Scythels, you're right, especially with the fact that the worst Sigmas are better than the best Canons. Okay, you said "However, the average 35A is indeed better than the average 35L" and that was 35/1.4 and here are the data of 3 different 50/1.4 (/1.2 for Canon? I don't know the meaning of 50L)
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/05/data1.jpg
Source: Lensrentals.com, another Explanation of MTF
Now, take the price (it was Canon 50/1.2L, so that's a bit unfair). Shouldn't it be the other way round? And Nikon would range even lower with their 58/1.4, at least wide open.
Also, I was wrong - this variance doesn't say anything about AF variation we were discussing about. A lens could be excellent and the AF totally sucking at the same time (like the Otus
sorry, couldn't resist). And the fact, some Sigma lenses appear to introduce themselves as something else to the camera is also a bit annoying. But less annoying than the AF variation of the camera/lens system itself and this means both manufacturers - even Nikon body behind a Nikon lens isn't better.
Like Toni-a said, what good is an excellent lens for, if the AF misses? Question remains, is that the fault of the lens or the AF system should be blamed?
Well, if people buy the Otus and know there will never be an AF to complain about because there's just no one, and the "next best" lens to the 50/1.4 Art might have better AF but is in average say 10% less sharp at 70-100% more money to pay for - it has to be a hell of superprecise, always reliable and fast AF to justify the diff.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2014/05/data1.jpg
Source: Lensrentals.com, another Explanation of MTF
Now, take the price (it was Canon 50/1.2L, so that's a bit unfair). Shouldn't it be the other way round? And Nikon would range even lower with their 58/1.4, at least wide open.
Also, I was wrong - this variance doesn't say anything about AF variation we were discussing about. A lens could be excellent and the AF totally sucking at the same time (like the Otus
sorry, couldn't resist). And the fact, some Sigma lenses appear to introduce themselves as something else to the camera is also a bit annoying. But less annoying than the AF variation of the camera/lens system itself and this means both manufacturers - even Nikon body behind a Nikon lens isn't better.Like Toni-a said, what good is an excellent lens for, if the AF misses? Question remains, is that the fault of the lens or the AF system should be blamed?
Well, if people buy the Otus and know there will never be an AF to complain about because there's just no one, and the "next best" lens to the 50/1.4 Art might have better AF but is in average say 10% less sharp at 70-100% more money to pay for - it has to be a hell of superprecise, always reliable and fast AF to justify the diff.