![]() We know this happens, and most often, it enhances the look of the photograph’s wafer-thin depth-of-field. There is also the expected vignetting when shot wide open, but this is quite mild. The very edges have a slight image softness compared to the center, but it looks really good for a fast prime. But they will give you and idea of what to expect.Īt f/1.4 there is the expected reduction in contrast compared to the other images. The images are obviously not proper test images with calibrated charts shot under controlled conditions. I added a folder with a sequence shot with the Sigma lens, from where the high-res RAW files can be downloaded. If you were to mix the files, (for each aperture), it would be difficult to tell them apart in terms of center and edge sharpness. In comparison to the Nikon lens, I couldn’t really distinguish a difference. Optical performance of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG lens The Sigma comes in at a very favorable $900 in comparison. Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.4G – ( B&H / Amazon).The Nikon is a also an excellent optic, and is priced around $1700 Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 EF USM – ( B&H / Amazon).The Canon lens has an excellent reputation, and is $1480 It also feels like it was crafted with precision, and it has a nice heft in your hand. The lens has a noticeably different look than Sigma lenses in the past, and actually looks quite sleek and modern, but this all wouldn’t mean much, if the lens didn’t perform spectacularly, and was at a more affordable price point than the Canon and Nikon equivalents: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG (for Canon) – ( B&H / Amazon).Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG (for Nikon) – ( B&H / Amazon).One of the first lenses to be released, is the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM wide-angle lens: Each line has a clearly defined concept to guide shooters in the selection of the right lens for their photographic interests”. From Sigma’s website: “all newly produced interchangeable lenses from Sigma will be designed for and organized into one of three product categories: Contemporary, Art and Sports. My interest was piqued though by the news that Sigma is releasing new lines of lenses, and tightening up their quality control. Generally, staying with the big camera brands is a decision that can be made with confidence. The main reason though why I keep within a certain brand, is that the top names tend to have the top lenses. The spendier equipment (which performs well), tend to be designed to look good. But actually, there is a correlation of sorts. I know, I know … how pretty a lens looks has no real correlation to how spectacularly it performs. Yes, I do like my cameras to have a certain aesthetic appeal. Part of it is that the styling of the lens and camera is more consistent. Similarly, I only have Canon lenses for my Canon bodies, and Nikon lenses for my Nikon cameras. When I shot with Pentax way way back, I only used Pentax lenses. Not so much for a lens being esoteric or collectible, but rather that I have a particularly strong preference for the name brand lenses. I have to admit upfront that I am a lens snob. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |