Quote:There's no corner performance of the Canon 24mm f/1.4 II to speak of at f/1.4 and the corners are also substantially worse at f/2.
I also have to recognize that this a 20mm lens where the optical problems are a magnitude more difficult than at 24mm.
It's also a world first whereas today's 24mm f/1.4 are me-too lenses.
I concur, however, that the Canon should deserve a half star more though given the peak performance.
Regarding the corner performance ...
... same applies for the Sigma 20/1.4 @1.4 and @2
Regarding the difference of 20mm and 24mm ...
... admitted ... but my original comment was the (in my eyes) bad judgement of the 24L in
comparison to the Zeiss 21/2.8 ... I foresee that you point out that 21mm again is something
completely different.
Regarding "worlds first things" ...
... That had also applied to the old Sigma 20/1.8 ... which you gave 1.5 stars ...
where was the "worlds first" bonus then? (ok .. the old 20 was testet on APS-C only).
I daresay that I foresee the day, when the Sigma 24/1.4 tested on 50mpix will receive
its 4 stars (deservedly though) ... besides the fact that it basically has the same
performance than the 24L.
No offence meant Klaus ... I'm just stating the obvious ... you seem to have adjusted
your judgement. I neither find this good nor bad ... just "good to know" ... eventually
you finally arrived in the reality of what is economically producable (rather than
optically desirable). Its just that with that, your judgment of newer tests is then no
longer comparable to that of older tests.