TAM63
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #6 · Nikon 200-500 vs Sigma 150-600 Sport | |
CanadaMark wrote:
Fine tuning is not something that is *always* necessary to get the most out of a lens, even under highly scrutinized scenarios, that much at least is fact. Every lens I own is a testament to that, and I am *extremely* picky. I thoroughly test every lens I have ever kept, and all of them got worse compared to CDAF as soon as AFFT moved from zero, including my F1.8's, with both test charts and real world situations. It can certainly be used to try and correct a lens that is not bang-on at all combinations of focal length and subject distance (within PDAF tolerances), but I would be exchanging such a lens, eliminating the need for AFFT at the source. It's simply a tool at our disposal that provides a temporary solution to how the lens *should* come from the factory (assuming the body isn't the issue), but obviously that isn't always the case and some lenses do benefit from varying levels of AFFT. Mass production pretty much guarantees there will be variation everywhere.
It's always better to have a feature than not have a feature, so it's addition is a welcome one, but I also think a lot of people accept poor lenses thinking they can tune them perfect (when that happens, visible improvements are misleading as they may still not end up anywhere near a good copy's full potential), or waste tons of time chasing extremely minute differences at very specific combinations of subject distance and focal length, at the expense of other combinations. I see it all the time - people hanging onto lenses that need +/-20 to just be acceptable, which is not fair when they paid the same amount as the guy who got one requiring no AFFT.
The dock not working across multiple bodies is a pretty huge drawback as well (at least for users who routinely upgrade or own multiple bodies), should one wish to go down that road. Anyways, I don't think it's bad, I'm just of the opinion that when you have the option to AFFT or not AFFT, it's better to not have to AFFT every time, and freely use my lenses across all my bodies without sacrificing performance.
At the end of the day the only thing that matters is what works for you and what you're happy with  ...Show more →
As I said, we will agree to disagree I agree, fine tuning is not always necessary, some of my lenses don't need any. But even right after being checked by an authorized dealers, some have benefitted from a little. If it was +20, I wouldn't find that acceptable. For example, even some pros send their lenses and bodies to be calibrated together - as opposed to just using them out of the box.
Actually you might be able to get the dock to work across multiple bodies. I'm not sure, but I think the lens would be what it was - so by having one body at +0 fine tuning, and a required value in the other, that might work. I'm not sure.
Re. one value being at the expense of others, with respect, I think perhaps you don't understand just how the Sigma dock works. Changing a value doesn't affect the others.
But in any case, as relevant to this thread, the Sigma has a capability that the 200-500 does not, and people have often voiced the desire to be able to fine tune at different focal lengths.
|
