QuietOC wrote:
I didn't realize how bad the old Art was with axial CA.
The optical qualities of the DN seem similar to the FE ZA Planar except for the distortion.
It looks like Marc didn't get a particularly good copy.
I agree. I don't expect any of these lenses, at half or less of the GM prices, to be neck and neck, but most of Sigma's recent lenses get so close. Many reviewers either base it on one copy, fail to compare under controlled conditions, et cetera.
One can't really say that two lenses compete optically until they reach a resolution that demands greater optics. That's usually not the case with what most use, and most screens won't be accurate enough to tell. That's one reason for why I skip most reviewers who don't test lenses with the sensors of highest resolution available for the given system, and then claim that there are no visible differences.
There will always be differences, but Sigma certainly gets close. It seems that most of Marc's copies of Sigma lenses are subpar. His results with the DNs: 14-24, 24-70, 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4, are quite conflicting to other experienced reviewers as Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost, who claim that they are equally as good optically to the GM counterparts.
QuietOC wrote:
I didn't realize how bad the old Art was with axial CA.
The optical qualities of the DN seem similar to the FE ZA Planar except for the distortion.
It looks like Marc didn't get a particularly good copy.
I don't expect any of these lenses, at half or less of the GM prices, to be neck and neck, but many reviewers either base it on one copy, fail to compare under controlled conditions, et cetera.
One can't really say that two lenses compete optically until they reach a resolution that demands greater. That's usually not the case with what most use, and most screens won't be accurate enough to tell. I skip most reviewers who don't test lenses with the sensors of highest resolution available for the given system, and then claim that there are no visible differences.
There will always be differences, but Sigma certainly gets close. It seems that most of Marc's copies of Sigma lenses are subpar. His results with the DNs: 14-24, 24-70, 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4, are quite conflicting to other experienced reviewers as Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost, who claim that they are equally as good optically to the GM counterparts.
Feb 07, 2023 at 07:42 PM
Previous versions of Frederik0711's message #16164382 « Rumoured - Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art DG DN »
