[Rover]

And you people call me the evil proofreader.

[JJ_SO]

Now guess who's called the "bastard equivalencer from hell"? :lol:  (like in thew old days of internet the bastard operator from hell) 

[Rover]

Now guess who's called the "bastard equivalencer from hell"? :lol:  (like in thew old days of internet the bastard operator from hell) 

Ooh, I remember that stuff from so many years ago (drat... I feel old like the damn Methuselah). Thanks for reminding me.

[Klaus]

So it's not a 5* lens ;-)

[Klaus]

And yes, it is an APS-C lens, not an APS-H lens ...

[JJ_SO]

15% more diagonal distance (APS-C vs APS-H), costing 50% more for the camera... If one doesn't need the "biggest Foveon sensor Sigma ever made", one can save 400 bucks and invest it in a lens. So, meanwhile I see the sd quattro H as very hypothetical. Also, each exposure means 40 MB more on a sd-card (110 vs 150MB, if the camera is set to DNG).

 

My idea of getting a sd quattro H and 18-35 + this 50-100 for landscape has become close to pointless - I really can stay with a light tripod, 3 old Sigma Merrills + dp0 quattro, save weight, money and disk-space.  ^_^ Only if I ever would get the idea, landscapes are more interesting with a 100-400 lens, I will try to remember there's one combo for that.

[Rover]

And yes, it is an APS-C lens, not an APS-H lens ...

Does it have hard vignetting anywhere when mounted on an APS-H camera (I had no idea you owned one anyway)?

[Klaus]

Does it have hard vignetting anywhere when mounted on an APS-H camera (I had no idea you owned one anyway)?

 

It's not the vignetting that makes it an APS-C lens ;-)

[Rover]

It's not the vignetting that makes it an APS-C lens ;-)

So what does? (I'm honestly confused - are you referring to the sharpness falloff, then?)

[davidmanze]

It's not the vignetting that makes it an APS-C lens ;-)

 

   What parameters other than coverage make it an APSc only lens "pray tell" Klaus?

 

 

 

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124690178@N08/