|
Guest
Guest
|
Not everyone feels the need to pay top dollar for the best & greatest. A lot of working pros I know are using Sigma lenses (12-24, 70-200, and the local Reuters guy is whacking away with his 14/2.8 - a year or so ago I saw him use it on a new 1D X, so apparently he's not constrained financially). I know he could afford a 14/2.8 L II at 3x the price if he got a 1D X, but he chose not to.
That said, the newer lenses seemingly leave nothing to be desired so the price argument is no longer relevant (even though the lenses are still cheaper than the OEM). If I had needed a 35/1.4, I would have looked not once at the 35L, going straight for the 35A.
But bear in mind that the tradition of providing unique and high-quality lenses is not new to Sigma: the first iterations of their 12-24 and 120-300 date back at least a decade. Then again, all manufacturers seem to be improving the general quality of their offerings. Why doesn't anybody remember dozens of horrible kit lenses that Canon used to churn out - all those 28-90, 35-80, 28-105, 75-300 plastic turds (all with f/4-5.6 aperture or so) before descending upon Sigma with a vengeance?
I'm only using the L lenses because when I was buying there were no viable alternatives (for one, there still isn't), not because I'm a slave of the red stripe.
Edited by Guest on Jan 27, 2015 at 08:56 AM · View previous versions
|
Jan 27, 2015 at 07:45 AM |
| |
|
|