Yes.

edit. Sorry mudshark, I didn't read all the responses before answering. My bad.

I didn't find anything amusing. It opens a page with what appears to be a whale staring you. Nothing happens, I closed the window.

Just remember, only aperture and shutter speed effect the amount of light that hits your camera's sensor. All iso does is electronically increase the strength of the light captured prior to it being saved and can have a negative effect on the quality of the light that was captured. The exposure 'triangle' is a relative new thing in the history of cameras.

I suggest you read the article. It specifically says the opposite of that.

Optically, this is an excellent lens. Historically, Sigma lenses have had difficulty focusing on Canon cameras. This lenses is not any different. You either get lucky and get an good copy or you don't.

Read this review to start -

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx

then do a google search on 'Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art focus problems'.

Users say you should test each copy you receive carefully and be willing to possibly go through several copies in order to get a good one.

4K, 6K, 8K. There are many pieces of photography equipment that are not needed by all users.

I clicked on the link and the page immediately opened for me. I am not a Google+ person.

If I were buying a 50mm I would get the Canon f1.2 because it fits well with both the studio and low light work I do. The other two Canons have decent optics but lots of people don't care for the 'plastic fantastic' f1.8. The Canon f1.4 is notorious for having an easily breakable focus system.

The Sigma f1.4 Art has outstanding optics, extremely sharp. Unfortunately, it seems Sigma still has not been able to reverse engineer Canon's autofocus algorithms. Careful research on the web will get you lots of stories of people returning several copies of the lens before getting one that will focus correctly. Go to Canon Rumors and do a search on the lens. Several threads to read.

This guy may be an IT person, but I don't think he knows much about cameras. The simple fixed lens, mirrorless he thinks can save the camera industry is called a point and shoot by the industry. Those are the cameras whose sales are being decimated by phones; down 63% since 2012. His chart does not show those sales results, just dslr and what the industry calls MILC, mirrorless interchangeable cameras.

I think he might be right about the simplicity thing. Most people who bought all those upper-level cameras thought that would automatically make them take great photos. Nope, and the camera in the phone takes 'good enough' pictures for all the throw-away-crap that they take. They weren't interested in learning the exposure triangle.

So, MILC and DSLR sales are also down for the last two years. (DSLR sales are still above their last ten year average.) High end sales will probably continue to decline until we are back to where only pros and serious hobbyists will be buying them, just like the old days.

Please explain how a single focus point 'averages'.

While I can't tell you about any specific question that might be on the written exam to become a Certified Professional Photographer, I can tell you that your answer would be wrong. Historical, most lenses are sharpest stopped down one to two stops from their maximum aperture. They are getting better all the time.

Childish response to a very serious situation.

It is impossible to negotiate with people whose religious tenets tell them it is okay to lie to achieve their goals.

His family is in the battery business. That's where he got his electrical knowledge..and a good deal on batteries.

Nope, all came from current information. Makes no difference to me what you thing about the numbers. I would suggest you learn how to research things that are posted and to think for yourself instead of posting childish stuff that had noting to do with the Federal Reserve Bank report. You can now post more childish stuff. Bye.

Oh, Sponge Bob. Sometimes he's cool.

I like to do fact checking. Even when I'm tired.

I was unable to fined any information that ties the Federal Reserve Bank or any of it's operations to 'Right Wing Nut Jobs'. Not sure what that was about.

Stock market - I was unable to find any information that shows the President has anything to do with the stock market. I'm aware that several of his government economists have been reporting their concerns over the market being completely out of touch with true corporate valuations and returns.

Unemployment - the latest published government figures show this is not true.

Recession - numbers for the last available year show the average American family's income is still down 8% from when the recession started. As far as I could tell from the reports, that is in real dollars, not adjusted for inflation. I don't think the average American feels like the recession is over.

Housing - latest numbers do show the housing market beginning to return. There are no numbers or any information that indicated the government had anything to do with this. It was Barney Frank sponsored bank bills pasted during the Clinton administration that led to the 2007 banking collapse->housing collapse->Bush recession.

Manufacturing - the latest published government figures show this is not true.

Uninsured - This was a mess to try to research. There are no definitive numbers. It does appear more people have health insurance but all reports on the actual numbers are skewed by the politics of the people issuing the reports. I think it will be awhile before we can tell how this is all going to shake out.

Deficit - I'm not sure what kind of fussy math is being used here. Not counting Obama's first year in office, because part of that year's deficit was in the budget from Bush's last year, the federal budget numbers issued by the government show that Obama's budget deficits have already increased the federal debt more than any other President and he still has two more years. If Obama is saying the latest budget deficit is less than the previous deficit, after increasing the national debt to a historical high, that's like claiming he closed the barn door after the horse got out.

Aren't the internet and search engines wonderful things. Somebody recently told that not all things on the internet are true. Does that mean all those government numbers might be lies?