other than the corners the 24-70 II looks better at 35mm than the 35mm f/2 IS, at least as show there (for whatever reason I've often enough not had the same results with my copies as on there though)
Gunzorro wrote:
Thanks snapsy! Yes, that's what I was looking at. I looked at the f/8 and f/11 this time -- it's not until f/8 that the Sigma catches up to the Canon, and they are about equal at those to apertures. There the Sigma seems a touch sharper mid-frame, but the Canon has more contrast. Just about a wash really. But f/2 thru f/5.6 the entire frame looks more favorable to Canon to me.
Agreed. The Canon's center sharpness is close by f/4, too. Combined with the surprising victory in TDP's 35mm specular bokeh comparison, the 35 IS looks like a strong contender for all-purpose 35mm. I'm looking forward to formal reviews for it.
Gunzorro wrote:
Perhaps I'm wrong, but the comparison here of the Sigma vs. the Canon IS shows the Canon to be sharper off center and in the corners from f2.0 to f/5.6 (where I stopped looking). Slight flare in the corner of the Canon on the f/2.0 corner square, but sharpness looked better.
Both seem to be great choices.
Sharpness on the Sigma seems to be better everywhere than the canon from 1.4-2.0 however!
Gunzorro wrote:
Thanks snapsy! Yes, that's what I was looking at. I looked at the f/8 and f/11 this time -- it's not until f/8 that the Sigma catches up to the Canon, and they are about equal at those to apertures. There the Sigma seems a touch sharper mid-frame, but the Canon has more contrast. Just about a wash really. But f/2 thru f/5.6 the entire frame looks more favorable to Canon to me.
you could buy the Sig in nikon mount to use on a d800e if you care about resolution that much
Keep in mind the 35 F/2 vignettes pretty badly @ F/2 while the Sigma @ F/2 has cleaned up considerably. I tested one with the 5D3 at the local camera store (the 35 IS) and found the vignetting wide open to be severe.
Hulot wrote:
you could buy the Sig in nikon mount to use on a d800e if you care about resolution that much
C'mon, I'm not THAT desperate!
Seriously, I would have considered buying a D800/e, if Nikon had had the sense to build a Canon EF mount version that could fully utilize the Canon lenses.
And here it looks like the 35 IS meets or beats the Sig f/2 to f/5.6, tying from f/5.6 to f/11, that's where I live.
I'm not saying the Sig isn't a nice lens, it's very nice. But it's funny how we manage our expectations. Past experience has taught us that Sig can be unreliable, so we're ecstatic to have a category leading optic in our hands. But Canon merely ties (or at worst, comes close) the new renown optic plus has IS, and it's yesterday's news. It's really about preconceived notions and track record.
skibum5 wrote:
THat USB optimizing AF fixing dock sounds interesting. I wonder if it merely adjusts interal AF parameters or can fully upgrade firmware too and do so to an extent that re-chipping would never be needed? It does seem that Sigma has been very plagued by many of their lenses becoming non-functional each time a new body generation comes out.
Isn't that a bit of an overstatement? I thought most lenses work seamlessly except very old ones designed before digital, but not many of them seem worth using today anyways (except something like a 300/4 HSM). Some newer lenses had aperture related problems on Sony DSLTs but that's about it.
My 14mm from early 2000s worked well on any camera - from my 1D Mark II N to a loaned 40D to a colleague's 5D Mark II (she borrowed it for a while).
What do you mean with "100% crops"?. Those cannot be 100% crops in the meaning unscaled pixel crops. The math doesn't add up. 800 pixels on the long end multiplied by a factor of 2 or something doesn't nearly make a 16 MP image.
alundeb wrote:
What do you mean with "100% crops"?. Those cannot be 100% crops in the meaning unscaled pixel crops. The math doesn't add up. 800 pixels on the long end multiplied by a factor of 2 or something doesn't nearly make a 16 MP image.
There’s also obvious sharpening, possibly in the course of the resampling method used.
