A lens to rival the venerable EF100L...

AbuMahendra wrote:

...the Sigma 56/1.4. I thought I was never going to sell the 100L, but now I'm wondering. No, I don't do Macro and the 160mm FF-eq on APS-C is too long for my liking.

Exactly my thoughts too. The 100mm L is an incredible lens, but if you do more people shots and not much 'true' macro work the 56mm is more useful.

I didn't have the funds to just add the 56mm and keep my 100mm L, so I sold my 100mm and used the money to get both the Sigma 16mm and 56mm.  It was a great move, and gives me so many more options photographically! 😁

Nice shot too, really demonstrates where the 56mm can shine!

AbuMahendra wrote:

MyM6II wrote:

👍 Yes, a fantastic lens.

Almost as good as the EF-M 32mm. F/1.4 😃

I'd be hard pressed to say that one is superior to the other. At their level of performance -- excellent -- the overriding factors are focal length and application.

Yup, they’re both excellent and fulfill one’s needs at each focal length.  In fact I’d have to say that about all of my main EF-M primes (10, 16, 28, 32, 56), and even my little 22 is good in its own way (just wish it was a stop faster at times).

R2

dan the man p wrote:

MAC wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

MAC wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

Lin Labs wrote:

I think it's pretty obviously a Canon guy that would only consider changing to RF, seeing as he's on EF-M. So the Siggy being on the other systems is irrelevant in this particular case.

If he has a bunch of legacy EF glass, I can see that. If not, there's no reason to ignore everything other than RF. I was in that boat several months ago, and to me RF was pretty much the least attractive option. That was in significant part because of the lack of third-party lenses, like the one this thread is about.

congrats on your z6

for me, R8 is a very attractive option that I've pre-ordered

Looks like a nice camera. Canon certainly has some nice bodies in their lineup, it's just the lens situation that turned me off.

Fro says R8's AF is world class and better than Z9

RF L glass is expensive, but I got my RF 24-105 F4L three and a half years ago for $899

The mid-range 16, 35, 85, 100-400 are reasonably priced and good FF quality in RF

If the R8 were available last year, it probably would have been a strong contender, but it still would have cost me quite a bit more to get a similar kit. I got my Z6 + 24-70 F4 S for $1500 (refurbished) and then tacked on the 40mm F2 (new) for another $280.

that is a great price dan

And while the AF may not be on par with Canon, it does have IBIS and weather sealing. I also really like Nikon's F1.8 prime line for quality-to-cost over anything in RF mount, though I don't own one yet.

agree on the f1.8's

Anyway, to get back on topic, Nikon's lens support for their APS-C cameras is pretty minimal, like Canon's, but they are getting the Sigma trio now, which will be a big plus.

yes for apsc, but you and me - we went FF and neither Canon nor Nikon will give up FF to third party easily

MAC wrote:

I'll be taking a paradigm shift and shooting in subject tracking most of the time

Bingo!  The paradigm shifter is indeed Canon's DIGIC X and that wonderful Subject Detect autofocusing!

About everything else comes down to personal preference (Like the M6ii's great form factor). 

R2

R2D2 wrote:

MAC wrote:

I'll be taking a paradigm shift and shooting in subject tracking most of the time

Bingo! The paradigm shifter is indeed Canon's DIGIC X and that wonderful Subject Detect autofocusing!

About everything else comes down to personal preference (Like the M6ii's great form factor).

R2

yes indeed, love that form factor and those f1.4's