bjornthun wrote:
Lloyd Chambers' writes in a quite snarky way, saying "sort of idiot-savant lens".
I have not used the Sigma 40/1.4 Art myself, so no strong opinions about it, but mr. Chambers could use a different language, imho.
He often writes in a snarky way, and often his prejudices will be be expressed in how he writes: but no usually *what* he writes.
So some marque he hates will produce something great, and he will reluctantly admit it. And when his favourites do the same he is all joy.
But so what: mostly the info is pretty good. I subscribed for a while though not any more.
As for his review of the Sigma 1.4/40 Art he thinks for all his snakiness that except one flaw it's state of the art - Otus level for a fraction of the price. Genuinely otus level, not "otus level" in the way people claim the 1.8/55 to be - similar resolution, worse other features, smaller aperture. Here we have an f1.4 that is Otus like. The one flaw: focus shift. A real pain on a DSLR. But on Sony it may not matter, assuming that you can get it to focus stopped down at wide-ish apertures in the FE mount version.
So it may well be the as perfect as you can get 40mm lens. I won't be getting one. It's just too big. That little bit of correction in the outer field at wide aperture is expensive in both mass, size and price. Actually the Sigma price is fine for the quality. But it would be a very rare image that would benefit from the extra resolution wide open in the outer field over already excellent recent lenses, and the size and mass would be with me every time I used it.
bjornthun wrote:
Lloyd Chambers' writes in a quite snarky way, saying "sort of idiot-savant lens".
I have not used the Sigma 40/1.4 Art myself, so no strong opinions about it, but mr. Chambers could use a different language, imho.
He often writes in a snarky way, and often his prejudices will be be expressed in how he writes: bit no usually *what* he writes.
So some marque he hates will produce something great, and he will reluctantly admit it. And when his favourites do the same he is all joy.
But so what: mostly the info is pretty good. I subscribed for a while though not any more.
As for his review of the Sigma 1.4/40 Art he thinks for all his snakiness that except one flaw it's state of the art - Otus level for a fraction of the price. Genuinely otus level, not "otus level" in the way people claim the 1.8/55 to be - similar resolution, worse other features, smaller aperture. Here we have an f1.4 that is Otus like. The one flaw: focus shift. A real pain on a DSLR. But on Sony it may not matter, assuming that you can get it to focus stopped down at wide-ish apertures in the FE mount version.
So it may well be the as perfect as you can get 40mm lens. I won't be getting one. It's just too big. That little bit of correction in the outer field at wide aperture is expensive in both mass, size and price. Actually the Sigma price is fine for the quality. But it would be a very rare image that would benefit from the extra resolution wide open in the outer field over already excellent recent lenses, and the size and mass would be with me every time I used it.
bjornthun wrote:
Lloyd Chambers' writes in a quite snarky way, saying "sort of idiot-savant lens".
I have not used the Sigma 40/1.4 Art myself, so no strong opinions about it, but mr. Chambers could use a different language, imho.
He often writes in a snarky way, and often his prejudices will be be expressed in how he writes: bit no usually *what* he writes.
So some marque he hates will produce something great, and he will reluctantly admit it. And when his favourites do the same he is all joy.
But so what: mostly the info is pretty good. I subscribed for a while though not any more.
As for his review of the Sigma 1.4/40 Art he thinks for all his snakiness that except one flaw it's state of the art - Otus level for a fraction of the price. Genuinely otus level, not "otus level" in the way people claim the 1.8/55 to be - similar resolution, worse other features, smaller aperture. Here we have an f1.4 that is Otus like. The one flaw: focus shift. A real pain on a DSLR. But on Sony it may not matter, assuming that you can get it to focus stopped down at wide-ish apertures in the FE mount version.
So it may well be the as perfect as you can get 40mm lens. I won't be getting one. It's just too big. That little bit of correction in the outer field at wide aperture is expensive in both mass, size and price. Actually the Sigma price is fine for the quality. But it would be a very rare image that would benefit from the extra resolution wide open in the outer field over already excellent recent lenses, and the size and mass would be with you every time I used it.
