« on: January 31, 2014, 03:05:52 PM »
Sigma 8-16 or Tokina 11-16/2.8
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.
every lens is tested with Sigma’s proprietary modulation transfer function (MTF) “A1” measuring system before being shipped.
An f/4 zoom lens is not one you'd expect to have optimal light transmission anyway.Isn't the point of lens design to have optimal light transmission? And if the f-stop is four and the t-stop half a stop worse, doesn't that say something about Canon's glass elements and coatings? The Canon 24-105 is a good lens but it should not have been branded with the red ring.
Big DSLR announcement, hmmmm. Could they make a camera with an EF mount? Just think, all the sigma lenses sold to canon users would now work on it along with the canon lenses too, it would be a Trojan horse coup d'e'tatYeah I never understood why Sigma has their own lens mount. Who's going to invest in an arsenal of Sigma-mount lenses? Not me, even if they put out a decent body at a decent price. Much better to have bodies with Canon and Nikon mounts. That way a Sigma camera can mount more lenses ( = more camera sales) and Sigma can simplify its lens lineup by having fewer lens mounts ( = more profit).
I really don't see a need to question Dustin Abbott's integrity on lens testing. I would argue that large magazines and websites that make their money through advertising by big camera companies, or click-throughs to stores have more to gain by biased reviews.
I think *all* reviews should be questioned, not so much because of intentional bias, but because of testing variations, and as mentioned by previous posters, variation between copies, esp. w/big glasss. when the lens is out, we should have 5 or more reviews to look at, and unless there's some conspiracy, we should get a consensus on qualities based on bench tests.
My only concern is how will this lens work for me. That's not just theoretical, it's practical. For example, I do not use a tripod, I shoot either handheld or with a monopod. So even if I had a sharpest lens ever made, I would introduce some shake which would affect results. I value a fast and effective stabilization system and that's my biggest hope for this lens. I'm sure it will have to be stopped down at least one full stop for optimum optical sharpness, and that it will *not* be sharpest at 600mm. So, the question is...how will this work for me at 400-500mm compared to a more expensive 100-400 L? or the Bigma??? I think we'll all find out soon and that will end the some of the speculation.
Nailed both aperture and ISO on my first guess... f/4 and 12,800.Those settings sound about right to me.
Of course, there's just my word for that fact, but I felt pretty good so I posted this worthless post anyway. Fun challenge!