I'm Torn on that 35mm f/2 IS

Haven't wished my 35L had IS for one second! I think Sigma is the winner with the new 35's on the market, will be interesting to see how the 2 new 35's compare to the 35L - I am secretly hoping the L is the best of the bunch, but that is just me being selfish coz I only bought it a few months ago.

kobeson wrote in post #15225155
Haven't wished my 35L had IS for one second! I think Sigma is the winner with the new 35's on the market, will be interesting to see how the 2 new 35's compare to the 35L - I am secretly hoping the L is the best of the bunch, but that is just me being selfish coz I only bought it a few months ago.

I wish everything had IS.

cdifoto wrote in post #15225160
I wish everything had IS.

Go Sony or Pentex

If canon don't give me any GOOD reason to upgrade my 600D in the near future. I will gladly switch to Nikon.

kin2son wrote in post #15225166
Go Sony or Pentex

I knew someone would say this. I'm familiar and comfortable with Canon so I'll stick with it.

cdifoto wrote in post #15225160
I wish everything had IS.

The wider you go the less need though, and I've never needed it at 35mm.

when this lens get to price levels of the 24 2.8 and 28 2.8 I'll get one... of course if IQ, color and contrast is pretty similar to the 35L

kobeson wrote in post #15225403
The wider you go the less need though, and I've never needed it at 35mm.

With IS you can go more extreme than without.

kobeson wrote in post #15225403
The wider you go the less need though, and I've never needed it at 35mm.

you may not have ever needed it...but you have to see how it could open up some possibilities...

that being said, i'd rather not pay what canon is charging for adding IS to certain lenses...i'll take the cheaper non IS lenses when it comes to wide...just hoping some of them stick around...

I'd actually prefer that IS (or OS or VR) was on nothing. It's used far too often on forums like this as a crux for bad technique - an expensive crux at that. When someone posts an obviously blurred-from-camera-shake photo and asks how they can make it sharper, 999 out of 1000 responses are for that person to raise ISO (to get more shutter speed) or get a "better" lens (often obscenely expensive and has IS).

You never see anyone attempt to teach that person the proper techniques. Breathing, stance, using static objects in your environment for bracing, trigger technique (as in firearm shooting, I'm talking about pressing the shutter button), and diet.

As someone who enjoys "teaching" photography, I really wish they'd do completely away with all forms of stabilization.

Bill Ng wrote in post #15226799
You never see anyone attempt to teach that person the proper techniques. Breathing, stance, using static objects in your environment for bracing, trigger technique (as in firearm shooting, I'm talking about pressing the shutter button), and diet.

\.

What makes them "proper"? Is it just because you learned them before higher ISO and stabilization was an option? Can you not use higher ISO, Stabilization AND trigger technique to extend even farther below the 1/FL rule?

As a teacher, you should be teaching how to incorporate the basics with new technology, rather than training a new generation of luddites.

kobeson wrote in post #15225403
The wider you go the less need though, and I've never needed it at 35mm.

People didn't need toilet paper at one time, either.....

tkbslc wrote in post #15226816
What makes them "proper"? Is it just because you learned them before higher ISO and stabilization was an option? Can you not use higher ISO, Stabilization AND trigger technique to extend even farther below the 1/FL rule?

As a teacher, you should be teaching how to incorporate the basics with new technology, rather than training a new generation of luddites.

What makes them proper is that they are proper. Fundamentals are a core part of any training regiment. We don't tell power-lifters that they can throw out technique because weight-belts exists. Race-car drivers don't stop learning throttle control because traction-control now exists.

IS/OS/VR doesn't exist in every lens. Even if it did, proper technique would afford the photographer ever more levels of stability - acting as additional stops worth of "natural" stabilization.

Sure it can be used. But since proper shooting technique is almost NEVER advised in gear-forums (note I didn't call it a photography forum), and spending endless amount of money ALWAYS is advised in gear-forums ... I'd rather on-camera stabilization went away entirely in hopes that more people would start teaching the proper foundations of photographic technique.

The core of photography hasn't changed much in the past century. We still have light and 3 ways to limit it (aperture/volume, shutter/speed, iso/sensitivity). Photographic technique hasn't changed much either. Stay still (or pan or move for certain effects, but generally you stay still), shoot. What's evolved over the years is some of the equipment and methods for staying still ... but they are still the "core" and every photographer should know them.

Let's lay out a good analogy, I'll choose competitive pistol shooting since it's something I'm intimately familiar with:

Most people who start competitive shooting have experience shooting but place poorly in competition. This is inherently because they aren't holding their elbows high enough, they don't have a proper grip on the gun, they aren't breathing correctly, they aren't acquiring the proper sight picture for competition, and they are aren't as skilled in weapon-manipulation as they need to be (reloads mainly). This type of competitor is usually found in the "stock" equivalent classes of the respective shooting associations and is shooting with a likely bone-stock $500 to $800 firearm.

The master-class shooter who comes to help this guy and give him advice goes to him and talks to him about getting someone to video him with a smart-phone so he can see how efficient is movement is. He talks to him about his breathing, about better practice techniques and may recommend a particular shooting instructor. He'll watch the new guy shoot a stage and identify things like low-elbows, an incorrect grip, weight too far backward, or not bending the knees enough.

What he doesn't do, what he'll never do, is bring over his $5500 master-class race-gun with ported barrel and slide, massive magazine well, lightened slide, red-dot optic, and special hand-loaded barely class-legal low-powered ammunition and proceed to tell that FNG that he should go out and buy one of these so he can shoot faster.

That's exactly what happens on this forum (and to be fair, other photography forums as well). We don't instruct the new kid on how to simply be better with the inexpensive equipment he already owns, we do our best to get him knee-deep in 20% interest credit-card debt. Anyone who disagrees with me on this point is blind - actually, physically, blind. If it takes the removal of all "IS" and even "L" lenses to fix this clearly capsized mindset, I'm game for it.

I've never seen this sort of blatant misdirection at a shooting match. I do see it occasionally on shooting forums - though not the same way. The biggest offenses there are when someone will complain about poor groupings and some of the responses are from other noobs who insist that that particular firearm was "inaccurate" for them too which often just means that they are poor shots and tend to flinch more with brand "X" firearm than they do with brand "Y". If I did see this sort of blatant misdirection however, I'd be calling for the downfall of compensated barrels and handgun optics just the same.

tkbslc wrote in post #15226820
People didn't need toilet paper at one time, either.....

I guess in regards to toilet paper, a wider aperture (in your butt) would make tp unnecessary also - just like on a lens

If there's a 35 f2 with IS vs a 35 f1.4 without IS for a similar price (Canon vs Sigma), I will take the one with the wider aperture. Having IS available on a wide lens doesn't make it essential like toilet paper is. I see no alternative to tp.

Shooting video makes IS more crucial, I won't argue that.

Sirrith wrote in post #15212394
I say forget it and get the new sigma 35 1.4 instead when it comes out

THIS!