03-07-2017, 08:45 AM
I can understand not many people like that lens - it demands that the person using it knows a bit or two about AF and is able to help making AF some better decisions. I'm not familiar with Canon Dual Pixel AF, so I don't know what's going on - but I remember diffusely, DPReview only found Dual Pixel AF to improve things massively - they didn't claim 100% perfection.
After my post I opened the Nikon library and the about 650 pictures I made with that lens before selling all "APS-C only" stuff. In Apple Aperture I can display the focus "points" and they are more or less a copy of what I see in the finder. Which are comparatively huge in a D7100 and small in a D5100. I never knew, where exactly was the best focus happening. There were parts I remembered or guessed taht should have been the focus target, but these were filling the rectangle maybe 15-20% and the rest were sometimes also contrasty things closeby. Wires, structures, harsh shadows.
The DoF is thin, true, but in the OVF I could not always detect the missing AF. And the adjustments with the dock were time consuming, to use a friendly expression. I think, Sigma had to face a lot problems not with the lens but with the available AF systems which can nail the spot or fail the second time aiming at exactly the same point. It's really as if the AF is doing window shopping and says occassionally "oh, shiny! like that! stop the focusing motor!"
PZ (Klaus) gave it a "highly recommended", and not without a reason. But also not without a warning about the FL range. It saves a lot space in your bag when thinking which fast primes it replaces without any lack of IQ. But then, who carries around a group of 18, 20, 24, 28, 30, 35 mm lenses? Aynway, genuine Nikkors don't cover a fast 18 mm, 20/1.8 sometimes is not enough and the old saying of stepping back - well, I could do that on some paths, but just only once and hope I catch the right frsame while falling down in the canyon. ^_^
After my post I opened the Nikon library and the about 650 pictures I made with that lens before selling all "APS-C only" stuff. In Apple Aperture I can display the focus "points" and they are more or less a copy of what I see in the finder. Which are comparatively huge in a D7100 and small in a D5100. I never knew, where exactly was the best focus happening. There were parts I remembered or guessed taht should have been the focus target, but these were filling the rectangle maybe 15-20% and the rest were sometimes also contrasty things closeby. Wires, structures, harsh shadows.
The DoF is thin, true, but in the OVF I could not always detect the missing AF. And the adjustments with the dock were time consuming, to use a friendly expression. I think, Sigma had to face a lot problems not with the lens but with the available AF systems which can nail the spot or fail the second time aiming at exactly the same point. It's really as if the AF is doing window shopping and says occassionally "oh, shiny! like that! stop the focusing motor!"
PZ (Klaus) gave it a "highly recommended", and not without a reason. But also not without a warning about the FL range. It saves a lot space in your bag when thinking which fast primes it replaces without any lack of IQ. But then, who carries around a group of 18, 20, 24, 28, 30, 35 mm lenses? Aynway, genuine Nikkors don't cover a fast 18 mm, 20/1.8 sometimes is not enough and the old saying of stepping back - well, I could do that on some paths, but just only once and hope I catch the right frsame while falling down in the canyon. ^_^