By the way, there are *some* fast primes with IS - e.g. Sony makes some 1.8 APS-C e-mount primes that have it (35mm & 50mm; maybe others).
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.
So, as others are asking, what is the point of complaining not only about sharpness, but photographers who demand it in premium gear?
I'd simply like more lenses like the 135mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.2, and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art...and less lenses with various problems, including soft focus. No lens is perfect, no kidding, but for my money, the best I can find, thank you--to a point. No Otus for me.
Sharpness simply gives us many more options. Who is sillier--somebody who pays $1k plus for a lens and doesn't care if it's a little blurry or the person who expects sharpness?
Would you buy a car and accept that it pulls to the right? An oven that doesn't give quite the right temp? A gun that just misses most of the time?
The best solution is a Sony A7.
In other words, you have a digital camera that starts to act like a digital camera and leave the last restriction of film behind.
I rather buy DSLR b/c
- i like the bodies better, (I have a 7D, and i used to have the olympus OMD-EM5)
- I'm not going to say the image quality is WAY better.. b/c mirrorless is very good, but I personally feel like, you can get a more natural picture sometimes, hard to explain.
- Mirrorless cameras maybe cheaper when you compare the top mirrorless vs the top dslrs... but the lenses arent THAT cheap either. some are quite pricey and you dont have nearly as many options
A lot of the undefined qualities are that way. Since different people see them differently, its pretty difficult to do more than look at the images and see if you agree.
I've thought about the 10-18, but I'd like to start investing in full-frame compatible L lenses
So, I've noticed so many fashion photographers are bashing the autofocus on Canon Gear, specifically 6D and 5DIII.
I'm getting tired of being Canon's advocate. Single AF point, recompose. Shoot. It's not hard.
knowledgable users buy what they need more than uneducated users who buy what marketing tells them they should want. That's what Neuro keeps getting wrong.
Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !
What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded. That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.
However, the Sigma Art seems purpose-built to wow the forum crowd. If you are a sharpness junkie (who needs AF), you've found your lens.
So you're justifying the 50/1.2L by saying that it has some immeasurable quality to it that nobody else can beat? Do you understand how irrational that sounds?
Its too bad that lens reviewers are not able to test autofocus. I realize that testing it would open a can of worms, since its possibly different on every camera. Still, they could have canon calibrate their bodies, and determine a way to measure focus times and accuracy. FoCal does a good job of checking accuracy and consistency, and by using a standard setup, different lenses could be compared on the test camera. If a lens was acting up, it could be returned to the manufacturer for repair and retested.
I think that the results might open some eyes for all lens models. Lens autofocus can be pretty bad, and timing will vary all over the place depending on the distance, starting point, lighting, and even the subject. That's probably why no one does it.