions to indicate I like good lenses, regardless of brand. I think Canon makes a whole lot more sense than other camera brands because of the great selection of lenses, but missing out on great deals and quality by being a brand snob makes no sense to me.

Hopefully the OP will settle down and realize how helpful this forum can be for advice from the several regulars who put a lot of thought and time into responding to our endless questions.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 17, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many professional photographers truly enjoy photography?
> ...



+1, well said!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 18, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Its a forum and thats all about healthy debate and learning from others which is what i am doing



But that's not what you are doing. You don't seem to be learning from others here. People here are giving you really good advice and feedback on your posts, but you don't seem to be interested in taking it but are more interested in defending you opinions. But you are doing it at the expense of other member's opinons. 

A person disagreeing with your opinion does not necessarly make their opinion wrong, just like people agreeing with your opinion does not necessarly make your opinion right. 

Perhaps it is not what you write but how you write it that is an issue you might want to consider. 

Just a suggestion from a forum reader.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 18, 2014)

*Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?*

Please forgive me if I am treading on already-discussed ground; but what has experience been so far with regard to the new Sigma 50 1.4 in either dusty environments or damp (like humid or rainy) environments? Reviews say 'not weatherproofed'-- does this entail some clear-cut difference between their lens and, say, the Canon's 1.2 or 1.8 lenses? The difference in weight is of no consequence to me. Thank you for your advice.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 18, 2014)

*Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?*



[email protected] said:


> Please forgive me if I am treading on already-discussed ground; but what has experience been so far with regard to the new Sigma 50 1.4 in either dusty environments or damp (like humid or rainy) environments? Reviews say 'not weatherproofed'-- does this entail some clear-cut difference between their lens and, say, the Canon's 1.2 or 1.8 lenses? The difference in weight is of no consequence to me. Thank you for your advice.


From the reviews I've seen, I don't think any of the "review" lenses have been in any kind of harsh environments. The Canon 50 f/1.2 is the only Canon that is weather sealed, and the new (not yet released) Sigma 50 Art is not weather sealed. The Canon 50 f/1.2 has all switches and seams sealed and has a rubber gasket on the mount to seal with Canon's weather sealed bodies (1D, 5D, 7D, 6D, and x0D series). A UV filter is required for full sealing, but it would survive dusty, rainy, and humid locations. The Sigma may do okay, but it wouldn't be a good idea to take it out in those environments if they were really harsh.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 18, 2014)

*Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?*



mackguyver said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > Please forgive me if I am treading on already-discussed ground; but what has experience been so far with regard to the new Sigma 50 1.4 in either dusty environments or damp (like humid or rainy) environments? Reviews say 'not weatherproofed'-- does this entail some clear-cut difference between their lens and, say, the Canon's 1.2 or 1.8 lenses? The difference in weight is of no consequence to me. Thank you for your advice.
> ...



That's something I don't understand of Sigma, they made their DSLR fully weather sealed and their new 120-300mm weathersealed, but the rest are kind of resistant to bad weather.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 18, 2014)

*Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?*



traingineer said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > [email protected] said:
> ...



I would think it is a matter of unit cost. It must be much more expensive to manufacture a lens, with all its moving parts to be reasonably protected from the ingress of water, and as the Sigma has to be competitively priced I doubt it was feasible.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 18, 2014)

*Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?*



Sporgon said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



That does make sense, it's just interesting that they chose the 120-300 lens to be the protected/tough lens.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 19, 2014)

*Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?*



traingineer said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > [email protected] said:
> ...



From personal experience the weather sealed tag is not all its cracked up to be , I have had a 24-70L and a 24-105L succumb to sand getting in the works and a 17-40 which was only 1 year old had a hole form in the rubber gasket meaning it was not sealed , all had filters fitted. I have two 70-200Ls both of which have collected dust inside the elements ( not that it affects anything ) but again they had filters.

My kit has been in harsh conditions with a few -8 degree days each year in the highlands , varying wedding environments from blistering sun to snow and pouring rain and plenty of beach river and sea shoots. To be honest the only thing i have found different in good quality glass such as the 17-55 2.8 and the 35mm F2 IS is not the quality of picture or bokeh but the fact it looks good to others that it has a red ring and somehow makes you more professional which is not really the case.

That said with the advances in optics and technology is there such a thing as a bad lens now manufactured ?

www.andrew-davies.com north east and yorkshire wedding photographer


----------



## Viggo (Apr 19, 2014)

I have used my sealed gear in very heavy rain and snow and conditions down -28 Celcius with no issues. I tried taking one of my 85's out in normal to heavy rain and kept my hand over it, but I fogged and got moist inside the distance scale in three minutes, experienced the same with a 35 L. All my sealed gear has always worked.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 19, 2014)

Well weather sealing is a nice option, but I think the best weather sealing is the Optech rain sleeve.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 20, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > DXO mark one of the most trusted resources online
> ...



wow...dxo says it's a bad lens = it's probably a great lens!


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 6, 2014)

Now people have started taking delivery of their Sigma 50s they are turning out to not quite be the jewel in the crown of everyones collection with the usual sigma variations in focusing issues.

Meanwhile happy to report my new Canon 35mm IS is absolutely brilliant and nails focus every time , maybe its time for a new Canon 50 IS ??


----------

