Tom K. wrote: goosemang wrote:
it\'d be spot on, then it\'d be off by five feet.
...the build quality of the Sigma is much, much, much better than the 35L..
Oh, Please. Really, build quality? The 35L has been in more conflict and demanding press situations than arguably any lens to date. In the last 15 years, the 35L has served in countless conflicts (actual wars and riots) and the daily beatings of thousands of photojournalists. It is still the workhorse of our presidential photographer and that of countless combat photographers.
Are you really going to get on an internet forum and talk about a six month old lens being proven from a build quality standpoint versus 35L?
Certainly the Sigma is an awesome lens. But, it doesnt make the highly proven and decorated 35L not so.
Tom K. wrote: goosemang wrote:
it\'d be spot on, then it\'d be off by five feet.
...the build quality of the Sigma is much, much, much better than the 35L..
Oh, Please. Really, build quality? The 35L has been in more conflict and demanding press situations than arguably any lens to date. In the last 15 years, the 35L has served in countless conflicts (actual wars and riots) and the daily beatings of thousands of photojournalists. It is still the workhorse of our presidential photographer and that of countless combat photographers.
Are you really going to get on an internet forum and talk about a six month old lens being proven from a build quality standpoint?
May 28, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Previous versions of Luta13's message #11584157 « 35mm f/1.4 : canon or sigma? »
