To be fair, the Canon is pretty old in design and didn't compare too bad, given it's affordable price. I found the Apo-Sonnar the more expensive "disappointment", if whining around at this level would be a thing to do.
I'll take the Canon, thanks.
Much cheaper, MUCH smaller and lighter, much better resale value if needed.
Quote:I'll take the Canon, thanks.
Much cheaper, MUCH smaller and lighter, much better resale value if needed.
I wouldn't call the Canon much smaller: same length and 1cm less thick:
- Sigma: 9.14 x 11.49 cm
- Canon: 8.13 x 11.18 cm
The Sigma is quite a bit heavier however: 1130g vs 750g
At $1400 vs $1000 the Sigma is 30% more expensive. Considering it's just been released, its larger aperture and the much better IQ, I think a 30% premium is well justified.
When I look at the Sigma, I don't really see a larger aperture. I see it being much heavier and much less practical. Also, Canon can be had on the used market for much cheaper than that.
Sometimes we confuse me. By starting multiple threads for the same item ("rumors about lens Y" " Y has arrived in the lab" "first samples of Y" "test results of Y"), so for this thread here
I just quote myself so I'm sure to agree. At least a bit
Quote:Sometimes we confuse me. By starting multiple threads for the same item ("rumors about lens Y" " Y has arrived in the lab" "first samples of Y" "test results of Y"), so for this thread here I just quote myself so I'm sure to agree. At least a bit
Ah, indeed Joju, I had forgotten about that thread. It would have made more sense if I had posted my original message there!
No problem, didn't happen the first time and will not have happened the last.
