Why is it soo difficult for the 35 Art fanboys to accept that people can like the 35 L better?
Dunno I'm a fan of the sigma 35 and 85 the current 50 not so much
My personal feeling when testing the sigma 85 vs 85L side by side was while i felt the 85 was marginally better
in sharpness and had a little nicer bokeh was it worth TRIPLE the money to me? HELL NO so i got the sigma and have been super happy with it.
I almost bought the 35L the day sigma announced the 35 Art so i held off until i could try both, again in Australia the 35L was $1800 the Sigma on release was $900, I bought the Sigma and with the change bought a 2 year old used 135L for $700 still had $200 change... I felt there was absolutely nothing wrong with the L it was fantastic but for such a massive difference in cost it was no way worth it to me.
I think when people compare absolutes or just optical sharpness and neglect other factors such as cost or how the lens relates to their situation you know its more about the gear or the image they present of themselves using the gear than the images they make with the gear then you have people who just need to buy the most expensive of everything....
But I don't honestly know too any people that money is really no object for. I am certainly not one.
The Simple fact that these new sigmas are being compared to such fine L glass or the otus is great news for us consumers. But if someone has owned some of this great L glass for years and has been producing great images with that lens Just because the competition releases something which will equal or exceed it in a particular metric does that make that lens suddenly unable to produce the fine images its been producing for so long? I don't think so. Generally people on the internet do get a little hung up on specs, scores, etc... we all do i guess to one degree or another hence we all congregate here. Just have to keep it all in perspective