[Klaus]

Nice ...!

 

http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_f...ma50f14art

 

 

[JJ_SO]

I never seen a lens becoming a "test for testers": Sigma rumors list about two dozen links of people or labs who already tested this lens. 

 

The verdicts are pretty close, the big fun is reading the "cons". Here we can see great samples of fantasy  :blink:

One tester complains about the lack of a decent DoF scale. For street photgraphy. Man, get a Leica and zark off  <_< Neither Nikon nor Canon (except the 50/1.2L and it's a bit doubtful how much of a use this DoF scale is) have more than two points for f/16.

 

And the weather sealing is usually a candidate as well. Btw - the Otus is weather sealed, isn't it?   No? Blast. But it HAS a very excellent, very yellow DoF scale.

 

I had it with me yesterday, wanted to snap some exciting moments of the Swiss folding bike championships - please don't laugh! I can't complain about AF speed or enough keepers.

[Rover]

So it looks like the 50/1.2L is demolished, slain and ground into dust beneath the 50A's feet (if lenses have feet, that is)...

Well, I may be overly poetic today...

But seriously, this lens really doth rock.

[JJ_SO]

Strangled with aperture blades.

 

Poor thing, that is...

 

:ph34r:

[Scythels]

JoJu - the Otus isn't "sealed" in that it lacks rubber gaskets.  It is, however, complete with a "two stage" barrel - an outer shell that holds the complete assembled lens inside, safe from shock and the elements. 

[JJ_SO]

So it's sort of wind-sealed? That's comforting, in case one of those lenses gets outside the studio one day [irony /off] And "shock" means "really cold wind"? Question remains, will only one outer shell be enough, if I think of meteorites? ( :unsure: something is jammed with that irony switch, sorry, happens sometimes) Oh, yes and the filter thread is stable enough to hold a protection filter and a protection filter for the protection filter. Build like a tank? No. Fortress.

 

A (tiny) bit more seriously: Although it has no AF itself, it can still be used to build an AF trap. However, I don't like to rely on something / somebody moving at the right time to the right spot.

 

I'm very glad I've seen what the Sigma can do more than on a D800, if it's in front of a D800E and the microcontrast starts to become enormous, even just in comparison on the camera screen. Looking forward to next thursday and D810 

[davidmanze]

    "More Sigma nearly matching the Zeiss optical tests", don't you just love it?  

 

   It really "can" cut the mustard on FF, they must be sending all sorts of shudders through the OEM industry, Sigma have been trying hard and producing good lenses for many years but now it seems they have really stepped up to the plate and want to out perform everybody! 

     

     Zeiss still maintains an optical lead but at four times the price, bulkier/heavier and "no" AF, I still feel the Sigma is the winner and by a decent margin., in fact I would go as far as to say that Zeiss are probably "miffed" by it's introduction, they have just been out- staged!  

 

     Add to that when lens testers and customers alike are running back and forth, pulling their hair out returning decentered out of spec lenses, that Sigma had also announced their commitment to a tighter quality control and the inclusion of a docking AF station.

 

   Have I missed anything out?  Only that Tamron has cottoned on to Sigmas  winning ways and that can only be good news for everybody!

[Guest]

I'm not sure it is fair to compare to the otus because that lens is true APO; and one has to ask how much more expensive would this lens be if it were APO. Maybe not that much because the 125f2.5 was also APO and it was very inexpensive.

 

Having said that we've seen Sigma produce very good lenses now for the last 4? 5? 10? years. The only real negaitve is most of their lenses are main-stream. This might make market sense but still it would be nice to seem them tackle some of the weak spots of the industry.

-

Anyways I think the OTUS has better bokeh and a few other pluses over this lens; but that does not mean that i think it is worth 5x? the price.

[Scythels]

 

Add to that when lens testers and customers alike are running back and forth, pulling their hair out returning decentered out of spec lenses

This applies more to young mirrorless players than DSLR users.  Canon and Nikon have... decades of experience building AF and IS lenses and have tight tolerances - according to roger @ LR only 2-3% of lenses from each of them are sent back as duds. 

 

As far as copy-to-copy variance when out of spec lenses are removed, canon varies ~7% and sigma varies over twice as much at ~13%.  They absolutely are not beating canikon at tolerance levels, and Zeiss is even better than those two. 

 

 

'm not sure it is fair to compare to the otus because that lens is true APO

 

1. Apochromatism simply means the lens brings three wavelengths of light into equal focus, it does not mean there is no CA, it doesn't mean the lens is ultra super duper sharp... it only means three wavelengths are brought into equal focus (Achromatic is the same with two wavelengths).  Apochromats tend to have almost no CA, while being very sharp, but that is not inherent.
   
2. A lens' status as achromatic or apochromatic does not mean it can't be compared to others.  Should we not compare the 135/2 aposonnar to the 135L and 135DC just because it's apo?
   

 

aybe not that much because the 125f2.5 was also APO and it was very inexpensive.

Making an apo telephoto is simpler than making an apo distagon lens.  The balance between crown and flint elements will bring a lens into near-apo status inherently if low dispersion elements are used.  Making it APO is a lesser degree of "extra correction" when compared to a distagon-type lens.

 

 

Anyways I think the OTUS has better bokeh and a few other pluses over this lens; but that does not mean that i think it is worth 5x? the price.

Only you can justify your position on the price-performance curve, and you will pay exponentially more for the same performance gains the higher up you go. 

[JJ_SO]

The only real negaitve is most of their lenses are main-stream. This might make market sense but still it would be nice to seem them tackle some of the weak spots of the industry.

200-500/2.8 mainstream?

300-800/5.6 mainstream?

120-300/2.8 mainstream?

USB-Dock mainstream?

18-35/1.8 mainstream?

180/2.8 macro APO mainstream?


And even if: My pictures are mainstream too, so what? Most mainstream people like to use mainstream stuff - if you're off mainstream, I'm pretty sure you already have your sources of highly special gear. If you're not - what's the point in this lament?


Would you buy a 6/2.8 FF, if they make it? Which kind of specialities should they make in your opinion? As scythels pointed out, Canikon (which are mainstream, by the way ) can ask for high profit margins. Why should Sigma waste their benefits to make another "hardly ever seen in the wild" lens?


I'm sorry, but this kind of "reason" is just another kind of searching a hair in the soup using microscopes and UV-light. Most, if not all exceptional photographers use pretty ordinary gear for their great shots.