The most overrated lens of all time, Sigma's 30mm f/1.4

On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 17:16:39 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: I had that lens. At the same time, I had the Nikon 35mm f/2.0 and
: the Pentax 35mm f/2.0. To say the Nikon and Pentax killed it in image
: quality would be kind. Even at f/8.0, even centrally, where they
: should have all given similar performance, the Nikon and Pentax were
: head and tails better. At f/1.4, the edges of the Sigma were so bad
: as to be unusable. This was due in-part to Sigma's weird, "sacrifice
: the edges" design philosophy. The argument might be "it allows you to
: isolate the subject better!" Really? Done any portraits with 30mm
: lenses lately? Maybe distorted flowers... The only thing that Sigma
: could claim about the 30mm was that it was better (at the time) than
: Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 which had an ancient design by then. Today, if you
: can't afford Nikon's current 35mm f/1.4, you would be far better off
: getting the Samyang (or any variant company's) manual 35mm f/1.4. at
: roughly the same price-point as Sigma's current 30mm.

Maybe you got a bad copy. My Canon-mount version of that lens doesn't seem to
have all those bad properties.

That said, I hardly ever use the lens. I bought it for a camera whose high-ISO
performance was vastly inferior to that of the cameras I own today. So an
f/1.4 lens seemed to make a lot more sense then than it does now. But compared
to the prices of today's lenses, I didn't pay a lot for it, so I don't lose
any sleep.

Bob