New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !

[Dylan777]

I wonder how many professional photographers truly enjoy photography?

i do.

my father (incidentally a phd chemist) always told us kids growing up to do what you love, the rest will take care of itself. so i listened...and that's exactly what is happening. i am able to fully support myself on photography alone. i do feel quite lucky though as it isnt easy and i see alot of people struggle with it and fail.

i never understood the comments some people make about not wanting to be a professional and ruin what they love doing. i always thought the best thing you could hope for is to get to do what you love everyday....AND have someone pay you to do it!

but i have absolutely no problem with amateurs buying the best gear...i say why not! at the very least it helps support the company i expect to continue to produce top notch tools for my business. the only issue i have is when an amateur thinks they can take on pro jobs simply because they have the gear and then they do the work for ridiculously low rates or free. that aint cool!

Absolutely with you there. The greatest achievement i have made personally is not in technique or equipment but in the ability to turn a creative hobby into a career that allows me the free time to spend with my family. 80% running a business and 20% photography but given the usual 50 hour weeks that means i spend a lot more time and effort on my photography than most amateurs. And I enjoy it - yes there are times it is stressful and times when your standing in the freezing pouring rain waiting for uncle bob to finish on the loo ! But i would not change it.

There are no sour grapes here, in fact a lot of the 'all the gear and no idea' crew i have met pose no challenge to the professionals but simply want to own the best they can afford , some however like some of you guys here take the time to also learn techniques and enjoy creative photography with your gear and some go on to make a living from it or just to enjoy it.

Still i find it somewhat odd that you would need three pro slrs and a dozen L lenses to photography your kids running round the house , that however you look at it is a complete waste of money and kit. I wager that the person in question does some other work with it too ;

When you shoot a wedding, how many bodies & lenses do you take with you? For what I know, wedding shooters don’t come to a wedding with one camera and one lens. Many will carry at least two bodies, 24-70 for general, 70-200 for extra reach, fast primes for extra speed and shallow DOF, macro & UWA for special shots, lights & a lot batteries etc…Why all those gear needed at the event - because they don’t want to miss the “SHOT”.

As I mentioned, photography is my hobby and photograph my kids. My kids doing: indoor swimming, ballet, soccer and painting. As a father, I don’t want to miss “ THE SHOT & THE MOMENT” due to swapping lenses.

With 2 bodies and two lenses at the event, the chance missing the shot is much less. In my case, I like to carry these combos:

1. short distance & decent lighting: 24-70 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS II
2. longer distance & decent lighting: 70-200 f2.8 IS II & 400 f2.8 IS II (in my case, indoor swimming and ballet)
3. short distance & low light: 50L & 135L
4. Portrait: 85L
5. Walk around the town with my kids, A7r + FE 55mm

Wasting is when photographer has too many crappy lenses in the bag and they don’t get use.

 

[NancyP]

I am all for GAS - Gear Acquisition Syndrome - provided you can afford it and you actually use it. I don't have kids, I don't eat out, I don't live in a fancy house, my furniture is by and large utilitarian (I am the queen of "assembly required") and I don't drive a fancy car. My current 50mm is a Nikkor AIS 50mm f/1.2 on adapter, a legacy lens, nice small manual focus manual aperture lens with truly impressive aberration wide open (but that's part of its charm in some shooting situations). The poor dear needs its helicoid grease renewed, but is functional. Yet one more DIY project, if I can find instructions on the internet.

Zoom? Prime? They both have their places. I have been debating on whether and which "normal range" zoom to get, I'd like the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II no-IS, I'd like it even better with IS, have been contemplating the options of EF 24-70 f/4 IS and Sigma 24-105 f/4 IS. I have also been sorely intrigued by the Sigma 50 Art, and am awaiting lots of samples of its bokeh. To me, that is the one thing a fast prime gives you nowadays that a top-level zoom can't provide - Bokehliciousness.

I am an amateur, but get to play with delicious optics at work as well - I am a pathologist.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Still i find it somewhat odd that you would need three pro slrs and a dozen L lenses to photography your kids running round the house , that however you look at it is a complete waste of money and kit. I wager that the person in question does some other work with it too ;

Just an observation from a reader, but you seem to spend a lot of time worrying about what other people do in their photography.

If some like to shoot with zooms, how does that affect you?
If some like to buy expensive pro gear but are not pros, how does that affect you?

In this thread you have used denegrating terms "outgrowing" and "waste" and such several times, when describing what is a personal choice for all of us. I did not understand your original post about the 50mm Sigma and in reading your responses it reads like you consider yourself some how better than the rest of us.

You like to shoot primes. So do I. I don't even own a zoom. But I would never make someone else feel badly if they choose to use a zoom. What other togs do and how they shoot affects me little.

Just an observation.

 

[Viggo]

Still i find it somewhat odd that you would need three pro slrs and a dozen L lenses to photography your kids running round the house , that however you look at it is a complete waste of money and kit. I wager that the person in question does some other work with it too ;

That's not odd at all, I have shot concerts, weddings, pitch dark stuff, studio lit stuff, sports and NOTHING comes close to how difficult it is shooting kids playing, and I don't say that as a joke. Small flat faces with low contrast and bright colored clothes running in completely random motion and very unpredictable. You can't sit them down and ask them to smile, you have to be always ready, and for me the AF system of the 1dX is the only one that gives me those fun fast action shots time and time again. And for the fast shutter, a fast lens with great AF is needed. I could go on..

 

[Sporgon]

I wonder how many professional photographers truly enjoy photography?

I think that there is probably more job satisfaction in photography, on the whole, than other professions, though overall earnings are certainly lower than they were twenty years ago in real terms.

However I think the point behind that question is that there is a monumental difference in capturing a picture for your own pleasure of doing it and creating art, and having to get the right picture that is being demanded, and you are being paid to get the result. The later can be quite stressful compared with the former and does indeed take away much of the photography pleasure.

Until you have the final result and everything is hunky dory. Then that's more enjoyable

 

[BoneDoc]

Still i find it somewhat odd that you would need three pro slrs and a dozen L lenses to photography your kids running round the house , that however you look at it is a complete waste of money and kit. I wager that the person in question does some other work with it too ;

That's not odd at all, I have shot concerts, weddings, pitch dark stuff, studio lit stuff, sports and NOTHING comes close to how difficult it is shooting kids playing, and I don't say that as a joke. Small flat faces with low contrast and bright colored clothes running in completely random motion and very unpredictable. You can't sit them down and ask them to smile, you have to be always ready, and for me the AF system of the 1dX is the only one that gives me those fun fast action shots time and time again. And for the fast shutter, a fast lens with great AF is needed. I could go on..

...Awesome. I have to use this one next time I have an itch to get a 1DX.

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Still i find it somewhat odd that you would need three pro slrs and a dozen L lenses to photography your kids running round the house , that however you look at it is a complete waste of money and kit. I wager that the person in question does some other work with it too ;

Just an observation from a reader, but you seem to spend a lot of time worrying about what other people do in their photography.

If some like to shoot with zooms, how does that affect you?
If some like to buy expensive pro gear but are not pros, how does that affect you?

In this thread you have used denegrating terms "outgrowing" and "waste" and such several times, when describing what is a personal choice for all of us. I did not understand your original post about the 50mm Sigma and in reading your responses it reads like you consider yourself some how better than the rest of us.

You like to shoot primes. So do I. I don't even own a zoom. But I would never make someone else feel badly if they choose to use a zoom. What other togs do and how they shoot affects me little.

Just an observation.

Its a forum and thats all about healthy debate and learning from others which is what i am doing , If you wish to listen then thats great if not then do not feel the need to speak for other people. Since being on the forum for a year and only making one post yourself maybe you should speak for yourself instead of others a little more ? Surely you have things to share too ?

If just one person read this conversation and took something from it good bad or indifferent then it has done its job as a forum post and i am happy to have helped.

 

[Loswr]

If just one person read this conversation and took something from it good bad or indifferent then it has done its job as a forum post and i am happy to have helped.

What if a bunch of people read this conversation and took your statements as condescending and/or insulting? Statements like, "I've outgrown zooms," and, "A non-pro having all that gear is a waste," aren't really helping anyone, except maybe helping you feel better about yourself. Good job.

 

[BoneDoc]

Sounds like gear envy to me

 

[sagittariansrock]

Just an observation from a reader, but you seem to spend a lot of time worrying about what other people do in their photography.

If some like to shoot with zooms, how does that affect you?
If some like to buy expensive pro gear but are not pros, how does that affect you?

In this thread you have used denegrating terms "outgrowing" and "waste" and such several times, when describing what is a personal choice for all of us. I did not understand your original post about the 50mm Sigma and in reading your responses it reads like you consider yourself some how better than the rest of us.

You like to shoot primes. So do I. I don't even own a zoom. But I would never make someone else feel badly if they choose to use a zoom. What other togs do and how they shoot affects me little.

Just an observation.

+1. AP is definitely speaking for me, at least.
I commented earlier about how this thread is vague and directionless (did I mention never-ending?), but didn't really mind it at that time.
But it does seem that the OP has a flair for making passive-aggressive attempts at offending people and their gear.
I say, passive-aggressive because there is always the switchback as below:

If you are not using that lot to generate some income then there is something wrong !

then

I do agree though if you have the money then why not its up to you.

specifically we are talking mainly about quality, and in that respect the prime lens offers the client the best quality possible

then

as already stated i am not making assumptions about the mk2 it may well be better than the 35 IS i haven't used it so cant comment.

I am afraid the only thing for me to take from this thread is whom to avoid if I am looking for a professional photographer in UK. 'Professional' means more than 'making money' to me.

 

[YuengLinger]

If I remember, this all started with some kind of claim of Sigma generating lots of hype about its new 50mm.

But the longevity of this misleadingly titled thread proves that Sigma need do NOTHING to generate excitement about a worthy, fairly priced 50mm becoming available.

====================================================================
My fingers are crossed. I think my ef 50mm 1.4 is adequate at 2.0, but I've had so many great shots with a wonderful "feel" from my Sigma 35mm 1.4 A, that I hope for more of the same from the new 50.

You'll have to pry my ef 85mm 1.2 L from my cold dead fingers, if you dare, but I thought my copy of the ef 35mm 1.4 L stank up the place.

I only offer these opinions to indicate I like good lenses, regardless of brand. I think Canon makes a whole lot more sense than other camera brands because of the great selection of lenses, but missing out on great deals and quality by being a brand snob makes no sense to me.

Hopefully the OP will settle down and realize how helpful this forum can be for advice from the several regulars who put a lot of thought and time into responding to our endless questions.

 

[CarlTN]

I wonder how many professional photographers truly enjoy photography?

I think that there is probably more job satisfaction in photography, on the whole, than other professions, though overall earnings are certainly lower than they were twenty years ago in real terms.

However I think the point behind that question is that there is a monumental difference in capturing a picture for your own pleasure of doing it and creating art, and having to get the right picture that is being demanded, and you are being paid to get the result. The later can be quite stressful compared with the former and does indeed take away much of the photography pleasure.

Until you have the final result and everything is hunky dory. Then that's more enjoyable

+1, well said!

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Its a forum and thats all about healthy debate and learning from others which is what i am doing

But that's not what you are doing. You don't seem to be learning from others here. People here are giving you really good advice and feedback on your posts, but you don't seem to be interested in taking it but are more interested in defending you opinions. But you are doing it at the expense of other member's opinons.

A person disagreeing with your opinion does not necessarly make their opinion wrong, just like people agreeing with your opinion does not necessarly make your opinion right.

Perhaps it is not what you write but how you write it that is an issue you might want to consider.

Just a suggestion from a forum reader.

 

[[email protected]]

Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?

Please forgive me if I am treading on already-discussed ground; but what has experience been so far with regard to the new Sigma 50 1.4 in either dusty environments or damp (like humid or rainy) environments? Reviews say 'not weatherproofed'-- does this entail some clear-cut difference between their lens and, say, the Canon's 1.2 or 1.8 lenses? The difference in weight is of no consequence to me. Thank you for your advice.

 

[mackguyver]

Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?

Please forgive me if I am treading on already-discussed ground; but what has experience been so far with regard to the new Sigma 50 1.4 in either dusty environments or damp (like humid or rainy) environments? Reviews say 'not weatherproofed'-- does this entail some clear-cut difference between their lens and, say, the Canon's 1.2 or 1.8 lenses? The difference in weight is of no consequence to me. Thank you for your advice.

From the reviews I've seen, I don't think any of the "review" lenses have been in any kind of harsh environments. The Canon 50 f/1.2 is the only Canon that is weather sealed, and the new (not yet released) Sigma 50 Art is not weather sealed. The Canon 50 f/1.2 has all switches and seams sealed and has a rubber gasket on the mount to seal with Canon's weather sealed bodies (1D, 5D, 7D, 6D, and x0D series). A UV filter is required for full sealing, but it would survive dusty, rainy, and humid locations. The Sigma may do okay, but it wouldn't be a good idea to take it out in those environments if they were really harsh.

 

[traingineer]

Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?

Please forgive me if I am treading on already-discussed ground; but what has experience been so far with regard to the new Sigma 50 1.4 in either dusty environments or damp (like humid or rainy) environments? Reviews say 'not weatherproofed'-- does this entail some clear-cut difference between their lens and, say, the Canon's 1.2 or 1.8 lenses? The difference in weight is of no consequence to me. Thank you for your advice.

From the reviews I've seen, I don't think any of the "review" lenses have been in any kind of harsh environments. The Canon 50 f/1.2 is the only Canon that is weather sealed, and the new (not yet released) Sigma 50 Art is not weather sealed. The Canon 50 f/1.2 has all switches and seams sealed and has a rubber gasket on the mount to seal with Canon's weather sealed bodies (1D, 5D, 7D, 6D, and x0D series). A UV filter is required for full sealing, but it would survive dusty, rainy, and humid locations. The Sigma may do okay, but it wouldn't be a good idea to take it out in those environments if they were really harsh.

That's something I don't understand of Sigma, they made their DSLR fully weather sealed and their new 120-300mm weathersealed, but the rest are kind of resistant to bad weather.

 

[Sporgon]

Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?

Please forgive me if I am treading on already-discussed ground; but what has experience been so far with regard to the new Sigma 50 1.4 in either dusty environments or damp (like humid or rainy) environments? Reviews say 'not weatherproofed'-- does this entail some clear-cut difference between their lens and, say, the Canon's 1.2 or 1.8 lenses? The difference in weight is of no consequence to me. Thank you for your advice.

From the reviews I've seen, I don't think any of the "review" lenses have been in any kind of harsh environments. The Canon 50 f/1.2 is the only Canon that is weather sealed, and the new (not yet released) Sigma 50 Art is not weather sealed. The Canon 50 f/1.2 has all switches and seams sealed and has a rubber gasket on the mount to seal with Canon's weather sealed bodies (1D, 5D, 7D, 6D, and x0D series). A UV filter is required for full sealing, but it would survive dusty, rainy, and humid locations. The Sigma may do okay, but it wouldn't be a good idea to take it out in those environments if they were really harsh.

That's something I don't understand of Sigma, they made their DSLR fully weather sealed and their new 120-300mm weathersealed, but the rest are kind of resistant to bad weather.

I would think it is a matter of unit cost. It must be much more expensive to manufacture a lens, with all its moving parts to be reasonably protected from the ingress of water, and as the Sigma has to be competitively priced I doubt it was feasible.

 

[traingineer]

Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?

Please forgive me if I am treading on already-discussed ground; but what has experience been so far with regard to the new Sigma 50 1.4 in either dusty environments or damp (like humid or rainy) environments? Reviews say 'not weatherproofed'-- does this entail some clear-cut difference between their lens and, say, the Canon's 1.2 or 1.8 lenses? The difference in weight is of no consequence to me. Thank you for your advice.

From the reviews I've seen, I don't think any of the "review" lenses have been in any kind of harsh environments. The Canon 50 f/1.2 is the only Canon that is weather sealed, and the new (not yet released) Sigma 50 Art is not weather sealed. The Canon 50 f/1.2 has all switches and seams sealed and has a rubber gasket on the mount to seal with Canon's weather sealed bodies (1D, 5D, 7D, 6D, and x0D series). A UV filter is required for full sealing, but it would survive dusty, rainy, and humid locations. The Sigma may do okay, but it wouldn't be a good idea to take it out in those environments if they were really harsh.

That's something I don't understand of Sigma, they made their DSLR fully weather sealed and their new 120-300mm weathersealed, but the rest are kind of resistant to bad weather.

I would think it is a matter of unit cost. It must be much more expensive to manufacture a lens, with all its moving parts to be reasonably protected from the ingress of water, and as the Sigma has to be competitively priced I doubt it was feasible.

That does make sense, it's just interesting that they chose the 120-300 lens to be the protected/tough lens.

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Re: New 50mm Sigma - question re weatherproofing?

Please forgive me if I am treading on already-discussed ground; but what has experience been so far with regard to the new Sigma 50 1.4 in either dusty environments or damp (like humid or rainy) environments? Reviews say 'not weatherproofed'-- does this entail some clear-cut difference between their lens and, say, the Canon's 1.2 or 1.8 lenses? The difference in weight is of no consequence to me. Thank you for your advice.

From the reviews I've seen, I don't think any of the "review" lenses have been in any kind of harsh environments. The Canon 50 f/1.2 is the only Canon that is weather sealed, and the new (not yet released) Sigma 50 Art is not weather sealed. The Canon 50 f/1.2 has all switches and seams sealed and has a rubber gasket on the mount to seal with Canon's weather sealed bodies (1D, 5D, 7D, 6D, and x0D series). A UV filter is required for full sealing, but it would survive dusty, rainy, and humid locations. The Sigma may do okay, but it wouldn't be a good idea to take it out in those environments if they were really harsh.

That's something I don't understand of Sigma, they made their DSLR fully weather sealed and their new 120-300mm weathersealed, but the rest are kind of resistant to bad weather.

From personal experience the weather sealed tag is not all its cracked up to be , I have had a 24-70L and a 24-105L succumb to sand getting in the works and a 17-40 which was only 1 year old had a hole form in the rubber gasket meaning it was not sealed , all had filters fitted. I have two 70-200Ls both of which have collected dust inside the elements ( not that it affects anything ) but again they had filters.

My kit has been in harsh conditions with a few -8 degree days each year in the highlands , varying wedding environments from blistering sun to snow and pouring rain and plenty of beach river and sea shoots. To be honest the only thing i have found different in good quality glass such as the 17-55 2.8 and the 35mm F2 IS is not the quality of picture or bokeh but the fact it looks good to others that it has a red ring and somehow makes you more professional which is not really the case.

That said with the advances in optics and technology is there such a thing as a bad lens now manufactured ?

www.andrew-davies.com north east and yorkshire wedding photographer

 

[Viggo]

I have used my sealed gear in very heavy rain and snow and conditions down -28 Celcius with no issues. I tried taking one of my 85's out in normal to heavy rain and kept my hand over it, but I fogged and got moist inside the distance scale in three minutes, experienced the same with a 35 L. All my sealed gear has always worked.