Arka Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · What's all this hoopla about Sigma art lenses? | |
crewshin wrote:
Arka: Woa enhance calm. VTXT is asking an honest question from... get this... his point of view. I understand that might not be your own pov, but that's actually the definition of someones pov. Right? So much attitude in your comment.
Thanks so much for explaining the concept of subjective point of view to me. Wisdom like this is but one example of why the Internet is such a great source of useful knowledge.
VTXT wrote:
No i'm not a pro and have no need for a 1.4 50mm, 1.8 is good enough for me 99% of the time. The depth of the field is so shallow at 1.4 and the point of sharp focus is very small, I just don't see the added sharpness of the sigma art 50 being that significant at 1.4 compared to a nifty fifty at 1.8.
The ability to shoot at f/1.4 versus f/1.8 can be quite significant to many people, if not yourself. And the difference in price between the Nikon 50 f/1.8 and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 isn't all that much at all given that you get close to one extra stop of light that is actually usable. Some systems charge you a hell of a lot more for an extra stop (See, Noctilux f/0.95 at $10,000 versus Summilux f/1.4 at $4000 or Summicron f/2 at $2000).
I've also had very bad experience with every sigma lenses I tried, 30mm 1.4, 18-50 2.8, 50-150mm 2.8, and countless others. 3rd party lenses, especially Sigmas and Tamrons, don't focus well at all once the light level goes down little bit. That is why I will never buy 3rd party lenses again.
Comments like this are repeated ad infinitum on "internet chat boards." They usually reflect a lack of experience with the newer generation of Sigma or other 3d party lenses that don't exhibit the problems you experience (or older lenses that don't exhibit those issues, like Sigma's 85 f/1.4 or 150mm Macro). Your biases are your own, but they may not be justified in light of the quality of many of Sigma's lenses, particularly their more recent efforts.
|