[wim]

Hi Miro,

[quote name='miro' timestamp='1326371020' post='14804']

As far as I remember you have AF problem with your 50L also. It took several iterations before you’ve got 50L running. Just for curiosity I wonder witch way will be could be shorter. Getting Sigma 50/1,4 or canon 50L running as you want?[/quote]

Yes, that was the focus shift problem, a rather limited issue compared to the (different) Sigma issues, and it appears the 50L problem is fixed now, generally speaking I mean, while the Sigma appears not to be <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. BTW, I had several perfectly working 50 F/1.8 IIs, and a 50 F/1.8 Mk I while hunting for a good 50L <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I also tested quite a few other 50s (30+ in total <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />), as you may remember, and essentially the 50L just was the best. For me anyway.



Oh, I don't like the Canon 50 F/1.4, 4 of 5 I tested couldn't focus meaningfully in close up mode (< 2 m) in bad lighting either, and a 5th only soso <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />, or the 85 F/1.8 for that matter. 2 bad copies and one soso. And my first TS-E 45 was decentered <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. With Sigma it was 12 out of 12 with problems.

I’m asking this question not because I want to confront with you. I always appreciate your input. I have learned a lot from you the last 6 years.



I’m trying to avoid misleading of new PZ fellows – selectively saying that Canon Ls are flawless and superior to other brands can mislead people.



Ps: now I’m on the other size of barricade. I remember the time when you ware trying to convince the Zeiss brand believers that canon Ls are better than Zeiss.

I still believe that, for my own purpose anyway. AFAIAC, the only two good ZE lenses IMO appear to be the 50 F/2 and 100 F/2. The rest suffers from too much vignetting or other faults, and what a lot of people do not seem to realize is that a lot of vignetting effectively takes away DR. I am not talking tests shots here of a white wall, but real life shooting. I was really appalled by the performance of the Zeiss (U)WAs in this regard.

I pretty much share the same.I have even more that I want from 10 to 300 mm At the end of the day who cares. What I have learned is that in photography there is no wrong way. If you are satisfied with equipment setup A doesn’t not mean that you will not be happy with setup B.





Happy shooting,

Miro

Well. it seems to vary in time, although I find I am very happy with my setup.It also depends on what setup B is <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I can't shoot everything with my current set, but then I can easily make do. Too little time for some of the very specialized shooting anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim