11-20-2016, 09:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2016, 09:38 PM by Arthur Macmillan.)
Well the good new is Sigma is making great prime lenses affordable. Canon is the only one capable of f1.2, and AF is invaluable. I guess I'd better see if lens tips also says the 50mm Sigma is superior to the 50mm Otus. Anyone making that claim...well...
Anyway, anyone can post their opinions, and I don't even know the terminology. One sight posted that the Sigma Art series lacks in "microcontrast". I haven't tried to decypher the term, but oddly enough I agree that is lacks something that the Otus has. Some people are thrilled that at f/1.4 only the eyes are sharp. Yet with the Otus you see an entire face which is pleasing, and with the Sigma there are areas that seem melted away. I can't explain the different. I don't know what to make of "microcontrast". I don't know how they plot these points. Flat target? B/W. I guess reading this we would "Know" that Milvus is better than Otus at f/4 and f/5/6.
Well, all righty then!
Anyway, anyone can post their opinions, and I don't even know the terminology. One sight posted that the Sigma Art series lacks in "microcontrast". I haven't tried to decypher the term, but oddly enough I agree that is lacks something that the Otus has. Some people are thrilled that at f/1.4 only the eyes are sharp. Yet with the Otus you see an entire face which is pleasing, and with the Sigma there are areas that seem melted away. I can't explain the different. I don't know what to make of "microcontrast". I don't know how they plot these points. Flat target? B/W. I guess reading this we would "Know" that Milvus is better than Otus at f/4 and f/5/6.
Well, all righty then!