I like the something something on the 35 1.4...
the 85 1.2 has something something wicked, but I use it a lot less. heavy, slow, and the angle of view itself is less interesting than the 35mm.. But, I should probably break it out. It does some nasty nice things.
Originally Posted by Colin
Yeah I was shooting with the 35 1.4 today. Noting important just trying to feel out the lens and I'm kind of feeling that something something. I for got how nice 1.4 can be. I'd shoot with the 50 1.4 and I just never got too excited about the images. I don't know if it was that the images were too soft at 1.4 but the 35 is tact sharp at 1.4. And the Bokeh is pretty sublime.
If and when I get a new lens it will be the 85 1.2 II.
The sharpness on the 35 1.4 is pretty great. It's not as fantastic as Daniel's 24 1.4 mkII,but it absolutely pounds my 16-35 (first version) 2.8 at 2.8, which I thought was just awesome until I compared it to the 35 1.4...
But it's a combination of it's subjective quality that I really like, combined with the 35mm field of view on full frame that I really dig.
The angle of view yields a perspective which enhances spatial relationships, but not extremely. It allows a lot of playing with different perspectives. You can make things seem farther/smaller, as well as make things look big.
I love the color, and indoors, it soaks up light like a champ. Depth of field control is an obvious benefit, but the feel of the pictures is what makes me happy. Maybe it's something qualitatively about the bokeh. I don't know.
Easy to carry, and can take the casual bump. From an all around use perspective, it's my favorite prime. The 85 1.2 is technically a better lens, and it delivers what it does astoundingly well, but what I get with the 35 1.4 is usually more interesting.
I really like my 16-35 II but it is less than great at 35mm. I think that is the lenses weakest range. My 24-70 is a lot sharper at 35. Plus 2.8 shooting wide just doesn't separate subject from background well enough on wide angle shots.
Not as fantastic as the 24 mkII? Looking at Bryan's crops the 35 and 24II look pretty similar and the 35 actually looks sharper in the center. I just went by the 1.4 setting.
Sorry, my memory is that of an old person, and I don't read Bryan's reviews over and over daily as much as I used to. Maybe it was a CA or flare thing in the corners, or whatever. I think it's probably related to my remembeing Bryan comparing both the 24 and 35 mkI versions as similar in quality, and finding the 24 mkII a significant upgrade. I didn't internalize the knowledge, in part, because I haven't actually found the lens to have a serious limitation in my use. it's exactly as good as I want it. It may be possible to improve on, but there's nothing about it that I have found lacking.
Regardless, I apologize for being wrong. I do that a lot. I apologize almost as much, if I can stay on top of that.
Enjoy your new baby. Don't let my senior moments damp your enthusiasm!
Plus, you can feel good that you made me feel even better about my 35 1.4! You did a good deed! i'm going to go put that on my camera right now!
Colin
No apology necessary. I hope I didn't sound like I was scolding you. Not what I meant. I need to use those happy faces more often. I was hoping to make you feel better about the 35.
I really debated for a while about the 35L since I know a new one is probably on the horizon. I checked to see how it compared with the 24II. When I noticed how it was at least as sharp I knew I'd be happy and also be saving about $400 by not waiting for the 35 mkII.
I remember when I got my 16-35II and did comparisons between it and the 24 mkI. The 24 mkI blew the 16-35 out of the water and the 35 is way sharper than 24 mkI so I'm happy.
Yes that is true Keith, but I was talking about him changing his 70-200 f4 IS for a 70-200 f2.8 non IS, so that's where it came from. And for as far as I know, that lens does have two mode IS. I should have stated that better.
completely agree 110%. Never thought of that[img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]
24-105 only has one mode IS. No panning mode.
It does have USM, actually.
Sorry did not know that, so yes that is a good option. Also consider the 50 1.4 then. It might be a more usable focal length on a crop?
I'm still thinking you should keep the 70-200. Yes the f2.8 gives you the opportunity to stop action, at a shutter speed one stop faster. Also I'd like to point out to jnort002, yes it does stop action in your pictures. But to be very honest, the first picture does not really catch my eye. You say it is a finish-photo, but I couldn't tell that if you hadn't already said that. The second picture though is really nice, it shows the advantage of f2.8. But I assume you do not always take pictures only at the start and finish? During the races it is nice to do some panning once in a while. I always thought cyclers where a pain in the ass to photograph. Always that annoying helmet making big shadows on their faces and they tend to look at the road a lot :P so taking pictures from the front isn't giving me the nice results I want to have. In that case I would rather take a nice panning photo, which shows speed and their face and I know the sportsmen and women do like them! (Especially the amateurs love them very much)
Also the 70-200 f4 IS is a much more handhold-able lens for the times you don't shoot sports and could go with a much lower shutter-speed. It's also very sharp at f4, only getting a little better stopping down, so for portraits it is really nice.
About the 24-105 exchange. If you're hungry for more low-light capability, the 17-55 is a nice lens to go with. It benefits from IS and f2.8 so it's really good. So yes it would be a good deal. It isn't wheathersealed, and for outdoors, the 24-105 is probably a nicer focal range. You could go from a familyportrait to a single headshot with one lens. For indoors the 17-55 is really something to think about. I wouldn't go for the 24-70. For as far as I'm concerned, the 17-55 is a really great lens. About the 24-70...really nice lens but I can't justify the cost over the 17-55 and the loss of IS. The 17-55 just takes really good quality pictures. (That is of course not considering the full-frame ability..) Good luck mate
Bryan I took another look at your site. And now I'm really not sure what to say... I think we have different standards. The pictures I think are boring might make you the most of money [:P] I take quality over quantity, but that's also the reason I don't ask money for my pictures, because I can't guarantee that everyone is on a picture. I throw away pictures I find not sharp enough, boring and cut off limbs and helmets and stuff like that. But I know people in general don't think those things matter, so they will buy them whatsoever. I never get it, but that's probably me [:P]
So in that case the 70-200 2.8 might be a good option, but yes you will loose the IS and panning mode which makes the lens really handhold-able(which you choose to be usefull or not). You make money out of it, so you have to start thinking what is more important to you. How you get the most money out of your pictures or how you make the most eye-catching pictures.
Also think about how you focus. If you don't focus on the head with 200mm at f2.8 you might get disappointed by the number of out of focus pictures. I even had that with f4. I was tracking people with centerpoint focus and tried to fill the entire frame, so I focused on the chest of people and even then sometimes the face was slightly out of focus.
The same thing counts for a prime. Yes 1.4 or 1.8 is a nice number, but at a fixed focal length you might miss some shots, which could cost you some money....
Good luck with your choice![
Shelky, unfortunately with the big races and no press pass hanging from my neck[], being at a decent position for the finish meant being at the stage an hour before it even started and even then I wasnt the first person there by a long shot. Panning was also painful as people were crammed against the barriers like sardines. As I'd pan left to follow I would hit the telephoto someone was pointing over my shoulder which was annoying. The first pic was just one of the laps but it was my fave pic from the day as you could see the peleton closing in as the sole rider tried in vain to make a breakaway. I was in a diff position for the previous years London stage where I was panning but was using a Rebel and a diff lens so hit rate was very disappointing. I decided this year I wanted the finish line and also to hopefully see big improvements from better kit
I take your point about it being difficult to get decent face pics particularly where there is a blob of riders. Its one of the reasons I prefer criteriums as if you dont get something decent one lap you can try the next
Thanks Jan, that was about the most politely anyone has ever said my photos are lousy! At the very least, our objectives are probably different. I shoot for the participants, and my goal is to have at least one shot of each participant that is in focus and hopefully shows their face clearly. My subjects are amateurs and I'm trying to give them something as a memory of their participation. I hope to also provide better photos than what their spouses might capture with their point and shoot or consumer DSLR and kit lens in full-auto mode.
All... My thoughts for "needing" faster than f/4 for the race photography is not necessarily to freeze the action, I doubt that I would be shooting at f/2.8 anyway due to the narrow depth of field, rather, it was to enable the higher focusing accuracy that the f/2.8 allows. I'm suprised nobody has commented on this aspect. Is it not that big of a deal?
After the first several responses to this thread, I was leaning toward ditching the 24-105 in favor of the 24-70, and keeping my 70-200 f/4 IS. Now I'm not so sure. It seems that no matter what there are always going to be compromises unless you have every lens made, and that assumes you have that lens on your body when you need it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote