So I shot a wedding with mainly a Sigma 35

So I've been forcing myself to leave my 24-105 in my bag. All these were shot with my new Sigma 35.. Lemme know what you think

1)

Sigma makes some nice glass, as these pictures aptly show. But, that's meaningless, unless the person behind the glass knows what they're doing... which, again, these pictures aptly show! Very well done!

I'm going to presume that these were shot with 35 on the 5DII.
Wide angle, even a gentle wide angle like a 35 is not flattering for people in a lot of situations.
Your images 3, 4 and 6 are good examples.

(All the images are technically well done.)

I appreciate the creative impulse to use a single lens. I also know that covering a wedding is about capturing images that tell the story of the day for the bride and groom.

I doubt that she will find images that exaggerate will be first picks for the album.

When I started doing commercial photography zoom lenses were so inferior to primes that we didn't own one. Now, for fast moving situations like a wedding I leave the primes in the second camera case because its too much trouble using them when I can get clean, sharp images with a couple of zooms.

One Man's View.

Thank you for the feedback

Are you saying the wide angle makes her look larger than what she is?

She was quite above average in terms of weight/size. Would say a 50mm really make her look "skinnier"?

I am thinking of dumping the 550d and buying a used 1dmark iii and using the 35 on the 1d3 (bringing it to 45?) and using my 85 on the 5d2..

I have also been contemplating selling the 35 and my 24-105 for the 24-70markii or getting a 5d3 and buying a 70-200 f4 is.. I just don't know

The 35mm will give some distortion, which isn't the best focal length for people. That's why 85mm is called a good portrait lens. However, on a cropped body, it's awfully tight, and I couldn't use it inside for a wedding.

If you had used the 50mm or even the 85mm the distortion would be a little less, but I don't think it would be a night or day difference.

WTF is that guy doing in the lower right in image 6?

JakAHearts wrote in post #16042414
WTF is that guy doing in the lower right in image 6?

Dry ice....

I'm failing to understand the thought process behind "forcing" oneself to use one focal length for an entire wedding. IMHO, if you're going to use unflatteringly wide focal lengths (or poses even), you should be prepared to liquify some countermeasures.

I think the "wide angle" look is popular right now even when it does introduce some distortion. I've seen it used well by a number of photographers I admire.

These shots are absolutely crisp and clear. I have the Sigma. It's a lovely piece of glass. The only thing that seems off to me is white balance. Several seem very warm, like they're picking up the orange cast from the reception room.

But focus and sharpness, spot on!

You have the sigma 35, canon 50 1.2 and a 24-70 mark ii? Someone's spoilt.

Whats the 24-70 ii like in comparison?

TheMaggedy wrote in post #16043634
I think the "wide angle" look is popular right now even when it does introduce some distortion. I've seen it used well by a number of photographers I admire.

These shots are absolutely crisp and clear. I have the Sigma. It's a lovely piece of glass. The only thing that seems off to me is white balance. Several seem very warm, like they're picking up the orange cast from the reception room.

But focus and sharpness, spot on!

I like wide angle too...heck I go as far as 12mm. But I don't force myself to use it.

I actually never said I forced myself to use the 35mm.. I said I forced myself not to use the 24-105 as I am generally never wowed by it..

I alternated between my 35, 85 and 135.. However I the 35 probably 70-75% of the time

LucasCK wrote in post #16044339
I actually never said I forced myself to use the 35mm.. I said I forced myself not to use the 24-105 as I am generally never wowed by it..

I alternated between my 35, 85 and 135.. However I the 35 probably 70-75% of the time

Ah okay. Sorry about that. I'd think the 24-105 wow factor would come from the IS and convenient range moreso than the IQ itself. Not that I've ever used it.

Having said that, it's the lighting and posing, composition, and timing that makes a photo really shine with respect to wedding work. When everything falls into place, the lens itself is a tad irrelevant as long as it's not a coke bottle.

Great set of images. I've never considered Sigma lenses before but they certainly seem to of done a great job here

LucasCK wrote in post #16043927
You have the sigma 35, canon 50 1.2 and a 24-70 mark ii? Someone's spoilt.

Whats the 24-70 ii like in comparison?

The 24-70 II is a great lens, very sharp too. But the S35 is sharper.
The real differences is Aperture vs Versatility