Messages

1

Lenses / Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids

« on: May 06, 2013, 08:47:30 AM »

Your 24-70 f/2.8II is an absolutely awesome lens. Why would you consider focal lengths that fall in the 24-70 range? My 24-70 f/2.8II is so good I've sold my primes as they were sitting unused. I'm talking about the highly regarded EF 24 f/1.4II and a Sigma 50 F/1.4. I don't miss either of them.

Shooting kids? You next purchase really should be a longer lens. You'll be familiar with the advantages of a zoom. Look at the 70-200 f/2.8isII. Plenty of photographers on the planet would name this as their all-time favourite, most used lens. It's heavy & expensive, but wow does it deliver...

I doubt there is a Canon pro shooter on the anywhere on the planet who doesn't have one, or have it on their shopping list.

-PW

Couldn't agree more. I might not be a pro, but I've been a parent for more that ten years now and zooms rule. The kids just doesn't move from your side to another, they actually move towards you and away from you also. No offense, but there can be a tendency to prime snobbery here. I can understand that in  a studio environment or any controled situation primes are very good, but for many other situations I think zooms are great. Especiall when they are as good as the 70-200 or the new 24-70 MkII (haven't tried that one though)

I can't speak for anyone else, but here's why I want primes in addition to the 24-70 II (which indeed is a fantastic lens):
— More light gathering capabilities. I have a custom setting with a minimum shutter speed of 1/250 to freeze movement and prevent blur. When I'm shooting indoors, which is often, f/2.8 and 1/250 often yields an ISO that is fairly high. Even with the 5DIII's excellent high ISO, I prefer to keep it as low as possible.
— Shallower depth-of-field. I think super shallow DOF can be overused, but I like having the option of really isolating my subject from the background. See below for an example of a picture I took with the 85/1.4 a while back.
— Creative limitation. In my case, having one fewer choice to make (i.e. focal length) can lead to more creative compositions. This is why I sometimes prefer primes to zooms, even if the zooms are more flexible.

I am definitely considering a 70-200 II, but not right at this moment. I just don't think I'd use it enough, given my shooting style and my tendency to work very close to my subject. I'm not even sure I'd use a 135 much, but I'm going to give that a shot next. Who knows, maybe I'll change my mind and get an 85 and 135 in addition to the 24-70 instead of a 35 & 85. We'll see.

2

Lenses / Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids

« on: May 05, 2013, 05:09:38 PM »

Get the 135L first and it's the start of a long and enduring love affair. It's my favorite lens. I got both the Sigmas you mention, and the 35 is great, and the 85 will also be great, .... until you try the 1.2 Sure it is slower (the fastest is actually the 1.8, then Sigma 1.4, and then the 1.2), but there is something about the dreamy IQ of the 1.2 that keeps you wanting it badly. I saw someone suggested the 100L here. Great lens, but imo the AF is a bit too slow for action portraits.

Just my two cents.

Way back when I had a Canon 30D, I tried the 135L. It was amazing—definitely one of the most impressive lenses (if not the most) I've ever used. But I don't think I've ever tried a 135mm on full frame, and I don't even have a zoom in that range, so I probably should give it a shot.

3

Lenses / Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids

« on: May 05, 2013, 02:12:31 PM »

I'll definitely have to think more about this. First step, maybe I should see if I can get by with the 24-70 II indoors. I do have a 430 EX flash I sometimes use with a "black foamie thing" (as recommended here: http://neilvn.com/tangents/about/black-foamie-thing/), but frankly I don't like the extra bulk of flash.

The other question is whether I can live with a max aperture of 2.8 between 24-70mm from a depth of field perspective. In Justin's review of the Sigma 35/1.4 on this site, he says "The fast aperture and shallow depth of field will capture special moments with amazing clarity while isolating distracting backgrounds." I wouldn't have that ability with the 24-70.

That said, maybe the solution is to go with the 35 & 85 right now, since those are the focal lengths I think I'll use most, and get the 135 later. The 50 & 100 might not make as much sense if I plan to get the 135 eventually.

4

Lenses / Re: 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids

« on: May 05, 2013, 12:43:29 PM »

You have the zoom lens, buy the focal length that you find yourself using. 
 

Personally, I'd get a 85mm and 135mm, two focal lengths you do not have now, and the classic portrait  focal lengths for 35mm cameras for the past 60 or 70 years.  Even 50mm is a bit wide for portraits, but will do.

I think a 135mm will become more useful as my daughter gets older. Right now, because she's still so young, when I'm with her I'm usually pretty close to her and the 135mm would be too long.

The problem with 24-70 + 85 + 135 is that I wouldn't have a lens suitable for indoor use in tighter spaces.

5

Lenses / 35 & 85 or 50 & 100 for photographing kids

« on: May 05, 2013, 12:11:40 PM »

I have a Canon 5DIII and 24-70 II. I take pictures of my 21-month old daughter exclusively at this point. (I used to do more street, fine art, etc. but don't have time anymore and won't for the foreseeable future.)

I want to add a couple of fast primes for lower light work and shallower depth-of-field. I'm trying to decide between a 35 & 85 and a 50 & 100. My decision will be based on focal length preference, of course, but also on the quality/price/value of lenses available at those focal lengths.

I'm somewhat leaning toward 35 & 85, for a few reasons. First, from what I can tell, the Sigma 35/1.4 is probably the most highly regarded of all of the 35 and 50 autofocus lenses. Second, I like environmental portraiture and tend to shoot quite a bit indoors, so the wider perspective of the 35 might be a better fit there. Third, it seems the portrait options are better at 85 than at 100? The 85L II is legendary, and many agree that the Sigma 85 comes close to it at less than half the price.

On the other hand, 50 is a great focal length for general work and casual portraits, and the 50L has beautiful, creamy bokeh and a nice look. (I actually own the 50L now, and enjoy it.) The Canon 100/2, while not as highly regarded as the Canon 85L or Sigma 85, is still a great lens by most accounts.

I guess this also depends somewhat on my future lens plans. Frankly, the only additional lens I can imagine getting in the future (assuming my subject matter doesn't change) is a telephoto. I would probably either choose the 70-200 IS or the 135L.

Curious to hear if you have any thoughts about this choice? Thanks.

6

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: 135mm f/1.8 DG OS ART Next from Sigma? [CR1]

« on: April 30, 2013, 04:23:41 PM »

Has there been any indication whatsoever that Sigma is going to produce an updated 50/1.4 anytime soon? I've seen these rumors of a 24mm and 135mm, but other than the fact that we might expect a 50, have any rumors about it surfaced?

7

EOS Bodies / Re: Best way to clean dust off focusing screen of 5D3?

« on: February 17, 2013, 01:56:57 PM »

I'm in luck: a few puffs of the rocket blower removed it. I think it was on the mirror.

8

EOS Bodies / Best way to clean dust off focusing screen of 5D3?

« on: February 16, 2013, 05:52:18 PM »

There's a large, black speck of dust in the upper-right when I look through the viewfinder of my 5D3. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that it's on the focusing screen and not in the viewfinder itself.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty OCD about this stuff and I know that speck will drive me crazy even though it won't affect the pictures. Some folks here and elsewhere have described using a blower to successfully clear the dust. (I do have a Giotto Rocket Blower.) Can someone describe that procedure — especially with an eye toward minimizing the chances of introducing new dust?

9

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

« on: January 29, 2013, 11:57:23 AM »

Hey everyone,

I already have a Sigma 35 and it is indeed an amazing lens.

But I tend to prefer the 50mm focal length. The Canon 50/1.4 has been okay, but it's rather uninspiring compared to the Sigma 35. Perhaps I'll just stick with the Canon until Sigma releases a new 50/1.4 in the art line. I noticed that they released a 30/1.4 Art lens for APS-C today, as well as 3 mirrorless Art lenses. Wish they would have done the 50/1.4 instead!

10

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

« on: January 28, 2013, 11:37:02 PM »

The 50L needs to be used wide open, at f 2.0 - 2.8 the extra cost is for the bokeh.  Also focus shift can be an issues at those f stops. 

The 50L  is awesome, but damn you pay for that little extra.  Stopped down the 50/1.4 is 95%+ of the 50L.  I have no experience wit the sigma 50.

That's the problem: I primarily want to use the 50mm from f1.4 to f/2.8. I have the 24-70 II and it is amazing at f/2.8 and 50mm, so there's not much point in me having a fast 50 if I can't use it wide open.

11

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

« on: January 28, 2013, 11:35:41 PM »

If your body has it, I'd set AFMA for about a four foot subject distance @f/1.4. Then shoot something at about 40 feet @f/1.4. If it's way OOF at 40 feet, knowing what I know now about the issue, I'd say just send it to Sigma USA as long as you like what you see at 4 feet. They now have a very good fix for this issue in my experience and if you like what you see at 4 feet its probably a copy worth keeping imo. 

This is very helpful, thanks.

12

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

« on: January 28, 2013, 01:29:09 PM »

Thanks everyone for your replies. What I've gathered so far is:
— The Sigma 50/1.4 is probably the sharpest at f/1.4 of the bunch, and nearly a match for the 50L's bokeh
— The 50L has better build quality, weather sealing, bokeh and possibly microcontrast and color
— The Sigma is prone to AF issues

I have the Sigma 35 and it's an excellent lens. It did take two copies to get a good one, though; the first front-focused badly.

I'm trying to decide whether the additional cost of the 50L is worth it. Sounds like I might be better off trying for a good copy of the Sigma 50 first.

13

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

« on: January 27, 2013, 11:56:17 AM »

The only time it doesn't produce results where its bristling with detail is when shooting wide open near MFD.

What happens at MFD wide open? Reason I ask is that I frequently find myself shooting at that distance.

Maybe I'll play the Sigma lottery and order one from B&H.

14

Lenses / Re: Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

« on: January 27, 2013, 11:29:18 AM »

I was really hoping Canon would come out with a new 50/1.4, or that Sigma would update its 50/1.4 to the "Art line" with similar quality to their new 35/1.4. No luck on either front — so far, at least.

So am I. There is something for Canon or Sigma to win here. Let's hope 2013 will bring some news on that

What about things like micro-contrast and rendering? If the 50L does better in that arena, then images can appear more crisp and defined even if it's not strictly sharper.

15

Lenses / Which 50mm (with AF) is best from f/1.4 - f/2.0?

« on: January 27, 2013, 09:28:21 AM »

I currently own the Canon 50/1.4 but am disappointed with its performance from f/1.4 to f/2.0. At f/2.0 it sharpens up nicely, but what's the point of an f/1.4 lens that can't be used wide open?

Is the 50L any better in that range? I've read so many conflicting reports about the L. Some love it, others insist there isn't much of a difference (in sharpness, at least), between it and the 50/1.4.

Then there's the Sigma 50/1.4. I've heard it might be the sharpest of all at f/1.4, but it's extremely prone to AF problems (which I'm not willing to deal with).

I was really hoping Canon would come out with a new 50/1.4, or that Sigma would update its 50/1.4 to the "Art line" with similar quality to their new 35/1.4. No luck on either front — so far, at least.