Yeah I'm not talking about soft and I know the build quality has massively increased. I'm talking about
Stuff like http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5989478417/sigma-issues-advisory-on-lens-compatibility-with-nikon-df
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38183664
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Soft got rid of Joe Hirschhorn’s millions of wrinkles. But when I sued it with the Ali shots, it was by that point outed as it were, and had become a ’Stigma’ lens.On Aug 30, 2015, at 11:05 PM, andpph@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:Guess I'll join the Sigma frey ... I have a 16mm f/2.8 Sigma that covers about 180 degrees on the diagonal of a 24x36 frame ... but I have used it on a 31/4 x 41/4 Polaroid back modified so it would accept the Canon FD mount lenses and which I could also use sheet film with. The lens was superb and delivered a 45 mm image circle covering 180 degrees along any diagonal. So a "fisheye" when recording the full image circle. Granted that at 2.8 it was a bit soft but at f/8 it was fantastic.AndySoft is not necessarily bad ... use softness to advantage or just deal with it ... excellent photographs were made with rudimentary equipment and these days the soft focus Holga and Diana and Lens Baby lenses are all the rage! :)-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Lens Question
From: Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
My 18mm from 1972 was used for a portrait of Joe Hirschhorn and it so soft I am embarrassed. I shot it at f11, but it did not help.
Art FaulThe Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Art for Cars: art4carz.comStills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comGreens: http://www.inkjetprince.comCamera Works - The Washington Post.
