Thinking about the Sigma 1.4 Art

[dpedro]

Well, I'm on the fence on this Sigma 1.4 Art. I have all but a 50 prime in my bag already.

8-15L, 16-35L, 24-70 2.8L Mk 2, 24-105L, 70-200 2.8L Mk 2, 35L, 85L, 100L Macro, 135 2L.

I didn't care for the 50 1.2 and sold my 50 1.4 years ago. For that focal range, I just used my zoom (24-70 MkII). I think I am chasing the sharpest lens dream and really don't need this thing. The images people are posting look pretty good, but the complaints about having to adjust them is troubling. All L glass so far, but recent Sigmas are peeking my interest. I'm debating on skipping a 50 altogether and getting a 100-400 to capture my kid playing softball. For lacrosse my 70-200 was awesome, but my daughter is outfield and cropping the images later still gets a little grainy for my liking. I thing the 400 would help a lot. I had the 2x extender for the 70-200 and didn't like that either. Maybe I didn't give it enough of a test. I sold it on EBay for 20 buck under what I spent on it. Thoughts? try the 1.4 ex or get a 100-400. With my luck I will get the 100-400 and Canon and/or Sigma will make a newer version...LOL Happened with my 35L. I got it and 3 weeks later they released the Sigma 35.

 

[Random Orbits]

Perhaps you'll be better off looking into the Tamron 150-600. It has received favorable reviews and there are many threads on this forum that confirm the review conclusions.

If you aren't missing fast 50mm shots, why get a lens for something you won't use much?

 

[skitron]

I tend to agree the fast 50 probably isn't so needed if you have a 24-70 mk2.

IMO, shallow dof is nice at times but I often find myself stopping down quite a bit to get more dof. Even considering a m43 just for the increased dof... Obviously the dof question depends on what you shoot, tastes, etc. But I don't know that the art 50 is going to be all that different than the 24-70 mk2 at 50mm and same stop for anything other than pixel peeping. So m thinking shallower dof is the main reason to get an art 50 if you have a 24-70 mk2.

As for extenders, I like the 1.4x 3 with the 70-200 is2. That gets you to 280mm at f/4 with very little loss in iq. I suppose another option for more length is maybe an aps-c, which is 1.6x for calculating. With the 280mm from above, aps-c would get you to 448mm. So may be an option if you want to do 2 bodies.

 

[dpedro]

I forgot about that haha. Could get a 7D for lacrosse and softball and not buy another lens. Might need another body for weddings anyway, in case my 5D3 ever failed.

 

[wickidwombat]

I forgot about that haha. Could get a 7D for lacrosse and softball and not buy another lens. Might need another body for weddings anyway, in case my 5D3 ever failed.

Id get a 70D over a 7D but thats just me or wait for the 7Dmk II since its not sure urgent just a GAS itch that needs to be scratched

 

[Mr_Canuck]

Looks to me like you're trying to fill a gear hole in theory but not out of any apparent need.

What do you shoot? Do you prefer primes or zooms and for what kinds of shooting? Looking at your kit, I'd get rid of your 24-105 for starters and forget about the 50. They're so redundant there. Shoot your 85 when you need something fast and bokeh lokey. And use your 24-70 for everything else. You're covered. I can't see a lens there that wouldn't be "sharp enough" for any shot.

 

[dpedro]

Yeah, I don't ever use the 24-105. Was in my kit purchase. Going to sell it off and might just wait on a 7D II or even the new 100-400 if it actually comes out. Thanks for the advise. Oh, to answer your question, I shoot everything. Macro, weddings, families, events, parties, models...etc. Just not planning infant shoots anytime soon. Not enough patience for that.

www.facebook.com/AFlashInTimePhotographyByDonPedro

 

[aznable]

a very good lens

test shots

cameras 50D and 1Dmk3...iso between 400 and 1600...al shot taken at 1.4...no processing except the sharpening lr applies when exports to jpg and a bit of vibrance