Sigma 30mm or 35mm 1.4?

[Genoma]

I've currently got:

Canon EF-S 10-22 for UWA
Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 general / walkabout use
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM cheap tele
Nifty Fifty

Considering the Sigma 30mm 1.4 as a nice good prime for low light, parties and portraits. The 35mm is almost twice the price and I think I would be happier with 30mm on a crop.

Any thoughts between these two - don't really know much about either.

 

[Genoma]

Thanks guys, sounds like the 30 is out then. Time to save up for a 35. Or maybe go completely different with a 100 macro. Is IS worth the premium on the 100 macro?

 

[Genoma]

Strange jump to a 100mm macro it's a bit of a different beast! One thing I have learnt (the hard way) over the years is to only buy gear you actually need and will use! A 100mm macro maybe a fantastic piece of glass but if it never/rarely comes out of the bag it wasn't money well spent! Your better off concentrating all your funds into lenses you will use and keeping your bag light!

Now if only I would take that advice and replace my 35mm f2 which I use all the time with something better!

All true. I pretty much use the 3 lenses above equally in different circumstances, lightroom shots counts with each one seems to be pretty much consistent.

It sounds a bit like a scattered consideration (and In a way I'm testing my reasoning and just gathering info) but I'm just considering what would complement the above lens set best.

On one hand it would have been handy to have a fast prime for portraits, low light and for some nice still life bokeh shots. On another hand my wife loves animals, and the macro would have been used if it was in the bag for insects now and again.