ohsnaphappy Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
chuhsi1 wrote:
Totally agree. If you're buying his lens and read all about softness and unproven sample variation that isn't fixed with fine tuning, then you're naturally going to assume not-sharp pictures are because of the lens. It's more likely to be user error with this lens
I just blame the outer auto focus points of my DF
I bought my 58 the week it came out. My wife and I spent weeks with that lens, just rolling our mouse around in photoshop, trying to see where the AF hit. The answer was nowhere. The shots just looked OOF most of the time. So we wouldn't open it up any more than f2. It was that bad. Nearly all the early reviews on the web inspired similar reactions. The lens seemed to be written of entirely, especially as everyone waited for the Sigma 50 Art.
That's when this thread, Flickr, and a few new blog posts came in. Suddenly I was seeing very decent shots at f1.4 all over the place.
In the mean time I sold my 58 and began an experiment with the 50 1.8G. I wanted to see if it was as capable as everyone claims. It's been a great run. I've used it since March. Personally, I still think the 50 1.4G is better, but very few people share my opinion. Both are bargains for the performance. I've enjoyed both very much. But right now I'm looking forward to achieving that unique 58 look. I especially want to play with it using the Brenizer method
|