07-05-2014, 10:32 AM
The thing about the hype around this lens is, some people now expect miracles. "Better or equal to Otus" plus AF plus USB dock plus... pardon me, contrary to Hasselblad, Zeiss doesn't put some nicer knobs and shell around a Sony and is selling it for 5× the price. They made some expensive decisions and they got simply the best lens. Everyone interested in zoom gets a 70-200/2.9 for 20k $ from them which doesn't focus shift because it's designed for movie cameras.
If I were in a business photographing crystal chandeliers or sprinkling fountains and all in dim lit places and wide open, the Otus is a bargain. As long as one doesn't need AF, because it saves so much time in post by just being apochromatic corrected and very well made.
But the Sigma remains a bargain, too, and is not only 23% of the Otus performance. The bargain and the real part of the hype is the comparison to other AF lenses, usually more expensive than the Sigma and it outperforms them - not in each aspect and not always but in summary - please show me a better one amongst the competitors and under 3000$. 3k is a huge amount of money for the perfect sprinkler shot - do I like sprinklers enough?
Here's one with tiny water drops falling down from a defect gutter. So the velocity (and shutter speed, too) was slower. Pushing water upwards needs pressure and increases speed when it's leaving the hose. I didn't correct CA in post, I find it difficult to some pictures, especially when spherical transparent bodies are involved - I never get rid of all colors, some are fringing, others are normal physical behavior of water drops. The diffraction of them will always show colors - that's what we see in each water drop in a macro picture, don't we? Drops are part of rainbows. How could there be a rainbow like the ones we're used to see, if water drops wouldn't behave like prisms? In that shot, I spotted round drops in focus, lots out of focus and some of them showed yellow and blue instead of magenta and green.
Today, I won't be shure if Otus would show a different shape (than romboid) in the corners, with the same camera and parameters, while drops are
If I were in a business photographing crystal chandeliers or sprinkling fountains and all in dim lit places and wide open, the Otus is a bargain. As long as one doesn't need AF, because it saves so much time in post by just being apochromatic corrected and very well made.
But the Sigma remains a bargain, too, and is not only 23% of the Otus performance. The bargain and the real part of the hype is the comparison to other AF lenses, usually more expensive than the Sigma and it outperforms them - not in each aspect and not always but in summary - please show me a better one amongst the competitors and under 3000$. 3k is a huge amount of money for the perfect sprinkler shot - do I like sprinklers enough?
Here's one with tiny water drops falling down from a defect gutter. So the velocity (and shutter speed, too) was slower. Pushing water upwards needs pressure and increases speed when it's leaving the hose. I didn't correct CA in post, I find it difficult to some pictures, especially when spherical transparent bodies are involved - I never get rid of all colors, some are fringing, others are normal physical behavior of water drops. The diffraction of them will always show colors - that's what we see in each water drop in a macro picture, don't we? Drops are part of rainbows. How could there be a rainbow like the ones we're used to see, if water drops wouldn't behave like prisms? In that shot, I spotted round drops in focus, lots out of focus and some of them showed yellow and blue instead of magenta and green.
Today, I won't be shure if Otus would show a different shape (than romboid) in the corners, with the same camera and parameters, while drops are
- travelling at speed towards the lens and
- out of the picture center and
- rectangular to the shutter curtain