06-21-2014, 10:11 PM
Were the Sigma 35 from one batch? How come you can test 5 copies?
Together with - at least sounding like - very professional instruments?
Are this test results your work? If not, whose? And why not naming the source?
Which 23/1.4 you're referring to? I'm sorry if I appear a bit sceptical, you're talking a lot about Canon and I just have no insight into their designs - nor am I professionally able to judge lens designs.
"They also have tighter tolerances, at least canon's lenses are better engineered from a physical standpoint, and as well engineered optically." How come you know about different tolerances? That's no public knowledge, as fas as I know. Sorry, unless you're no engineer from Canon or Sigma or Nikon I doubt this sentence as it is.
"Canon can do a 50mm distagon as well as sigma." Well, who's telling them not to do so? ^_^ Especially if it's so easy asking for higher profit margins? I understand your explanation and agree with it - and given the problems lensrentals experienced with those 50/1.4 and connecting them to the dock, I guess some Canon users would be happy to get an excellent pendant like the 50/1.4 Art from Canon.
Don't get me wrong, my favoring of Sigma is not meant to say Canikon is rubbish and Sigma rules. I'm just saying Canikon would look a lot better if they were trading always evenly with Sigma - and with the exception of 24-105 (which is still less expensive and at least in wide range better than Nikon) they are not only 5-20% away with their prices.
I also never said Sigma is eating Canikon's cake - this is not my concern. My concern is to get the best glass with AF for a very great sensor - and if that's possible at reasonable price, why should I pay more for less or just "not much worse"?
Canon has no Sensor to put against and I can't adapt their fantastic lenses to my Nikon bodies.
Together with - at least sounding like - very professional instruments?
Are this test results your work? If not, whose? And why not naming the source?
Which 23/1.4 you're referring to? I'm sorry if I appear a bit sceptical, you're talking a lot about Canon and I just have no insight into their designs - nor am I professionally able to judge lens designs.
"They also have tighter tolerances, at least canon's lenses are better engineered from a physical standpoint, and as well engineered optically." How come you know about different tolerances? That's no public knowledge, as fas as I know. Sorry, unless you're no engineer from Canon or Sigma or Nikon I doubt this sentence as it is.
"Canon can do a 50mm distagon as well as sigma." Well, who's telling them not to do so? ^_^ Especially if it's so easy asking for higher profit margins? I understand your explanation and agree with it - and given the problems lensrentals experienced with those 50/1.4 and connecting them to the dock, I guess some Canon users would be happy to get an excellent pendant like the 50/1.4 Art from Canon.
Don't get me wrong, my favoring of Sigma is not meant to say Canikon is rubbish and Sigma rules. I'm just saying Canikon would look a lot better if they were trading always evenly with Sigma - and with the exception of 24-105 (which is still less expensive and at least in wide range better than Nikon) they are not only 5-20% away with their prices.
I also never said Sigma is eating Canikon's cake - this is not my concern. My concern is to get the best glass with AF for a very great sensor - and if that's possible at reasonable price, why should I pay more for less or just "not much worse"?
Canon has no Sensor to put against and I can't adapt their fantastic lenses to my Nikon bodies.