This is the lens that I really want for the M. A small, compact tele for travel purposes with decent image quality. I like to carry a 6D+24-70 and then M with 22mm. This would be the perfect extra option. Hope this one is true.
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.
Very nice shot, all three of you having fun!
Chase the Light
Saw the beautiful light and got my wife to throw the ball so I could focus on tracking and placing our little "friend" where I wanted her!
I've owned the Sigma 35, 2 copies of the 35/2 IS, and 2 copies of the 35L.
I would take exception with this article stating the 35/2 IS is "sharper" than the 35L. Wide open, yes. But the 35L is much sharper @ F/2 especially in the center and vignettes much less.
As far as 'clinical" sharpness, yep, the Sigma has that, along with a brownish tint that makes up the character of the lens. The 35L IMO just has the best bokeh, color, contrast and rendering. If I took 100 shots with the 35L and the 35/2 IS, the latter might result in 100 really good photos, but the former might have 8-10 amazing shots. The 35L is still the king of the 35's.
Sigma = sharpest
Canon 35/2 IS= light, IS, better AF accuracy than the Sigma, plenty sharp enough.
Canon 35L = best build, fastest and most accurate AF of the three, best color/contrast/bokeh. Really sharp around F/2 and beyond, and F/1.4 is usable.
I have to disagree, my 35mm F2 IS walks all over the L lenses i have owned including the 50mm 1.2L it has brilliant bokeh and is sharp and contrasty to boot , it can also take an amazing close up ....
It may be that i have an extra good copy granted but it certainly is good. I would not swap it for a 35L
example shot : 5Dmk3 35mm F2 IS, F2 iso500
Wedding Photographer Durham Darlington Teesside Newcastle York
The Long Road, Photographer Emil Lundstrom, by imaginize.net, on Flickr
Around the corner, Photographer Emil Lundstrom, by imaginize.net, on Flickr
Ul Mariacka, Photographer Emil Lundstrom by imaginize.net, on Flickr
I'll comment partly from my own consumer experience and partly from my photographer POV...
- In '95 we had a great husband+wife pro photography team do our wedding and they rocked! And we have a nice hard page album that is a soft leather-like bound album. It's great. So I think the album is important and desirable if it's done well.
- A lot of Brides are impressed by little details.
- Today, it seems like it is so easy (and cost effective) to have a great album produced by a good service company that I can't imagine investing the amount of work that is required to build one from scratch from a photo printer. My bigger concern is...
- YOU are on the hook for supporting/fixing the album if anything goes wrong down the line, a picture fades, the binding fails, something comes apart, etc.
- The recipient won't appreciate the work or the quality compared to an album that was outsourced. Even worse, they think that a friend's outsourced album is better.
Dustin, I really like you, your work and your dedication to photography. It is truly your passion. While I'm not a professional, I have a hard time seeing the payback for you in doing albums yourself from scratch. But it's your baby and only you can determine if an outsourced album will measure up. The only way to know is to get some outsourced album samples done up with your photos and compare them to yours and see what you (and your clients) can live with.
Good luck!! Please let us know what you decide and what albums you think are best.
Some more shots from Krabi, Thailand.