Canon would surprise a whole lot of people if they announced a non-18Mp aps-c sized sensor..
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.
As a prev. owner of 28mm f1.8 and 50 f1.4, I know both of these lenses well. None of these lenses can be shot at wide open, especially the 28mm. Both lenses need to stop down at least 1stop before you can see the sharpness.
What is the point of buying a prime with f1.ish and shoot at f2ish. Just FYI...both 35L and 50L are sharp at wide open... and yes, I have real life pictures if you want to see.
Optically, the Sigma 50/1.4 seems quite good. But when I read reliable reports describing the Sigma's AF as "very inconsistent" (TDP) and "schizophrenic" (lensrentals.com)...well, I'd rather not have my intended subject be part of that creamy bokeh - the best IQ in the world sucks if the lens can't achieve correct focus.
It's interesting that you mentioned the 85L as 'bad ass' - given slow AF, and that the 85/1.8 is one of the best values in the Canon lineup for IQ/cost, and the very nice Sigma 85/1.4 is half the price of the 85L, I'd have thought the 85L would also be an overpriced pile of...whatever.
That's your personal value judgement, and while you're entitled to it, the lens performs as it does, regardless of price. The $13K 600mm f/4L IS II costs $4K more than its predecessor. Are the optical improvements and lower weight worth $4K? Was the original worth $9K? Perhaps not to you...but does that make either lens crap? A Chevy Camero ZL1 has just as big an engine as a Mercedes C63 AMG, but the Chevy is half the price - that much better price/performance ratio that you're so loyal to means that Mercedes must be crap, right?
As for parroting the statements of others and calling a lens which is a favorite portrait lens of many photographers for good reason, and more importantly, one that you have very limited experience with, crap, well, thanks for being a shining beacon of maturity.
In that case, on what are your scathing comments on the 50L based? Rented it a few times, perhaps? Or have you just read lots of reviews? Personally, I've never used the 28/1.8, but reviews call it soft and 'disappointing' (and the 'kinda ok' 24L II and 35L are certainly sharper). How does that match up with your real-world experience with the 28/1.8?
Just another no budget talker. I wonder, what kina lenses do you have?
I'm sure you think 1D X is crappy camera too