If you want the best image quality, then you need to look at the Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L III USM or Canon RF 15-35mm f2.8L IS. However, I personally lean towards EF 16-35 III, because it gives all the same, but costs less. The Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8L II USM is a compromise lens on the open. They are comfortable taking pictures from f4. Therefore, for the thrifty photographer, it makes more sense to Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM... I bought myself a second version of the EF 16-35mm f2.8L with a video scope. Also, sometimes I take pictures with him.
All 16-35mm from Canon (and 17-40mm too) are perfectly assembled, fast and quiet focusing. There are no complaints about the construct. Unless the RF 15-35 has a slightly larger front lens when zooming. The choice of zoom width comes down more to the need for aperture and to your budget.
Curiously, all three lenses have the same filter thread - 82mm.
In general, everything is simple - pay more and get more. Is it worth the overpayment? You decide.
I have detailed tests of these lenses in my YouTube review:
I believe that it makes no sense to spend a lot of money on a camera flash. More expensive models recharge faster, have more power, plus various bells and whistles on the little things. But in my opinion, it makes no sense. If you really want to seriously work with pulsed light, you should already be looking at studio flashes. The task of the on-camera puff is to help you when filming a reportage. And this can be done with simple, inexpensive models.
In this review, we will talk about two flashes from Godox, these are:
Some general information about Godox flash markings.
The numbers can be preceded by the letters TT or V.
Flash units with TT attachment have AA batteries (rechargeable batteries). The V prefix stands for a Godox battery, which is more convenient to use and provides faster flash recharging. At the same time, models of the same V parameters are on average XNUMX times more expensive than TT.
Batteries in Godox TT685:
Batteries in Godox TT560 II:
The numbers in the name may be followed by a letter (C, F, N, S, O). This ending indicates which system this flash is for.
This is mainly about the automatic TTL mode, but some systems have different contacts on the shoe, so third-party flash will not work with them. So it's better to take the flash under your camera brand.
There are outbreaks involved in my review Godox TT685C and Godox TT560 II... Both flashes are powered by AA batteries, but we see C-Canon at the end of the name of only the first model. The point is that the TT560 II is a fully manual flash. It doesn't have an automatic TTL mode (which I don't use). The power of the TT560 II can only be set manually. The Latin number II indicates the second version of this model. The first version of the TT560 did not have a built-in radio synchronizer and was slightly less powerful (guide number 33, not 38).
Outwardly, these outbreaks are similar. Both have built-in radio sync, which can be very useful sometimes. For example, when working with portable softboxes. Both have infrared lamps for shooting in the dark.
The main differences are in power and control. Godox TT685C has guide number 60, Godox TT560 II = 38.
Godox TT560 II has a power scale instead of a screen, the Godox TT685C model has a large comfortable monochrome screen.
You can learn more about outbreaks in general and about these Godoxes specifically in my video review:
This lens immediately inspires respect as soon as you pick it up. Fix with a weight of 1200g is not a joke. However, its optical qualities match the weight and dimensions. The lens is really very good.
My impressions of photos on the Sigma 40mm f1.4 ART
The first thing that catches your eye is the high contrast of the image. This can be seen both on the camera screen and when opening files in Lightroom... Photos taken with the Sigma 40mm f1.4 ART simply clink with sharpness and micro-contrast. When processing the contrast slider, I did not touch it, there is plenty of it there.
Sharpness is amazing already from f1.4 aperture. So you need to close it, in fact, only for management. depth of field... Photo on the street, I did not see the point at all, even somehow twisting it in post-processing. The image is already very juicy and saturated right from the camera. This is the exact opposite of the old low contrast lenses.
By the way, the autofocus of this lens is quiet, fast and works flawlessly on a Canon mirrorless camera.
Like a reportage lens I really liked the drawing. Technically very correct image, requiring a minimum of intervention during processing. No aberration, no distortion, no drop in edge sharpness, etc. But as a reportage, it is too heavy for fixed lens... And I personally don't need f1.4 aperture. Even for dark rooms, f1.8-f2 is enough for me. And if the Sigma 40mm f1.4 ART is not used in the open, then it loses its attractiveness. There are many other lenses with a slightly smaller maximum aperture, but also less weight and price. It makes sense to take such optics if you often plan to use exactly f1.4.
Like a lens for portraits I didn't like him very much. Yes, sharpness and contrast are cool. But not to take individual portraits. Sigma ART will draw all the pores on the face and show all the imperfections of the human skin. Also, if we're talking about portraiture, I don't think it's necessary to chase contrast. I personally like soft-focus portraits much more than more modern, perfectly sharp and technically correct ones. Canon EF 50mm f1.2L, in my subjective opinion, is much more suitable for portrait photography than any sigma art.
I believe this is a highly specialized lens. There are tasks where ideal optical performance is required with an open aperture. For example, slow-motion video filming under artificial studio lighting. In such shooting, you need to set a short shutter speed, and the power of the light source is limited, so we run into the aperture. This kind of shooting requires high detail and everything that the Sigma 40mm f1.4 ART is capable of. I gave a particular example where such a lens is really needed. There may be other appointments as well.
You should not take such a lens because you want to try and play with a large aperture. It will end up lying on the shelf, because the weight of 1200g is really a lot. This setting comes close to fast telephoto lenses like the 70-200mm f2.8. But there are especially no alternatives - on such focal lengths you have to carry a lot of glass with you for the sake of aperture. A 40mm lens has many alternatives, which for the most part make more sense and are more practical to use. For example - Canon EF 40mmf 2.8 STM, weighing and costing 10 times less. But that's a completely different story.