I hope the review is not based on those photographs. They are hardly inspiring. I'm surprised the camera companies don't display examples of lens output. Sigmas ads often have surprisingly poor photographs. I wonder is it deliberate to keep it within the aspiration zone of a beginner photographer.
I hope the review is not based on those photographs. They are hardly inspiring. I'm surprised the camera companies don't display examples of lens output. Sigmas ads often have surprisingly poor photographs. I wonder is it deliberate to keep it within the aspiration zone of a beginner photographer.
Yeah, it's weird. I wouldn't consider myself good, my eye for composition sucks, but I think I've taken better pictures, in fact I know I have.
Granted, I take way more with the 200mm f2 than I do with the 135 f2, but you would think that an f1.8 135 would get closer to the 200mm f2 in terms of look. Not in that gallery. Weird.
another Sigma 135 F1.8 Art review, by Kazuyuki Hagihara (Google translation):
__dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/lens_review_2/1057432.html
" ... AF is very quiet and accurate. Of course, even when I reconsidered the image on the PC after taking the picture, I was not able to find the dissatisfaction like dissatisfaction at all. ..."