FTb-n said:Perspective is typically understood as the relationship between your subject and its surroundings.
FTb-n said:While technically true, it's wrong in practice.
FTb-n said:Technically, it's this change in distance that changes the perspective. But, it's the change in focal length that necessitates the change in distance to capture two images of the same subject that fills the frame. Because filling the frame with your subject is typically understood as a given for such a comparison, then focal length does affect perspective.
switters said:Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?
dlee13 said:switters said:Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?
Maybe not extensively but my friend and I compared his 35A to my 35 IS. The IQ wide open is the same for sharpness, but the Sigma is somewhat better since it has less vignetting (if that even bothers you).
In reality the main comparison comes down to preference. Do you like a heavier build and f1.4 or IS, lighter and cheaper.
sunnyVan said:dlee13 said:switters said:Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?
Maybe not extensively but my friend and I compared his 35A to my 35 IS. The IQ wide open is the same for sharpness, but the Sigma is somewhat better since it has less vignetting (if that even bothers you).
In reality the main comparison comes down to preference. Do you like a heavier build and f1.4 or IS, lighter and cheaper.
Totally agree. Between A grade sharp and A+ sharp there's just no significant difference. I gave up my sigma, which had zero AF problems and was extremely sharp, and settled for canon 35is instead mainly because of smaller size.
sagittariansrock said:FTb-n said:Technically, it's this change in distance that changes the perspective. But, it's the change in focal length that necessitates the change in distance to capture two images of the same subject that fills the frame. Because filling the frame with your subject is typically understood as a given for such a comparison, then focal length does affect perspective.
Perspective depends on subject distance alone, technically and practically.
One might have numerous reasons for wanting to change the subject distance- in your example you are trying to frame the subject similarly with a lens of a different focal length. In another example, I might want to have the same amount of DoF with a different aperture (let’s say you want to take a photo with a 85mm lens and due to the low lighting conditions you need to use f/1.2. Instead of shooting from where you’re at, you step a few feet back to ensure that everything will be in focus. Would you say that the aperture changed the perspective in this case? You might say that in my example the framing is changed while in your case it stayed the same. The misconception about focal length affecting perspective might arise from the fact that one equates perspective with framing. While the focal length dictates framing (as it directly controls the angle of view and therefore controls the field of view at a given distance), focal length doesn’t affect perspective. It is merely one of the reasons that cause us to alter the subject distance.
sunnyVan said:dlee13 said:switters said:Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?
Maybe not extensively but my friend and I compared his 35A to my 35 IS. The IQ wide open is the same for sharpness, but the Sigma is somewhat better since it has less vignetting (if that even bothers you).
In reality the main comparison comes down to preference. Do you like a heavier build and f1.4 or IS, lighter and cheaper.
Totally agree. Between A grade sharp and A+ sharp there's just no significant difference. I gave up my sigma, which had zero AF problems and was extremely sharp, and settled for canon 35is instead mainly because of smaller size.
ecka said:sagittariansrock said:FTb-n said:Technically, it's this change in distance that changes the perspective. But, it's the change in focal length that necessitates the change in distance to capture two images of the same subject that fills the frame. Because filling the frame with your subject is typically understood as a given for such a comparison, then focal length does affect perspective.
Perspective depends on subject distance alone, technically and practically.
One might have numerous reasons for wanting to change the subject distance- in your example you are trying to frame the subject similarly with a lens of a different focal length. In another example, I might want to have the same amount of DoF with a different aperture (let’s say you want to take a photo with a 85mm lens and due to the low lighting conditions you need to use f/1.2. Instead of shooting from where you’re at, you step a few feet back to ensure that everything will be in focus. Would you say that the aperture changed the perspective in this case? You might say that in my example the framing is changed while in your case it stayed the same. The misconception about focal length affecting perspective might arise from the fact that one equates perspective with framing. While the focal length dictates framing (as it directly controls the angle of view and therefore controls the field of view at a given distance), focal length doesn’t affect perspective. It is merely one of the reasons that cause us to alter the subject distance.
OK, technically FL doesn't affect perspective directly (just like sensor size doesn't affect DoF), but FL dictates framing and distance, so the perspective will change anyway. What if the background is far away or even close to infinity (like moon)? Running around won't really change the perspective, but the FL will affect it.
sunnyVan said:dlee13 said:switters said:Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?
Maybe not extensively but my friend and I compared his 35A to my 35 IS. The IQ wide open is the same for sharpness, but the Sigma is somewhat better since it has less vignetting (if that even bothers you).
In reality the main comparison comes down to preference. Do you like a heavier build and f1.4 or IS, lighter and cheaper.
Totally agree. Between A grade sharp and A+ sharp there's just no significant difference. I gave up my sigma, which had zero AF problems and was extremely sharp, and settled for canon 35is instead mainly because of smaller size.
ecka said:sagittariansrock said:FTb-n said:Technically, it's this change in distance that changes the perspective. But, it's the change in focal length that necessitates the change in distance to capture two images of the same subject that fills the frame. Because filling the frame with your subject is typically understood as a given for such a comparison, then focal length does affect perspective.
Perspective depends on subject distance alone, technically and practically.
One might have numerous reasons for wanting to change the subject distance- in your example you are trying to frame the subject similarly with a lens of a different focal length. In another example, I might want to have the same amount of DoF with a different aperture (let’s say you want to take a photo with a 85mm lens and due to the low lighting conditions you need to use f/1.2. Instead of shooting from where you’re at, you step a few feet back to ensure that everything will be in focus. Would you say that the aperture changed the perspective in this case? You might say that in my example the framing is changed while in your case it stayed the same. The misconception about focal length affecting perspective might arise from the fact that one equates perspective with framing. While the focal length dictates framing (as it directly controls the angle of view and therefore controls the field of view at a given distance), focal length doesn’t affect perspective. It is merely one of the reasons that cause us to alter the subject distance.
OK, technically FL doesn't affect perspective directly (just like sensor size doesn't affect DoF), but FL dictates framing and distance, so the perspective will change anyway. What if the background is far away or even close to infinity (like moon)? Running around won't really change the perspective, but the FL will affect it.
dlee13 said:I think this review would be a great read for everone (it's not my review).
http://www.davidmurphey.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f4-usm-lens-review/
It's for the 16-35mm f4 IS but the review compares it to the 35 IS and the 35 IS actually does considerably well in comparison!
sunnyVan said:dlee13 said:I think this review would be a great read for everone (it's not my review).
http://www.davidmurphey.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f4-usm-lens-review/
It's for the 16-35mm f4 IS but the review compares it to the 35 IS and the 35 IS actually does considerably well in comparison!
Can't compare a sedan with an suv. Just because they both have 4 wheels doesn't make it a fair comparison.
Perspective s purely a function of distance. Focal length has nothing to do with perspective. i have a number of refereed publicatons on perspective, and can assure you that focal length is not relevant.Ripley said:sunnyVan said:dlee13 said:switters said:Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?
Maybe not extensively but my friend and I compared his 35A to my 35 IS. The IQ wide open is the same for sharpness, but the Sigma is somewhat better since it has less vignetting (if that even bothers you).
In reality the main comparison comes down to preference. Do you like a heavier build and f1.4 or IS, lighter and cheaper.
Totally agree. Between A grade sharp and A+ sharp there's just no significant difference. I gave up my sigma, which had zero AF problems and was extremely sharp, and settled for canon 35is instead mainly because of smaller size.
The Sigma is sharper several stops sooner. In low light, and for less DOF, the Sigma holds the advantage.
dlee13 said:sunnyVan said:dlee13 said:I think this review would be a great read for everone (it's not my review).
http://www.davidmurphey.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f4-usm-lens-review/
It's for the 16-35mm f4 IS but the review compares it to the 35 IS and the 35 IS actually does considerably well in comparison!
Can't compare a sedan with an suv. Just because they both have 4 wheels doesn't make it a fair comparison.
How is it an unfair comparison? Considering the 16-35 is double the price of the 35 IS and is also a L lens, it just shows the great quality of the 35 IS. I'm not saying the 16-35 is a bad lens either, I actually still plan on getting it!
JoFT said:JoFT said:For me the 35mm f2.0 is a real great Lens. I love it since I have it... Maybe a bit to much CA wide open... but on the other hand it delivers great images...
Some ideas from the first day I had the optics in use:
http://selfpromotionphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/11/the-canon-ef-35mm-1-2-is-usm-the-fastest-lens-on-the-market
This link should work...
http://bit.ly/1yIfBGF
JoFT said:JoFT said:JoFT said:For me the 35mm f2.0 is a real great Lens. I love it since I have it... Maybe a bit to much CA wide open... but on the other hand it delivers great images...
Some ideas from the first day I had the optics in use:
http://selfpromotionphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/11/the-canon-ef-35mm-1-2-is-usm-the-fastest-lens-on-the-market
This link should work...
http://bit.ly/1yIfBGF
Patak said:just recently i got 35mm f2 IS. it is a bit disappointing that the images do not have a "pop" effect that i get from 24-70 Mk II. I am thinking of returning it and saving money for 35L MkII or some other lens. Can anyone share experience with this lens?