Ernie Aubert Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
Kurt, I have a 40D + Sigma 50 f1.4 available; I just had a go at your wonderings. I went and exercised the AF and found it to be impressive. I then thought I might as well try a different lens as a current baseline for comparisons. I found the 135 f2L to be a bit faster and a bit smoother and quieter. This aroused my interest, so I next tried it with an EF 100 f2.8 Macro, and that may have been better still. The "thuds" when immediately alternating between focusing distances of four feet and forty feet, are both louder and seemingly less dampened in the Sigma, but I didn't find it bothersome.
Next I tried my 24L II and 200 f2L II, and they were again way quieter, smoother, and possibly quicker.
To end it all, I put the Sigma on again and did it again. This time the difference was unmistakable: The Sigma is noisier and clunkier, although if it's any slower, to quote John Wayne to Dean Martin in "Rio Bravo", "I'd hate ta have ta live on the difference." If the operating characteristics of the AF mechanism are of high relative importance, perhaps the Sigma wouldn't be the best choice; but if that issue is of no particular moment, then the Sigma is a magnificent choice, most especially for portraits on a 1.6x camera.
|