Chestnut Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Excellent read on the state of the photography industry | |
well, I don't know about the older 120-300, but the new "S" version I have is superb. AF tracks very well, and is tack sharp.
And with the USB dock, I was able to fine tune the AF at different distances till it suited me. Honestly, it has not let me down one bit, and I have absolutely no regrets.
And talking about consistency, yes, Sigma has to reverse engineer products in order to fit Nikon. Nikon has advantage there, of course! But don't discount Nikon's own faults… What were their older 80-400 AF-D VR, 24-120VR, etc. like? I had both of those two lenses, and they gave me plenty of reasons to NOT stick only with Nikon. But of course, they made it right (sort of) with the new 80-400 and 24-120 lenses which are both very nice for what they are. You have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, and progress with time. People keep holding onto old complaints about Sigma, and a lot of times, won't let it go. Sigma has come a long way, and to judge a company by their old offerings ONLY is unfair.
My first lenses from Nikon were all consumer grade lenses (because that's what I was able to afford). Should I have judged Nikon by those lenses alone?
If you pay attention to the image threads about Sigma's latest offerings (and I know you've acknowledged their primes), I think you'll find a refreshing outlook on how well the new 120-300 OS "S" performs, and also how wonderfully the 18-35/1.8 renders images. These are unique lenses that help push the industry forward, and challenge the dominant camera companies (like CaNikon) and keep them on their toes. the 120-300 was plenty reason for me to go Sigma, and skip the Nikon 200-400/4, which also has its own shortcomings, at a MUCH higher price tag.
|