OK it official I'm a Luddite.

you all see art

I see blurred image.

If I wanted to paint I'd buy an easel.

I suspect getting that blurred/dreamy effect would be pretty easy with any half decent zoom and decent photo-editing software.

Lets see anyone turn those f1.2 shots into sharp, textured accurate images of the subject.

Nice second series though Lance looks the the 1.2 can really shine at f2.8 and above.

I like my bokeh a 'little harsh' hence why I've always preferred the f1.7's over the imo soft 1.4's

Up to your usual high standard Lance, though I must be missing Something.

Maybe I'm an artistic heathen

But the first two shots are soft and have no detail.

The 3rd shot is I grant you looking good.

I would not buy that lens for f1.2 use.

Never quite understood the greater working distance argument.

105 mm min working distance = 12inches
50mm min working distance = 7.4 inches

105 lens = 3.8 inches long
50 lens = 2.5 inches long

so from the font element 50mm is 4.9inches and the 105 is 8.2 .

not sure 3inches will stop the bug running away

I think it depends how you shoot.

If you potter round the countryside taking pictures of fast moving trees then a don't think a UV/protector is required.

If you go down the local skate/bike park and shove your lens in front of the latest hot shot as he boardslide towards you then besides a UV filter you might want a gum shield.

If you regularly go from cold to hot humid environments (swimming pools) and have to spend the first 15 minutes wiping the condensation off the front element then a UV filter is also de rigeur.

And for anyone who has already smashed up a £1000 lens then I suspect they now use a £20 filter.

Hi Richard,

slrgear have a review of this lens as well as the Sigmas.

This lens does not come off that well in comparison.

Against the older Sigma

Tamron's 10-24mm has a bit more reach on the tele end, but the Sigma lens is much sharper, and as it is a rectilinear design, offers better distortion and less corner softness. It is especially resistant to chromatic aberration (above 10mm),

and the newer

Tamron also has a 10-24mm lens on offer, also a variable aperture lens. In this case, the Sigma is definitely the winner, being sharper, showing less chromatic aberration, and showing less distortion and light falloff. The Tamron lens uses 77mm filters.

So I think its a case of better range Vs better IQ.
But as in most things Caveat Emptor

No failure still

3 SDM lenses

16-50
50-135
and 55

3 lenses 2 of the alleged problematic dual drive

1 2 years old (16-50)
1 12 months old (50-135)
1 4 months old (55mm)

Pity the Poll can't ask how many lens you own .

Just bear in mind sigma UK will not repair this under the international warranty if duty is not paid.

Your gamble

I have a 2x TC that suffered the same as this I found that glasses cleaner (from an optician) successfully removed the remaining coating.