Fred Miranda wrote:
Yesterday's game. (SL2 + Sigma 135/1.8 + SL 35/2 APO )
Fred,
All the images you have posted from your rather new SL2 have so much punch and and impact. Luckily I know it's the photographer and not the camera or I would have to save up for a SL2 I did recently take some images with a friends SL and really liked the camera but I think I would miss the AFC and phase detect of my A7R4. However that lack doesn't seem to have any negative effect on your images.
All the images you have posted from your rather new SL2 have so much punch and and impact. Luckily I know it's the photographer and not the camera or I would have to save up for a SL2 I did recently take some images with a friends SL and really liked the camera but I think I would miss the AFC and phase detect of my A7R4. However that lack doesn't seem to have any negative effect on your images.
In any case your recent images look great.
-Jim
Thank you Jim. I also enjoy your work.
I do not think the lack of phase detect AF is an issue for the SL2 and slow tracking but it would not be my camera choice for fast sports. For what I need, AF is very competent and accurate. I was very surprised by its " body and face detection AF" mode combined with AF-C or AF-I. Very rarely misses the eye even with slower AF lenses like the SL 50/1.4 Lux.
The main reason I like the SL system is the higher compatibility with M-lenses compared to adapting to other brands.
Just purchased a new to me Sigma FP and a Sigma 45 2.8 lens. It arrived yesterday and I went out to the beach this morning to test it out. The lack of a viewfinder was evident on the beach but I think it worked out all right anyway. -Jim
Matt Kerby wrote:
A few with my SL (typ 601) and the Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS. This isn't the finest 100-400 I've ever shot, but, it's a really good lens at an unbelievable price.
There is significant copy variation. It took me three tries to get an excellent one in E mount. I am on my second copy in L mount and it is still not as good as my E mount version.