Should I keep Sigma 35 1.4/Art lens?

[matrix95136]

I bought Sigma 35 Art 1.4 lens recently. After using it for about two weeks I am debating whether I should keep it. I have Canon 24-105L and Canon 85/1.8 lens also. I enjoy photography as a hobby and I mostly take photograph of family and landscape. I use these lenses with Canon 6D.

Low light photography: One of the advantage of Sigma lens is 1.4 wide open. However I am realizing that I don't want shallow depth of field while shooting in LL condition such as theater, group of people/family, cityscape etc. If I end up shooting at higher f stops, then I might as well use Canon 24-105L.

Portraits: I think I am able to get equally good portraits using Canon 85/1.8 Lens.

Landscape: Again landscape would be shot at higher f-stops so having 1.4 as minimum doesn't help and Canon 24-105L would be equally effective.

One advantage of Sigma that I am able to see is ability to do macro photography that I am unable to achieve using Canon 24-105L.

Sigma 35/1.4 is a good and fairly expensive lens and I am wondering if I really need it given the other two lenses I already have. Please let me know your thoughts and anything else I may have overlooked.

Thanks
Deepinder

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its a personal thing, based on what you like. It does not matter what others like or think, suit yourself. If in low light, at a wide aperture, get back, way back. Of course, 35mm is the wrong focal length to do that. The 135mm f/2 is often called the theater photography lens.

 

[YuengLinger]

Incredible for flowers, landscapes, and...babies. Keep it. Learn it. Love it.

 

[matrix95136]

Incredible for flowers, landscapes, and...babies. Keep it. Learn it. Love it.

Thanks Yueng. I do see advantage for macro photography that Sigma wields over Canon 24-105. Can you elaborate on why do you like it for landscape and babies?

 

[matrix95136]

Its a personal thing, based on what you like. It does not matter what others like or think, suit yourself. If in low light, at a wide aperture, get back, way back. Of course, 35mm is the wrong focal length to do that. The 135mm f/2 is often called the theater photography lens.

Thanks MSP. Based on my usage so far, I like it as much as Canon 24-105. Perhaps I have not identified specific domains where Sigma excels at over latter. Thus the question.

I definitely see superiority in close range photography. Other area might be low night photography when lens is wide open (portrait, objects etc where shallow depth is admirable).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I don't think of a 35mm or a 24-105mm L as being for Macrophotography. Ideally, a Macro lens should give a 1:1 image on the sensor, even a 1:2 (half size) is sometimes called a Macro lens, but those lenses are not even close.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

As others have already pointed out, it is really a personal decision. No one can really advise you on whether you should or should not keep a lens.

If you don't like shooting with a 35mm prime and prefer shooting with a good zoom, there's your answer. The good news is that if you want to sell the Sigma 35mm there will be plenty of people who would like to buy it.

For me, the Sigma 35mm is the lens that stay's on my camera most of the time. I never thought I would enjoy the 35mm FL and I am impressed with the quality of the Sigma.

Good luck with your decision. Only you can really make it. It sounds like you prefer the zoom.

 

[NancyP]

I use mine at f/1.4 to f/2 largely for starscapes. It is a wonderful lens, and amazingly sharp both wide open and stopped down, it's my #1 landscape lens as well.

 

[sunnyVan]

If it costs you to return it (restocking fee, etc), then you should keep it longer and learn it.

If it costs you nothing it's not a terrible idea to return. This is my reasoning. If this is the right lens for you, you should be amazed and feel compelled to use f1.4. People pay premium price in order to shoot wide open. If you don't need 1.4, you may as well get 35is which weighs far less and is plenty sharp enough.

 

[matrix95136]

Thanks Nancy and Sunny!

I took some pictures with Sigma 35/1.4 Art lens last weekend on a trip to Las Vegas. I would appreciate if anyone can comment on any aspect (focus, composition, style etc) of these pictures so I can improve as well as decide to keep this lens or not. Most were shot in Aperture priority mode with lens generally open. No flash was used. I am an amateur and these are pictures of friends and family. Please see https://goo.gl/L9fB3o

Thanks
Deepinder

 

[matrix95136]

YuengLinger, thanks for your feedback.

I hadn't realized that a few pictures were marred by camera shake. I had incorrectly attributed the blur to focussing error of lens or perhaps I hadn't focused correctly.

You are also correct about redundancy of blur in food pictures such as one of fries as it doesn't add much value.

Thanks
Deepinder

 

[ScottyP]

I just flat love mine. Only my 70-200 is more loved and I can use the 35 at least twice as often.

The shallow DOF can be a pain if you are close up and needing more DOF but remember the DOF on a 35mm is a lot less shallow than on a longer lens so it is actually better in that regard.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

YuengLinger, thanks for your feedback.

I hadn't realized that a few pictures were marred by camera shake. I had incorrectly attributed the blur to focussing error of lens or perhaps I hadn't focused correctly.

You are also correct about redundancy of blur in food pictures such as one of fries as it doesn't add much value.

Thanks
Deepinder

I'd suggest using a longer focal length lens for portraits. With wide angle lenses, you have to get closer, and that can mean distorted facial features like extra long noses that are not flattering. That's why 85mm-135mm is the traditional focal length for portraits. On a crop, you might use 50mm to 85mm which is close to equivalent.

You have to watch shutter speed. For a crop camera with a 35mm lens wide open, use 1/100 sec shutter speed.

That's because you have a 50mm equivalent lens, and with modern high pixel count bodies, 1 / 2X the focal length works best for a shutter speed. This means 1/(2 X 50) = 1/100 sec. come as close as possible to this, and you will get sharp images.

 

[matrix95136]

Thanks Scotty and MtSP for your feedback.

I will watch for shutter speed while keeping 2x focal length in mind (adjusted for 6D which is what I have).

Deepinder