Ho my bad, i feel so bad now
Sorry about that
Thanks to wake me up
Reservoir Dog A Band Apart ![]() More info Post edited over 6 years ago by Reservoir Dog. (2 edits in all) | Feb 03, 2015 21:40 | #16
150 Free online photos editing application
LOG IN TO REPLY |
DreDaze happy with myself for not saying anything stupid ![]() More info | Feb 04, 2015 00:06 | #17 have you tried setting your 24-105mm at the different lengths? there's a decent difference between the two...i have both, the majority of the time i'm using aps-c...for when i'm indoors i look towards the 35mm on my crop sensor...wider would be a bit too much for my liking Andre or Dre
LOG IN TO REPLY |
InfiniteDivide "I wish to be spared" ![]() More info | Feb 04, 2015 06:39 | #18 As others have stated for fast primes 35mm and 85mm complement each other in providing a noticeable difference between them on FF. James Patrus
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Qlayer2 OOOHHH! Pretty Moth! ![]() More info | Feb 04, 2015 08:00 | #19 People worry about focal lengths and having coverage for all the different ranges- don't worry about whether you have coverage in a certain range, or if your focal lengths are too close together- if you are going to use it, get it.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 04, 2015 09:26 | #20 If you're not really drawn to the 50mm focal length and are accustomed to using the 35 as your 'standard' lens, then I suspect the 50 Art will be a very heavy ball and chain. It really is a big lump of glass, and if you're not enthusiastic about it, you'll probably not want it in your bag or as your 'lens for the day'. Have you thought about the 50L instead of the 50A? It's smaller and lighter, and a very different animal indeed - not quite as clinically sharp as the Sigma, and has idiosyncrasies that drive many people up the wall, but once you get the hang of it, it provides quality and artistic options that really set it apart from most other lenses, the 50A included. The focal length is still 50mm, but if you appreciate it's very unique character you might be inclined to carry it along with the 35. Just a thought. Flickr gallery
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 04, 2015 14:51 | #21 rebelsimon wrote in post #17414240 ![]() "Normal" view in the sense that it's a very normal perspective, rather than field of view. How close or far away things look, and how big or small they appear, is similar to your normal perception, which has a wider field of view because you have two eyes. Ah-ha, thanks! That makes more sense - I was puzzled because I was saying 35mm on crop is only slightly narrower than 50mm on FF, but 35mm on crop isn't nearly as wide as my vision. Being about distortion makes more sense. https://www.flickr.com/photos/127590681@N03/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 04, 2015 15:23 | #22 I have always worked with 35L and upgraded to the Sigma 35 Art 1y ago. Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 16-35 F4 L | Sigma 85 1.4 Art | 70-200 2.8L II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
InfiniteDivide "I wish to be spared" ![]() More info Post edited over 6 years ago by InfiniteDivide. | Feb 04, 2015 16:32 | #23 While not directly related to this thread, here is a link to another great thread I follow. James Patrus
LOG IN TO REPLY |
smythie I wasn't even trying More info | Feb 04, 2015 18:19 | #24 aldownie wrote in post #17414878 ![]() If you're not really drawn to the 50mm focal length and are accustomed to using the 35 as your 'standard' lens, then I suspect the 50 Art will be a very heavy ball and chain. It really is a big lump of glass, and if you're not enthusiastic about it, you'll probably not want it in your bag or as your 'lens for the day'. Have you thought about the 50L instead of the 50A? It's smaller and lighter, and a very different animal indeed - not quite as clinically sharp as the Sigma, and has idiosyncrasies that drive many people up the wall, but once you get the hang of it, it provides quality and artistic options that really set it apart from most other lenses, the 50A included. The focal length is still 50mm, but if you appreciate it's very unique character you might be inclined to carry it along with the 35. Just a thought. While the 50L is lighter and wide open potentially has more consistently accurate AF, it is a much more expensive experiment to see if you like the 50mm focal length. IMO, better to suggest the Canon 50/1.4 or older Sigma 50/1.4 if you don't want to suggest the 50A.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
InfiniteDivide "I wish to be spared" ![]() More info | Feb 04, 2015 20:13 | #25 Also if you are seeking to try the f1.2 FOF, I suggest getting the Nikon f1.2 lens and adapter off of Ebay. James Patrus
LOG IN TO REPLY |
chexjc Senior Member ![]() More info Post edited over 6 years ago by chexjc. (2 edits in all) | Feb 05, 2015 06:32 | #26 rebelsimon wrote in post #17414240 ![]() "Normal" view in the sense that it's a very normal perspective, rather than field of view. How close or far away things look, and how big or small they appear, is similar to your normal perception, which has a wider field of view because you have two eyes. Thank you for putting this in this perspective (no pun intended) for me. I wondered about that as well, as 50mm (FF) is way narrower than my field of view with my eyes. LonelyBoy wrote in post #17415334 ![]() Ah-ha, thanks! That makes more sense - I was puzzled because I was saying 35mm on crop is only slightly narrower than 50mm on FF, but 35mm on crop isn't nearly as wide as my vision. Being about distortion makes more sense. Don't confuse distortion with perspective! Canon 6D x2 | 17-40L | Sigma 35 ART | 50mm f1.8 STM | 85mm f1.8 | 135L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 05, 2015 07:23 | #27 smythie wrote in post #17415606 ![]() While the 50L is lighter and wide open potentially has more consistently accurate AF, it is a much more expensive experiment to see if you like the 50mm focal length. IMO, better to suggest the Canon 50/1.4 or older Sigma 50/1.4 if you don't want to suggest the 50A. Forgive me, but you missed the point - the Canon 50/1.4 is good enough, but it's nothing very special and I wouldn't recommend it over the Sigma 50A which is better at all the same things. The 50L on the other hand, is better at *different* things - it feels like a completely different type of lens, and it produces very different images, and therefore is likely to be a better complement to a 35mm than an 'ordinary' 50mm lens, for a user who has concerns about the two focal lengths being a bit similar. Flickr gallery
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CheshireCat Goldmember ![]() 2,303 posts Likes: 406 Joined Oct 2008 Location: *** vanished *** More info | Feb 05, 2015 11:38 | #28 aldownie wrote in post #17416303 ![]() Forgive me, but you missed the point - the Canon 50/1.4 is good enough, but it's nothing very special and I wouldn't recommend it over the Sigma 50A which is better at all the same things. The 50L on the other hand, is better at *different* things - it feels like a completely different type of lens, and it produces very different images Totally agree. 1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 05, 2015 12:41 | #29 I also enjoyed the reading of aldownie's review of 35L vs 35IS. Gear: 7D II, 6D | EF-S 17-55 | 35/2, 85/1.8, 35 L,100L,135L, 24-70L II, 24-105L, 70-200 F/4L IS, Sigma 150-600 C | 580 EX II, 270 EX II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in 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! |
| ||
Latest registered member is suiyuan 732 guests, 291 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |