So few parts ? That means the info in the table is not 100 % ok. Phalbert wrote: Wow ! Impressed ! You make it almost look easy. But both my YS and XQ 1.8s have the same 4/6 scheme. There were multiple iterations of the Sigma 135 f1.8, so there certainly could have been differing optical layouts. The second group has 3 elements cemented together. Anyone willing to dismantle his XQ ?Īctually, it was a couple years ago when I disassembled my XQ 135 f/1.8 for cleaning. So this info goes a bit against the accepted info that they are similar. In fact I just realised it's in that table. Phalbert wrote: In fact I just realised it's in that table. Phalbert wrote: 55, I've seen somewhere that the XQ and YS differ. But my own copy of that lens has 6 elements in 4 groups. I don't have a link to the original source either, but member Pancolart wrote that the chart came from :Īnd I wonder how accurate the data are? The chart states that the XQ 135mm f/1.8 has 4 elements in 4 groups. Thanks for sharing the interesting information. I found this sometime back and I'm supposed to give the link but I don't have it anymore. I am also looking for the rest up to 2021. Phalbert wrote: I found this sometime back and I'm supposed to give the link but I don't have it anymore. Pinkf wrote: My 18mm f3.5 ys lens is not there. Posted: Thu 2:27 pm Post subject: Re: Sigma lens historyĮxcept non sold lenses (as the af interchangeable mount series ) it seems to me complete Sigma made much more lenses that are mentioned here. Posted: Thu 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: Sigma lens history + i sell: OM Soligor 2x doubler / x3 converte + i sell: OM Makinon reflex 5.6/300 + Spector reflex (makinon) 500mm + i sell: OM Md1 + Md 2 + Grip PowerPack + charger Even on the official websites of sigma, that information is not available in detail. I searched the internet for detailed information: which lens was made in which year. I am very interested in the history of sigma lenses. Posted: Thu 2:07 pm Post subject: Re: Sigma lens history Therefore my question for links from websites that show the detailed lens history of sigma. Pinkf wrote: I am very interested in the history of sigma lenses. Even if Nikon comes out with an exact equivalent, it’s hard to imagine why I’d feel compelled to spend (at least) hundreds of dollars upgrading it, when I could put that same money towards a brand new lens and much more dramatically expand my shooting options.Posted: Thu 2:02 pm Post subject: Sigma lens history And sure, they have slightly smoother and quieter autofocus, but unless you’re shooting video or fast-moving subjects, you’re again unlikely to care much. Unless you pixel peep the corners of resolution test charts, you’re unlikely to notice much difference in real-world shooting. but we’re usually talking about very subtle differences. Sure, the Z mount lenses have impeccable image quality. And in virtually every case, I’m going to vote “no”. So the real question isn’t “is the Z mount version better?”, it’s “is the Z mount version enough better to justify the cost of upgrading?”. If you could freely pick between the two for zero cost difference, you’d of course go for the native Z mount every time. My take: it’s not a question of whether the native Z mount version is better - in every case so far where there has been a direct equivalent, the Z mount version is superior in both image quality and autofocus performance. I don’t have experience with those specific lenses, but I do have the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 along with a number of other F and Z mount lenses.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |