This lens is good for the type of portraits a wide angle is useful for, and as such it generates the most bokeh possible with its f/1.4 which isn't very much of course. (and then risk distortion) to generate strong bokeh from this lens might get a little old for some folks once the novelty aspect of f/1.4 wears off. No, you should not get close, you should use a 16mm for the type of portrait it is suitable for, being quite environmental. Unlike the EF-M 32mm lens, the distortion and the need to get close I thought the OPs images represented excellent examples from this 16mm f1.4 lens. And there's distant rumors of a similar Prime from Canon but I know of no details. The local pricing I'm seeing here is quite expensive though. They probably won't care if the bokeh is a bit coarse. People who have never owned or used a "really fast-aperture lens" are going to be happy with it. ![]() That is way less of a problem with a 16mm lens as it is fairly wide angle giving more depth of field.Īside from the preference or personal appeal of the bokeh from this Sigma lens, it looks to be doing its job. It's not going to be easy to capture shots on the fly with a wide aperture lens (as most of you will already know) unless you know to align your shots and frame your subjects carefully. This is a lens that doesn't lend itself towards portrait use although the OPs samples of the kid were very good.ĭepends on the type of portrait like the OP samples are showing us. The downside of this focal range is considerable deformation of human and animal subjects near the lens, especially towards the peripheral regions. ![]() For myself, I'd say that shooting in dark venues and astrophotography is where I'd personally find use for this lens. Still, there will be folks who want a wide fast lens for their own reasons. You wouldn't buy this lens just because it's wide because the 11-22mm would be considered more practical as a landscape lens with it's f/4 aperture. The obvious benefit of a bright 16mm lens is the ability to shoot in what would otherwise be considered to be "challenging light". However, this 16mm becomes 25mm (roughly) on APS-C and that isn't too far from 28mm - which was the standard for a wide-angle lens 20+ years ago. The one complaint that you will see online is that the 16mm FOV is too wide for general use (especially portrait use) on an APS-C camera. So was lens correction applied somehow in-camera? I'm guessing it was because a lens with these properties ought to have some degree of corner shading. ![]() Highlights from the images in this thread are a lack of light-falloff (soft vignetting) which I didn't see signs of, regardless of the OP stating they were SOOC. ![]() And this lens equates to 38.64mm on APS-C so distortion is low. But neither is the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 for that matter - now that local pricing has started to appear. Whist I consider the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L lens to be the best lens out of nearly two dozen lenses that I've used on the EOS M cameras, not many people are going to shell out the extra money for one because they're not cheap. Other than this observation of the lens character, I found the OP's sample shots to be good. it's more like there's a nervousness to the structure of the bokeh balls that I didn't expect to see from this particular lens. It's not that the Sigma can't render an out of focus background. It made me run back over my EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM lens samples for similarly distant bokeh and there's certainly a loss of "quality" in the bokeh from the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 lens.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |