A flickr mixer, part II

After all that work in Clarion Alley, we made a pit stop at Four Barrel Coffee. I should’ve tried a cup, but I was too busy trying to take advantage of the lighting and snap some pics. Why do cafes always seem to have the best lighting? (Although my most favorite cafe — best coffee and lighting — still remains Blue Bottle, as you probably tell from my recent post from there.)

One more post after this with a few more final pics from the mixer.


Four Barrel Coffee
375 Valencia
San Francisco, CA


13 thoughts on “A flickr mixer, part II

  1. I’m in love with this series! Did you shoot all of them with the Sigma 30mm? It seems like such a great lens! I love latte art and you’ve captured it so well.

  2. Thanks, Jacqueline! Would you recommend it over the other lenses you use? I have a 50mm f1.8 that I love but find limiting in a lot of situations. I was going to splurge on a Canon 24-70 because it’s a lifetime investment, but I’m just really tempted by the 1.4 aperture of the Sigma and its price. I’d love to know what you think.

    • Hey Anne — yes, I definitely recommend this lens; since I bought it, it hasn’t really left my camera. I used to have the 50/1.8 and it was good… but a bit too long and not great in low light. (I upgraded to the 1.4 version — totally worth it.) I wanted to Canon 24-70/2.8 but ultimately decided to get the Tamron 28-75mm/2.8, which was fantastic. Totally killed my interest in the Canon. Plus, I like primes more than zooms; they’re smaller and lighter and sharper (and faster), so I’d prefer to put my money in them instead. Anyway, the Sigma is great and better in low light than the 50/1.8 or 1.4. I guess the decision will depend on whether you like primes or zooms more, really. Oh, and if you want to stay with an APS-C camera, since the Sigma is not FF compatible (note that the Tamron is also FF compatible). Sorry, not sure how helpful that is, but if you have more questions, lemme know!

      • Totally helpful; thank you sooo much. I like primes too. I like that the aperture is wider without the bulk. I would have bought a zoom because it’s convenient and it’s a really great zoom, but I love primes. The reason I wanted a wider angle prime is that I find the 50mm too long too. I want to switch to a full frame camera in the next couple of years, but when that happens, I think I’ll just sell the Sigma or give it to my boyfriend if he needs it. I think I’d rather have a really good prime right now plus a telezoom (70-200 f4 non IS) that I’m going to be buying in the next three months than a zoom that doesn’t open as wide as I want it to and costs a lot of money in just one go. We’ll see; I may change my mind, but it looks like the Sigma is worth it for the wide aperture. I have dreams of 1.4 apertures!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s