hijazist wrote:
It\'s ironic that we\'re debating the difference (or lack thereoff) between 1.4 and 1.8 on a 1.4 THREAD
, ya I find that a bit amusing as well. The laughing stops though when someone says the 50mm F1.8g is the way to go over the 58mm F1.4g I think the end result is using a lens that works for you. I have no doubts that there are many slower lenses than F1.4 that would work fine for me.
---------------------------------------------
Elijah wrote:
Most of Y\'all own latest high ISO bodies. 2/3 of a stop is a joke.
Blades? most of the primes are being used wide open. Who cares about 9 blades?!? So I disagree with the monkey, 7 vs 9 blades is irrelevant, you won\'t be able to tell a difference. NONE. If it was 5 vs 9, yes, I would agree that the sig is a better choice.
Finally, the sig is a hefty pig. It\'s bigger, heavier and that metal construction you have? Yeah, drop the sucker, see what happens
I dropped my 58G on the asphalt from about 3ft high last year!! You know what happened? that plasticky lens just bounced off, causing NO damage. the sig? yeah, would\'ve scratched the heck out of the body PLUS made a dent, without a doubt.
So what good is 2/3rds a stop good for then? I\'m confused. I can see the difference between F1.4 and F1.8. Maybe some people can\'t? Is that what your saying? Also 2/3rds of a stop can be a huge plus when your at the limit in low light. It can mean getting a shot in focus or not getting a shot.
I have also dropped my Sigma 35mm from hip height on a concrete floor and I can guarantee that it would survive the same fall better than my 58mm F1.4g. Not that I plan on dropping my gear but the Sigma is a much better put together lens.
hijazist wrote:
It\'s ironic that we\'re debating the difference (or lack thereoff) between 1.4 and 1.8 on a 1.4 THREAD
, ya I find that a bit amusing as well. The laughing stops though when someone says the 50mm F1.8g is the way to go over the 58mm F1.4g I think the end result is using a lens that works for you. I have no doubts that there are many slower lenses than F1.4 that would work fine for me.
---------------------------------------------
Elijah wrote:
Most of Y\'all own latest high ISO bodies. 2/3 of a stop is a joke.
Blades? most of the primes are being used wide open. Who cares about 9 blades?!? So I disagree with the monkey, 7 vs 9 blades is irrelevant, you won\'t be able to tell a difference. NONE. If it was 5 vs 9, yes, I would agree that the sig is a better choice.
Finally, the sig is a hefty pig. It\'s bigger, heavier and that metal construction you have? Yeah, drop the sucker, see what happens
I dropped my 58G on the asphalt from about 3ft high last year!! You know what happened? that plasticky lens just bounced off, causing NO damage. the sig? yeah, would\'ve scratched the heck out of the body PLUS made a dent, without a doubt.
So what good is 2/3rds a stop good for then? I\'m confused. I can see the difference between F1.4 and F1.8. Maybe some people can\'t? Is that what your saying?
I have also dropped my Sigma 35mm from hip height on a concrete floor and I can guarantee that it would survive the same fall better than my 58mm F1.4g. Not that I plan on dropping my gear but the Sigma is a much better put together lens.
Jul 31, 2015 at 06:00 PM
Previous versions of Hardcore's message #13129303 « The 58mm F/1.4G Thread »
, ya I find that a bit amusing as well. The laughing stops though when someone says the 50mm F1.8g is the way to go over the 58mm F1.4g 
I think the end result is using a lens that works for you. I have no doubts that there are many slower lenses than F1.4 that would work fine for me.