December 17, 2014, 03:19:04 PM

Show Posts

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.


Messages - Radiating

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23
31
Lenses / Re: Should I buy the 35L now or wait for the price drop?
« on: March 26, 2014, 01:05:40 PM »
There was the rumor not long ago that Canon has patented a new formula for a 35mm 1.4.
I want to buy a used 35mm 1.4, but I'm not sure if I should risk loss of value, in case a new one comes out shortly after.
Of course, there is also the Sigma option, but I'm scared of focusing problems which I have had before with Sigma. I also like the lighter weight of the Canon.
What do you think and what would you do?

Thanks!

You seem very uninformed.

You are almost 1.1 times more likely to have a focusing issue with the Canon 35mm L than you are likely to have ANY issues with the Sigma 35mm A, based on actual reliability history from lens rentals which rents hundreds of copies of these lenses.

Read that a few times if you need to. You are MORE likely to have a FOCUSING issue with the Canon than you are likely to have ANY issues with the Sigma.

The Canon 35mm is a 16 year old lens and one of the least reliable lenses you can buy regardless of manufacturer, it has all the problems the Sigma has, and issues with dropping dead and decentering. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 is a brand new design, which comes with an incredibly long warranty.

If you're buying a used copy you're not going to have a few months left on the warranty at most with the Canon, which gives you a 1 year warranty.

Sigma gives you a 4 year warranty and it's a lens that is 2-3 times more reliable overall. The weight difference is also not noticeable, we're talking around a 10% difference. You'd be crazy to get the Canon for your needs.

The only reasons not to get the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is that is has harder to correct distortion and much stronger purple fringing, which can both be annoying to correct. Otherwise the Canon is inferior in every way.

32
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm F/1.4 Art listed in Belarus for $790
« on: March 19, 2014, 01:33:51 PM »
If you take $790 and consider what that must pay for, it becomes a bit difficult to believe that this lens can compete with the Otus in any way.

You do realize that Canon pays around $300 to manufacture a $2400 MSRP lens right? The manufacturing is not what costs a lot, it's the initial set up and the R&D and marketing and prototyping. Canon has huge overhead from millions of dollars poured into research, design and manufacturing facilities.


Quote
(If memory serves me right) 10 lens elements, of which 3 are SLD and one aspherical, a fast reliable AF system, housing, hoods and caps and casing and profit ... I fail to see how it is possible to produce a high quality product, with tolerances to compete with L-series, Otus and others, for that money, no matter how efficient you are or how cheap your labor is.

I'd be delighted if they prove me wrong. That would make this lens a significant game changer!

It doesn't matter what you think. This lens has ALREADY been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be twice as good as anything else with autofocus period. We have raw data, we have prototypes that have been proven to match the raw data, we have the lens' design data that has been verified as capable of providing the performance etc etc.

This lens makes anything else you can buy in it's class that has autofocus completely obsolete from a performance standpoint. We're talking the same difference as Tamron 18-270mm vs 24-70mm f/2.8 L II. It's also set to have amazing bokeh, being designed to mimic the 50L f/1.2 and low color fringing and hazing so overall it should be better in every way than competitors.

33
In general can Sigma produce a Lens at less than half the price as good as an Otus 55, or even a Zeiss 15f/2.8 ?? I'm not convinced, but it would be wonderful to see it if they could, I just don't think they can or will.

Canon made a pretty good Lens in the 50f/1.2 L, not perfect for sure but pretty good, if Sigma can drop a 50 f/1.4 Art with AF into the Market that solves some of the issues that the 50f/1.2 L has, it will sell and sell well especially with the Canon users, but the "aiming at the Otus" hype from Sigma ?? it's just that, marketing hype.

You don't know much about this lens if you're saying that Sigma's claims are marketing hype. They're the opposite. Zeiss with the Otus pioneered a radical never before tried optical design, which results in performance that is 2-5 times better than any other fast SLR 50mm ever made. It solves the standard focal length softness problem that has plagued lens designers at the standard focal lengths for the last 70+ years. Fast prime SLR lens designs around 50mm have never been able to correctly focus light at high angles of incidence because the lens elements they required had to be inside the mirror box around 50mm, this made every single design ever released noticably soft. Zeiss designed a radical new formula to fix this problem and Sigma made a slightly simplified copy of the breakthrough design.

When Sigma says they are aiming for the Otus and ignoring the competition, they mean to say that their lens makes everything else that competes obsolete. The Sigma is 89% as good as the Zeiss, and both lenses are the only standard SLR fast primes that don't exhibit significant softness. Every other lens in their class ever made is noticeably soft.

We're comparing average MTF numbers @ f/1.4 around the low 800's and 900's, for the Sigma Art and Otus, versus numbers in the high 300's and 400's for literally everything else (Lens rentals did a test of 23 different standard primes in their great 50mm shootout, which is a great point of comparison). Comparing the Sigma to anything else is like comparing swords to guns. The difference between the Sigma Art in average resolution and the nearest non-otus competitor is greater than the difference between a Tamron 18-270mm, at it's worst setting and a Canon's super telephoto prime.

34
I've heard from a number of sources that the sigma 35's bokeh is blah.. and not as impressive as the Canon option.

I find the bokeh in the Sigma 85mm not as pleasing as the same, shot with my Canon 85mm f1.2L II.  Performance wise, the Sigma smokes the Canon 85 but that is not the subject here. 


The good news for bokeh is that the 50 is basically a modified 35, so it should be a slightly better longer focal length version of that lens (very slightly sharper on average, less distortion, same bokeh in other words).

I actually went the opposite way with the 85mm Sigma though, the bokeh of the Sigma has a nice pop to it, with beautiful interesting OOF highlights, the Canon's is very very flat, which can be a good thing if that's what you like, but I liked the Sigma 85's better.

If you've heard that then it probably originally came from me, or from the source I originally used.

What happened is that the first outside photographer that got to sample the 35mm f/1.4, was somewhat amateurish and used very weird clarity enhancing technique on his photos (no doubt to make the incredibly sharp lens look even sharper). This made the bokeh transitions look seriously bad, and because Sigma published their photos as the first official samples I and a few other people immediately pointed this out that the bokeh was defective. This was not the case and ever since everyone has praised the bokeh of this lens.

The 35 ART's bokeh is very similar to the 50mm f/1.2L, contrasty yet buttery. The 35L has bokeh that's closer to the 85 L II, which is very flat on the other hand.

The main problems with the Sigma are distortion and purple fringing.

35
I find the bokeh in the Sigma 85mm not as pleasing as the same, shot with my Canon 85mm f1.2L II.  Performance wise, the Sigma smokes the Canon 85 but that is not the subject here. 


The good news for bokeh is that the 50 is basically a modified 35, so it should be a slightly better longer focal length version of that lens (very slightly sharper on average, less distortion, same bokeh in other words).

I actually went the opposite way with the 85mm Sigma though, the bokeh of the Sigma has a nice pop to it, with beautiful interesting OOF highlights, the Canon's is very very flat, which can be a good thing if that's what you like, but I liked the Sigma 85's better.

36
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 27, 2014, 07:51:08 PM »
The Otus shows impressive numbers, and thanks to Radiating's explanation we can now understand why. Apparently this comes not just from improved manufacturing, but from a revolutionary new design that allows lots of extra optimizations. It does make me wonder, though, what Zeiss might have up their sleeve with future Otus lenses at shorter focal lengths. Most/all other 24s and 35s are already retro focal design, so Zeiss can't pull that trick here any more. And an Otus 35 that does not beat all other lenses in that range by a margin would rather tarnish the name that has just been so carefully built up by this new 55.
Take a look at the wide open performance of the 35 1.4L or the 24 1.4L II and you'll notice lots of halation (softness) and some purple fringing. While both lenses are excellent, especially stopped down, compare that the Otus 55, and you'll see that there's plenty of room for improvement.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=917&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=480&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=917&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The Otus shows impressive numbers, and thanks to Radiating's explanation we can now understand why. Apparently this comes not just from improved manufacturing, but from a revolutionary new design that allows lots of extra optimizations. It does make me wonder, though, what Zeiss might have up their sleeve with future Otus lenses at shorter focal lengths. Most/all other 24s and 35s are already retro focal design, so Zeiss can't pull that trick here any more. And an Otus 35 that does not beat all other lenses in that range by a margin would rather tarnish the name that has just been so carefully built up by this new 55.

With regard to lenses like an Otus 35mm there is little room for significant improvement compared to say the best in class Sigma 35mm. Zeiss could easily push resolution 15% higher, but the main flaws in the Sigma are purple fringing and distortion, so I can see a very attractive 35mm 1.4 Otus, with 15% better resolution APO and low distortion. Zeiss has stated their intent to make a 35mm &. 85mm Otus. The Nikon and Sigma 85's are the best right now and their resolution could easily be pushed 20%. Purple fringing is a huge issue with then too so you can expect that fixed along with a resolution bump.

I don't see a 24mm Otus coming along though.

 

There's basically enough room in most 24mm 1.4 designs for the focusing group to move and that's it. You'd be hard pressed to slide a sheet of paper through the optical path.

37
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 27, 2014, 12:03:33 PM »
I'm not impressed. A lot of vignetting at large appertures, and the very first sample shot (lady standing) is not even sharp where it should be (face). At this level of money I think it's over-priced. My old Sigma 50mm f/1.4 did nearly just as good a job. at nearly a 10th of the costs.

The Zeiss has 3 times more resolution on average than the old Sigma 50mm f/1.4, and in the corners 5 times more, so I don't think you'd be "just as good". More like "not even close".  The model is leaning back, and outside the focus plane. I think you're wishing that the Zeiss had operator error correction. :)

Vignette is the easiest image quality aberration to correct there is. I've looked at a ton of images from this lens and this hasn't seemed to be a limitation for the work of any photographer who's used it. Complaining about this is like complaining about a cure for diabetes because it bleaches your hair. The problems it fixes (first non-purple fringing fast prime wider than supertelephoto, first high resolution standard SLR fast prime) are far more trouble than the problems it causes, and the problems it causes are trivial to fix.

38
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 27, 2014, 02:58:31 AM »
The Zeiss Otus was the first retrofocal normal lens for full frame cameras and it showed there was a night and day difference compared to the double gauss design.

(snip)

There is no prime that exists that's f/2 or faster below 150mm besides the Otus that doesn't have ridiculous amounts of purple fringing.

If the whole way it got so good is that it's retrofocus, shouldn't the 35/1.4 and 24/1.4 also have those same benefits, since they have to be retrofocus?

The purpose of going retrofocal in a standard prime is so you have more room to put corrective lens elements into the optical path.

The reason why 35mm and 24mm lenses are retrofocal is because there is no other way to do them. You need the focal length to be longer than 35mm when the distance from your sensor to the last optical element is 35mm+.

With a 35mm lens going retrofocal is just barley necessary (Canon can make a 40mm pancake after all for EF with a standard lens design). So you gain a ton of room for aberration correction. The Sigma, Zeiss and Nikon 35mm primes are crazy good for that reason. There is mountains of room to correct everything you can imagine. The Canon 35mm prime is so-so because Canon is lazy and complacent and they didn't feel like updating their 16 year old lens to a modern highly computer corrected design because it was good enough.

With a 24mm lens you don't get the same benefits, as a 35 or 50. Going retrofocal barley gets you enough room to put the basic corrective elements in, which is the same problem as you get with a planar 50mm lens, and because of the wide angles the elements have to be a bit larger so everything is ridiculously scrunched up, which leads to poor performance. To get around this issue Zeiss only makes a 25mm f/2 prime. Going to a slower aperture and 1mm longer focal length gave them just a little more room to correct everything properly, which is why they have the best wide angle prime. Compromising a little on the focal length and aperture was the only way to get the image quality they require.


That's also why telephoto lenses are so incredibly good. There is a ample room within the optical path to add elements to correct for anything and everything.

Having room to correct aberrations has a large effect on image quality, that's why wide angle lenses on mirrorless cameras (which have more room because they have no mirror) are so insanely good. Sony's 10-18mm and Canon's 11-22mm cheap consumer mirroless wide angle zooms are sharper wide open on crop than any pro wide angle zoom available for any Canon camera at any aperture, full frame or crop.


39
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 26, 2014, 02:53:25 PM »
As you can image, and predictably, the lens is phenomenal and possibly the best 50mm (yes, it’s 55mm) lens ever made for an DSLR.
Here in Germany the "fotomagazin" jounal has made a test and review where they say that the Sony/Zeiss Sonnar T* FE 55 mm F1,8 ZA has a better IQ at 1/4 of the price.
I don't get 100% through their test methods to see if they did something wrong but the results are hard to believe as the optics are comming from the same source.


I think everyone is missing the entire point of this lens and all of the information about it.

50mm lenses have been completely dominated by the the double gauss (planar) design for the last 70+ years, which severely limits image quality at fast apertures. It's a very poor archaic design that results in around 4 times worse performance in every image clarity measurement, with the only upside being a slightly more compact design. There is literally no planar lens that performs even passably well wide open. The Zeiss Otus was the first retrofocal normal lens for full frame cameras and it showed there was a night and day difference compared to the double gauss design. The Sigma 50mm ART will be the second. The 55mm f/1.8 ZA I'll address later.

Planar lenses have extremely poor performance wide open, lets use the lens rentals 50mm comparison as an example ( http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012...-50mm-shootout ), which tested 23 planar normal lenses. At f/1.4 planar lenses achieved scores in the 300s and 400s in that test for average MTF50 resolution. For comparison the Zeiss Otus delivers average resolution of 800. That's just under 5 times more spacial resolution than the lens it supersedes, the Zeiss 1.4 Planar, @ f/1.4. (remember we have to square linear resolution data to get normal resolution)

If you look at other points of comparison you can see that planar 50mm lenses scored poorly in haziness/glowiness and purple fringing, and often scored poorly in chromatic aberration, usually by a factor of 3-5.

Zeiss decided that it was impossible to make a good standard prime using the double gauss design, after all the design forces a lens to be short and leaves little room to correct aberrations.  So to make more room for corrective lens elements, Zeiss switched to a retrofocal design, which means that the lens is actually longer than it's focal length. They more than doubled the number of elements which allowed them to finally make a good 50mm prime, for SLR. Previously this had been an impossible achievement with the majority of standard primes having camera phone resolution wide open.

The 55mm Otus is a very special lens too because it's Apochromatic, which means it has no purple fringing all other primes in this range have a ton of purple fringing that looks very ugly, and most publications won't allow you to submit photos with any hint of purple fringing.



There is no prime that exists that's f/2 or faster below 150mm besides the Otus that doesn't have ridiculous amounts of purple fringing. As a professional image editor for magazines purple fringing was my mortal enemy so this is a huge deal. This is a feature that isn't found on any lens below the $2000 price point,  (Exception being the Sigma 150mm APO which is slightly less, and when certain lenses go on sale). And this is a feature isn't found on any wide, normal or telephoto lens that has a fast aperture.

So the 55mm Otus is special because it breaks the mould for standard focal length SLR optical design, it's the first and currently only available retrofocal standard fast SLR lens and it's the only non super-telephoto fast APO lens in the world.

The Sony 55mm f/1.8 ZA is not an SLR lens, it's a mirroless lens. Making the Zeiss Otus was an endeavor much like getting a man to walk on the moon. It's an incredibly achievement to overcome the limitations of standard fast SLR lenes. The mirror box is what prevents standard lenses from being good, and it took 70+ years to solve the problem. The Sony 55mm f/1.8 ZA is an endeavor as complex as getting a man to walk on the sidewalk, it's one of the most basic lens you can make, and it's not APO. It's as special as McChicken sandwich.

Hopefully that puts everything into perspective. This is a very special lens, which more than doubles anything in it's class. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART is going to be equally special with 89% the performance, although lacking APO, but also doubling the performance of anything else like it.

40
Has it ever been rumored for their to be prototypes in testing of what would essentially be a physical 1.6x crop of a FF sensor, allowing the ISO capabilities of the 6D/5D3 in, say, an EOS M or xxD body?

I'd love me an EOS M with 6-9 megapixels of low light goodness!

Thoughts?

Would this be stupid-expensive to develop? I can imagine the right advertising campaign could sell the concept of fewer pixels for low light, arty, shallow DoF shooting with the 22mm f/2 with results that're still 2-4x larger than necessary for Facebook ;)

Your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how cameras work.

There is no difference between low light performance when adding more pixels in the range of pixels that DSLR's typically have. The issue with more pixels = more noise is only relevant to ultra compact sensors, like smartphones.

There USED to be an issue with more pixels adding more noise BEFORE micro lenses were invented.



Let's just do the math.

According to DXO Mark's sensor tests. The Canon 70D which has 40.4 megapixels which are binned into 20.2 mp in files and has ISO performance that is equal at 2.5 times it's ISO rating compared to the 5D Mark III, which has 22.3 megapixels. The 5DIII has around 5 times less pixel density than the 70D.

So ISO 1000 on the 70D = same noise as ISO 2500 on the 5D Mark III.

The 70D has a sensor area that is 1/2.5 times that of the 5D Mark III. Wait a second... isn't that the exact difference between the 70D and the 5D Mark III's ISO? Yes it is!

Because the sensor is 2.5 times smaller the GAIN on the smaller sensor has to be 2.5 times higher for a given illumination to get the same exposure. Meaning if you cropped the 5D Mark III's sensor to APS-C ISO 2500 would now be called ISO 1000, even though the sensor gain is identical.

With current sensor technology there is no meaningful difference between the noise sensitivity of larger pixels to smaller pixels in DSLRs. That's why Canon can go from an 18 megapixel sensor in the 60D to a 40.4 megapixel sensor and actually improve noise performance in the 70D. That's why the 36 megapixel D800 and the 22.3 megapixel 5D3 have the same noise performance.

The reason why full frames are better than APS-C sensors is aperture and sharpness.

An APS-C camera has the exact same depth of field at equivalent focal lengths to a full frame camera when the APS-C camera is at f/1.75 and the full frame is at f/2.8. Or when the APS-C is at f/2.5 and the full frame is at f/4.0.

That's why the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 on crop gives you the same look as a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens on full frame.

What this means is that if you put an f/1.4 lens on a full frame you are shooting at f/0.85 on crop, and there are very few f/0.85 lenses. That's why full frame is better in low light, because on crop you are shooting at way lower equivalent aperture and the lenses available for full frame tend to have faster apertures.

Even though you can design faster lenses for crop than you can for full frame (f/0.85 40mm lenses for example exist for crop but not full frame) full frame is better than crop because it is much easier to design a lens with a given equivalent aperture and equivalent focal length for full frame. A f/1.2 50mm lens on crop will look much worse than a 85mm f/2 lens on full frame. The net result is that you have better availability of faster lenses, and at equivalent settings full frame typically has at least twice the resolution and way less aberrations.

For example if you compare a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II on a 70D @ 70mm f/2.8 vs a 70-200mm f/4.0 IS L on a 5D Mark III @112mm f/4.5, the lens on the full frame has 3.3 TIMES the spacial resolution and detail.

41
It is an admirable lens in terms of sharpness, but it seems quite expensive to me for an f/1.8 50mm.  For other major brands you can get f/1.4 for a lot cheaper than this lens, and f/1.2 for not too much more.

But, if sharpness is your only concern, this is a good lens.

That's like saying "The lunar rover seems quite expensive, for a vehicle without leather, you can get cars that are much better equipped for a lot cheaper, and cars that are gold plated for not much more, but if driving on the moon is your only concern the lunar rover is a good vehicle".

Anyways I wouldn't read into DXO's sharpness figures too much, they are meaningless junk that take the sharpest possible point on the lens and use that as the benchmark. Their rankings would be wildly different if they measured sharpness as an average.

This lens is a marketing gimmick though. It has nothing to do with the Zeiss Otus and the technology it uses. The standard focal length prime (i.e. 50mm prime) has been an extremely difficult problem to crack for single reflex mirror cameras, at this range with the standard back focus distance you experience extreme optical aberrations that reduce resolution by 2-4 fold and add tons of hazing chromatic aberration and purple fringing to images with standard optical designs. In fact if you compare the 30 most popular 50mm lenses, the Zeiss Otus achieved performance that was at a minimum 2 times better in every meaningful dimension, in many cases it was 5 times better. It used a revolutionary new incredibly complex optical design. That's why the Otus is special, it's like sending someone to walk the moon. It's special because it's a 50mm lens that's sharp with a normal back focus distance. A lens like that doesn't exist outside the Otus (although Sigma is releasing a lens with a similar optical design, the 50mm f/1.4 ART, which is also revolutionary).

The 55mm f/1.8 ZA is not revolutionary. It's about as impressive as sending someone to walk on the sidewalk. There is no complex technical problem with making a sharp 55mm lens with a short back focus distance. The lens has only 7 simple elements. It's child's play. Optical design becomes equally simple at 85mm for a long back focus distance, so basically 55mm on mirrorless has the same challenges as 85mm for mirrored, which is to say there are none, it's a given. The 55mm f/1.8 ZA is boring design that shows no skill or technical mastery.


As far as being the second sharpest lens DXO has ever tested, that's nonsense. If you look at DXO's sharpness figures and drill down to the raw data the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G obliterates the 55mm f/1.8 ZA over 98% of the frame at all apertures, yet the 55mm f/1.8G ZA has a much higher DXO score just because it posts a higher figure at a single data point. That's not to say that it's not a sharp lens, but it's not special in any dimension.

42
My Canon 50 1.4 works fine, but doesn't get a lot of use, so I'm in no hurry.
But I would love to see a robust, sharp, contrasty, fast focussing 50 1.4 WITH IS.
Not holding my breath on that.

I think you're really missing the point of this lens. This isn't just some random 50mm lens that's maybe kind of good.

Read about the Zeiss Otus, and then imagine a lens that is 89% as good with autofocus. That's this lens.

The resolution data for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART which has been verified by third parties indicates this lens is twice as good as anything other lens in it's segment with autofocus. In some cases this lens is five times better than competitors, that makes it good enough to make everything else obsolete.

For reference the difference between the worst superzoom available on crop, at it's worst setting and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II on full frame at it's best setting is right around the same as the difference between this lens and it's best competitor.

This lens is a really big deal. Some people have been waiting for something like this for decades. It's the first standard focal length autofocusing prime with pro level resolution wide open.

43
Lenses / Re: f2.8 16-35mmL vs. f4 17-40mmL
« on: February 21, 2014, 07:33:19 AM »
My advice is to skip both lenses and adapt a Nikon 14-24mm. Both Canon offerings are incredibly horrible.

44
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 13, 2014, 08:20:42 PM »
I noticed it while hand holding and using AI servo to lock focus. I have pretty steady hands, but I really hope that I'm just an idiot and it was because of the hand holding. I haven't tested it using a tripod yet but I will tonight. I was hand holding because I was doing some AF testing that involved movement. When I noticed the inconsistency I did the tests hand holding still but not moving the camera or the subject. I'm still hoping it was just shaky hands! But I felt like it would be more honest to write it, I was pretty vocal about my 35 being so great...

AI servo isn't designed to lock focus, it tries to achieve focus quickly and constantly refocus to track action at the cost of accuracy. You shouldn't expect AI servo to get accurate focus in low light, switch to one shot in low light situations, it's a night and day difference in those situations. :)

45
Lenses / Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« on: February 13, 2014, 10:43:40 AM »
If it's $1300 I likely will not buy it.  In the rare circumstance in which my 35mm Art is just too wide, I'll settle for my Canon 50mm f/1.4.  This may be mostly psychological but at $1100 I might just go for the 50mm Art.

Coming in at 1/3 the price of the Otus but with similar build quality, nearly-as-good optics and AF?  If all that can be said, I think Sigma will get quite a few takers even at this price.

The only difference is that the Otus is cool and can be shown off, the Sigma can't. This is why I think the price will be < 1000 USD.


Sometimes the psychological stuff is really really illogical. Here's the situation we are dealing with performance numbers and perception wise:

Lens Designers: "Hi there Sir, there has been a major breakthrough in lens technology that allows us to double the performance of any prior 50mm primes, this is the single greatest improvement in image quality in the history of photography lenses in one generation, and it costs 25% less than the top of the line competitors, has better build quality and feel and has no drawbacks whatsoever"

Photographer: "Great that's the best thing I've ever heard a lens designer invent, perfect"

Lens Designer: "That's what we thought, it's called the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART, and it costs $1300"

Photographer: "That's too much for a Sigma"

This makes no sense.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23