Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 25 Jun 2013 (Tuesday) 12:31
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

buying new lens, Sigma 35mm 1.4 vs Tamron 24-70 VC

 
macky112
Member
161 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Jun 25, 2013 12:31 |  #1

Hi All,

I shoot weddings and engagement photos, and the idea of replacing my 24-70 Mark I due to it's weight has been on my mind for a while since the introduction of these new generation 24-70 (Canon's Mark II and Tamron's VC) lenses.

Just now, I got an offer on the 24-70 mark I that I cannot refuse, so it's gone, just like that...

I'll admit the 24-70 was my work horse lens, and I usually have 24-70 and 70-200 mounted on 2 bodies when I shoot.

But somehow, strangely, I have a feeling that I may be able to replace the 24-70 focal length with just a Sigma 35/1.4.

Am I able to cover weddings with just 14mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 70-200, or am I skipping too much on the wide end w/o having 24mm in there?

I have a feeling that I may be confusing "what i need" and "what i want", feedback and suggestions welcome

M


Cameras: 5D III x2, 6D x2
Lenses: 14/2.8, Σ 35/1.4, 50/1.4, Σ 85/1.4, 17-40 L, 24-70/2.8 II L, 70-200/4 IS L, 70-200/2.8 IS II L
Flashes: 580EX II x3 :: Triggers: YN-622 x4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 552
Joined Mar 2011
     
Jun 25, 2013 14:13 |  #2

look back on you photos and see if you need wider than 35mm, if not you have your answer.


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jkdjedi
Senior Member
Avatar
341 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Jun 2013
Location: California
     
Jun 26, 2013 21:18 |  #3

macky112 wrote in post #16063645 (external link)
Hi All,

I shoot weddings and engagement photos, and the idea of replacing my 24-70 Mark I due to it's weight has been on my mind for a while since the introduction of these new generation 24-70 (Canon's Mark II and Tamron's VC) lenses.

Just now, I got an offer on the 24-70 mark I that I cannot refuse, so it's gone, just like that...

I'll admit the 24-70 was my work horse lens, and I usually have 24-70 and 70-200 mounted on 2 bodies when I shoot.

But somehow, strangely, I have a feeling that I may be able to replace the 24-70 focal length with just a Sigma 35/1.4.

Am I able to cover weddings with just 14mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 70-200, or am I skipping too much on the wide end w/o having 24mm in there?

I have a feeling that I may be confusing "what i need" and "what i want", feedback and suggestions welcome

M

Depends on your style.


http://www.fernandezim​ages.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pearlallica
Goldmember
Avatar
1,302 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Great White North
     
Jun 26, 2013 21:43 |  #4

mike_311 wrote in post #16063959 (external link)
look back on you photos and see if you need wider than 35mm, if not you have your answer.

This. I had the 24-70 and when I looked over the metadata after a few years of wedding coverage I discovered that most of my pictures, when using the 24-70, were shot @ 24mm. It was eye opening. The 24-70 was sold that week. With a few more years of fine tuning my gear I realized that I can easily shoot all my wedding with just a 24, 50 and 85 lens. No problem. Ultra wide 16mm? Nahhh. I've got it, but I only use it if I'm in a pinch. 200mm? Sure, it's nice for being stealthy or when you're being forced to shoot at the back of a catholic church. But there are ways around that.

I sometimes come across situations when 35mm provides just the right focal length for a certain situation. It's rare, but it does happen, no doubt about it. I've got the Sigma 35 in my B&H wishlist. I will consider buying it next year if Canon actually doesn't let their version 2 out of the bag. But for now it's not a dire focal length for me. It certainly isn't fair to compare this lens to the Tamrom since it can get you 24mm, 35mm, and 70mm in a single package which will give you completely different results for your customers. But if you want to build a prime collection like say 35mm and eventually get a 50mm and an 85mm, I would say the Sigma would be an excellent start. I honestly can't imagine shooting weddings without primes since the moment I boldly decided to switch from zooms.

Oh, and just forget that 14mm. It's way too much cash with little return. It's a great lens if you're in real estate, but it's overkill for weddings. Ask most professionals that have been shooting for two or three decades and they'll tell you the same. I used to think I wanted a fish-eye lens for weddings. Hell no. Never. Waste of money, waste of bag space. It may take a few cool shots from time to time and add a little variety to your portfolio, but it will likely not be tool to help increase business.


jonathan @ tlcphoto.com (external link) - pro wedding and portrait photog
5d2 5d3 50L 16-35 70-200 ElinchromRX600 580EX 600EX VIV285

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jkdjedi
Senior Member
Avatar
341 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Jun 2013
Location: California
     
Jun 26, 2013 21:54 |  #5

Pearlallica wrote in post #16068412 (external link)
This. I had the 24-70 and when I looked over the metadata after a few years of wedding coverage I discovered that most of my pictures, when using the 24-70, were shot @ 24mm. It was eye opening. The 24-70 was sold that week. With a few more years of fine tuning my gear I realized that I can easily shoot all my wedding with just a 24, 50 and 85 lens. No problem. Ultra wide 16mm? Nahhh. I've got it, but I only use it if I'm in a pinch. 200mm? Sure, it's nice for being stealthy or when you're being forced to shoot at the back of a catholic church. But there are ways around that.

I sometimes come across situations when 35mm provides just the right focal length for a certain situation. It's rare, but it does happen, no doubt about it. I've got the Sigma 35 in my B&H wishlist. I will consider buying it next year if Canon actually doesn't let their version 2 out of the bag. But for now it's not a dire focal length for me. It certainly isn't fair to compare this lens to the Tamrom since it can get you 24mm, 35mm, and 70mm in a single package which will give you completely different results for your customers. But if you want to build a prime collection like say 35mm and eventually get a 50mm and an 85mm, I would say the Sigma would be an excellent start. I honestly can't imagine shooting weddings without primes since the moment I boldly decided to switch from zooms.

Oh, and just forget that 14mm. It's way too much cash with little return. It's a great lens if you're in real estate, but it's overkill for weddings. Ask most professionals that have been shooting for two or three decades and they'll tell you the same. I used to think I wanted a fish-eye lens for weddings. Hell no. Never. Waste of money, waste of bag space. It may take a few cool shots from time to time and add a little variety to your portfolio, but it will likely not be tool to help increase business.

Is there a huge difference between zooms and primes?(quality)


http://www.fernandezim​ages.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 552
Joined Mar 2011
     
Jun 26, 2013 22:04 |  #6

jkdjedi wrote in post #16068431 (external link)
Is there a huge difference between zooms and primes?(quality)

relatively speaking, for the most part, yes, in terms of pure IQ.

on the whole, the newer zooms are better than the older primes, but newer primes are better than the newer zooms.

generally one buys a primes because they need faster glass, IQ is really marginal nowadays.


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KeenanRIVALS
Senior Member
Avatar
453 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Michigan
     
Jun 26, 2013 22:37 |  #7

I think you'll be able to cover a wedding fine, but also with weddings, its an on going ceremony. Depending on the shot you want, I think it would be a lot to ask them to stop and wait for your to switch lens... Which wouldnt be the case if you had a slight zoom. Other than that, I think primes are the way to go.


KeenanRIVALS.com (external link) | Daily Street Photography Vlog's (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,069 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6154
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jun 26, 2013 23:42 |  #8

Pearlallica wrote in post #16068412 (external link)
This. I had the 24-70 and when I looked over the metadata after a few years of wedding coverage I discovered that most of my pictures, when using the 24-70, were shot @ 24mm. It was eye opening. The 24-70 was sold that week. With a few more years of fine tuning my gear I realized that I can easily shoot all my wedding with just a 24, 50 and 85 lens. No problem. Ultra wide 16mm? Nahhh. I've got it, but I only use it if I'm in a pinch. 200mm? Sure, it's nice for being stealthy or when you're being forced to shoot at the back of a catholic church. But there are ways around that.

I sometimes come across situations when 35mm provides just the right focal length for a certain situation. It's rare, but it does happen, no doubt about it. I've got the Sigma 35 in my B&H wishlist. I will consider buying it next year if Canon actually doesn't let their version 2 out of the bag. But for now it's not a dire focal length for me. It certainly isn't fair to compare this lens to the Tamrom since it can get you 24mm, 35mm, and 70mm in a single package which will give you completely different results for your customers. But if you want to build a prime collection like say 35mm and eventually get a 50mm and an 85mm, I would say the Sigma would be an excellent start. I honestly can't imagine shooting weddings without primes since the moment I boldly decided to switch from zooms.

Oh, and just forget that 14mm. It's way too much cash with little return. It's a great lens if you're in real estate, but it's overkill for weddings. Ask most professionals that have been shooting for two or three decades and they'll tell you the same. I used to think I wanted a fish-eye lens for weddings. Hell no. Never. Waste of money, waste of bag space. It may take a few cool shots from time to time and add a little variety to your portfolio, but it will likely not be tool to help increase business.

my entire wedding was shot with 2.8 zooms and I thought it was fantastic. With primes, you might be pleasing the photographer more than the client.

Money shots arent the really cool shots, but the boring group or posed shots. I cant say I've ever seen one of the fun shots printed really big, but plenty of group shots printed big.

as for the fisheye comment, I'de say my favorite photo from my wedding was from a fisheye. Wife and I were dead center under a bridge that was curved. Just fantastic.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pearlallica
Goldmember
Avatar
1,302 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Great White North
     
Jun 27, 2013 08:30 |  #9

Charlie wrote in post #16068659 (external link)
my entire wedding was shot with 2.8 zooms and I thought it was fantastic. With primes, you might be pleasing the photographer more than the client.

I wasn't implying that a weddings aren't best covered with 2.8 zooms. I did this for four years. But the boost in image quality the primes gave me were noticeable enough that clients would chose me over the competition because they just loved the pleasing look of my images. When going through my book they would always ooooh and ahhhh over dreamy bokeh images with golden sunset light. 2.8 is creamy, but not as creamy as 1.2 - customers are extremely keen on image quality given the extreme exposure to current photography (read: pinterest)

Charlie wrote in post #16068659 (external link)
Money shots arent the really cool shots, but the boring group or posed shots. I cant say I've ever seen one of the fun shots printed really big, but plenty of group shots printed big.

Yup, nostalgia sells.

Charlie wrote in post #16068659 (external link)
as for the fisheye comment, I'de say my favorite photo from my wedding was from a fisheye. Wife and I were dead center under a bridge that was curved. Just fantastic.

When just the right symmetry presents itself, then yes, a fisheye will always deliver. It's like a polarized filter - it works wonders for the right occasion - but since I very rarely have to call on it, it usually stays back at the office. A lot of wedding photogs swear by macro lenses. Am I going to drop 800 bucks on a "wedding rings" lens? Hell, no. I slap on an extension tube, get the shot, and let it collect dust until the next saturday's wedding ring shot.

While a flash will save you in dark situations (I've been forced to shoot in pitch black several times), too much flash, even when bounced, will not yield the best results. Environmental light sources will always help tell the story, and there are times even 1.2 isn't enough to achieve a good balance of environmental detail and lit subject. In these cases, ISO 2000 and above are necessary but far from desirable. The term fast glass isn't just a term people throw around as a "cool feature", it's often an absolute life saver. F/2.8 just requires higher ISOs for dim environmental ambiance. THAT hurts images.


jonathan @ tlcphoto.com (external link) - pro wedding and portrait photog
5d2 5d3 50L 16-35 70-200 ElinchromRX600 580EX 600EX VIV285

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drzenitram
Senior Member
824 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Jun 27, 2013 10:01 |  #10

In my opinion, while f2.8 zooms are great, f1.4 and faster primes(sharp ones) have a really special look to them that you can't match with f2.8 zooms. Yes, the zooms ARE more versatile when it comes to framing a shot, but the primes are more versatile when it comes to creative depth of focus and subject "pop".


| Bodies - 5D Mark II, T2i | Lenses - Helios 44-2, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC | Lights - 430ex ii x2, Random 3rd party strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,132 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 451
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jun 27, 2013 10:26 |  #11

mike_311 wrote in post #16068468 (external link)
relatively speaking, for the most part, yes, in terms of pure IQ.

on the whole, the newer zooms are better than the older primes, but newer primes are better than the newer zooms.

generally one buys a primes because they need faster glass, IQ is really marginal nowadays.

the 24-70L II will best most primes in its range and with the new FF sensors probably bokey is a reason to shoot primes


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,491 views & 0 likes for this thread
buying new lens, Sigma 35mm 1.4 vs Tamron 24-70 VC
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Birdie760
492 guests, 293 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.