Feb 19, 2016 11:17 | #1 I have a 85mm 1.2 that i usually keep on my 6d and I need something for wider shots on my crop sensor t2i (eventually going to get another full frame.) I tend to like primes so I was thinking of the sigma 35 art, but might not be wide enough? I am open to zooms as well. I do video work for live bands so I need something that will get a group of people. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nathan Can you repeat the question, please?  More info Post edited over 7 years ago by Nathan. (2 edits in all) | Feb 19, 2016 11:31 | #2 35 is close to a 50 on a crop body. 24 is close to 35 and a 24LII is very nicely sharp. I miss that old lens. I let it go before I went full frame. I felt it was a still not wide enough on a crop, so I got the 16-35 instead. It's not as sharp edge to edge, but it's still a nice lens. Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MalVeauX "Looks rough and well used"  More info | Feb 19, 2016 11:40 | #3 gabe212 wrote in post #17904590  I have a 85mm 1.2 that i usually keep on my 6d and I need something for wider shots on my crop sensor t2i (eventually going to get another full frame.) I tend to like primes so I was thinking of the sigma 35 art, but might not be wide enough? I am open to zooms as well. I do video work for live bands so I need something that will get a group of people. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Post sample pics too if you have them! Heya,
LOG IN TO REPLY |
LeftHandedBrisket Combating camera shame since 1977...  More info | Feb 19, 2016 11:48 | #4 i really like my Sig 35 A on both my crop SL1 and FF 6D. It is probably my most used lens, and if i take it off one body i usually put it on the other. I would stay away from anything wider for pics of people as you will have a tendency to get too close and perspective will not be flattering. PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 19, 2016 11:55 | #5 For video: Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Feb 23, 2016 17:26 | #6 So im leaning towards the sigma 24 or the 20 Art.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
InfiniteDivide "I wish to be spared"  More info Post edited over 7 years ago by InfiniteDivide. | Feb 23, 2016 21:11 | #7 I have not used the Sigma myself, but I have had the 24L II for almost 3 years now. James Patrus
LOG IN TO REPLY |
idkdc Goldmember  3,230 posts Likes: 409 Joined Oct 2014 More info | Feb 23, 2016 21:23 | #8 lenses are only sharp if they're in focus! I like big cinema cameras and I can not lie
LOG IN TO REPLY |
fordmondeo I was Soupdragon in a former life. More info | Feb 24, 2016 09:15 | #9 I just bought the 16-35 f4 for my 6D and in truth, for the money, it should not be as good as it is. Vaginator9000
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nethawked Senior Member More info | Feb 24, 2016 13:49 | #10 fordmondeo wrote in post #17910855 I just bought the 16-35 f4 for my 6D and in truth, for the money, it should not be as good as it is. I did not realise how wide 16mm was until I used the above lens. You can almost see behind yourself. +1 - that lens is a masterpiece!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
idkdc Goldmember 3,230 posts Likes: 409 Joined Oct 2014 More info | Feb 24, 2016 15:20 | #11 fordmondeo wrote in post #17910855 I just bought the 16-35 f4 for my 6D and in truth, for the money, it should not be as good as it is. I did not realise how wide 16mm was until I used the above lens. You can almost see behind yourself. The 16-35 is a no-brainer if you shoot canon FF unless you want stupid wide (11-24) or shift (17mm TS e). I like big cinema cameras and I can not lie
LOG IN TO REPLY |
I will look into this lens! Would you recommend it over the 24 L?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TomiHawk Goldmember  More info Post edited over 7 years ago by Tomi Hawk. (3 edits in all) | Feb 24, 2016 18:06 | #13 idkdc wrote in post #17911283 The 16-35 is a no-brainer if you shoot canon FF unless you want stupid wide (11-24) or shift (17mm TS e). gabe212 wrote in post #17911489 I will look into this lens! Would you recommend it over the 24 L? I LOVE my 16-35 2.8 L .. I've never owned the 24 so, I couldn't tell you. However, I like the focal length between 16 and 35 .. a lot. 
LOG IN TO REPLY |
idkdc Goldmember 3,230 posts Likes: 409 Joined Oct 2014 More info | Feb 24, 2016 18:08 | #14 gabe212 wrote in post #17911489 I will look into this lens! Would you recommend it over the 24 L? Just to clarify, I mean the 16-35mm f/4L IS, not the 2.8 one. If you're shooting landscape, yes. I like big cinema cameras and I can not lie
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TomiHawk Goldmember More info | Feb 24, 2016 18:20 | #15 idkdc wrote in post #17911539 Just to clarify, I mean the 16-35mm f/4L IS, not the 2.8 one. If you're shooting landscape, yes. oops ..
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 semonsters 1035 guests, 108 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
