35L or 17-55

[thisisanfield]

:thumbsup: and still cost less than a 35L, or at most equal. hehe

but the 30mm 1.4 does not seem to get quite a good review here...

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/298-sigma-af-30mm-f14-ex-hsm-dc-test-report--review?start=2

 

[gazkw]

but the 30mm 1.4 does not seem to get quite a good review here...

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/298-sigma-af-30mm-f14-ex-hsm-dc-test-report--review?start=2

all i can give you my opinion based on my usage. previously i used a canon 50mm f1.4 and the 30mm f1.4 beats it hands down.

there is a sizeable thread on the 30mm f1.4 on the tamron/tokina/sigma forum that has a lot of user pics.

however, additional precautions must be taken in selecting a copy. sigma lenses are notoriously know to have front/back focus issues. u may come across one that back/front issues but its a not big problem as the sigma service centre calibrates the lens to your camera accurately for free, even if out of warranty or its a grey set.

 

[gazkw]

just read the review... its not a bad review.

if anything, i doubt you be shooting at f8 onwards to f13. the key point is that it exhibits very good centre sharpness (which is critical for me). i mean, it is a wide aperture lens, so most of the time, you probably won't stray beyond f2.8 and its most common application is that of portraits which the bokeh is desirable. just as long as your focal point dof is very sharp, you be happy.

CA and vignetting well controlled. what more to complain for a sub-1k lens?

if im paying over 2k for a prime and it performs as such, then u can probably complain a whole lot more. but in this case here - :dunno: its good for what it is and price paid - yi fen qian yi fen huo.

 

[SamSik]

i think you should choose 17-55 f2.8L

 

[adamadam]

I'm 35L lover.

 

[Prince]

seriously, how can we compare a yellow rim with a red rim prime? 35mm is a good focal length but i hope it can be sharper at larger apertures.

can try the 24L2. its great.

 

[yamcake]

i used to believe in zooms... like getting the "trinity" of lens that cover all the focal lengths..
but as i shot more and shot, i feel in love with primes!

1. sharp. for 35L F1.8 and above..

2. The Crazy creamy DOF u have is soooooo delicious that i dont think F2.8 (wide open :bigeyes can match...

3. trains ur framing man. u move in and our physically, u will take better pictures definitely..

well, F1.4 is just not really for the low light situations, but the creativity u can express..
Thats my favorite canon lens. 35L F1.4 :thumbsup:
Followed by my carl zeiss 50mm F1.7. I think u will never go wrong with primes..

 

[thisisanfield]

such a dilemma because if you include price of hood and lens pouch for 17-55, price difference compared to a 35L not that great. A lot of good reviews for both, but i also read the 17-55 colors quite dull and washed compared to L lenses. Yes it is sharp, but i was thinking sharpness is not all that determines a good picture.

 

[calebk]

such a dilemma because if you include price of hood and lens pouch for 17-55, price difference compared to a 35L not that great. A lot of good reviews for both, but i also read the 17-55 colors quite dull and washed compared to L lenses. Yes it is sharp, but i was thinking sharpness is not all that determines a good picture.

You can always boost colours in your camera or in post-process, and it is not that terribly washed out. Sounds way overplayed to me.

 

[batavia]

It sounds like you're basing this statement solely on using one prime, and I assume that to be the 50mm f/1.8 II. How can you make a sweeping statement that primes are not wide enough when there are such lenses as the 14mm f/2.8L II. Don't tell me that's not wide enough. Oh well, you don't know what you're missing. :bsmilie:

I know its fun guys. I have a 50mm F1.4. Well thats just a personal preference..I prefer to keep my lens to a minimum number, like 2 only (save money wat else) and cover a broad range. (16-35 on FF and 24-70 on a APSC (38-112mm). The only thing I am missing is DOF, but i find a F2.8 lens would do a good job of it.

 

[calebk]

I know its fun guys. I have a 50mm F1.4. Well thats just a personal preference..I prefer to keep my lens to a minimum number, like 2 only (save money wat else) and cover a broad range. (16-35 on FF and 24-70 on a APSC (38-112mm). The only thing I am missing is DOF, but i find a F2.8 lens would do a good job of it.

It's cheaper to get a 35mm f/2 and a 85mm f/1.8 to cover your medium wide and tele needs, than pay for a 24-70. You will get excellent creative DoF control, at the expense of being able to zoom, but I guess primes are really not your cup of tea.

 

[2evans]

You can always boost colours in your camera or in post-process, and it is not that terribly washed out. Sounds way overplayed to me.

In good lighting, the colours are really good out of the 17-55. Found that knowing how to set up the camera and also controlling the exposure better in lower lighting situations can give you good colours.

 

[calebk]

In good lighting, the colours are really good out of the 17-55. Found that knowing how to set up the camera and also controlling the exposure better in lower lighting situations can give you good colours.

In good light, a lot of optics will also produce good images. The whole key to it is understanding light and understanding exposure, like you've said.

 

[2evans]

In good light, a lot of optics will also produce good images. The whole key to it is understanding light and understanding exposure, like you've said.

Haha, yep you're right about good light conditions. It was my attempt to stress that the comment about washed out colours of the 17-55 can be a bit misleading if you don't verify yourself.

 

[calebk]

Haha, yep you're right about good light conditions. It was my attempt to stress that the comment about washed out colours of the 17-55 can be a bit misleading if you don't verify yourself.

Very true. Where and when the lens is tested, and the quality of light at that point in time, along with exposure settings, will greatly affect your resulting image, including colour rendition, noise level, flare resistance, microcontrast, resolving power and so on.

 

[askpaul]

35L on a crop camera??? u simply lose ur width.... it will look as if 50mm... zzzz 17-55 will provide u with more convenience

btw, i would choose 35L over 24-75 on a Full frame

 

[An drew]

I am using the 35L on fullframe and I liked it very much as well when I was using it on crop. But the 17-55 perform very well on crop and comes close to what the 35L can do for crop. So for the versatility of a zoom, I think the 17-55 is still a better choice.

 

[lukeeong]

i am using 35L. the images are superb. and it can nail any scene in any lighting conditions. this is something very important. I travelled with only my 35L to new zealand. this is my landscape and environmental portrait lens.

the body records the image, the lens creates the image. get a this holy trinity, you will not regret it.

 

[gazkw]

i am using 35L. the images are superb. and it can nail any scene in any lighting conditions. this is something very important. I travelled with only my 35L to new zealand. this is my landscape and environmental portrait lens.

the body records the image, the lens creates the image. get a this holy trinity, you will not regret it.

out of curiosity, 35L with a crop or FF?

 

[lukeeong]

5DMKII... originally used on my 40D...