[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!