The most overrated lens of all time, Sigma's 30mm f/1.4
 

On 2013-03-08 17:16:39 -0800, RichA said:

I had that lens. At the same time, I had the Nikon 35mm f/2.0 and
the Pentax 35mm f/2.0. To say the Nikon and Pentax killed it in image
quality would be kind. Even at f/8.0, even centrally, where they
should have all given similar performance, the Nikon and Pentax were
head and tails better. At f/1.4, the edges of the Sigma were so bad
as to be unusable. This was due in-part to Sigma's weird, "sacrifice
the edges" design philosophy. The argument might be "it allows you to
isolate the subject better!" Really? Done any portraits with 30mm
lenses lately? Maybe distorted flowers... The only thing that Sigma
could claim about the 30mm was that it was better (at the time) than
Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 which had an ancient design by then. Today, if you
can't afford Nikon's current 35mm f/1.4, you would be far better off
getting the Samyang (or any variant company's) manual 35mm f/1.4. at
roughly the same price-point as Sigma's current 30mm.

The Nikkor 35mm D f/2.0 is a surprisingly great performer, and is my
Nikon APC-S "Normal" lens. Somewhat dated but it works, and the price
is right.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

The most overrated lens of all time, Sigma's 30mm f/1.4
 

On 09/03/2013 04:00, Savageduck wrote:
[]
The Nikkor 35mm D f/2.0 is a surprisingly great performer, and is my
Nikon APC-S "Normal" lens. Somewhat dated but it works, and the price is
right.

... and I have the 35 mm f/1.8 DX, which I find a delightful little lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_35_1p8g_n15

Compact, one third the weight of the Sigma, and one quarter of the
price. May not be quite as good as the Sigma but it suits my needs.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu