ricardovaste wrote:
Well that\'s besides the point I was making, isn\'t it? optically this or that if you don\'t trust it it\'s pretty useless. I\'d always take my old, slow 85za over the 85art for example
There is no Sigma 85 Art (yet). The Art line is a new series of lenses with build quality to match the optics. But don\'t take my word for it, this is what Roger Cicala (who knowns a little bit about build quality and has completely dismantled one) has to say about the 35:
It’s been a long time since a take was so easy. This is the sharpest 35mm made. It costs a lot less than the Canon 35 f/1.4mm or the Zeiss 35mm lenses. Any questions? It’s extremely well built and everything I’ve been able to see, inside and out, indicates quality control has really improved at Sigma.
(emphasis mine)
ricardovaste wrote:
I have no idea nor do I care which is better against a brick wall or pointed at some leaves. The art costs less and is from a company who skips corners
I prefer lenses without corners anyhow
ricardovaste wrote:
Well then Matt you wouldn\'t believe how unappealing that old Canon lens would be for me! Wouldn\'t fit on any of my bodies
Ok, take Sony 35 f/1.4 G as an example, a fraction cheaper than the Canon but even worse wide open. Seriously the gap in sharpness to the Sigma lens is huge, not something that only shows up in testing.
But if you think one Japanese company is somehow much better able to put lenses together than another Japanese company, and this explains the difference in price better than 8 years of technological advancement, then that\'s entirely your choice
But I stand by my example quality not always commanding a higher price.
ricardovaste wrote:
Well that\'s besides the point I was making, isn\'t it? optically this or that if you don\'t trust it it\'s pretty useless. I\'d always take my old, slow 85za over the 85art for example
There is no Sigma 85 Art (yet). The Art line is a new series of lenses with build quality to match the optics, as Roger Circala (who knowns a little bit about build quality and has dismantled one) says about the 35:
This lens kicks butt, takes names, and basically posterizes the manufacturers who make the cameras this lens will fit on.
ricardovaste wrote:
I have no idea nor do I care which is better against a brick wall or pointed at some leaves. The art costs less and is from a company who skips corners
I prefer lenses without corners anyhow!
ricardovaste wrote:
Well then Matt you wouldn\'t believe how unappealing that old Canon lens would be for me! Wouldn\'t fit on any of my bodies
Ok, take Sony 35 f/1.4 G as an example, a fraction cheaper than the Canon but even worse wide open. Seriously the gap in sharpness to the Sigma lens is huge, not something that only shows up in testing.
But if you think one Japanese company is somehow much better able to put lenses together than another Japanese company, and this explains the difference in price better than 8 years of technological advancement, then that\'s entirely your choice
But I stand by my example quality not always commanding a higher price.
Aug 26, 2014 at 04:41 AM
Previous versions of Matt Grum's message #12540913 « Zeiss Loxia line »
optically this or that if you don\'t trust it it\'s pretty useless. I\'d always take my old, slow 85za over the 85art for example