p.3 #5 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Vox Sciurorum wrote:
If you read the full text of the review, the Sigma and Canon lenses test equal up by f/2.8. The Sigma is only better at f/1.4 and f/2.0.
Canon has a tiny dealer profit margin (MSRP-wholesale) and consistent prices as a result. Apparently Sigma's dealer pricing is variable.
"Only" better at 1.4 and 2.0? Well, heck.. I guess I won't buy it then, because I *never* ever shoot at 1.4 or 2.0 with fast primes...
p.3 #6 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Vox Sciurorum wrote:
If you read the full text of the review, the Sigma and Canon lenses test equal up by f/2.8. The Sigma is only better at f/1.4 and f/2.0.
They equal up but only against Roger's copy of the very best Canon 35L he has tested (out of 100 copies of lens or so). Or did I read this wrong?
Roger wrote:
Stopped down to f/2.0 and f/2.8 respectively, the Sigma responds with 900/770/560 and 1000/870/770 mtf50 values (center/average/corner). The Canon ‘best copy’ returned 840/740/520 and 1000/840/740 numbers. It’s probably worth mentioning the Sigma has slightly less distortion at 1%, too.
I wonder if my 35L even goes to f/2.8? Never tried that one before...
p.3 #20 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
sounds interesting
if i ever get the money to dedicate to such a lens this just may be the one (and hopefully sigma will make it easier to get the money, would also sell my 50mm 1.4)
Never tried that one before...