Originally Posted by
Keith B
I'd also be worried about the Sigma's reported AF issues - did Jan just get lucky?
Just to be clear that was John's comment.
I was asking myself the same question [img]/emoticons/emotion-13.gif[/img] Perhaps the Sigma's from Europe are just better [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]
Originally Posted by
Keith B
Jan said he bumped the micro adjustment to +9 and has been happy ever since
I know Canon lenses need MA. My 70-200 needed +15. Infact the only lens I have that didn't need any was my 16-35II.
Correct, but truth to be said, Canon lenses need adjustments as well. Perhaps not that often, I haven't done it yet, but I heard different from others.
Originally Posted by
Keith B
If I though 50 was my sweet spot, I wouldn't think twice about getting the 50 1.2L
50 is my sweet spot, but I still couldn't justify a) the price of the 1.2 and b) the enormous price-difference towards the 1.4 and the amount of "better"lens you'd get for it. If I had the budget to buy the 50mm 1.2, I'd still buy the 11.4 and add an additional other lens [img]/emoticons/emotion-13.gif[/img]
Hopefully the weather gets better soon so I can use my gear more often [img]/emoticons/emotion-11.gif[/img]