07-18-2015, 06:37 AM
Don't know if the Canon department is the appropriate place to put in my comments to it. But there's not much life in the Nikon side of PZ and some of my observations are more for the lens and less to the mount it is hold in.
Next week I'll try to make a comparison of some situations I liked to use the Nikkor 24/1.4 G in so far. I suspect, the Art lens will do better or equal. I thought it would be an easier decision to sell the Nikkor afterwards. It's not because of the weather sealing because we always have some kind of weather, and Nikon doesn't tell against which type of weather it really is resisting. Say, how dense the rain may be?
But the stairs were showing another quality. Working after going down 14 wooden steps with aluminium profile at the corner and landing on concrete. I found that more remarkable than the thin rubber ring covering the bayonet gap. I still have access to the stair and the photo-bag with the easily forgotten open flap the lens slipped through is also in my possession. But this stair test is kind of a limit to me.
Anyway. I add some little things. Filter thread i.e., usually I have to turn filters one time when screwing in. On the Sigmas it's 1/4 to 1/3 turn which was surprising. Front and especially rear cap are better to handle than the Nikon ones, that made me exchange all Nikon rear caps.
Another little thing is the white background of the AF switch. I find it easier to seein dark situations, when I'm insecure if I switched it to manual.
However, I didn't like the AF micro adjustment setting. It was at +19 in one FoCal test and +16 in another round so I used the dock to bring the value for the camera down to around 0. Interestingly, both Nikon bodies do recognise two different 24/1.4 with different AFMA values. There's no confusing like with Micro Nikkor 105/2.8 and Sigma 24-105/4 Art (that could become the "worse" Art lens against the 24/1.4 if you gonna test it). Those two lenses share the same AFMA setting bank in the cameras, but are obviously needing different values.
And the last bit of course: even if the lens is "only" performing equally compared to the genuine ones, it's price is a lot lower and I can take it with me if I change mount one day.
As for the test: thanks very much, Klaus. You didn't rate the optical performance in the last two tests. I understand you don't want to rate down the new lenses tested on the new Canon, but does this mean you need to re-test the others? For quick information I found the stars doing well.
Next week I'll try to make a comparison of some situations I liked to use the Nikkor 24/1.4 G in so far. I suspect, the Art lens will do better or equal. I thought it would be an easier decision to sell the Nikkor afterwards. It's not because of the weather sealing because we always have some kind of weather, and Nikon doesn't tell against which type of weather it really is resisting. Say, how dense the rain may be?
But the stairs were showing another quality. Working after going down 14 wooden steps with aluminium profile at the corner and landing on concrete. I found that more remarkable than the thin rubber ring covering the bayonet gap. I still have access to the stair and the photo-bag with the easily forgotten open flap the lens slipped through is also in my possession. But this stair test is kind of a limit to me.
Anyway. I add some little things. Filter thread i.e., usually I have to turn filters one time when screwing in. On the Sigmas it's 1/4 to 1/3 turn which was surprising. Front and especially rear cap are better to handle than the Nikon ones, that made me exchange all Nikon rear caps.
Another little thing is the white background of the AF switch. I find it easier to seein dark situations, when I'm insecure if I switched it to manual.
However, I didn't like the AF micro adjustment setting. It was at +19 in one FoCal test and +16 in another round so I used the dock to bring the value for the camera down to around 0. Interestingly, both Nikon bodies do recognise two different 24/1.4 with different AFMA values. There's no confusing like with Micro Nikkor 105/2.8 and Sigma 24-105/4 Art (that could become the "worse" Art lens against the 24/1.4 if you gonna test it). Those two lenses share the same AFMA setting bank in the cameras, but are obviously needing different values.
And the last bit of course: even if the lens is "only" performing equally compared to the genuine ones, it's price is a lot lower and I can take it with me if I change mount one day.
As for the test: thanks very much, Klaus. You didn't rate the optical performance in the last two tests. I understand you don't want to rate down the new lenses tested on the new Canon, but does this mean you need to re-test the others? For quick information I found the stars doing well.