|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on January 16, 2022 Pros: All Cons: Nothing Opinion: There is little to say about the Art series, it speaks for itself. In this case you have a wide angle not too pushed, ideal for landscapes, architecture and portraits set thanks to the minimum focusing distance of 25 cm. Superlative sharpness, almost no distortion, ditto for chromatic aberration, flares in the backlight, etc ... In short, it gives great satisfaction and is worth what it costs. The lens is very robust and the focus ring very smooth and precise, which allows a really millimeter adjustment in the shots. When you get used to it, it's hard to do without it. |
  | sent on March 26, 2021 Pros: Sharpness, three-dimensionality, construction Cons: Weight, TA AF, vignetting, soft up to f/2, versatility, topicalization Opinion: Optics remarkable as sharpness and three-dimensionality, purchased for coupled, landscape and night photos gave me some nice satisfactions, but after some time I realized that as a focal point it was a bit narrow (at least for my taste). Unfortunately the versatility of a zoom lens in the landscape is felt, often in certain situations where I could move little I was often too short or long ... perhaps its use and more for Reportage, also given the brightness that allows you to shoot even with critical light with freehand ... cmq I replaced it with the 16/35L, it's been a few years and honestly I don't miss it.... it is cmq a well built optics in line like the whole Art series, although I am not a lover of Sigma I consider it an excellent lens, the AF have already said who preceded me |
 | sent on September 29, 2020 Pros: It's an Art Cons: At that price practically nothing, caps excluded Opinion: Sharpness, solidity, materials of excellence, speed, in short, is an Art! Compared to the excellent Nikon 24 f 1.4 (I've owned it for several years) it's drier, less "dreamy" but absolutely more rigorous, more solvent, and all this at a cost of a third compared to the Nikon! The maf must be absolutely calibrated with the dock and once adjusted on the 4 distances it no longer moves and is of surgical precision, with good peace of the day those who say that you have to go back to adjusting it from time to time. Lens made to last and to be used with extreme satisfaction also and especially with megapixels. Proudly made in Japan and you see, except for the caps I imagine to be Chinese.... |
 | sent on October 20, 2019 Pros: Sharpness, elegant blurry, three-dimensionality of images, price Cons: Hard manual focus/autofocus button. Opinion: It costs relatively little. It weighs, but because it's worth the quality. Great focus dial. High quality images. Beautiful blur. Obviously at f 1.4 on fx if you make mistakes do not forgive but it would be strange the opposite. I found it a bit soft at the top of the opening but that's what I wanted. Great and recommended for 24mm lovers with excellent value for money. |
 | sent on May 21, 2019 Pros: Sharp Cons: Contrast, weight, focus breathing: focal length about 25-26 Opinion: It's also too good to see, which is why the contrast is too violent. I have had this view for at least three years and I refrained from writing a review first because I wanted the certainty of some of my impressions. From the first shots I was amazed by the really good sharpness, but... there was something that didn't convince me deeply. Let me explain: when you have been photographing for decades and you have made a habit of unimpeachable optics, you quickly understand if what you are using is the right optics in everything. Sometimes, the beauty of a lens jumps to the eye already looking into the sights of the reflex. Probably because the eye doesn't know anything about MTF but it was developed with millions of years of 'research'. This is not the case with the Sigma 24mm f/1.4, which returns crisp images with a blurry f1.4 that admirably separates the plans, and yet it has always left me some doubt. Something was missing. Only recently I performed comparative tests with an old Olympus 24 f2.8 on Nikon D850 and saw what is missing: the contrast. The optics are very sharp and are appreciated for this, unfortunately it is a perceived sharpness that makes up only half of the image. Comparing it to the old lens, you can see that the microcontract is excessive. I mean that the optics is engraved but the tonal variation of colors, the micro shades, are less rich than the comparison optics, which at full opening seems veiled but in detail returns, already all open, a greater richness of tones. From the comparison, it is also highlighted that the Sigma suffers from focus breathing, at short distances it is not really a 24 but more realistically a 25-26 (the thing is not a problem). The rating is positive (a 9) but I think I'll change it for something more plastic. |
 | sent on March 10, 2019 Pros: Construction, image rendering, aperture f/1.4, cost. Cons: Weight/size (but it is a compromise to accept for the final rendering of optics) Opinion: I state that I use the version for Canon and I bought my new lens in the store. I had to calibrate to-3 in my case, the optics but then it always remained in focus even at full aperture. However, I will evaluate the purchase of the USB dock for various calibrations and update firmware. I tried the optics a bit in different situations and at various openings from 1.4 to closed diaphragms.. The sharpness and contrast it produces in the images is absurd.. Really I hit this lens and I'm really happy, I always wanted the Canon 24 1.4 L II But the price is prohibitive on the new and anyway it stays high even in the used market, I tried with the new Sigma 24 (found in super offer) and I'm really happy with it. Two negative things are the weight and the clutter that you make feel, but you know that the glass weighs and the cap of the lens that is obscene.. Replaced with an original canon and I would say it is definitely better. Would I buy it back? Absolutely! I will probably evaluate other Sigma Art to match the other lenses I own: |
  | sent on December 31, 2018 Pros: High sharpness, blurred, focal (once understood), colors, robustness Cons: AF not perfect in some situations (need for calibration to be budgeted), made with artificial lights, starry "anonymous" Opinion: Spectacular optics. I was looking for a fixed wide angle, sharp and bright to replace the Canon 24-105 L series that I had deeply disappointed. On the advice of a friend and curious to try a Sigma Art (of which I always read wonders and admired beautiful photos), I decided to throw myself on the 24 f1.4. Having both the 50l and the 135l I had initially rated the Canon 24l II. After a bit of various arrovellamentations I preferred to bet on the new Sigma compared to the Canon used since the tests found on the net the Sigma had less vignetting and I felt sharper at closed diaphragms, aspect that convinced me to throw myself on the sigma. Fearful of having problems with the AF I chose to buy it new on Amazon, so that I can replace it in case of any problems. Once mounted on my 6d are enough photos to leave me open-mouthed. This optics has an exceptional sharpness, much more than the 135l I possess. The blur is clear, without transitions and highlights the subject framed... provided to place it in the center where it is not the object of distortion and where the lens has the sharpest part. Shooting with a 24 F 1.4 was a real challenge for me..... you have to approach the subject but, composing with the subject at the center, where the distortions are reduced, you create a really amazing wow effect... I can say that some of the most beautiful photos I made I got my daughter with this lens. Recently I took a trip to Bosnia and Croatia where I took it as the only optics, satisfying myself in full and giving me some shots of which I am very satisfied. Coming to the cons I have to report that the rendition of Art is particular and coming from the Canon L series at the beginning I was puzzled. Specifically I found a flare rather pronounced when you frame a subject in backlight, positioning the sun in one of the four corners, which from origin to colored panes impossible to remove in PP, for the rest the optics seemed to me free from Flare on other less extreme occasions. Another defect I found is in the form of starry in the long night exposures in urban environments; The optics tends to keep the point lights even at closed diaphragms, presenting only a minimum hint of starry around the point light. Chapter AF: I state that I use it on Canon 6d and use the center point and then recompose using the AF-on button. As I said, not to risk I took it on Amazon, mine is almost perfect at all distances, I say almost because at full aperture, if I focus something at infinity, ends up to focus at random. Closing the diaphragm This problem does not occur. This problem is even more pronounced if you use slow times close to the safety time... it is not micro-moved, it is right out of focus. As soon as I can still I will calibrate it with the Sigma Dock. Even the 50l I did calibrate from Canon and after it went much better. Another thing I noticed is the yield in the white balance in the presence of artificial lights. This is a contrasting lens and with strong differences of light I happened that the photo was too contraed and difficult to recover in PP... Much better to exploit it with natural light where from the best of itself. I then make one last consideration on the SIGMA ART lenses: At the beginning even I was skeptical, I had pretty much just and always used Canon L series lenses... With these sigma I found a different rendition, very sharp and correct... I struggled to get used to it, then, Knowing the lens and familiarising myself with the same I figured out how to exploit it... and I really like it. It should be taken into account when evaluating the purchase. Would I buy it back? Sure. Once it happens it's a super lens! |
 | sent on December 02, 2018 Pros: General quality, materials, aperture, sharpness Cons: Weight, sometimes the focus on the sides Opinion: Optics to say the least fantastic, the mountains on the car and suddenly is love. Precious materials (metal and glass in such quantities that give a certain weight to the optics), top quality construction, impeccable assembly. The 24mm are the not too pushed wide angle that allows you not to have so much distortion, and in addition to landscapes, allows some portrait set. The large opening also allows astrophotography. At first I was oriented on the Sigma 20mm F 1.4, but then I evaluated that the 24mm in question would have been better for the possibility of mounting screw filters that I had already in the house. A real ART. Focus on the sides not always accurate but it is a defect to which I step over if I think of all the merits that this lens has. Recommended! |
 | sent on October 10, 2018 Pros: Sharpness Cons: Frankly no one Opinion: Optics that I sincerely resold, but needless to say how is a 24 practically perfect (distortions apart but solvable). I don't know how to use it as a portraiture optics. The sharpness is also hallucinating to F 1.4 in the center, it is noticeably at the edges at each diaphragm, so it is not recommended for landscape use. It is the sharpest of the Sigma art after 70 and 135. Maybe some professional 24-lover can be of interest. Comfortable the fact of being able to mount human filters from 77mm (even if the 35 mounts them from 67 and I do not understand why), and excellent macro capabilities. I would have kept it as an optical to make fabulous pictures of flowers or other objects of such close size, but then I preferred to monetize it and buy the 70 macro art (perfect optics). Pity is not stabilized or tropicalized, but given the bad uniformity between the center and the edges, you will not take with you to do landscaping or night. In Summary It could be a good alternative especially for nikonists, but I highly recommend to try it before buying it. The bokeh is also perfect at night taking advantage of the light spots, pity that being a 24mm is really complex pull it out... I recommend a conscious purchase, because anyway the 24mm is an advanced focal, which as written alas I can not fully exploit. |
 | sent on October 10, 2017 Pros: Sharpness (below, however, of 35 ART), construction, bokeh, AF (...), Cons: Not tropicalized, requires F / B calibration with Dock Opinion: I claim that I was the owner of a 35 Art and that the sharpness was another pair of sleeves, not that this is not the one but the other has more. The PRO's of this 24 Art are the ones that combine the whole series of creamy bokeh, great optic construction, very solid, sharpness already in TA. The CONTRO, on the other hand, is the non-tropicalization that in critical conditions I would have preferred and the F / B Focus. Having tried more than one and several focal points I say (for me but also others) to calibrate the optics with the Dock, just so you will not have F / B Focus and the AF will not beat a shot .. Obviously some error will do so if you pretend to focus 1 point in the middle of 10 neighbors of different distances at 10mt distance and f1.4. It's a bright wide-angle! |
 | sent on September 09, 2017 Pros: Sharpness at the center of TA (though not at the levels of 35 ART that I own), general rendering, construction, bokeh and detachment of the top floors. Cons: A bit soft at TA edges, vignetting up to f2, not tropicalized. Opinion: Focal fix that I missed. For me it's better than my friend's Nikon 24 1.4, tried a whole day and left to lose, especially for the crazy price compared to the quality it offers. rnThis, however, I used it at a price drummed by a photographer who had neither the time nor the desire to calibrate it and wanted to discard it. rnHo used a slot with the Usb Dock and actually suffered from an annoying front focus and an AF somewhat uncertain but, once updated the FW and calibrated .... AF even accurate in low lights and centered / blurry spectacular! As told in TA it's a little soft on the edges and a lot of stickers (all resolved with a couple of clicks in LR). However, the 12MPs of the D700 and D3s are forgiving so much. In the future, if I ever change my body I will never go over the 16 of the D4s .... so ... |
| sent on September 08, 2017 Pros: Optical quality, constructive strength typical of ART, brightness, sharpness and yield. Cons: Not tropicalized Opinion: Fantastic, bright and solid objective, I believe that the Sigma Art's objectives have exceeded Nikon's and Canon's reputation until recently.rn very sharp, all-opening a little less but it's a wide-angle lens, last of the fixes that I I missed the kit, I picked it in place of the 16-35 nikon I came in.rnScelto between the 24th of nikon I tried, too plastic.rn I was lucky but I did not encounter any autofocus problems .. in case I will tarry ..rn |
 | sent on April 14, 2017 Pros: Especially sharpness, but also made great colors and focus, construction, auto focus (provided you use the dock) Cons: weight (but if you want quality and brightness ....), not weather sealed Opinion: I had to vex a little 'to calibrate it with the dock, with 50mm rnQui I had less problems you will find the discussion I opened the matter, however, I realized https://www.juzaphoto.com/topic2.php?l=it&t=2293821rnDopo fly to get your hands on something really special, I already gave the gifts in the Pro, for now it is too early to give an opinion as 10lode as the 50mm that has bewitched me, I have to two days. rnMi intend to give you more impressions in a month or two, long enough to figure it out meglio.rnL'unico ART trouble with these is that clutter and weigh a lot, although this 24mm is among the smallest and lightest of the group. The 50mm is more tosto.rnAggiornamento: in this Easter bridge I could try it for good, really excellent optics, crystal clear and rightly countered already at full aperture, excellent resistance to the light, clean colors and real, good focus, hard to think or imagine a something better! rnAcquisto recommended! |
 | sent on April 10, 2017 Pros: Sharpness, color rendering, minimal distortion, and dynamic contrast microcontrast, the blurred quality Cons: Heavy and not weather sealed Opinion: Along with the Nikon 85mm f / 1.4 it has become the lens that most use for work (during a wedding). The strengths that I think undermine other competitors are the sharpness, the minimum distortion for a focal so short, the contrast and micro-contrast and color rendering. Not to mention the soft bokeh when shooting at full aperture, maybe at close distances, also thanks to a minimum focus distance of just 25cm. Of note is the almost total lack of cromatica.rnMi aberration we really enjoy it a lot and, thanks to the reduced focal length allows me to experiment abbondantemente.rnrnOvviamente I just bought undergoes a meticulous calibration process, as indeed do all the new targets. In this case I used the Sigma USB dock and I are not limited to the control room (I have a D750) and I never had trouble focusing in normal situations. In critical situations like backlit maybe suffer a bit ', but it does not seem so different from the Nikon 85mm f / 1.4, I have indeed the impression to behave worse. |
user47049  | sent on March 04, 2017 Pros: overall quality, sharpness at f1.4, autofocus, value, solidity and construction quality Cons: In cases of front-back focus: objective difficulty of calibrating this lens accurately Opinion: I bought this lens used a year ago by a dissatisfied photographer of the lens, which had neither the time nor the manual and especially the patience to calibrate it with the USB Dock; When I got it actually made an impression, not he focused almost nothing to f1.4, but I noticed that the calibration curve (the curve of the pairs of distance values ??of fire / correction value) was constructed with inconsistent values, the type +5, 0, +4, +2; Therefore it was not a 'curve', was a broken and -probabilmente- why the goal had difficulty in focusing. After checking the focus, I canceled the previous calibration and I have recalibrated the lens based on the experience made with the two taken Sigma lenses used here on Juza previously: 35mm and 50mm f1.4 art: I noticed that as the calibration curve is linear and is close to a straight line all the more the focus works (an example of inconsistency of the curve: if after calibration the fire does not work on a sola distances of 4, you probably will need to review the entire curve, or all 4 values, not just what is not working; if instead you 'remodeling' only that single value, without affecting the remaining three, they create those irregularities in the curve that make so little consistent focus). Why my 24 ARTICLE I had to redo the calibration a couple of times, the end result has paid off: the lens is fantastic, the auto focus is precise and 1.4 the sharpness is simply amazing. In general it is a very good lens, at least in my opinion, with a yield of tones and superb colors, a blurred soft, delicate and good resistance to flare and an excellent performance against the light. The colors are the coldest of the Nikon 24mm f2.8 Ais (with whom I made comparisons 'empirical' and absolutely amateur) which has a warmer made in kind and is much less clear at full aperture and a blurred more 'hard' Sigma. Ultimately the consilglio, it is a professional goal, but with two caveats: the first - in the case of front / back focus - to have patience in the calibration and do not be discouraged, the result pays off and the second: this is only the 'review' of an amateur I am not a technician, so I would say the best thing is to trust the technicians, the lenses can be made by specialists to calibrate. |
 | sent on September 09, 2016 Pros: Solid, autofocus, stellar construction Cons: incostistente sharpness and variable to open higher with 6D Opinion: 2 specimens tested with Canon 6D both have had problems with the sharpness maggiori.rnMi openings explain ... the autofocus works quickly and instantly engages the subject, but when you go to see the image on the monitor the results are disappointing. rnAlle greater openness on the subject that you focused and seemed ok, magnifying rather looks blurred and do not know what's in focus it behind them before the subject. Only F3.5 starts dating sharpness and you can clearly see the point of focus, but now you've lost all the beauty blurred to maggiori.rnHo openings tried a specimen with the 5D Mark III to a friend in that case instead I had images in focus even and consistent whole in coverage, so I think a lens / camera connubbio ... unfortunately I had to return them both rn |
 | sent on May 13, 2016 Pros: Beautiful, flashy, with a sense of professionalism. Cons: inconsistent autofocus, heavy, useless Opinion: I agree with this!!! I bought not by listening to your reviews, I let myself fascinated by the object and by the board of the seller who told me about the comments: Fried rnAria was named the best lens of 2015 as if I did not know him that these appointments are all bought by aziende.rnHo made a fashion shoot approximately 200 shots with studio flash kits from f / 5.6 and more open Cool, and in focus, better than I ever did with the Nikon 18-105 kit .rnSono out on a sunny day to do some 'of various shots, when I downloaded it I had a stroke, 70% to trash, then another day, another trial to test the optics being careful to openings, to of focus points etc. DISAPPOINTMENT TOTALE.rnMi went from supplies Conti since we close dress, gently tested me the lens of finding a Front focus problem, should I send the machine and slow in Milan or buy Docs station to calibrate it. Through the courtesy of supplies Conti losing only importsI made the lens of VAT or replacing it with the 24mm f / 1.8G Nikon which should arrive, hopefully good! rnMai more Sigma you can not put on the market a full product defects god, is not a front / back focus problem under f 2.8 does not focus nulla.rnSperiamo of not having the same problems with Nikon. |
 | sent on March 02, 2016 Pros: Construction price (?), Sharpness (?) Cons: inconsistent AF Opinion: I repeat mostly what he said Pkkleopard and add some of the same things that I had said long ago about the 50Art, unfortunately it is no different, the AF is inconsistent, random, non-repeatable. The front back focus feared is not the worst flaws of this lens, at the end you can possibly fix the USB dock or by sending in assistance immediately. The big problem is that it focuses haphazardly in over 50% of cases, in an incomprehensible manner, what was back focus until recently become front, or not focusing on anything. But this time it's all right is a scream, a large lens, like the others Art but how? If you forget that it is an AF or Sharpen always live view is fine, so it's not an AF lens, or if you close some stop is much better, so it's not a 1.4. Many faults and many virtues, to posterity will judge. For me is not good, the 50Art I kept a couple of months because I was quite flabbergasted and I tried afarmelo go well, this 24 lasted half a day and I gave it away. I feel Nikon users who have had problems but in the end it seems to have resolved them, or you take some defect known that once you exceed, for Canon I think it's a tragedy that Sigma should study better, compatibility is not just a matter of attack but especially of the AF sensor that pilot. I will remain in the eye those few truly memorable photos (promptly posted here on Juza), I'm sorry, I would have liked more but keep it just is not possible. |
 | sent on December 02, 2015 Pros: Sharpness CT, Construction, Price, Value for Money Cons: Inconsistent AF (also calibrated), Slow AF, Weight, Hood, Weight Opinion: Another exemplary objective of Sigma but I do not think the stratospheric levels of 35 and 50. What I have noticed in my example, apart from the excellent sharpness but not miraculous at room temperature (that become very good to F / 2.8), is the Autofocus really inconsistent especially against the light: I lost several clicks because of the slowness and imprecision of the latter. I speak to a working level, clear that for an amateur photographer can go just fine, but when it requires the utmost precision and punctuality this objective does not reflect the expectations. For the rest a good lens also seen the price significantly lower than the 24 Nikon and Canon. |
 | sent on December 02, 2015 Pros: Quite sharp and contrasted Cons: heavy, cumbersome, little color marked Opinion: Surely with optical characteristics above the recent standards of mother Nikon ... home but not up to the Zeiss and the old AI-s with which they are accustomed. I fear that will stay on the bench as a reserve. My intention was to add an autofocus to work alongside my optician park to make up for any situations where you have to have a quick rush but I think I will continue to work in manual. Probably one of the worst lenses that I happened to be. |
 | sent on December 02, 2015 Pros: Extreme clarity and openness Cons: I have not found Opinion: I am one of those who prefer to have in their kit only original objectives (in my case Nikon) and, therefore, I bought this lens with a bit of skepticism, partly because I hear a bit from all that Sigma, often suffer from marked Front / Back focus that can only be solved with the help of dock.rnBene: when I brought it home and I made the micro AF (I do it with all the goals), I was pleased that my copy was " out "very little and then I could fix everything with calibration macchina.rnDetto this, the lens is exceptionally clear: the sharpest I've ever tried, and this clarity, combined with the large opening and the wide angle, can provide great effects pleasant |
| sent on August 05, 2015 Pros: Excellent contrast, very nice all the focus, solid construction, price (than the competition) Cons: Hood, no tropicalization Opinion: After a bit of testing and various indecision it was whether to combine the new D800 and 20mm f1.8 G exception of the Nikon 24mm f1.4 or this home SIGMA (provided I never had a good relationship with any optic that does not was the parent company because of warranty, materials etc. :) - Anyway tested them both, I must say that it seems that 10 ° angle in more 'spent on 20mm that are not bad, the speed of focus 20 that is much higher, I must say that this object "ART" is truly amazing, the specimen has not purchased problems Back focus then I am also saved the dock usb, TA is really clear some vignetting at the edges but with that slight correction in the car is the Nikon system or PP, a good solid construction, the lack of sin quell'anellino rubber to overcome dust etc. in the attack but a concept it can be surmounted, at f5.6 as truly the best of themselves, but not only. Colors and impeccable details (ok the Nikon 24mm f1.4 è the top with a price super top) well balanced in the car even if the amount is costly. It joins well to 50-85 - and I almost 105. I sell 50ino and take even 50 ARTICLE 1.4 if that pushes like this I would say that SIGMA can begin to give some punticino certain objectives house ........ |
 | sent on July 13, 2015 Pros: Sharpness, contrast, three-dimensional, focus Cons: Absence tropicalization, hood and corresponding coupling "plasticky" Opinion: I purchased it to be attached to the Nikon 105 VR to have two fixed-to-use alternative to 24-70 Nikon.rnGià the early test shots left me speechless. D800 on returns incredible detail, RNE perfectly usable in any diaphragm. In the range f2.0 - 5.6 is incredibile.rnIl contrast is very similar to that of the Nikon dwarf, then pretty "bad" and closed in the shadows: rnqui you enter the personal taste, I personally like molto.rnOttima three-dimensionality, the images " out of the screen ".rnDifetti: a goal of this class should have tropicalization. I find the lens hood and its little innestornun '"weak", while the rest of the building is ottima.rnHa did finish on the 24-70 market, and I found the company of Sigma 50 1.4 art.rnNon wait to come out 85 1.4 Article ... |
 | sent on July 07, 2015 Pros: construction, sharpness in TA af reliable (best of 35), boke irresistible Cons: lack of weather sealing. Opinion: I use it recently on 6d and I'm impressed, better than all art series for ease of use and precise affidabilità.rnAf though not as lightning the canon 28 1.8 and 85 1.8, but ready and repeatable, best of 35 50.rnHo and bought a good copy of the Article 35, sharp and crystal clear but difficult and dangerous in focus, too variable and ballerina.rnIl 50 Article l 'I tried a few days and find it fantastic, sharp enough to say, and af enough prestante.rnVenduto 35 I took this wonderful art glass, gigantic and brilliant performance af, (absolute best among art) sharpness well spread throughout the frame and very little aberrazioni.rnAncora not well known I think is the most successful series art.rnConsigliatissimo ... |
 | sent on May 28, 2015 Pros: Construction blurred colors Cons: Focus inconsistent, Sharpness good but not like the 50mm art Opinion: After much research on this point, and after the excellent feedback of 50mm art I decided to take this 24mm 1.4 artrnma unfortunately right now I noticed a focus inconsistent ... Basically they pecked 5 of 10 shots and 5 and no I speak diaphragm open because that's why I've spent more than 700 € then not experience the issue than usual known front / back focus but a focus inconsistent sometimes the guesses very well sometimes no.E for a professional like me I can not afford to make mistakes like this and I decided to give it back. rnrnYouness Taouil |
 | sent on May 11, 2015 Pros: construction, optical quality, price. Cons: Back heightened focus, proper perfectly with USB dock Opinion: Another amazing optics from SIGMA. I am a happy owner of the 50 1.4 24 1.4 ernquesta ART ART is a confirmation of the new course SIGMA.rnCostruzione and optical quality are excellent in my opinion, just as the value / prezzo.rnE 'pesantino, but I consider it an advantage. The point of focus was not precise, but with usb ilrnDock in a few minutes and very easily you can make perfect calibrations, and also for rnquesto SIGMA deserves plauso.rnNon can only consigliarlo.rn |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
