02-14-2017, 09:41 AM
I notice you said, sharp and decent portrait lens, and not, a decently sharp portrait lens?
I am not criticizing your wording. I just wonder if what you mean is that you are not convinced that it is an exceptional portrait lens? I am still struggling, in all seriousness, with something that I have heard. Namely, that the Sigma lenses appear better than they are because they test well, due to easily measurable sharpness. But somehow lack in this thing called "micro contrast". I'm not exactly sure what micro contrast is, or why it can't or just isn't tested for. Or is it just some buzzword that people use to justify their non-Sigma lenses?
I am not criticizing your wording. I just wonder if what you mean is that you are not convinced that it is an exceptional portrait lens? I am still struggling, in all seriousness, with something that I have heard. Namely, that the Sigma lenses appear better than they are because they test well, due to easily measurable sharpness. But somehow lack in this thing called "micro contrast". I'm not exactly sure what micro contrast is, or why it can't or just isn't tested for. Or is it just some buzzword that people use to justify their non-Sigma lenses?