Tested on the D3x:
Posted 01 December 2016 - 07:09 AM
Nice, I was just a bit surprised when I first looked at the "Puderbach" (what a cute name, powdercreek) sign. The letters are less sharp then I'm used to from my copy of the lens. So I tried to find:
After reading what I just wrote, it's a reproduction.
Didn't find one, not a single from nearly 900 pictures. I had a bigger choice in the pictures of the Nikkor, but so far didn't find a better one and I consider that most of those pictures were taken without tripod and liveview.
When I compare the both lenses and their prices, I can only agree with your conclusion, except PZ's old "weather sealing" horse you guys still love to ride. With the Sigma, I got splashed by a real kinky wave of the Irish sea jumping over the quai, tripod and me - while the Arca head after that has one rusty screw, the Sigma at lower price than the Arca head didn't show corroded metal. I was soaking wet afterwards and the "calm corner" of the bay was no longer branded as calm. There were some drops in between lens and camera mount. Wiped them away and since two years it's just doing fine.
Little itch: "struggle at öarge" in MTF resolutions
Posted 01 December 2016 - 01:54 PM
That, and the "The center quality is nexcellentice straight from f/1.4" in the conclusion.
P. S. This "weakest in the line" lens still destroys the old 1.8 trio, trumps the Nikon (and Canon) offerings... Methinks my Canon 24/1.4L might be ready for the chopping block after all.
Posted 01 December 2016 - 02:37 PM
Thanks for the hints, both itches corrected.
@JoJu: blame the Puderbach one on me, I didn't really notice I must admit. It's just a poorly chosen sample. As you can see, the focus point is way behind that sign (look at the image center). My bad.
Posted 02 December 2016 - 08:24 PM
Hi Markus, it is nice to see the Nikon module alive again.
Did you get a chance to compare to Nikon 24mm 1.8G? I mean on the field not a lab torture. There is approximately 300g difference in their weight, which for full frame lens is not too significant.
Posted 06 December 2016 - 04:25 PM
Sorry, no, I haven't had a chance to compare both. But the Sigma is a bit on the heavy side (as most solid f/1.4 primes are) and especially combined with a lighter full-frame body the difference in weight might be very noticeable.
Posted 06 December 2016 - 04:57 PM
It has the same weight as the 35/1.4, around half the weight of 12-24 and the 20/1.4 is also 1/3 more weight.
The Nikon version is only 45 grams lighter.
Posted 06 December 2016 - 06:23 PM
Unless it gets too bad, I prefer to take slight weight penalty, but smile after I review the files.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users