I think the slow AF of the *ist D is related to a rather weak focus motor, not the optics. It seems to be equally slow no matter what lens is used. The AF of the MZ-S is much better - it works so fast, that the camera actually moves in my hand when I press the shutter release half way down. The focus motor is better/faster/stronger. I wish the *ist D worked this well. I think this is a stupid place for Petnax to save money, because of the marketing issue.
FWIW I think the AF works quitewell, though. I takes a second or so to focus, which is not very fast, but most of the time it's good enough, but certainly not impressing. For very fast foucsing in low light I tend to sweitch off the AF. But this takes time as well. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. januar 2005 02:05 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments i read about this "slow or useless AF performance in low light" on the *istD comment and i wonder every time what is really going on. i shoot a lot of waterfall shots with a 10 stop ND filter mounted. that gives me typically 8 second exposures at f11 or f13 at ISO 200. i set the camera to point select AF mode, choose a focus point, press the shutter release half way, it focuses and lock correctly (usually on the first try), and i take my picture. the 10 stop filter is mounted while i am doing this. it's almost impossible to see *anything* in the viewfinder except the readouts, yet the AF works and i get correctly focused images pretty much all the time. Herb... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 7:40 PM Subject: Re: Sigma 2.8 Zoom lens comments > The comments so far do not surprise me much. It was just an idea I had > :) I'm hoping someone that has used one of these zooms will chime in > in the next few days. > > My money might be better spent picking up some fast primes, AF or M.
