March 02, 2015, 11:59:41 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Sneakers

Pages: [1] 2
While not knowing your financial situation, I can recommend keeping the 40mm.
That sounds like good advice to me. As an aside, some folks in this thread helped me to see that the 40mm is actually very sharp, and I've grown a new appreciation for the lens over the past couple weeks. Forced myself to take it out into the sunlight and take some stopped down shots. Looks great.

Still wanted the 35 IS for indoor use.

I ended up ordering the Canon 35 IS if anyone is curious. Looking forward to getting it in the mail and putting it to use!

That's a good choice... similar focal length, an additional stop of light, and a bonus of having IS.  How much did you spend on it?
$600 + an extra $50 for the hood. I understand the price fluctuates a little and others have gotten it for $550, but I didn't want to wait indefinitely for a sale/rebate.

I ended up ordering the Canon 35 IS if anyone is curious. Looking forward to getting it in the mail and putting it to use!

Reviews / Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« on: April 18, 2014, 08:44:15 AM »
Thanks for the helpful review. I've been putting a lot of thought into upgrading from the 40 2.8 to the 35 is, and see in this thread that I'm not the only one. One of the things I do (in addition to watching lots of review videos) is browse through all of the Flickr photo pools for specific lenses. Helps to get a feel for what the lenses really produce in the real world. In this case I think the comparison isn't entirely fair because many 40mm owners are shooting on inexpensive crop sensor cameras, and more 35IS owners are shooting on high end full frame models.

Still, I have the following impressions about these two lenses: they're both extremely sharp, and produce very similar images in well lit conditions. The 35 excels in low light conditions and when blowing out the background with a subject within a few feet from the camera. I'm debating whether those two scenarios justify the price difference and am leaning towards "yes they do." The bokeh on the 35 can be spectacular when exploited properly, and I do find myself chasing after my 1 year old while shooting video. I don't think I'd regret having footage shot with IS.

For the record, I disagree with the "Sigma is clinical" assessment. I've seen a lot of images that look wonderful from that lens. I lean towards the Canon mostly because they both look great and the price difference is significant.

I know it wasn't one of the requested options, but, if you're willing to spend $900 on a new lens just for indoors, get a 6D on sale and keep using the Pancake (I love the Pancake on my 5D2).
I love the out of the box thinking, but I think I'll wait another year or two before I upgrade my camera. I've only had the t4i for a year and a half, and in many ways am still learning how to use it.

I searched this website for 6D sale prices, and only see it going as low as $1600. That's a 78% increase from what I already determined to be the top of my price range!

Good news wife - I brought my lens idea to the canonrumors message board, and decided that instead of a 35mm prime, I'll get a 5d mark 3 and 70-200L! :)

I have owned the 40mm and now I have the 35mm f2IS and the later is sharper and has IS that allow you to take pictures in very low light at low speeds. It is a general purpose lens in APS-C and excellent walkaround in FF.
If you are not planning to move to FF in the near future, I recommend the 17-55 f2.8IS and the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. These two lenses are made for APS-C and offer better IQ and sharpness than many lenses made for FF.
Since you are familiar with both the 40mm and the 17-55 2.8, could you draw any comparison between those two lenses at the 40mm focal length that they both share? Is the zoom ability the primary reason to consider the 17-55, or would I also notice an increase in performance at 40mm (due to better IQ, or even just due to IS)?

Or to make things more complicated, what about comparing the 35mm prime to the 17-55 at 35mm?

I ask these questions, because I think I'm more attracted to a lens that will get me the occasional stunning photo than I am to versatility. If the 17-55 delivers both stunning photos and versatility, great, but otherwise I think I'd still be leaning towards the Canon or Sigma 35mm.

I greatly appreciate everyone's feedback. Please know that I take all the replies seriously, and use them as a launching point to watch youtube videos and generally learn more about all the lenses you all are recommending.

PS - as another suggestion, maybe a 17-55 2.8 IS if you can find one within your budget (maybe look 2nd hand)?  I liked it a lot on crop (well, it does have to be on crop after all!) and the IS can be useful.  If it was me shooting with your gear, I think I'd be looking at the 17-55 2.8 IS, the Sigma 18-35 1.8 or a flash (subject to budget of course).
I could justify the price of the 17-55 (around $900, same as the Sigma 35mm 1.4 that I'm already considering), if I could convince myself that I wouldn't immediately begin wishing I had faster prime glass for indoor shooting.

I've never rented a lens before, but at that price I might go the rental route before I commit.

Incidentally the 85 1.8 is not sharper than the 40.
Interesting. I must just think it is because shooting outdoors allows me to lower ISO and stop it down a little. Or maybe the contrast between in focus subject and blown out background makes the subject "feel" sharper than it really is.

Quote from: Random Orbits
Do you use a flash?
No, I don't own anything other than the t4i's built-in flash, and I don't like how it looks in photos. I would consider buying a flash that I can bounce off the ceiling if that's going to improve my indoor photos more than buying a faster lens would.

Thanks for all the recommendations everyone. Lots of stuff for me to research further here.

Lenses / Looking for an upgrade to my shorty 40 (indoor/general lens)
« on: March 29, 2014, 03:11:04 PM »
I shoot on a t4i and currently own just two lenses - the Canon 85 1.8, and the Canon 40 2.8. I generally use the 85 outdoors and the 40 indoors, and that works pretty well for me.

The quality difference between my two lenses is pretty big though. The bokeh on my 85 is awesome, and it's also super sharp. I know this is a little biased because I generally use it in better lighting conditions, but I think it's objectively a much better lens. I'd like to get something just as good for my indoor uses (parties, pictures of my 1 year old, etc).

One option would be the Sigma 35mm 1.4, which is at the very top of the price range I could consider ($900). Coming in a little less would be the Canon 35mm 2.0. Would I notice enough of a quality upgrade going from the 40 to the 35? Anything else I should be considering?


Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?
« on: March 24, 2013, 04:10:00 PM »
Thanks for all the great advice everyone. I ended up going with what seems like the consensus opinion and ordering the 85mm 1.8.

Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?
« on: February 24, 2013, 04:34:55 PM »
On a crop body, I'd buy a 50mm - which one would be decided by budget.  I'd buy the 50 f1.8 first,
with the logic that it is not called the "nifty fifty" for nothing - but it's also cheap enough that if I'm
unhappy with the focal length, I could sell it easily and not lose any (or much) money.
I had looked at the 50 1.8 when I bought my first lens, but decided on the 40 2.8 instead because of better IQ and especially bokeh. The 1.8 with only 5 aperture blades has some gnarly looking bokeh in my opinion.

At this point, a 50 is too similar a focal length to the lens I have to be considered for purchase. I'd consider renting the 50 1.2 L though.

If I go the purchasing route, I definitely like the suggestion of an 85mm 1.8 prime. I'm intrigued by the macro suggestions too - don't know much about them, but I'll read some reviews.

Lastly, I learned a *lot* watching that youtube tutorial shared on the previous page. Thanks for all the great advice everyone.

Lenses / Re: Best lens for baby portraits?
« on: February 23, 2013, 01:43:03 PM »
I have a T4i (crop sensor) and the 40mm 2.8 currently. I agree that buying makes sense, but I'm so new to photography, experimenting with a couple different lenses might make sense too.

Lenses / Best lens for baby portraits?
« on: February 23, 2013, 01:30:32 PM »
We're expecting a baby soon, and I thought it would be fun to rent a nice lens to take some early portraits. I assume a fast prime L lens makes sense, but what focal length? Any specific lens rental companies to recommend? Thanks.

Lenses / Re: Review - Canon EF 40 f/2.8 Pancake
« on: February 18, 2013, 07:13:52 AM »
The review asks why we would buy this over the faster 50 1.8. For me it was because I don't love the hexagonal bokeh balls on the 50. The 40 2.8 has more aperture blades, and better looking blur to my eyes. Price was close enough to be a non-factor in my decision.

Lenses / Re: I want to replace my 18-135 IS STM
« on: February 16, 2013, 08:47:07 AM »
Keep in mind that any other non STM lens will be (very) loud while doing autofocus in video mode. This is if you are doing any video.
Good point, but I'm disappointed by the performance of the autofocus and don't think I'll use it much.

Pages: [1] 2