shadowcatcher
-
Posts
1,144 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by shadowcatcher
-
-
I have the 35mm f2 on a mark ii and I love it, tiny and great image quality for the price. I carry it and a135mm f2L, it is all I
carry these days.
-
It's exactly what I wanted i.e. there is nothing mind blowing that makes me want to trade in my 5DMk II. What a damp
squib. In my humble opinion.
-
Good point Jimmy babes, now I can pick up a cheap mk I instead of lusting over yours. I'll tell your missus if you buy the
mk II!
-
The 24-70L is a no brainier as a better lens but it's massive compared to the little 35mm. Hard to get candids with the
24-70L stuffed on the front I would think.
And of course cost. Depends on what pictures you take I would say. I'd get both, a second hand 24-70L and a new
35mm, super lenses!
-
<p>I bought the Sigma 24mm f1.8 and Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, both had to go back to Japan to correct the back focussing as it couldn't be done in the UK. Now they are back they are great, just seems Sigma have crap QC'ing systems.</p>
-
<p>Canon 35mm f2 is marvellous, very small, sharp even wide open, though I wouldn't think it was wide enough for landscapey stuff. Good combination for street pictures though, <a href="http://www.flickriver.com/photos/researchphotography/sets/72157623713248582/">http://www.flickriver.com/photos/researchphotography/sets/72157623713248582/</a> , works much better than a 24mm Sigma f1.8 I have (too slow in the dark to focus and had to be recalibrated back in Japan because of back focus). Small lenses have a lot to offer in my opinion since my L-series lenses tend to put people off because they are monsters in size and people see you coming ( equals contrived or grimacing).</p>
-
My 17-40mm L is laser sharp, edge to edge, perhaps I have a good one and you have a bad one. It's even centre
sharp at f4.
-
<p>I take it all back, all is sorted by Sigma UK, one e-mail and they sorted it within 15 mins and now that is customer satisfaction. They rang me back and explained everything, really good guys. My faith in humanity has been restored and I will continue to advocate and buy Sigma lenses.<br>
Top company, super services and my 24mm f1.8 is sooooooooooo sharp wide open I could kiss it.</p>
-
<p>I bought a Sigma 24mm f1.8 lens over a year ago and noticed it was usually never sharp and very hit and miss. My colleague borrowed it and said it was back focusing and this was the reason why. I sent the lens back to Sigma explaining the problem and unfortunately it was 1 day out of warranty. I explained the situation it had always been like that and they said tough, which is fair enough, not very spirited but fair enough. However, this was on the 28th April 2011 and cost for repairs and change of chip was £60. After 10 weeks and repeated calls I was finally told it wasn't the chip and it needed to go back to Japan for total recalibration i.e. I bought it like that so it must have been shipped like it. More fool me for not noticing and letting it go out of warranty, fair enough. However, I've received it back on the 18th August and noticed Sigma have clobbered me for a further £67 for recalibration?<br>
Basically is 111 days to fix a lens an acceptable time frame and is the extra £67 justified.<br>
As a caveat, the lens is sharp once more and I am happy with it, just not with the rather apathetic service section of Sigma Lenses UK. Moral of the story, buy a Canon.</p>
-
<p>All taken with a 35mm f2 at night and with no flash. A lovely little lens and like the 50mm f1.8, best value for money out there. Bit long on a 7d though? <br>
-
<p>I have the Sigma 24mm f1.8 and Canon 35mm f2 on a 5D Mk II body because basically I wasn't sure which L series version I wanted because I traded in both (I am still undecided which focal length is better for documentary type pictures!). Anyway, in low light the Sigma lens just cannot find focus and is continually missing the focus point. It sometimes misses focus using the autofocus in bright light as well. It's build quality is great but it's a lemon in my bag at the moment. I was so disappointed as my other Sigmas I've owned were great lenses. It is also noisy and slow to focus. The much smaller 35mm f2 is much faster, silent and more importantly sharper in my opinion. It's so good and small I'm thinking do I need an L version of it?</p>
-
<p>I shoot 35mm f2 for candids up close (it's really small and so unobtrusive) and the wonderful 135mm f2 for longer range candids (they don't know you are there). Can't go wrong with the 135mm f2, sharpest lens I've got by miles and miles.</p>
-
<p>Mixed bag for me as well, 10-22mm, 70-200f2.8 are great, 24mmf1.4 is awful. Have a look on here;</p>
-
<p>My 17-40mm L is razor sharp. My problem with third party lenses is that they 'hunt' in low light, otherwise I haven't a problem. I'd go 17-40 mm L but that's my opinion so no shouting at me now.</p>
-
<p>I agree with your comment William, it sounds an excellent and complete lens.</p>
-
<p>I had a go of my brother-in-law's Canon 60mm ef-s and was impressed with the sharpness off that, it was awesome. So TS-E lenses could be used for landscapes as well as portraits then, the universal lens?</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>It's on the 3 feet setting so perhaps it's broken?</p>
-
<p>I want to fill the frame with a face and capture every pore and wrinkle. Of course it is not flattering but I took portraits like this of my good friend and my Mam and Dad before they passed away. When I look back now it is if they are in the room with me, as they were and as they will be forever. Trust me, one day you'll look back at these pictures of loved ones passed and be glad you have done it. My little baby who was born just before they died but will in time be able to look back and see his grandparents as they were.<br>
<a href="
/><a href="
<p>Wonderful things are photographs, as are the people who take the time to advise a novice like me how to take them. Thanks for the amazing advice, I continue to be humbled by all your knowledge.</p>
-
Top man Philip, very helpful indeed, I owe you a beer!
-
Mine is certainly not 3 feet. Obviously if I'm asking about macros I know I'll be close up, I don't mind being close up
and I do know the concept of aperture.
I guess what I should say is what's the sharpest lens from centre to edge to take pictures 2-3 feet away without distortion, is there one even!
Cheers,
KM
-
I have a 135mm f2 L prime and I think it's an absolutely fabulous lens for portraits but sometimes it doesn't let me get close enough (the
minimum focusing length is about 4-6 feet I think). By this I mean I like to take close up portraits, particularly of older people, that show
every pore and wrinkle. I am guessing I need a macro for this so if any of you gurus out there could recommend an ultra sharp prime for
this purpose I would be most obliged. I own a canon 5d mk I and II.
-
<p>Nope it doesn't, it's greyed out. Bummer.</p>
-
I also bought a Sigma 24mm f1.8. I am very disappointed with it, too slow to focus, hopeless in low light, autofocus always
gets it wrong even outdoors. Shame I always rated Sigma.
-
<p>35/f2 fantastic lens and very small and thus unobtrusive. Great for Candids.<br>
<a href="http://www.flickriver.com/photos/researchphotography/sets/72157623713248582/"></a>All shot with a 5D and 35mm F2.</p>
Best 2nd hand Canon dSLR for sports approx £500
in Canon EOS Mount
Posted
Quick question, I use my Canon 5D Mk ii with a 400mm L and Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 for sports, but I'd like a second hand camera better suited to sports (my 7 year old playing rugby/football) - faster tracking/more fps. My own look at what is out there, sort of indicated looking at a 70d but any advice is most appreciated.
Many thanks in advance,
Kev