You nailed it, JD. My shutterspeed in gyms is typically 1/500 to 1/1000 and I do see a differences in color temp from one frame to the next.
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.
Anyone else remember using a hole punch to make single-sided floppy disks into double-sided floppy disks (back when they were actually big and floppy)?
This is the third review I read from Dustin Abbott. Great review once again. Very honest.I own both. The 40, which I bought on sale for $150, was a splurge purchase. I bought it for the fun factor and justified the purchase because it is an incredibly sharp lens. I use it mainly as a grab shot, travel light lens and as a backup to my 70-200. On many occasions I'll shoot indoor sports and only expect to use the longer zoom. But, just in case I get in tight situation, I throw the 40 in a pocket and it has come in handy.
I was seriously considering the reviewed lens but got caught up by the announcement of the Sigma 50 1.4 Art (not sure I want to buy a 35mm AND a 50mm). Anyway I might end up just buying the 40mm instead, so here comes my
question: how does the 35mm f/2 IS compare to the 40mm f/2.8?
I understand the max aperture small difference, the 300$ price tag gap, and the former being a tad wider, but what in terms of:
- sharpness (@ 2v2.8 and 2.8v2.
- bokeh rendering
- Dustin's "WOW" effect
Thanks in advance.