« on: November 05, 2013, 10:08:01 PM »
What will you be shooting? Studio? Sports? General purpose walk around? Is weight or fast AF or high ISO performance required?
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.
Hi I'm stuck deciding if I should upgrade my 50mm 1.8 to a 1.2 or go with the 1.4, I've done some research and read that the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 1.4. If you have had any of these lens any advice would be great to help me make my decision.
I think the 50 1.2 is a great lens, but I don't think it's as good as Canon's other L primes, and ultimately not worth the money unless you need the things I mentioned previously. If you shoot at 50mm a lot and need great performance from f/1.2-2, I would buy it, but if it will see limited use, you're better off putting that money into another lens and getting the 1.4. Another thing to throw out is the that the 24-70 f/2.8 II is as sharp as both primes from f/2.8 on and is only a bit worse on CA and vignetting.Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff.You're welcome! Also 1.2 is only a half stop faster than 1.4.
From your Test at F= 1.4 both lens, My decision is to keep My Dear Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 and Not spend my money $ 1619 US Dollars for That Beautiful Canon 50 mm F/ 1.2 L.
No, Sir, Not worth 4 time of the cost of my old Sigma, just one stop faster and better Contrast/ Better Colors that my Old yes could not see the difference.
Thanks again, Sir for your great Job.
Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. mackguyver.
Now, at this time ( past 2 months), I just fell in love with my Canon TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II , For Local Scenery shots. I not use my 50 mm Sigma past 5 months, Just 1 time ti test the Shallow DOF at F/ 1.4 only.
Yes, Sir, Thanks for your Great Comments--Yes, My Next Lens = Canon 24 -70 MM F/ 2.8 L II, And I will Give my Trustfully Old 24-70 L 2.8 to my son.
Thanks again , Sir.
f2 or f1.8
Sharp wide open to f5.6
COUNT ME IN
would certainly expect an increase in size and weight if getting F1.8 and IS, but hopefully not too much.
I have the 16-35II and would make the tired old argument that if you need a flexible ultra-wide now, then this is the only game in town. I also use the 14 2.8II (really good, really wide, but not flexible like the zoom), 24 3.5II tilt shift (awesome, but lack of auto focus makes it too slow for many subjects), 35 1.4 (love this one! but again no flexibility of focal length). I would recommend that you purchase the 16-35II. Who knows when a 14-24 will make it to market and how long it will be before the price comes down after that.