![]() I don't have the Fuji 16-55 2.8 to test it against but I'd venture a guess that even at its softest 35mm end, stopped down to 2.8 it easily goes toe to toe with the more expensive Fuji. I will say that even at its softest end this lens is no slouch. 18mm looks great and only slightly improves by 23mm while holding that sharpness all the way up to 30mm before falling off a bit at 35mm. The soft end of this lens is certainly at the 35mm side. That said, the Sigma accepts the disadvantage and takes it in stride. Nor is comparing a lens wide open to one even slightly stopped down. All photos are raw images imported into lightroom with no settings changed, however with lens correction profiles left on.Ĭomparing a zoom to a prime is usually never a fair fight. ISO and shutter were static for the shots to compare light intake.įuji 16mm 1.4 18mm 16mm 1.4 35mm 35mm 1.4 35mm 35mm 1.4 fairy certain I have those labeled correctly but there should be exif attached. Camera sitting on the table, stationary and supported so no hand held shots or changing subject matter. Most zooms offer their lowest image quality at the extreme ends of the zoom so rather than weigh results in a best case scenario, I like to measure them at their "worst". The 16mm 1.4 and the 35mm 1.4 are two of the most highly praised lenses for the Fuji X system. Lets start with the thing most important to most people on here: Sigma 18-35, though, is still killer, and so cheap IMO it's a must own.Had a quick minute to jump in front of the computer so here is my quick and dirty one week review of the 18-35. I agree, IS kinda changes a few things when you approach low budget/no budget image acquisition. Go back to the earlier BMCuser days and my POV was "who cares?", and then sometime earlier last year I rented the 35/2 to toy around, IS was great.ĭidn't really hit me til the 70-200, though, and now I really want an entire set of IS glass. Even the highly respected and desirable Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 will seem less tasty when they add the latest stabilization or a ciné version.Īnd I was never a major proponent of IS. Funny how some new lenses seem nearly perfect when issued, but a few years later, when compared to the latest releases, its shortcomings are more evident. If you buy a lens with image stabilization, you certainly want it to perform very well. I think the new updated Sigma OS is better than the old, but thats a big factor in my choice for telephoto right now. Kholi wrote:Sigma OS was nowhere near as good as Canon Hybrid IS. Once people start moving through frame it's obvious to me. Maybe it's a little hard to put into detail, but they just don't match in my eyes. It doesn't feel like a still lens like the 24-70 does. The MKII has this intense micro contrast, and very controlled CA performance wide open, that lends itself to motion. ![]() IMO it looks nothing like the 70-200 MKII when applied to motion. It's easily one of my top fives, and all of the traits that it puts down to the image are exactly why I don't like the 24-70 II. Right now, though, I'm all over that 70-200 MK II for this and every other camera. Hook, however, has suggested that I try a few specific pieces of Canon glass, like the 100/2.8 L IS. I have some gripes with the overall Canon look. I recently acquired one and I love it too, on the 5D MkII Glad to hear you like the 70-200 2.8 II on the 4K What do you not like about the 24-70 II? Is it that it is not wide enough and no IS? To be dead honest, my favorite lens (obsessed with) is the 70-200/2.8 II Canon. Kholi wrote: and I don't like the canon 24-70 II Much at all.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |