-= T2i / 550D users UNITE! (1) =-

I'm also thinking about a 1.4 again ... I shot some nice indoor pics on xmas with my Tamron 17-50 VC (mainly because of the VC) - but a 1.4 would have been the better choice I guess. Unfortunately I left my 50mm 1.8 at home. I already own a EFS60mm 2.8 which is a great lens. So I guess the Sigma 30mm 1.4 would be the best buy for me. But I'm kinda worried that it is too wide for e.g. indoor portraits ...

I guess I must try that out.

gepixelt wrote in post #11526969
I'm also thinking about a 1.4 again ... I shot some nice indoor pics on xmas with my Tamron 17-50 VC (mainly because of the VC) - but a 1.4 would have been the better choice I guess. Unfortunately I left my 50mm 1.8 at home. I already own a EFS60mm 2.8 which is a great lens. So I guess the Sigma 30mm 1.4 would be the best buy for me. But I'm kinda worried that it is too wide for e.g. indoor portraits ...

I guess I must try that out.

Maybe we should just set our Tamrons to 35 and try to leave them them for a while. That should give us a feel for that range, right? I used my Tammy on xmas, too. At ISO 3200 I can do fast enough shutter to get kid shots, and then take out the noise in PP. I use a cheap flash sometimes, too, and that works as well. Even though I don't need it, I want a new lens anyway

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I used the tammy for Christmas too. It worked ok or me. Most pics taken at iso1600, so noise was manageable. I did notice quite a few that had missed focus though. I think a 50 would have been a bit long for me under those conditions, so I was glad to have some zoom. A shallower dof would have been nice at times though.

IMAGE LINK: http://wolfy317.smugmu​g.com …5G7#1138093669_​q2P4P-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://wolfy317.smugmu​g.com …5G7#1139446231_​jbCJo-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://wolfy317.smugmu​g.com …5G7#1139446416_​JM9fS-A-LB

IMAGE LINK: http://wolfy317.smugmu​g.com …5G7#1139447402_​ZumBo-A-LB

wolfy317 wrote in post #11527441
I used the tammy for Christmas too. It worked ok or me. Most pics taken at iso1600, so noise was manageable. I did notice quite a few that had missed focus though. I think a 50 would have been a bit long for me under those conditions, so I was glad to have some zoom. A shallower dof would have been nice at times though.

I said I used 3200, but was just showing my age:o. I used 400-1600. They look remarkably good though. At 1:1 they don't, and the edges are pretty soft as it was 2.8 in poor light, but you could make 12x20 prints or something and there would be no problem if you cropped in a bit. I only look on my screen, so I don't know why I worry about pixel-peep level noise...
The above pic is from facebook so the res is really poor. This is ISO 1600, just given quick and dirty PP in lighroom.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/tainanstuff/5​300265634/

Mookalafalas wrote in post #11527485
I said I used 3200, but was just showing my age:o. I used 400-1600. They look remarkably good though. At 1:1 they don't, and the edges are pretty soft as it was 2.8 in poor light, but you could make 12x20 prints or something and there would be no problem if you cropped in a bit. I only look on my screen, so I don't know why I worry about pixel-peep level noise...
The above pic is from facebook so the res is really poor. This is ISO 1600, just given quick and dirty PP in lighroom.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/tainanstuff/5​300265634/
Breaktime by calvincairo, on Flickr

looks fine to me. Seems a bit sharper than mine too, were you shooting at 2.8?

Yeah, 2.8. I noticed after I put it up how lousy the toy box on the left side of the frame looks. That's not just oof but rather some oof combined with poor edge resolution. Reviews say that about this lens wide open, but for me it usually comes out pretty darned good.
Here's another. Also at ISO 1600 and 2.8, but at 31mm instead of 50mm. It is much sharper when blown up to 1:1. Why do I think I need to buy a new wide prime?

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/tainanstuff/5​300355492/

I always think about new lenses, and typically like primes too. I'd love the 50 1.4 and the 35 f2, but I've got those ranges covered with the tam, and the 50 1.8. I just don't like the unreliable af I'm getting from them.

Wolfy, as you already have a 85mm, I'd skip the 50 and take the 35 instead (or anything in this range, 30 ,28 ,24). 85 and 50 are simply too close. I had too choose between the 85 F1.8 or the 100 F2 (which are the same lens, only focal length changes) and I took the 100mm because I felt the 85mm was too close of my 50.

Oh and the difference in 35 F2 and 35 F2.8 from the Tammy is a bit minimal. I'd get the Sigma 30 1.4, that would make quite a difference.

More from Disney World

Terracotta Soldiers (replicas) at Epcot

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Terracotta Army @ xi'an (China)

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/superdaantje/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/superdaantje/

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

^^Nice portrait of the Tai Chi master. Next time, watch for his chopped foot

Woohoo! My new lens has arrived. Just need to let it warm up so I can start taking some pics.

I think speed isn't my main problem ... 1/10 sec @ISO1600-3200 works okay with my 550d+17-50VC (and a bit of PP). But what I really want/like/love/need is bokeh ... shallow DOF - as wolfy - mentioned above. This is what I'm really looking for ...

marubozo wrote in post #11528055
Woohoo! My new lens has arrived. Just need to let it warm up so I can start taking some pics.

The 28mm 1.8? Congrats! Show us some pics when you get it going.

gepixelt wrote in post #11528065
I think speed isn't my main problem ... 1/10 sec @ISO1600-3200 works okay with my 550d+17-50VC (and a bit of PP). But what I really want/like/love/need is bokeh ... shallow DOF - as wolfy - mentioned above. This is what I'm really looking for ...

Shallow depth of field can be accomplished with a variety of lenses.

My 55-250 is my portrait lens. It works really well for bokeh sometimes.