09-05-2013, 07:40 PM
What is so frustrating with "a short throw"? All lenses between 10 and 24mm do have that. Does it mean, all get out of focus images?
Do you actually know how little a degree (1/360 of a full circle) of turning the focus ring is? I don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't have posted it that way. On the 35/1.4 it's nearly 4° scale's turn. And because the manual focus ring is transmissioned, I'd say, between infinity and 2 m it's a turn of 7-8°, pretty easy to focus manually. Especially because Sigma was clever enough to damp the manual focus ring - it's more a "all manual, no AF" lens than one of those easy slipping rings.
I've no reason not to assume Sigma did a transmission of the focus ring to the distance scale as well with the 18-35. Of course, with a max. aperture of f/1.8 and high resolving DX sensors, together with a tiny misalingment of the AF sensor the tolerances are ridiculously small. But I had two Nikon bodies adjusted for reasons of misalingment. So, I'd be very careful to blame Sigma for AF malfunctions as this lens brings in some specifications the main manufacturers of the cam bodies don't seem to face in their own lenses.
The same with 14-24: the same 8° but now from infinity to 1m. Mysteriously, I get sharp images anyway...
Why don't you people try to judge a lens without even using it? I'm not talking to anyone particularly. It's just tiring to read those hypothetical posts... Not much of you tried the dock, few have a new Sigma lens but nearly all do know perfectly well why it has to be a bad thing... boring, really. I wished I had a dock from Nikon working as useful as Sigma's!
Do you actually know how little a degree (1/360 of a full circle) of turning the focus ring is? I don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't have posted it that way. On the 35/1.4 it's nearly 4° scale's turn. And because the manual focus ring is transmissioned, I'd say, between infinity and 2 m it's a turn of 7-8°, pretty easy to focus manually. Especially because Sigma was clever enough to damp the manual focus ring - it's more a "all manual, no AF" lens than one of those easy slipping rings.
I've no reason not to assume Sigma did a transmission of the focus ring to the distance scale as well with the 18-35. Of course, with a max. aperture of f/1.8 and high resolving DX sensors, together with a tiny misalingment of the AF sensor the tolerances are ridiculously small. But I had two Nikon bodies adjusted for reasons of misalingment. So, I'd be very careful to blame Sigma for AF malfunctions as this lens brings in some specifications the main manufacturers of the cam bodies don't seem to face in their own lenses.
The same with 14-24: the same 8° but now from infinity to 1m. Mysteriously, I get sharp images anyway...
Why don't you people try to judge a lens without even using it? I'm not talking to anyone particularly. It's just tiring to read those hypothetical posts... Not much of you tried the dock, few have a new Sigma lens but nearly all do know perfectly well why it has to be a bad thing... boring, really. I wished I had a dock from Nikon working as useful as Sigma's!