Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rick M" data-source="post: 201955" data-attributes="member: 4399">So I contemplated this lens for a long time, I do not like duplicate focal lengths. I am very pleased with my new Nikon 18-35g, so why get a 35? I was very impressed with the results I've seen online with this lens at 1.4, creates some very nice separation which is hard to achieve at shorter focal lengths (look at the bokeh difference on a 24-70 2.8 or 70-200 2.8 at their extremes). I could not achieve that effect on the 18-35. The other factor is I really like 35mm on Fx and wanted the sharpest corners I could achieve and lowest distortion. This lens beats out every other 35 on the market across mid-frame to extremes. The 18-35g is excellent in the 18-30 range. As with most ultra wides, they are pushed to have a wider range for convenience and not quality. So is it really better than the 18-35 at 35? The statistics say a resounding yes. So here is my real world test between the two. I shot the extreme right corners with both lenses using a tripod. Statistically, both lenses are sharpest in the corners/edges at f5.6, so that is what I used. About 100% crops, the first is the Nikon,[ATTACH=full]53845[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]53846[/ATTACH]Look at the date in the upper right corner. As you can see the Sigma is much sharper and has less distortion, no post except the cropping.</blockquote>