What makes Sigma's Art series so comfy? Is it the heavenly

I currently use the 24, 35 and 50 1.4 Art lenses and I particularly love the 24, but to be quite honest - they have no character. They are boring because of their technical perfection, which isn't quite perfect. The 50mm has horrible bokeh, I use my Canon nifty fifty in favour of it.

>>2911795
you cannot seriously be saying the Canon 50/1.8 has smoother backgrounds than any other lens. The Canon nifty fifty is absolutely awful.

>>2911809
Not the anon you replied to, but the nifty fifty does have smoother bokeh than the sigma 50.

>>2911814
>>2911795
>t. never used 50mm ART.
Delusional faggots.

>>2911795
>>2911814
>>2911828

The 'non-art' 50 f/1.4 DG HSM EX WTF ROFLMAO has the best bokeh.

'Art' is just a marketing label.
Sigma made good lenses before, they just had terrible names.

Nothing special about the new labels except they promised not to release any shit lenses under the "A" label because that's what "C" is for.

File: niftyfifties.jpg (1MB, 1920x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x960px

>>2911795
>I use my Canon nifty fifty in favour of it.
Bra, I've owned all three of Canon's nifty-fities, at the same time. They in no way compare to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART lens. That monster is pin sharp across the whole frame even wide open. It even beats the Otus 55mm f/1.4, while even having AF.

Don't be so dumb.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Ray Neal Caird
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:11 17:51:27
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	63.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	960
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: literalART.jpg (228KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1000x667px

>>2911788
I love my 35mm so much <3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Ray Neal Caird
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:23 16:18:27
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 20160813-DSC03012.jpg (3MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x2000px

WTF I hate canon now?!?

I compared the canon 24mm f1.4 to the Sigma's.
The sigma is newer, punchier colors and contrastier - very much like zeiss.
Canon should really update all those primes made during film-era.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Photographer	david mornet
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:13 17:46:55
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Brightness	5.8 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2911809
I think it's bokeh has a quite nice, unique charm to it. Used correctly it can be quite nice.

>>2911863
They released new IS versions of most of their primes recently

>>2911876
You have shit taste then.

File: R0000001.jpg (363KB, 1812x1200px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 1812x1200px

>>2911841
I really love my 30/1.4 Art and would never sell it, but it's not really an optical marvel in any sense of the word.
I mainly like it because of its flaws.
It has strong barrel distortion and longitudinal CA, and it's not *that* sharp on digital.
But for film, the vignette, width, speed and central sharpness give it a very unique signature.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	GR
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:01 09:58:41
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1812
Image Height	1200
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal

Maybe I had bad luck but my experience with all Sigma EF mount lenses have been plagued with AF inaccuracy issues - AFMA and Sigma dock didn't solve my issues because they would frequently front or back focus at random distances, even with plenty of light, a high contrast area at the focus point, and neither camera position or focus distance changing.

When they did focus correctly the sharpness was incredible

>>2911904
>disregard cucks who can't focus cameras
Seriously, what dark magic is it you clowns believe goes into focusing a goddamned lense?
It projects light onto the reflex mirror, which directs a portion of that light onto a CCD array which acts as a rangefinder.
The computer in the camera sends a signal to actuate the lenses' focusing motor until it hits focus.
Done.
If it misses focus, it's because you failed to focus, by pointing the camera at the wrong thing, or the lense failed to stop quickly enough in response to the motor signal being cut. Because you did a one-shot AF from huge defocus and you're shooting the damned thing wide open to start with because you're a massive noob.
The smegmas are as sharp as they are because they don't compromise the optical design to preserve af speed (which is to say making the focusing ground a 12 gram plastic element), but at the same time tey don't compromise AF speed by making the helicoid the lense runs in 3km long, like in the 85L or a macro.
If you want tack sharp wide open shots, use live view, or confirm your damned focus with a second hit on the AF-ON button once you're in range.
You don't get your cake and eat it too with a $1000 lense kids.
Use it with some thought and care.

>>2911916
I never said anything about shooting wide open though - they missed focus badly at f/4.0-5.6 which was typically where I used them, in bright conditions, high contrast edge behind AF point, focus distance not changing, etc. Re-focusing literally resulted in varying degrees of front and back focusing.

I understand they are build down to a price, and that shooting them (and frankly any lens) wide open has a risk of missing focus.

Canon lenses on the same body didn't have the same issue, the only other brand bodies I have used are Fuji and while slower they rarely miss in the same conditions.

Maybe I am just retarded and don't know how to use equipment, but it certainly doesn't feel that way when my poor experiences are isolated to one brand.

File: P1020652.jpg (102KB, 592x740px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 592x740px

I have an art 19mm 2.8. there's no bokeh to speak of unless I'm shooting a small object up close, which this focal length isn't good for
I still like it, I've never had a lens perform this well for $99 new. It crushes any nifty fifty I've seen

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

>>2911937
I'm pretty sure you're right. Sigma lenses have never been good focusers which is why they sell a dock to adjust the lenses focusing now.

>>2912009
Yeah you can't really expect much bokeh from that wide a lens

>>2912020
I wish more manufacturers would make slow primes.
-sub $200
-excellent image quality
-even throw in metal barrel and mount

Sadly I don't think me and the two other people who would buy these is a big enough market to popularize the concept

>>2912050
I wish more manufacturers would put IS in camera bodies so those slow, but small and cheap primes would be less limiting.

>Sony puts body IS everywhere BUT in their crop mirrorless cameras because fuck that system in particular
>Panasonic decides which camera gets IS and which doesn't with a coin flip
>Fuji is just being a dick at this point

>>2912050
Mitakon negroid...check out the Creator series. No AF, but still a LOT of lens for $199.

>>2912074
>fuji cameras can survive being dropped off a house
>sony and panasonic cameras stop working because you broke their fragile IS assembly
but you can shoot handheld at midnight when youre making a taco bell run!

>>2912078
Not a fan. MF too slow, lenses too long to hyperfocal or zone focus well (aside from just one lens I don't care for the focal length of), and resolution not that good.

>>2912074
IBIS with my 19 2.8 is great. It's a wonder on my Olympus but I can feel the bite of higher and higher ISOs on my Panasonic.

>>2912080
I've owned Pentax, Olympus, and Panasonic digital cameras. Despite abuse, years of use (I still have a K10D), getting tossed around in bags, exposed to humidity and heat and smashed screens, none of my cameras have every malfunctioned. Not only that, but Pentax (which feature IBIS in every camera) is legendary for nothing else but absolute indestructibility. the Fuji XT1 and Xpro2 (only these two models in particular, keep in mind) are supposed to be incredibly rugged, but are ten times more expensive than a pentax and haven't been around long enough to test their reliability.

>>2911788
Why is the 35mm so much larger?

>>2912160
full frame

>>2912160
It's full frame and uses a lot more glass to achieve a higher resolution

>>2911841
>The 'non-art' 50 f/1.4 DG HSM EX WTF ROFLMAO has the best bokeh.

This. I wish I could combine the non-art 50mm bokeh with the corner-corner "it will cut you if you're not careful" ART sharpness. (Though the non-art 50mm is quite sharp in the center, even at 1.4.)

>>2912080
I tend to shoot handheld at midnight far more often than drop my cameras off houses.

Also, you're just making shit up.

>>2912085
>19/2.8 on lolympus/panasonic
Would you do that when 17/1.8, 20/1.7 and 25/1.7 exist, the latter barely more expensive than the Sigma?

>>2912169
These things are mutually exclusive to some degree.
If a lens renders OOF points as circles with a bright sharp outline, your borkeh will look like shit, but stuff just barely outside the focus plane will still seem sharp, contributing to the "razor sharp" overall look. And if OOF points are rendered as diffused blotches, borkeh will be smooth and soft, but so will be anything not in perfect focus.

the 18-35 with my 7Dii is fucking magical.

i get pictures just as amazing as a 5Diii with the 24-70 for half the price

>muh full frame

File: IStest_300mm_IS_on.gif (12KB, 528x459px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 528x459px

>>2912074
>reading random new slrgear reviews

>30% sharp shots at 1 second handheld exposure
>on a 600mm equivalent lens
holy shit what

File: 2016-08-27_05-56-28.jpg (888KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

888KB, 1600x1067px

Owned the 35mm Art for a while. Broke twice. Had it converted to A Mount by Sigma. Still have it.

It is useful, competent and overall nice. I really only use it when I really want that extra stop, need AF, or will be shooting landscapes.

The aesthetic is nondescript mist times and a little offputtingf at the worst times

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows)
Photographer	Photographer
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2013:09:06 15:52:36
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Partial
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2912209
17 1.8 costs over four times as much
20 1.7 has banding problems on Olympus bodies due to electromagnetic interference
25 1.7 didn't exist when I bought it

>>2912221
On a monopod you can probably get over half. Olympus realizes they'll always be a step behind in iso performance because they don't make their own sensors, so they let you shoot at lower ISOs instead.

>>2912231
On a MONOpod? At 1 second I won't always get sharp images even with a nifty fifty.

>they'll always be a step behind in iso performance because they don't make their own sensors
Uh, what? Then how come fab-less Nikon can have better sensors than Canon?

>>2912237
On a monopod WITH stabilization, silly. This is a common combination
Nikon buys Sony sensors. Olympus buys Sony sensors too. They're very similar, but four thirds sensors are smaller, and thus perform worse than Sony's similar but larger sensors, due to a decrease in surface area and pixel pitch.

>>2912241
>On a monopod WITH stabilization
Oh, ok. But being able to completely ditch the monopod for telephoto stuff is pretty damn cool, especially if the viewfinder gets stabilized as well.

>four thirds sensors are smaller, and thus perform worse than Sony's similar but larger sensors
And if lolympus made their own sensors, that would change how?

>>2912245
Olympus would be able to put r&d money into improving their sensors. This is obviously impractical because they would be starting from the ground up and fighting a long hard uphill battle even to reach current Sony sensors. This is why instead they put that r&d into stabilization, allowing the user to get better performance in low light by using a lower iso and a longer shutter speed. This obviously isn't a professional solution, but for a hobbyist who wants to save money and have great performance for cheap, it's a godsend and a much better option than a canikon sports monster and all their triply more expensive lenses.

>>2912245
Also
>If the viewfinder gets stabilized
It does. And it's sex.

>>2912246
I don't think you realize how expensive sensor production is (or how small lolympus is). There is no way for them to afford a production line even if they had the know-how. What they can (and do) is order some custom designs from other manufacturers, like Nikon and Fuji.

>>2912249
*like Nikon and Fuji also do

>>2912011

I get very strong front focusing with my 17-70 C at times - some 1m instead of 200m for example.

Servicing the objective did not solve this. I cannot imagine the issue behind it.

>>2912246
A professional solution is what brings reliable results, not a particular combination of ISO and shutter speed. That canikon sports monster might just scare away all the birds NatGeo sent you to shoot.

>>2912249
I obviously do because my post is explaining that it would be impractical for Olympus to attempt manufacturing sensors.
>>2912254
Good IS isn't a professional solution for bad ISO performance because while you may stabilize the scene, people, animals, and etc continue to move. IS is a good tool but doesn't compensate for the poor sensor performance in every way and anyone looking at Olympus cameras should know this.

>>2912237
>Then how come fab-less Nikon can have better sensors than Canon?

They don't. They buy Sony sensors.

The D5 uses a completely Nikon designed sensor, and it has terrible shadow noise / DR compared to the 1DX II where Canon finally used on sensor ADCs. Nikon doesn't have the patents or tech to do on chip ADC yet.

>>2912268
iirc many Nikon's sensors are also made by Toshiba and Renesas, presumably to Nikon's designs, and they're still good. Though maybe they're using some joint Sony tech. D5's sensor is a weird one, it has characteristics unlike anything else Nikon has.

>>2912260
>while you may stabilize the scene, people, animals, and etc continue to move

Obviously, 1-second exposures are overkill, but with a 600mm lens you kinda need good IS even for completely reasonable shutter speeds like 1/60, especially if you don't have time to set up proper posture.

>>2912260
>IS is a good tool but doesn't compensate for the poor sensor performance in every way and anyone looking at Olympus cameras should know this.

They had F2 zooms back then in 4/3 era to compensate the sensor size.

>>2912430
Yeah, but those weighed and cost as much as f/2.8 FF zooms while being an "equivalent" of f/4 ones, so nobody bought them. Lolympus seems to realize that it was a waste of engineering effort, as everything they've been making for m43 is designed to take advantage of small sensor size, not compensate for it (well, with a few exceptions like the 12-50mm zoom. What the fuck was that?)

File: 666-sigma-60mm-f-2-8-dn-5_1372329998.jpg (64KB, 666x637px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 666x637px

>>2911788
I think it is the resolution you can get with them, at a fair price.

A lot of other lenses are very much not comfy because they just wreck images down to <50% of sensor resolution. Which is just a pain in the arse.

We should be able to do 1:1 crops anywhere in the frame, rather than collect trash data all over the frame. And the Sigma Art get us closer to that.

>>2911853
since we're at it, do you think the STM and the II are particularly better than the original nifty fifty?

>>2912695
All three have the exact same optics.
STM is the best one since it has a rounded aperture and an AF motor that doesn't sound like a dying cat. But it's the most expensive of the bunch.
Avoid II if you can since it's got absolutely horrendous build quality (plastic mount, inconveniently placed, non-dampened focus ring, tends to fall apart from a slight bump)

File: 1428515803553.gif (2MB, 220x190px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 220x190px

They say that a Sigma Art 18-35mm 1.8 for the GH4 (for video) is one of the best combinations.
Some people here say they don't have character. What does it mean?

>>2912219
18-35mm 1.8 for video good choice then?

>>2912478
I got my 45mm 1.8 recently, and at f/8 on a tripod it really seems like that. You can 1:1 anywhere and make a 1080p wallpaper from it. Awesome stuff, and I didn't have to spend $800 to get it.
[spoiler]the sigma 60mm is supposed to be even better[/spoiler]

sigma art is overpriced crap with too many glass elements and horrible colour, this is what happens when you watch the shills on youtube

File: AlikGriffin_Voigtlander_15mm_Heliar_X-T1_zpssc1ohppt.jpg (183KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1024x683px

>>2912729
>What does it mean?
there color is pretty bad and the lenses are plastic made in china, the marketing behind these lenses is hardcore but the quality of a real solid lens just isn't there especially for cinema use. You say that you like using your art for video? Well for video manual focus is of course king and manualy focusing a well made metal Manual lens like a Zeiss or the Voigtlander 40mm or 58mm or even an old metal AI/A-S lens is a whooooole hell of a lot nicer than manually focusing a plasic Auto Focus lens, try a nicer lens out if you ever get the chance, the feel of those things along with the quality is what purists like myself mean by character

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7R
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Alik Griffin
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	100 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:06:13 23:14:53
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	-3.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Flash
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

Is Sigma's 85mm decent?

File: DSCN0578.jpg (283KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1000x750px

>>2912710
>>2912695
STM technically has the best optics of the three. Aberrations and flaring is controlled more (due to a new coating) but it's essentially the same Gaussian optical design. But it does have more and rounded aperture blades so Bokeh is much more smooth and creamy overall.

AF though, while accurate and the quietest of the three by huge margin, is still not technically silent (you can hear in on-board audio in movies) and is actually the slowest of three.

I still wouldn't hesitate the recommending the STM over the older nifty-fifties, unless you want the mechanical manual focus and distance focusing scale (get the MK I). There's literally no reason the get the MK II, unless you're next-level poor.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON
Camera Model	COOLPIX S3400
Camera Software	COOLPIX S3400V1.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:01:10 21:36:36
Exposure Time	1/8 sec
F-Number	f/3.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.30 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5152
Image Height	3864
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Color Mode	COLOR
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	AUTO
Image Sharpening	AUTO
Focus Mode	AF-S
ISO Selection	AUTO
Image Adjustment	NORMAL
Auto Focus	Center
Scene Mode	PARTY/INDOOR
Saturation	Normal
Noise Reduction	OFF

>>2913051
no

>>2911853
Don't get so defensive. Look it up before posting

File: 675033238977.jpg (47KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x500px

>>2913049
I am going to buy a GH4 and a lens but I can't talk theoretical here because the cost is very important too.
What would you recommend for video with the budget of a Sigma 18-35 ($800) ?

I know if I throw a few thousand (each) on cinema primes it will be better but I gotta use what I can get.

>>2913051
Optics are ok for the price, but AF accuracy is a lottery. It's imperative you test that particular copy on your camera before you buy it.

If you can live with manuel ficus, get Bower/Samyang/Rokinon 85/1.4 instead.

>>2913156
If you prefer the Nifty Fifties over the ART lens because of the Bokeh, then you are objectively wrong. Or at even worse; pretending to be retarded.

Which one is it?

>>2913354
>>2913156
And I don't need looking it up. I've played with the 50mm ART, as well as owned all three Nifty-Fifties and I would prefer the ART lenses, no questions asked. You'd really have to be retarded, or just merely pretending to be, otherwise.

>>2913247
Go maybe with a old lens and an adaptor, buy something medium tele (consider the dimention of the sensor, for exe a 100mm in m4/3 will be 200mm) with a wide aperture and a follow focus to control it properly. But buy the gh4 with the kit lens, it's pretty good.

>>2913385
Sounds too technical for my needs. My plan so far is to go Speedbooster and Sigma 18-35 instead of the kit.
I want to get comfortable with my workflow with a zoom first and later update lenses.
I will be a one man band so a zoom will help at first.

File: jo.jpg (1MB, 2000x1472px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1472px

i have the 50 1.4 art and it is beautiful. the only lenses i have used that i found better are the 35 1.4L and especially the 35 1.4L II which is just insane but it costs $2000. the 50 art is a beast though, i highly recommend it

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016-08-29T22:28:15+01:00
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1472
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2913561
Didn't hesistate in choosing the 35mm f/1.4 ART over the OG f/1.4L especially since I got my ART lens for half the price. Would have been more tempted by the f/1.4L II though, but that's three and a half times the price!