![]() ![]() ![]() It's no secret new Canon lens prices have been particularly high as new technology, coating, and build methods are integrated. I can't claim to know what Sigma was thinking when they produced the 35 f/1.4, but I like to think it was an evolution to their approach with the 50mm f/1.4, and a reaction to the (potentially unfounded) general opinion of their brand. But pervasive issues of quality control, of batch variance where you never know for sure if the lens you get will be anywhere close to being as good as it can be, or as it is advertised, and a stigma (pun?) attached to owning something “inferior” than a first party “L” lens kept many consumers away. They released a 50mm f/1.4 EX DG that retailed for MORE than the Canon equivalent their stance was that it performed better optically and had better build, both of which may very well be true. This applied to their limited selection of prime lenses as well I briefly owned their 30mm f/1.4 EX DC and was happy with it on a consumer level, though the optics didn't hold up to some of the more pressing work I did and a move to full-frame (it's a “DC” lens, denoting it's for Digital Camera's only, and specifically crop sensors) meant I wouldn't be able to use it anyway. It is known for providing inexpensive alternatives to many of Canon's own zoom lens offerings, or filling niche gaps left in Canon's lineup. Sigma is arguably one of the more recognizable of the third party lens manufacturers. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |