Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #8 · Two fast 35mm lenses reviewed at Photozone |
Paul Mo wrote:
You know, with poor observation of what is going on in the viewfinder, that vocal minority will always moan about their AF systems not perfecting shots at f1.4.
Hell, I'm not saying that they're right, just that they're loud .
I've read through a great number of threads and reviews concerning the lens, and while some are obviously out-speaking their experience, some are genuinely finding that these Sigmas many times just don't focus right, for whatever reason.
Hell, I find my 50/1.4 USM 'accurate' at F/1.4, while reading the reviews of the Sigma 50/1.4 on B&H is enough to turn anyone away- literally every other reviewer states that it just cannot focus reliably, and many state that they'd rather have the optically and mechanically inferior Canon instead. You don't see that as much with the new SIgmas, but it's still there.
For me, a good 35mm lens would essentially become my new 'walk-around'; it'd replace the 40/2.8 where discretion is not a priority, and it'd replace the 50/1.4 USM for tight indoor stuff where I've found myself backing up against walls and so forth.
And if the Canon lacked IS, this would be harder to evaluate- IS adds a whole new dimension, where a stabilized viewfinder and the forgiveness of some camera shake/movement means that one can get to the shutter button that much quicker, turning the lens into a powerful 'snap-shooter'. It's also immeasurably helpful for video, which most agree is the reason Canon is putting it on their refreshes. But if the new 35/2 didn't have IS, it'd likely be far cheaper, and it's optical quality and new build are plenty enough to warrant it's purchase for those that don't have the need or budget for the faster glass.
But I still want to try the Sigma 35/1.4A- or any Sigma. I'm just skeptical .