>> |
Anonymous
>>233119Just because it shoots test charts better wide open does not mean it's a better lens.
Uh.. optically, yes it's better. Actually, it's motherfucking better than just about every 50mm out there for resolution.
>> The Sigma 50/1.4 is meant as a go-to low light lens for people with their slow f/3.5-5.6 zooms, including and especially chumps stuck a D40. Sort of like a bargain Noct-Nikkor: designed to be best (or close to it) wide open because it's a go-to lens for people with normally slower lenses when there's no fucking light. Which is fine. Some people prefer zooms, which will always be slower.
Wait, what the flying fuck? Why are we talking about zooms here?
Because the Sigma works fucking great wide open, it's a leans for low light for people who use slow zooms? WHAT THE FUCK kind of logic is that?
Put all 50mms and use all of them wide open. The Sigma clearly performs better. What the fuck are you trying to justify that it's meant to be used in low light.
>> But that doesn't mean it's the fifty to get. It's also much bigger (and if you don't shoot in a studio and/or don't schelp around a giant bag, this is a real consideration)
Oh wow, it really is huge, what will I do? Give me a fucking break.
>> and subjectively IMO it doesn't hold a candle to the EF 50/1.4.
You're entitled to liking an optically inferior lens.
>> Mike Johnston, a major lens reviewer, ranked the EF 50/1.4 the sixth best 50mm (presumably just 50mms for 135 film, since that's all that was on the list) of all time.
He's entitled to liking optically inferior lenses.
>> Now, granted, this was before the Sigma, but I doubt he'd stick the Sigma on that list now, and it pretty much means you can't go wrong by buying it when someone with more experience with lenses than all of /p/ put together sticks it on that list.
Wow, just fucking wow. Fanboy much? That last paragraph, Jesus Christ.
|