11-12-2010, 10:58 AM
[quote name='Azo' timestamp='1289530478' post='4116']
Photozone rate this lens as sub-average (2 stars). I compared it side by side with Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 USM (a $1,600 lens, 4 stars) and I really cannot see from the graphs such a big difference. A f/1.4, 30mm @ $440 looks great for me, but I was disappointed by the review (I am still trying to convince myself to add it to my Christmas list). Maybe Henry's may let me shut some pictures to test it. I would appreciate the opinion of somebody who own this lens. I am interested mostly for the f/1.4 - f/2.8 range since I own a Sigma 17-70 mm that covers f/2.8 and up @ 30 mm.
[/quote]
Hmm this is a hard one... I've owned it for a while now and I found that I wasn't a big fan of its focal length after all so I didn't use it very often. And the times I did, I was somehow puzzled at its inconsistent performances.
I can't really point it :
is it that it's not so sharp at some focus distances?
is it a tendency to just miss the proper focus?
Is it Front/Back focus?
I don't think it's user error as I'm quite used to picking proper focusing point on the 40D
Haven't spent time to experimentally identify its weaknesses in the field but it seems to me that the good shots are pretty sharp with good clarity to me in the center and that the borders certainly were good enough (well on my 10MP camera) that it didn't really annoy me in practice. CA and PF are quite visible but can somehow be corrected nicely.
If it's just a matter of front/back focusing, a body with AF micro adjust might just be the cure but my 40D didn't have that so I can't tell..
To try extensively on your body...
Hope this helps,
S.
ps.: it is interesting that someone mentioned issues with lateral AF points; it would render the lens rather unusable. If we agree focus and recompose isn't really working wide open and if lateral af points are faulty, what can you do then?
Photozone rate this lens as sub-average (2 stars). I compared it side by side with Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 USM (a $1,600 lens, 4 stars) and I really cannot see from the graphs such a big difference. A f/1.4, 30mm @ $440 looks great for me, but I was disappointed by the review (I am still trying to convince myself to add it to my Christmas list). Maybe Henry's may let me shut some pictures to test it. I would appreciate the opinion of somebody who own this lens. I am interested mostly for the f/1.4 - f/2.8 range since I own a Sigma 17-70 mm that covers f/2.8 and up @ 30 mm.
[/quote]
Hmm this is a hard one... I've owned it for a while now and I found that I wasn't a big fan of its focal length after all so I didn't use it very often. And the times I did, I was somehow puzzled at its inconsistent performances.
I can't really point it :
is it that it's not so sharp at some focus distances?
is it a tendency to just miss the proper focus?
Is it Front/Back focus?
I don't think it's user error as I'm quite used to picking proper focusing point on the 40D
Haven't spent time to experimentally identify its weaknesses in the field but it seems to me that the good shots are pretty sharp with good clarity to me in the center and that the borders certainly were good enough (well on my 10MP camera) that it didn't really annoy me in practice. CA and PF are quite visible but can somehow be corrected nicely.
If it's just a matter of front/back focusing, a body with AF micro adjust might just be the cure but my 40D didn't have that so I can't tell..
To try extensively on your body...
Hope this helps,
S.
ps.: it is interesting that someone mentioned issues with lateral AF points; it would render the lens rather unusable. If we agree focus and recompose isn't really working wide open and if lateral af points are faulty, what can you do then?