jvarszegi
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Drew_Persson wrote:
jvarszegi wrote:
[Yes, one of the happy ones is the OP of this thread, who has posted some front-focused pictures. Some of the happy ones also admit that AF accuracy is not the best, but they are willing to live with it.
How do we know the OP images are front-focused? We don't know which AF points were used. Perhaps the camera locked on to the microphone stand. Also, these are low-light shots, which may have been a challenge for the body AF. What shutter speed? Perhaps singer movement affected sharpness a tiny bit.
Too many variables for these photos to be considered proof of anything, other than bokeh.
Agreed, and I'm not saying the OP's photos are proof that the lens design is faulty. Instead, I'm pointing out that in this very thread we have someone who appears happy with his lens's AF performance but posts pictures where the AF has missed the subject a bit-- for whatever reason, including his own technique or the body. If you just total up the responses in this thread, of people who have used the lens, as pluses or minuses (or zeros if you like) in support of the Sigma's AF performance, I have to count the OP's post as a minus or at least as a zero.
I count your response, of course, as a plus. I notice JMan13 also has a 1Ds Mark II. If that's what it takes to get accurate focus with a Sigma 50, unfortunately I am still left out-- I won't be buying a 1-series any time soon.
|
I put it on my 5D on a tripod and took shots at f/1.4-f/4 and found sharness to be terrible wide open and barely acceptable at f/4. I put my Canon 50 f/1.4 on the camera and took the same shots at the same apertures and my Canon was literally twice as sharp wide open. The focus mechanism also seemed "clunky" to me on the Sigma. Maybe a mechanical defect? I could not get better results manually focusing either.