-
UPDATE
The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being. I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure. ------------------------------------------------------------
Canon Rumors - Your best source for Canon news, rumors and creators
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
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