Same sentiments. 24/1.4 has somewhat a visible case of coma from 1.4-2.8. For a 2.9k lens that might be unacceptable for some. You don't buy this lens to shoot from f2-f2.8 often! :bsmilie: My Sigma 30/1.4 also has a bad case of corner coma (but well it costs 500+ bux new for a grey copy with store warranty whatever that means!). Coma is 99.9% unacceptable for astrophotography, but apparently it affects photography connosseiurs as well. :bsmilie: But seriously this is more serious than corner sharpness, as it affects the bokeh with point-light sources which is often one of the main reasons that seperates fair/good -> excellent bokeh.
http://www.celestron.com/c3/page.php?PageID=389
http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/telescopes/
(APOchromatic / ED / elements with FPL-51/52/53 fluorite Refractors ala glass-lenses scopes are typically coma free even for the entry level scopes, but of coz they are of a very different design, extremely long FL and f9 and above systems)
Probably, the optics in "professional" observatory grade telescopes technically makes our lenses look like toys. :angel:
But actually if you are talking about corner sharpness, the 24/1.4 is pretty ok or above average. Check out "the digital picture" ISO chart comparison samples with other lenses.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=690
Centre no issue, 24/1.4 is as sharp as it can get, among the very best. AF Accuracy is among the best too.
3D/POP factor which the western forums eg FM are saying, well I don't know they say the Leica has a better 3D effect and pops more. :bsmilie:
So which one is better? D7000 + 24/1.4 or D700 + 35/1.4? Long run, the D7000 still can be upgraded to FX (bodies always have to change, esp after 4-5 years).
AF-S 35/1.4 is not out yet, but I am not thinking it would be better than the 2.4/1.4 by any measure. It does not even have ED glass. Just for info (I think some guys here are allergic to kenrockwell's site). Heck even a cheap low $1000+ telescope with 66mm objective is triplet ED and Apochromatic. :sweat:
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f14-afs.htm
Waiting for the real released samples of the 35/1.4, if its anywhere close to the AF-S 50/1.4 kinda feel rather than the 24/1.4, its gonna fail.
The 24mm matters, coz some people do shoot with that style. Its FX 24mm, 50mm then 85mm. Or FX 35mm, 85mm, 135mm (can be omitted), meaning DX 24mm, 50mm, 85mm.
I view the original OT question as a bit academic as well. There is no way I will be able to do Leica bodies technically, and no way I can afford the lenses anyway financially (not even professional use as a whole system with multiple bodies, unless I am doing 6-8k per shoot).