[Rover]

... I was expecting them to try for f/1.0, though. For bragging rights if nothing else (though that wouldn't have been the truth anyway).
https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/a024_50_12/
EPZ is already out with a review.
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma...view-36845
Looking sweet, and not that expensive for what it is (and what it does)...

P.S. Posting in Sony forum because, while this lens is available in L-mount, it is not covered here, so might as well just limit it to the E-mount board...

[Klaus]

The curve is just wrong ...

[Rover]

Do you mean the sharpness curve? Why?

[Klaus]

I'd guess, they don't take RSAs into account. The basically "flat" portion from f/5.6 to f/16 is not how diffraction works.
Just my 2c, of course

[Rover]

It should not fall off so much by f/5.6 I guess?
Anyway, their results have been called iffy before (mostly as in "it's just too good to be true", though).

[fotorrhoe]

I'd guess, they don't take RSAs into account.  The basically "flat" portion from f/5.6 to f/16 is not how diffraction works.
Just my 2c, of course

Definitely. Maybe the aperture mechanism is flawed and we see real f/8.0 instead of indicated f/16. Anyway, strange to release such a graph w/o comments.

[Klaus]

f/16 should be MUCH worse.

[MLonlooker]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9WGWPiQ7gs&t=2s


This is one incredible lens!