Funny how this thread has become all about Arthur Morris, with a little DPP thrown in. What was the title?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
My first copy was BAD. Totally psycho. All over the place with the auto focus. I spent the better part of a day trying to calibrate it with the the dock, then thought, "why am I doing someone else's job???". LOL!
The lens was so incredible when actually focused, that I HAD to give it another shot. (B&H is very understanding of this issue.) I sent the first one back and tried another. Glad I did. Out of the box it was a completely different experience. Very slight tweaking on the dock. I left the focus adjustments on my 5DIII on zero.
The whole experience is a bit ridiculous for a $950 lens..but it does WOW me. :-)
Like the 70D was crippled with no MFA (60D was a re-position to make room for the 7D)?Canon did exactly that though. They crippled as much as possible whilst still getting sales.
I'm sure they'll learn from that experience and either cripple the 6d2 even more (like in now raw option?) or move both 6d2 and 5d4 up €1000 :->
Are base BMWs crippled for having no leather seats?
Saying "no RAW option" is just foolish -- the S95 had RAW. Comments like these don't make sense at all.
I think is the perfect example of why the Sigma AF issues are so bloated and exaggerated. Those shots are absolutely fine and usable. It's posts like these (though usually without sample photos) that infect others with paranoia, causing them to be hypersensitive to their Sigma AF. Then they go out and do all these repeated, silly tests looking and looking to find that issue and what do you know - they find one. Hmm, think their drive and determination to find a problem might have resulted in a false-positive? Every lens has AF that varies a bit, but the problem is most don't scrutinize their other glass to the same degree, leading them to the erroneous conclusion that it's a uniquely Sigma or third-party lens issue, when in reality most of their glass would perform similarly under the same inspection. While of course there are very valid issues with the occasional lens, the Sigma "AF epidemic" is hardly what online camera communities make it out to be.
Did I mention those sample shots are fine and usable? Maybe a lil AFMA and you're good. Seriously.
Looks like fake. Front element from 14-24 Nikkor and the rest from 17-40.
Canon will never put a red ring on a hood, it will be on a body, even with integrated hood.