« on: May 21, 2013, 03:50:38 AM »
A lot of people say the Sigma is razor sharp. It just isn't nearly as sharp as my 70-200L. It is only as good as my 50 1.4. Don't get me wrong. I think it's not bad. It's just not as sharp as I was hoping. Things look nice on LCD but come out slightly disappointing on monitor. Its AF seems slow too, not as snappy as I wanted. I've never used the 35L so I can't compare. Am I expecting too much? After all, a wide angle is more difficult to make than a tele. Do people really sell their 35L to get this? Well, maybe I have a bad copy...
I was also very dissapointed in the AF-performance of the Siggy. I own the 35 L, after talking to a few people, I seem to have a very nice copy of it as it is very sharp at 1.4 and the AF is of the best I have owned and currently own, except the insane 70-200 mkII of course.
This is shot at 1.4: