gigabellone said:
CarlTN said:
Glad to hear it! How wide of a lens?
In the last days i persuaded myself that the 24L would be the perfect lens for me. 24mm should be wide enough for landscapes, and its large aperture will help a lot in low available light and open up interesting creative possibilities. I think it can cover most of my shooting needs: landscape, travel/street, full body portraits.
I've rented the Canon 24L, but only used it on my crop body at that time. A couple of months ago I bought the Sigma 24mm f/1.8 to use on the 6D. The image quality is not that far behind the Canon L, especially in the outer 50% of the image where it's probably as good or better than the Canon (certainly in the center it's not, but on the 6D I doubt there's a vast difference...noticeable but not vast). In my opinion that particular Canon lens is priced kind of high, but it's a fine lens to own and use, and has superb contrast. It definitely autofocuses more quickly, silently, consistently and accurately than the Sigma. But the Sigma costs about 65% less, and it was well worth it to me. I also prefer the color rendering of the Sigma. Lately I've used the Canon 24-105L more than the Sigma, because that zoom range is pretty indispensable. Closed down to f/6.3 or so, the Sigma is sharper at the borders than the Canon 24-105, at 24mm...and also the Sigma has less barrel distortion. Another advantage the Sigma has, though, is macro photography. Wide angle macro photography, can be astounding...it helps place the subject in context of its surroundings, where longer macro lenses isolate the subject too much for my taste a lot of the time.
The Sigma 20, 24, and 28 f/1.8 lenses have gotten a bad reputation. I looked into it, looked at the reviews and tests, and decided the 24mm didn't deserve the bad reputation, at least optically. Even the build quality is not as bad as the reviews would have you think. The only real problem is the lack of silent autofocus, along with the innacurate AF...at least on my copy. I've been able to work around it, using AFMA, for the most part. If I was at an event though, I kind of agree with Marsu, that a zoom is preferable. I would take my 24-105 without even thinking of anything else.
Sigma will likely offer an "Art" version at 24mm, probably an f/1.4. However, I doubt it will have weather sealing (as their 35mm does not), and yet it will likely cost more than the 35mm, perhaps close to the Canon L that you have. It might just be the sharpest 24mm ever made, though, given that the Sigma 35mm is. My money would be spent on an "art" version of the 20mm fast prime, though, if they ever make one of those. In the meantime, I am thinking more toward a Zeiss 18mm f/3.5.
Sorry for getting long-winded there! I look forward to seeing some of your images! Btw, there's another thread about the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. Have a look at the carousel shots, they're quite lovely! That lens is really the ultimate value for wide angle primes, at 1/10 the cost of the Zeiss 15mm, and very comparable resolution to it. The colors and contrast don't compare, but the resolution does. For $300 US, that's saying something! It doesn't autofocus, though, and is too wide for group portraits unless you perform a lot of bending and squeezing in post editing, to keep the people toward the borders from looking obese! You have to do that a little even at 24mm, as Marsu hints at, but only in the most critical framing situations. This is due to rectilinear projection, or what I like to call rectilinear distortion. For some reason people like to refer to barrel and pincushion as distortion, but not rectilinear. However it certainly produces distortion in a photograph.
). I would say the vast majority of people on here have more disposable income than I do at the present time, even the college or pre-college kids! Then there are those who could afford to hire me to edit their photos, or even travel and take their photos for them...but they think they can do it better, so they won't!
