24mm 1.4 is it as nice as the sigma art 35mm 1.4?

dynamitetony wrote in post #17141817
since getting the Sigma 35mm 1.4 i have hardly taken it off the camera but sometimes (indoor parties) wish it was a bit wider

is the 24mm 1.4 just as nice ?

otherwise i was looking to sell off some not used lenes and go for the 24-70 2.8

I assume you mean the 24-70 2.8 v2. If so I have both the sigma and that one and the v2 is just about as sharp. Not much difference in sharpness. You give up the 1.4 but gain infinitely more focal lengths. Up to u.

But I can say I never use the 35 anymore. The 24-70 is almost always on my camera. Better variety of shots. Who wants every shot to look the same?

Xyclopx wrote in post #17144494
IThe 24-70 is almost always on my camera. Better variety of shots. Who wants every shot to look the same?

Which is why I would rather have a 24L / 35A or 50A / 85 setup so my F1.4-1.8 shots look completely different than your 2.8 shots

Talley wrote in post #17144537
Which is why I would rather have a 24L / 35A or 50A / 85 setup so my F1.4-1.8 shots look completely different than your 2.8 shots

Ha ha or that works too.

Trust me, if they ever make a 24-70 1.4, even if it's 5lbs and 1ft long, $10k, I will preorder it.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17144578
Ha ha or that works too.

Trust me, if they ever make a 24-70 1.4, even if it's 5lbs and 1ft long, $10k, I will preorder it.

Exactly... I would too. and I would make some kind of waisted mounted tripod to support it lol.

I only made my comment toward yours because everyone has 2.8 glass. Many have 1.8 glass and you rarely see 1.4 glass in the wild or at least the public places I frequent.

Talley wrote in post #17144431
I'm in the same boat. I love the primes. I am trying out some zooms and they capture the moment but they do lack the wow factor.

My main worry is the 24 and 35... too close together. Most do a 35/85/135 setup and then some do a 24/50/85.

I know for a fact that 50 is a great length for me. 35 always seems a bit too wide and 85 seems a bit too long for indoors. But I really love my 35/85 setup and outdoors 85 is just right for most of my situations and the 135 is perfect for longer stuff. If I want longer I'm usually gonna grab the 120-300 as I Feel 200 is too short most of the time.

I really want to try a 24/50/85 setup for a walk around trio. 24L and the sigma 50A and my sig85.

I may just do that, sell the 35 off and get the 24/50

I went out this weekend and did some museum stuff with the kids and really felt 17 was not wide enough and 40 was not long enough for alot of things. I really liked my 24-105 and felt like a 14/24-105 setup would be great. I did bring my 8-15 though and that definately covers the wide lol

I can go to a museum with nothing but a 50 or a 35 and never feel I didn't have the FL I needed... which is why I'm hot for a EOS-M that is a FOV equivalent 35... gas is contagious

Talley wrote in post #17144431
I'm in the same boat. I love the primes. I am trying out some zooms and they capture the moment but they do lack the wow factor.

My main worry is the 24 and 35... too close together. Most do a 35/85/135 setup and then some do a 24/50/85.

I know for a fact that 50 is a great length for me. 35 always seems a bit too wide and 85 seems a bit too long for indoors. But I really love my 35/85 setup and outdoors 85 is just right for most of my situations and the 135 is perfect for longer stuff. If I want longer I'm usually gonna grab the 120-300 as I Feel 200 is too short most of the time.

I really want to try a 24/50/85 setup for a walk around trio. 24L and the sigma 50A and my sig85.

I may just do that, sell the 35 off and get the 24/50

I went out this weekend and did some museum stuff with the kids and really felt 17 was not wide enough and 40 was not long enough for alot of things. I really liked my 24-105 and felt like a 14/24-105 setup would be great. I did bring my 8-15 though and that definately covers the wide lol

I like you have had the 35/85 combo and you're right about the 35 too wide, 85 too narrow issue. I went 50 and never looked back.... seriously never looked back.

50 is so good that I chose to forego the 24 in the name of simplicity, though I do love shooting wide angles. For day to day, I'm pretty happy with 50. It's hard to take an unflattering shot with that focal length, and that's the main use of it for me, but like you, I do suffer from some gear syndrome, and might pick up a tiny 20-24mm of some sort. Certainly on the lower scale of lust though, barely picking up on my radar.

Charlie wrote in post #17144692
I like you have had the 35/85 combo and you're right about the 35 too wide, 85 too narrow issue. I went 50 and never looked back.... seriously never looked back.

50 is so good that I chose to forego the 24 in the name of simplicity, though I do love shooting wide angles. For day to day, I'm pretty happy with 50. It's hard to take an unflattering shot with that focal length, and that's the main use of it for me, but like you, I do suffer from some gear syndrome, and might pick up a tiny 20-24mm of some sort. Certainly on the lower scale of lust though, barely picking up on my radar.

Well I remember having the 7D/sigma 30 (48mm) and that sucker was glued. It was either that or my 70-200. Now on FF I find 35 to be just a tad wide so I know that I would love the 50. The 85 works great in larger spaces but up close I wish for a tad wider. Like taking photos of my kids at their school open house in class. the 50 on FF would be perfect. 35 tad wide and 85 too long.

The 35 has just a hair too much distortion in corners when you are closer also. I think the 50 is the way to go but I also refuse to let go my 85. It's been my #1 used lens twice more than the #2 most used lens. I may ditch the 135... I never use it. 24/50/85 and I just don't see keeping the 35 if I have the 24/50.

Talley wrote in post #17144699
Well I remember having the 7D/sigma 30 (48mm) and that sucker was glued. It was either that or my 70-200. Now on FF I find 35 to be just a tad wide so I know that I would love the 50. The 85 works great in larger spaces but up close I wish for a tad wider. Like taking photos of my kids at their school open house in class. the 50 on FF would be perfect. 35 tad wide and 85 too long.

The 35 has just a hair too much distortion in corners when you are closer also. I think the 50 is the way to go but I also refuse to let go my 85. It's been my #1 used lens twice more than the #2 most used lens. I may ditch the 135... I never use it. 24/50/85 and I just don't see keeping the 35 if I have the 24/50.

I feel the same basically IF I had to only have 3 lenses, those would probably be it (24/50/85). But man, 50 and 35 are just two completely different focal lengths to my eyes, and I want both! I will eventually buy another 35/2 IS as I loved it, but couldn't keep it and the 50 at the time. Next year's budget...

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17144709
I feel the same basically IF I had to only have 3 lenses, those would probably be it (24/50/85). But man, 50 and 35 are just two completely different focal lengths to my eyes, and I want both! I will eventually buy another 35/2 IS as I loved it, but couldn't keep it and the 50 at the time. Next year's budget...

Well I'm gonna have to get rid of the 35 and a bunch of other junk to make my plans work but I really want a 24L

to the OP... I'll let you know how it works out the 24L vs S35A. I'm picking up a 24L tomorrow.

Talley wrote in post #17144793
Well I'm gonna have to get rid of the 35 and a bunch of other junk to make my plans work but I really want a 24L

to the OP... I'll let you know how it works out the 24L vs S35A. I'm picking up a 24L tomorrow.

damn man, you cycle through gear like t shirts

You should venture into the Sony A7 world..... SOOOOOO many lenses to choose from, and fairly inexpensive compared to modern DSLR lenses. Quite a bunch of gear you can tinker with.

I love my 24L II It was the only lens I have bought new.
The older ones had a potential for erratic focus. Mine is perfect.
I love it. I have used it on both crop and now on FF and it just shines wide open.
I have used a friends 35L and he used my 24L for a day of shooting.
Needless to say I still don't own a 35L. He however has bought a 24L and kept his 35L.
It is not as sharp as my 100L but my OOF shots are always user error in movement or slow SS.

Here is an MK II at a great price.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1397121

Thanks, ^ but i am in the UK ...

funnily enough i rarely use the 50mm , dont know why

but the 35mm is stuck on my camera most of the time, just something about it i LOVE... and if the 24mm is the same but just wider that would really work

though i am torn as the 24-70 just seems to practical

for now , im going to start selling off the lenses i dont use much.

also, if they do bring out a sigma 24mm ART ....hmmm

Xyclopx wrote in post #17144494
I assume you mean the 24-70 2.8 v2.

Yes

Do you need flexibility? or do you need a lens capable of low light using no flash?

I will never be a "prime shooter" only kinda photog...nor will I ever be a zoom only user.

If your shooting in beatiful perfect lighting and f/2.8 is giving you ample shutter speed I'd grab a zoom. Popping every single photo with a prime at f/1.4 or f/2 may look cool but after every single photo you may miss the environmental story behind the subject. With a zoom you can get a mix of different FL and perspective.

You'll probably get both. At least you can have 2 bodies running and gunning with 2 primes or a combo of either. With your current gear I see a perfect combo adding a 16-35Lmk2 f/2.8 and 24-70Lmk2 and selling off your f/4 zooms. If your wanting more versatility selling off f/4 lenses is a no brainer in some ways. On the other hand if f/4 is too slow you can always reach for primes.

24-70mk2 is noticeably better than a 17-40L and without a doubt 24-105L. After shooting with a 24-70L mk2 and analyzing the files you'd literally think you were shooting with a prime len(s).

Charlie wrote in post #17144813
damn man, you cycle through gear like t shirts

You should venture into the Sony A7 world..... SOOOOOO many lenses to choose from, and fairly inexpensive compared to modern DSLR lenses. Quite a bunch of gear you can tinker with.

I don't want to tinker with stuff. I just want to find the minimal kit that meets my ever changing needs lol.

AlanU wrote in post #17145920
Do you need flexibility? or do you need a lens capable of low light using no flash?

I will never be a "prime shooter" only kinda photog...nor will I ever be a zoom only user.

If your shooting in beatiful perfect lighting and f/2.8 is giving you ample shutter speed I'd grab a zoom. Popping every single photo with a prime at f/1.4 or f/2 may look cool but after every single photo you may miss the environmental story behind the subject. With a zoom you can get a mix of different FL and perspective.

You'll probably get both. At least you can have 2 bodies running and gunning with 2 primes or a combo of either. With your current gear I see a perfect combo adding a 16-35Lmk2 f/2.8 and 24-70Lmk2 and selling off your f/4 zooms. If your wanting more versatility selling off f/4 lenses is a no brainer in some ways. On the other hand if f/4 is too slow you can always reach for primes.

24-70mk2 is noticeably better than a 17-40L and without a doubt 24-105L. After shooting with a 24-70L mk2 and analyzing the files you'd literally think you were shooting with a prime len(s).

I do agree but the prime comment.

Talley wrote in post #17146047
I do agree but the prime comment.

Its always fun to disagree and agree

I really do enjoy shooting wide primes wideopen. Longer focal lengths you can easily blow the background to cream and not get the story of the environment. On the other hand sometimes you "want" to force the eyes only on the subject.

OP, sensibility is to get a universal kit that covers the ground with flash usage or if light permits no flash. Supplement your kit with primes for added effects and versatility OR .....buy'em all