Beni Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
leftcoastlefty wrote:
So the Canon f/1.2 costs a whopping $1550, has focus shift issues and generally sucks. Photozone called it “less than thrilling” and I think they were being polite. The general consensus around here seems to be that it occasionally delivers outstanding results, but often fails. (One of my favorite images was shot with one that I rented.)
The Sigma, by contrast, costs $950, is optically and mechanically superb, and with maybe 2% of users complaining that it doesn’t focus well. For example:
I don’t understand why you would use continuous AF with this lens. Continuous AF is basically asking the camera to second-guess the focus. I use the one-shot AF in tough lighting, and it misses focus at most 1 out of 20 or 30 images. For its intended purpose, I think the Sigma Art works great and runs circles around the f/1.2.
The only way I could see the a Canon f/1.2 II being a hot seller if it delivered better IQ, better AF and cost $700. But knowing Canon, it would likely start with a $1800 price tag.
...Show more →
Rather indicative of todays photographers. Good=sharp, preferably to the corners wide open. The 50L is not even as sharp as the lowly 50mm 1.4 stopped down. It does however have magical, beautiful rendering and lovely colour. That is what you are paying for. If the 50 ART is anything like the 35mm ART we have in our studio, it's incredibly sharp and contrasty and totally lifeless. Perfect for still life. I wouldn't begin to use it for people. It takes a lot of money, size, weight and glass to put together a lens that renders like the 50L, the IQ=sharpness crowd just don't begin to get it.
A version with good focusing would be wonderful. I had the usual troubles with mine, you end up as someone said, doing MA for a specific aperture, distance and lighting. If it had a decent manual focus ring I'd have kept it when I moved over to the A7r despite its size. I miss it, it had a wonderful magic to its rendering.
|