[JJ_SO]

looking at Photozone is sometimes looking in a museum  The test is 6 years old and when was the last first time PZ tested anything when it just came out?

 

I admire your search skills and doubt my math skills. I thought more or less to rely on the Focal length ÷ aperture number = front lens ø ? Must be totally wrong: The Sigma 50/1.4 Art has ø 60.5 mm. After my equation it then should be f/0.82 So forget this stupidly simplified math.

[Rover]

I hope that you don't apply this logic to the wide angles, else you might've arrived at some decidedly odd results when analyzing, oh say, a 16-35mm lens. 

 

Search skills have nothing to do with that, but I remember both the introduction - around eight or nine years - of that 120-400 (that superseded a couple of earlier lenses, the 135-400 and 80-400 OS) and that review appearing. After all, I must be the most avid (and rabid ) reader at Photozone.

[JJ_SO]

With "search skills" I was referring more to the list of all 135/1.8 lenses. And like I said, museum lenses are not of much interest to me.   Even as second hand I would not waste money on a 2 1/2 star lens.  B)

 

The Ø relative to the Focal length is more the diaphragm diameter, I realize. But I always thought the front lens diameter should be as big as the max aperture? Not that I understand any law of optics... :unsure:

[Rover]

Yes, it should be at least as big - that's why we're seeing relatively few long/fast lenses for crop sensors: you just have to use big elements in the front group(s), and then there's already no point in implementing small format.

 

Re: the museum lenses, this chart came from the FredMiranda.com forum - a MF lens aficionado has compiled it and it was fascinating to me, so I saved it for myself. Even though I'm not really a MF man, it's interesting that there was a thriving market of lenses with "extreme" stats even back in the late 70s.

[JJ_SO]

This 14/1.8 Art is kind of tempting. At first and when sometimes taking pictures in dark rooms. But then I remember the troubles I had and still have with AF on the 20/1.4   :mellow:  Somehow I don't think, a 30% wider lens will decrease those probs. this is really the playground for mirrorless - on my Nikon, the AF problems were gone as soon as I used LiveView.

[toni-a]

Well the previous Sigma 24-70f2.8 had 82mm filter, I have used it extinsevely on 300D and 30D and liked it a lot, it has been my main lens along with Sigma 20mm f1.8 for three years, when you upgrade from EFs 18-55 kit Mk one that was on my 300D to this one you will be very happy with it

[JJ_SO]

Just saw a new Fotodiox adapter for Fuji GFX and 5 different mounts, amongst them also one for Nikon; https://www.dpreview.com/news/2444175299...s-adapters

 

Fotodiox says, each lens above 50 mm should work, although strictly manual, no EXIF, no advanced electrical functions - but as I see from the picture, at least the mechanical (not electrical) diaphragm changement is possible. That would mean for me no 300/4 PF E, no Tamron 150-600 G2 (also electrical driven aperture), but a 50/1.4 and a 105/2.8 macro could serve me in the beginning. as well as the Sigma 135/1.8. Cool? Not sure.

[Rover]

You would just use the lens wide open. That's a lot better than the lever-operated aperture on older Nikon lenses that was stuck at the minimum aperture when not operated by a camera / special adapter.  With the 300/4 PF I imagine you'd want to spend a lot of time wide open. 

 

As for the Sigmas... for what it's worth, the future is here.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/1942581285...art-lenses