03-20-2015, 07:07 PM
AiryDiscus, when using bold, italic and underline to emphasize your point of view, why not going the extra mile and
yell really loud?
Just asking.
Can't help, just can't take you serious, no offense, kid.
as for your list:
Have no dumbsmartphone
Funny, those premium compact cameras are not much in use, but I'm sure they kick butt like hell.
google street view or street car which rides on his own to places no one wants to see?
20-24 MP FF? Come on, you want to bother with minor bread crumbs? Aren't you aiming to higher spheres?
Full frame covering lenses? wow, another mind-blowing thing just entering my horizon yet, thank you soooooo much.
The way you criticize, young man, just happens to be without any respect to manufacturers. Prove to do better.
As for 35/1.4A vs 35/1.4L - ever cared to take a look at the price tag? You're right, 25 copies are a drop in the ocean and after years of having their high priced lens in the market, Canon should be able to keep sample variations low. But now, what tells that number? If the worst Sigma is as good as the best Canon, who cares about sample variation?
You're probably referring to that blogpost: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/...35mm-f1-4s
So, why aren't you quoting Roger properly? Let me do that for you, sunshine:
"The optical bench results for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens show that it does has the best MTF, as most testing suggests. All of these lenses are quite good, however, and the Canon and Zeiss lenses aren't far behind the Sigma.
<p style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(74,74,74);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">The field curvature may be a bit surprising to many of you, and may actually be of more practical value than the MTF results. We'll be discussing the field curvature of these lenses a bit more in the next post.
<p style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(74,74,74);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">The variation between best and worst areas on each lens is amazingly good for the Canon and Nikon lenses. The Sigma and Rokinon 35mm f/1.4s have a bit more variation, enough so that on most copies, if you really, really tested carefully, you could probably detect one corner a bit softer than the other. I doubt you'd see it in a photograph for the "average" lens, but since the variance is higher, there's probably a higher chance of getting a copy with a corner soft enough to notice in photographs.
Over all, though, all five of these lenses are very good from an MTF standpoint. Some are better than others, obviously, but price range, bokeh, and a number of other factors will make a bigger difference than the MTF for a lot of photographers."
And this at 40% less money… and since my bodies are made by Nikon, to me it's 53% less. Do I need to tell you what I give on your "sample variation"?![[Image: zeitg29x23.gif]](http://www.macinacs.de/smile/zeitg29x23.gif)
yell really loud?
Just asking.
Can't help, just can't take you serious, no offense, kid.
as for your list:
Have no dumbsmartphone
Funny, those premium compact cameras are not much in use, but I'm sure they kick butt like hell.
google street view or street car which rides on his own to places no one wants to see?
20-24 MP FF? Come on, you want to bother with minor bread crumbs? Aren't you aiming to higher spheres?
Full frame covering lenses? wow, another mind-blowing thing just entering my horizon yet, thank you soooooo much.
The way you criticize, young man, just happens to be without any respect to manufacturers. Prove to do better.
As for 35/1.4A vs 35/1.4L - ever cared to take a look at the price tag? You're right, 25 copies are a drop in the ocean and after years of having their high priced lens in the market, Canon should be able to keep sample variations low. But now, what tells that number? If the worst Sigma is as good as the best Canon, who cares about sample variation?
You're probably referring to that blogpost: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/...35mm-f1-4s
So, why aren't you quoting Roger properly? Let me do that for you, sunshine:
"The optical bench results for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens show that it does has the best MTF, as most testing suggests. All of these lenses are quite good, however, and the Canon and Zeiss lenses aren't far behind the Sigma.
<p style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(74,74,74);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">The field curvature may be a bit surprising to many of you, and may actually be of more practical value than the MTF results. We'll be discussing the field curvature of these lenses a bit more in the next post.
<p style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(74,74,74);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">The variation between best and worst areas on each lens is amazingly good for the Canon and Nikon lenses. The Sigma and Rokinon 35mm f/1.4s have a bit more variation, enough so that on most copies, if you really, really tested carefully, you could probably detect one corner a bit softer than the other. I doubt you'd see it in a photograph for the "average" lens, but since the variance is higher, there's probably a higher chance of getting a copy with a corner soft enough to notice in photographs.
Over all, though, all five of these lenses are very good from an MTF standpoint. Some are better than others, obviously, but price range, bokeh, and a number of other factors will make a bigger difference than the MTF for a lot of photographers."
And this at 40% less money… and since my bodies are made by Nikon, to me it's 53% less. Do I need to tell you what I give on your "sample variation"?