Цитата:от:Villain
А что тут говорить то? По моему и так всё видно. 85/1.4 рулит однозначно. У остальных при таком "разнооттеночном и пятнистом" боке получается грязный оттенок. Да и двоения линий видны. Так же при сильном размытии фона, не смотря на то что должны быть просто цветовые "пятна" на всех, кроме 85/1.4 видны маленькие линии.. похожие на "вермишель" ;) что тоже не может не сказаться в отрицательную сторону восприятия картинки.
Ну и конечно же резкость. Не смотря на то, что у 85/1.4 дырка больше, то на самых первых фотках, где фотографии делались на открытых дырках, на снимке сделанном 85/1.4 в зоне резкости всё более резко, чем у 85/1.8!!
Правда есть интересный момент. В начале, на снимах с розовым цветком, на диафрагме 2.8 у Никона 85/1.4 в нерезкости появлется как раз эта пресловутая "вермишель". Но правда один раз... я думаю, может они фотки спутали?? Перепутали между 85/1.4 и 85/1.8...
Кстати, я чего-то не понял... у 85/1.4 есть виньетирование????Подробнее
Мне Nikkor'ы тоже понравились, пропорционально стоимости конечно :D А что скажете о Сигме?
Нашел несколько "необычных" отзывов:
[quot]Canon or Sigma? What is the dilemma!? For as long as I have been involved in this beautiful hobby I noticed that one of the hardest aspects of it, it is buying the right equipment. There is a lot of good products out there that make the choice even harder. To discuss now about the two lenses mentioned (Canon 70-200L USMf2.8 and Sigma HSM 70-200 EX f2.8), after the experience I have had with both of them, I ended up buying a Sigma. Why? I mainly shoot action sports (motocross, desert racing, and horse jumping) to sell pictures, and everything else for stock. The two lenses perform vrtually the same. AF speed is critical in the sports I shoot, and the two AF motors HSM and USM are equally fast. If AF speed is a concen, and you own any Canon below the EOS 3 and want to buy the Canon USM lens, don't be a fool! Buy the Sigma, save the difference in cost, and upgarde your camera body ... it is the camera that auto-focus, not the lens. The lens has only the motor, and as I mentiond above the HSM and USM motors are equally fast (don't tell me that the USM is 1 nanosecond faster, please!) Image quality ... well, it is probably the same and maybe the Sigma is slightly better. Construction ... the Canon feels stronger, but it is just a feeling that you are getting because of its metal barrel. Keep in mind that the paint on the Canon will chip a lot easier than the one on the Sigma. They are both very well sealed against dust and to me this is a concern, since I shoot in very dusty places(Desert,sand,dirt traks). If you drop it is only important to know how lucky you are!(Either lens will suffer equally) Price ... well, Sigma wins big time by being cheeper. Resale ... they will sell fast because they are both excellent lenses in great demand, and the depriciation is proportionally equal. In conclusion, both are excellent lenses that can produce equally excellent pictures that you could sell even to National Geographic or Sports Illustrated (the only limit would be your own ability to take great pictures). I have choosen the Sigma because it makes more sense to me! I had the money for a Canon, but I saved the difference to buy other equipment. I hope this will help you in your research. Photography is about taking great pictures, and the ability of the person behind the camera that makes it happen! Yes, the right equipment is important, but don't buy a "white" lens because it will make you look like a pro ... work on your skills, not on your look. Good luck![/quot]
[quot]I have a "cheaper one", 70-200/4L on my EOS33 (=Elan 7) The lens is *NICE*: sharp even wide-open, immune to flare (with no filters attached), fast AF thanks to USM (if limited to +3m - +INF), 67mm mounting thread is compatible vs. EF24-85, hood supplied.
But there are also some weakenesses: first, after 1 year of not too intensive usage i have to contact service center because the entire optical block has been "unscrewed" for a unknown reason, and locked zoom position at ~73mm. One month required to reassemble the lens completely.
Then, an expert who did the repair said that "not the entire lens tube is metallic, but some rear parts are plastic". That's funny!
Generally the entire built is very solid, lightweight if compared to f/2.8L (IS), rubber-coated focus & zoom rings both are very usable. Of course, it's not intended for portraiture works so its bokeh is more "repartage-like" instead of beatifaul backgnd blur - which is delivered for example by 100/2.8 Macro (not a portrait one, too, but bokeh is really wonderful)
The detail level especially @200 mm is exceptional - i have some shots of a 15th century church all made from the distance of 20-30 meters (Fuji Reala 100); when printed as 20x30 cm (8x12 inches) it is possibly to distinguish even where the rust is and where is not, each of bricks, and feathers on a small bird sitting on the roof. [/quot]
Вероятно стоит просто подержать в руках/отснять тестовую пленку....
И не зарастёт народная тропа. 
