|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-22-2008, 11:48 AM
|
| |
I basically disagree that the lens is great.
Its macro ability is great but its effectiveness is considerably limited by the fact that it is too short as a macro lens. When u do macro say for critters/insects, would you want to be 2 inches away from the subject? Really great macros lens like F/FA100mm, Sigma 105, 150 & 180mm F or A200mm are all of a lot longer FL.
For non-macro use, it is great to be sharp for the subject. But it is close to impossible to render the background unsharp (creamy , dreamy, buttery) because at 35mm its DoF is generally big. That is why great bokeh or portrait lens like 77mm or 85mm are fast and of longer focal length.
Daniel
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-20-2008, 02:55 PM
|
| |
After reading 3 pages of idea/images, I still find this argument more convincing that Mike's.
To me a macros belongs to lens of longer focal length like 100mm-200mm. Ok it does a great job doing 1:1 but at 35mm?
Also as a walk around, it is just not fast enough to blurry up the bg distraction. And something is obviously missing in the last 4 pages of images (for the lens) about its bokeh which is just tough for a relatively not-quite-fast 35mm.
My usual walk around is either Fa28mm or F50mmF1.7 or even my FA135mm (for candids)
I do have Tamron 90mm & Fa100mm to deal with macro when I need to do macro - those are the workable macro FL (sorry IMO)
Daniel
|
