04-03-2016, 03:49 AM
Quote:Regarding the corner performance ...
... same applies for the Sigma 20/1.4 @1.4 and @2
Regarding the difference of 20mm and 24mm ...
... admitted ... but my original comment was the (in my eyes) bad judgement of the 24L in
comparison to the Zeiss 21/2.8 ... I foresee that you point out that 21mm again is something
completely different.
Regarding "worlds first things" ...
... That had also applied to the old Sigma 20/1.8 ... which you gave 1.5 stars ...
where was the "worlds first" bonus then? (ok .. the old 20 was testet on APS-C only).
I daresay that I foresee the day, when the Sigma 24/1.4 tested on 50mpix will receive
its 4 stars (deservedly though) ... besides the fact that it basically has the same
performance than the 24L.
No offence meant Klaus ... I'm just stating the obvious ... you seem to have adjusted
your judgement. I neither find this good nor bad ... just "good to know" ... eventually
you finally arrived in the reality of what is economically producable (rather than
optically desirable). Its just that with that, your judgment of newer tests is then no
longer comparable to that of older tests.
It is notoriously difficult to judge a lens with an extreme variations between the worst and the best spot.
Just taking the line integral of the curve is pointless (and the MTFs aren't the sole aspect of truth anyway).
It may be that I got a bit wiser in the sense that the extreme corner performance is not exceedingly important for most use cases - that is is for high speed wide-angles. The same logic doesn't really apply to say a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 zoom lens which should be sharp at max. aperture really.
PS: The Sigma 20mm f/1.8 may have been a world first but honestly ... it is crap even at f/4.