# Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked



## ahsanford (Feb 6, 2014)

Saw this at photorumors.com re: Sigma's new 50 Art:

http://photorumors.com/2014/02/06/the-price-of-the-new-sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-around-1300/

Discuss!!!

- A


----------



## Nuthatch (Feb 6, 2014)

I'll give my 35L an extra hug today and move on...


----------



## giltaminphotography (Feb 6, 2014)

The price is not to bad considering the 50L goes for 1600 and I think the 50L is nothing special. If the 50 performs like the sigma 35 art I think its worth it. I've been waiting so long for a good 50 to come out.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 6, 2014)

More expensive than I was thinking.

It's going to kill the Nikon 58mm price/quality wise but it must be really close to the Otus to make a compelling choice. The 35mm came in another market and at another price.

The canon is not so much about optical performance but rather about the optical rendering at f/1.2.

I guess Sigma is (understandably) trying to capitalize the recent recognition gained with the 35mm.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 6, 2014)

If it's true then they got too greedy too early. 

On the other hand, I don't know the price difference between the Aussie and the U.S. markets. For example, the U.S. prices are about 30-35% lower than where I live. The 50L is about 2300 dollars where I live.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 6, 2014)

giltaminphotography said:


> The price is not to bad considering the 50L goes for 1600 and I think the 50L is nothing special. If the 50 performs like the sigma 35 art I think its worth it. I've been waiting so long for a good 50 to come out.



I must say that I am surprised a bit (if this turns out to be the US price). 

The 35 Art, at $899 at launch, was in the very sweet price point between the venerable $300-500 non-L primes (before the IS refreshes) and the $1400+ 35 F/1.4L. By many metrics & opinions (though not all), the Sigma 35 Art outpunched Canon and Nikon's 35 highest (1st party) 35mm prime lenses at a significantly lower price. Further, the build quality of that lens (though it is still relatively young in terms of actual years in service) has been quite good. This lens was so well received that it _singlehandedly_ changed a lot of people's minds about Sigma as a designer and manufacturer of lenses.

Then came the 18-35 F/1.8 for EF-S mount. I'm a FF shooter now, but I understand that this lens was also quite good. And, for an industry first lens like this, the price tag of $799 was altogether shocking. One might argue there was a limit to how much you can reasonably charge for an APS-C mount lens as Canon themselves doesn't get much pricier than this with an EF-S mount lens (I want to say the 17-55 F/2.8 IS was price dropped to $900 or so late last year), but value is value, and this lens was a very good offering.

Then came more info on the USB lens calibration tool, the inexpensive mount conversion service, etc. and it was clear that Sigma was trying to grow their business with pros and enthusiasts. They were thinking down the road rather than just what lens they'd price-undercut next. Good for them, and good for us, I say.

So it surprises me to see -- if $1300 US is indeed going to be the asking price -- that Sigma is charging this much. Rather than being the 'sensibly priced high performance lens' like the two examples above, it appears that the Sigma must believe some combination of the list below is true:


The lens is truly that good, and can go punch for punch with Canon's 50 F/1.2L or possibly get _near_ the Zeiss Otus.
Enough pros are fed up with the lack of sharpness of the 50/1.2L (yes, yes: there's much more to the 50L than sharpness...) that they demand a better pro offering
Their performances of late (see above) no longer require a lowered price point to entice buyers -- Sigma innovation / design / quality coals are hot of late and you will now pay for said hotness
There's simply a ton of glass in there and it's not as cheap a design as the 35 Art or 18-35 F/1.8

I'm curious to see where this lands. I would have guessed that Sigma would come in around $799-$899 in this space. To think they'd come in so high despite full-well knowing Canon has a brand spanking new 50 F/something IS coming down the pike is a surprise.

- A


----------



## drjlo (Feb 6, 2014)

Arctic Photo said:


> If it's true then they got too greedy too early.



Agree x 1000 :-[


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 6, 2014)

drjlo said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > If it's true then they got too greedy too early.
> ...



Or this lens could be that good... I await the testing and reviews from the experts. I need a new 50 prime, and as much I think I'm getting Canon's yet-to-be-announced IS refresh of the 50 F/1.4 for IS and size/weight reasons, I would consider a pickle jar of a 50 prime if it was truly _that_ good.

- A


----------



## lol (Feb 6, 2014)

They apparently are gunning at Otus level: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/01/08/sigma-50mm-f-1.4-art-targets-zeiss-otus-ignores-canon-l-nikon-glass

Sigma themselves also mention their goal of a lot of optical corrections: http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/new/new_topic.php?id=408

Of course, the price and quality are still unknown to us.


----------



## rs (Feb 6, 2014)

It does say 'Pricing listed is anticipated only, where final price and ETA are to be announced'. This is nothing more than a placeholder to allow people to place preorders with them.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 6, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Photo said:
> ...


This may be good news for those who want a real top performer. Sigma claimed they are aiming for the Otus. To price it in L-series territory may indicate that they have something great to show us.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 6, 2014)

Arctic Photo said:


> If it's true then they got too greedy too early.
> 
> On the other hand, I don't know the price difference between the Aussie and the U.S. markets. For example, the U.S. prices are about 30-35% lower than where I live. The 50L is about 2300 dollars where I live.



Perhaps they're encouraged by the $999 charged for the new Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8!


----------



## Viggo (Feb 6, 2014)

I welcome that price, it might be much less copy variation, higher tolerance, actual precise AF and superb optical quality. It might even be both sharp and nice bokeh. 

Put me down for one


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 6, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I welcome that price, it might be much less copy variation, higher tolerance, actual precise AF and superb optical quality. It might even be both sharp and nice bokeh.
> 
> Put me down for one



I'm just wondering how many pros who use an auto-focusing 50mm prime are still using the ancient Canon 50 F/1.4 (not-quite-modern-)USM as they just don't have a sharper / more reliable AF lens to shoot with.

_Those_ folks will gladly pay $1300 for this lens (if that is the price). I just don't know how many are out there.

- A


----------



## deleteme (Feb 6, 2014)

As this is a rumor only we may be getting well ahead of ourselves.

Sigma has a good record of late of delivering outstanding lenses in its Art line. As others have noted, if it is as good as we hope it should be able to command a high price.

The fact that Sigma is burdened with a history of budget pricers lenses is what is hurting it at the moment. They want to occupy the space that Zeiss now inhabits as they have seen that solid construction and superb optics are able to command a loyal base of eager buyers.

If the lens is good why don't we accord them the respect they have earned by paying a price that reflects the quality they have put into the product?


----------



## Viggo (Feb 6, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I welcome that price, it might be much less copy variation, higher tolerance, actual precise AF and superb optical quality. It might even be both sharp and nice bokeh.
> ...



A lot... There are a few 50 L's out there and not even close to half of them are owned by pro's. And if people actually got a sharp 50 for the same money or less, I think it well sell by the boatload


----------



## flowers (Feb 6, 2014)

Arctic Photo said:


> If it's true then they got too greedy too early.
> 
> On the other hand, I don't know the price difference between the Aussie and the U.S. markets. For example, the U.S. prices are about 30-35% lower than where I live. The 50L is about 2300 dollars where I live.


I agree. I expected it to be around $1000. That's $300 too much!
It better be a flawless lens.
_Edit: removed comment about fringing, I was thinking about the 85!_


----------



## brad-man (Feb 6, 2014)

During all this speculation, keep in mind that the MSRP of the 35 Art on Sigma's own website is $1400. As we all know, the actual price has always been $899. I would expect the new 50 to be similarly priced. Since I'm waiting for the 85 & the 135 Art, I really really hope so...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 6, 2014)

brad-man said:


> During all this speculation, keep in mind that the MSRP of the 35 Art on Sigma's own website is $1400. As we all know, the actual price has always been $899. I would expect the new 50 to be similarly priced. Since I'm waiting for the 85 & the 135 Art, I really really hope so...


Yes, there are large discrepancies in prices between different countries. I also hope that costs up to $ 1,000 in the U.S. market.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 6, 2014)

Normalnorm said:


> As this is a rumor only we may be getting well ahead of ourselves.
> 
> Sigma has a good record of late of delivering outstanding lenses in its Art line. As others have noted, if it is as good as we hope it should be able to command a high price.
> 
> ...



+1

Good points. I would say they are much more clearly going after the red-ringed devils more than Zeiss. This is an autofocus lens looking for autofocus users. These Art series lenses (despite anyone making Otus comparisons) are aimed at besting their L-series counterparts for less money. That's a great goal and I love the extra value these guys are now giving us.

That said, these new primes are _big_. I believe the new 50's specs describe a lens very close in dia x length to my Canon 24-70 F/4L IS _zoom_. So it's a pickle jar of a lens when I'm looking for standard primes to be more the size of a cocktail tumbler. I've really enjoyed the non-L IS refreshes' smaller size and weight in comparison, but again, I want to see how this new Sigma performs. It might be worth the size...

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 6, 2014)

Viggo said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



I realize there are a lot of 50L lovers on this very forum, and that the 50L is more for the draw, bokeh, color, etc. than pure corner to corner sharpness.

But there are a boatload of people who want sharp 50mm performance at something wider than F/4. So, in fairness, I baited that response. I know you folks are out there. ;D

- A


----------



## giltaminphotography (Feb 7, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


 I want a 50 mm that is sharp in studio light and outdoor light for portraits, I find the 50L to be inconsistent. It always renders a nice colour and has nice bokeh but that isn't enough. I'm finding my sigma 35 to wow me to the point I hate my 50L in terms of sharpness across the board. It gives me a way better punch to my photos. So if this 50 coming out has that same punch and focuses better then the 50L then sign me up. I'm starting to really like the colours my sigma 35 produces it gives it a vintage glow, maybe doesn't have the same bokeh as the 50L but bokeh is overrated.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 7, 2014)

giltaminphotography said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I realize there are a lot of 50L lovers on this very forum, and that the 50L is more for the draw, bokeh, color, etc. than pure corner to corner sharpness.
> ...


And bokeh is pretty damn subjective. 

In a voter-blinded 'study', the Sigma 35 F/1.4 beat the Canon and Nikon 35 F/1.4 lenses for best bokeh here:
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/battle-of-the-bokeh-canon/NzI2ODkwODA_A

Granted, Kai is many things -- but not a scientist. The poll itself is nutty, but it's a data point nonetheless.

But I'm getting OT. I just wonder if the new Sigma 50 will perform like that 35...

- A


----------



## ecka (Feb 7, 2014)

Relax . It may cost even less than 35Art, like $799.
35Art MSRP:$1,400.00 - Price:$899.00
50Art MSRP:$1,300.00 - Price:$799.00
...makes sense?


----------



## Zv (Feb 7, 2014)

It's an estimated price. The actual price is still TBA. Let's not get our neckstraps in a twist over this rumor just yet!


----------



## flowers (Feb 7, 2014)

ecka said:


> Relax . It may cost even less than 35Art, like $799.
> 35Art MSRP:$1,400.00 - Price:$899.00
> 50Art MSRP:$1,300.00 - Price:$799.00
> ...makes sense?


That makes sense, I hope you're right.  If it's anything like the 35 art (perhaps my favorite lens) I'm sure I'll run to the store to buy it for $800 or whatever it will cost at the local store. Though I probably shouldn't.


----------



## flowers (Feb 7, 2014)

Zv said:


> It's an estimated price. The actual price is still TBA. *Let's not get our neckstraps in a twist over this rumor just yet!*


Ha ha, I've never heard that one before! (I really haven't)


----------



## IsaacImage (Feb 7, 2014)

Hopefully Sigma is trying to catch Otus, but lack of AF is really downside for most of the pro's.
I'm still thinking the prize will be 800 - 900 US.

And once again there will be always folks like my self who think that price is not really meter, for me Image Quality and AF speed it's a much more important factors.
Time will tell.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 7, 2014)

When they started comparing it to a 4000 lens in regards to performance... my presumed price point went from 900 to 1200. 1300 isn't that far off and I would still wait a little bit to save 20%... but I hope it does blow away Canon's offerings.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 7, 2014)

Viggo said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Here's my thought process... I have the cash to buy the lens and if the lens is 90 % of the otus, but 125% of the 50L.

Sign me up. Auto focus is a bonus... I even if it is as slow as the 85L mkii...if the af is fast and quality control good... I might even pay full retail price.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 7, 2014)

Even if they launch at $1300 I think I'll get one. At this point I don't doubt that the quality will be there (or at least the differential compared to equivalent Canon lenses), and right now my only fast prime is a samyang 85mm (great lens, but using it really emphasizes how nice AF is).


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I welcome that price, it might be much less copy variation, higher tolerance, actual precise AF and superb optical quality. It might even be both sharp and nice bokeh.
> ...



I am not cheap, I am no Canon whore either, and I like the 50mm focal length, but no way on earth am I paying Sigma anything like $1,300 for anything.

I would pay Canon $700-800 for a really nice 50 f1.4 with IS and real USM, but I have gone this long without it I probably won't care, and the truth is neither do the clients. You guys worry so much about IQ, people who pay for images (the ones that allow me to buy stuff) care about content.


----------



## dadgummit (Feb 7, 2014)

$1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!? Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery. I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....


----------



## Radiating (Feb 7, 2014)

dadgummit said:


> $1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!? Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery. I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....



You do realize that both Canon and Nikon's top pro 50mm lenses run $1700 right? This lens blows these competitors out of the water in every conceivable dimension and costs less. It is such an improvement over the top alternatives that is the single greatest generational improvement in image quality in the history of pro Canon or Nikon autofocus lenses. That's not an exaggeration. We are literally talking around double the performance of the nearest competitor, which again run $1700 if you forgot.

Read this part of this thread if you want to know what makes this lens so special:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16643037&postcount=377

You are getting performance that compares to a $4,000 Zeiss lens for 3/4 the the price of the nearest competitor.

I welcome the $1300 price tag, this lens deserves it.


----------



## dslrdummy (Feb 7, 2014)

Radiating said:


> dadgummit said:
> 
> 
> > $1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!? Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery. I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....
> ...


Not sure where you get this all from. About the only description of performance we have so far is from Sigma. Not exactly an unbiased view. If it's very good I'll probably buy it, but proof of the pudding's in the eating.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 7, 2014)

I don't remember sigma overstating anything lately. The 35mm delivered. The 24-105 is on par with the canon 24-105 and a little better... and it gives sony and nikon people a good option... I don't remember them saying that it was going to light the world on fire. 

If they brag now... maybe it is deserved... and since they haven't lied to me recently, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.



dslrdummy said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > dadgummit said:
> ...


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Feb 7, 2014)

ecka said:


> Relax . It may cost even less than 35Art, like $799.
> 35Art MSRP:$1,400.00 - Price:$899.00
> 50Art MSRP:$1,300.00 - Price:$799.00
> ...makes sense?



Ding! Ding! Ding! You win the prize. I'll put $799 down that you're within 50 bucks. 8)


----------



## wako (Feb 7, 2014)

Radiating said:


> dadgummit said:
> 
> 
> > $1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!? Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery. I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....
> ...




I want to introduce you to a website called Slickdeals.net. I take it you arent too bright when it comes to shopping. There are things called deals. It might help you.

For Canon lenses, I recommend canonpricewatch.com. It tracks and can even notify you when a lens is on sale. Its brilliant.

Canon's "top pro 50mm" lens that commands a $1700 price tag can be snagged easily $1300-$1400 when it is on sale. Lowest last year was $1250. 

Sigma lenses dont go on sale much. The 35mm f/1.4 Art lens was only on sale ONCE in the last year and a half, and it was a amazon black friday deal.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 7, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Relax . It may cost even less than 35Art, like $799.
> ...



The 35 art is a really good lens... and in regards to wide open sharpness, it is better than the 35L. But it isn't in a different league. They are close.

The 50 art is supposed to blow away the 50L and is indeed in a different league. I think 1300 is going to be the going rate... and it still will be a bargain. Magic bokehs be damned.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 7, 2014)

dslrdummy said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > dadgummit said:
> ...



Actually Sigma hasn't said too much about the performance of the lens directly, the reason we know this lens is so good is because Sigma provided MTF charts of the lens's performance, block diagrams of their optical formula, and sample copies of the lens at shows.

This lens is a winner at any price point that has been rumored. 

Now all that Sigma needs to do is keep up the momentum.


----------



## FlipperNYC (Feb 7, 2014)

Can't wait. Have the Sigma 35 Art love it. Refresh Canon Rumors everyday at least 5 times waiting to pre order. 1300 is more than I thought but will not stop me from pre ordering. Worst case its not worth it and send it back. Best case finally have and auto focus 50 prime better than my 24-70 II.


----------



## dslrdummy (Feb 7, 2014)

Radiating said:


> dslrdummy said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...


I'll grant you the charts are a good indicator, but diagrams of optical formula and sample copies at shows? Think I'll wait and see if it is a winner at that price point as you say.


----------



## Zv (Feb 7, 2014)

FlipperNYC said:


> Can't wait. Have the Sigma 35 Art love it. Refresh Canon Rumors everyday at least 5 times waiting to pre order. 1300 is more than I thought but will not stop me from pre ordering. Worst case its not worth it and send it back. Best case finally have and auto focus 50 prime better than my 24-70 II.



Haha that's a good point you've hit upon! Canon's best 50mm is the 24-70LII, as long as you don't need wider than f/2.8 it would make more sense to put that $1300 towards that. With a good rebate deal it was under $1800 wasn't it?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 7, 2014)

Radiating said:


> dadgummit said:
> 
> 
> > $1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!? Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery. I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....
> ...



Now lets not but the body ahead of the lens now. They are saying they're gunning for the otus, but, that may be more PR buzz. will it meet and exceed the current canon 50's? And, how will it stack against the new canon 50 Is when it comes out? Now those are things I wonder.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 7, 2014)

I do think that using the Sigma 35mm as a reference is a little bit risky. I mean, if you have a great copy never sell it, but it doesn't talk google long to find lots and lots of people have inconsistent AF, and I was one of them. It's no point for a lens to have that fantastic IQ, which it really does have, when it can't deliver that IQ when you need it to. Not even certain if you take 8-10 shots. It should be possible to buy ten 35 lenses and have them perform VERY similar, that is not the case now.

The worst part is that it might be hard to tell the difference of a poor copy or if the Sigma just works like that. If you buy one and it doesn't seem right and you exchange for three-four others and they are the same with a bit too many missed shots, is it a design flaw or all poor copies, how can you tell? All the happy AF owner I read about can use one shot or Live view for all I know..


----------



## flowers (Feb 7, 2014)

FlipperNYC said:


> Can't wait. Have the Sigma 35 Art love it. Refresh Canon Rumors everyday at least 5 times waiting to pre order. 1300 is more than I thought but will not stop me from pre ordering. Worst case its not worth it and send it back. Best case finally have and auto focus 50 prime better than my 24-70 II.



I love mine too, it's my favorite lens! I said one of my favorite lenses but I thought about it and honestly it's my most favorite lens, I love it so much! Ha ha. I'm not even embarrassed to say it: I love my Sigma 35/1.4! I love it so much!



Viggo said:


> I do think that using the Sigma 35mm as a reference is a little bit risky. I mean, if you have a great copy never sell it, but it doesn't talk google long to find lots and lots of people have inconsistent AF, and I was one of them. It's no point for a lens to have that fantastic IQ, which it really does have, when it can't deliver that IQ when you need it to. Not even certain if you take 8-10 shots. It should be possible to buy ten 35 lenses and have them perform VERY similar, that is not the case now.
> 
> The worst part is that it might be hard to tell the difference of a poor copy or if the Sigma just works like that. If you buy one and it doesn't seem right and you exchange for three-four others and they are the same with a bit too many missed shots, is it a design flaw or all poor copies, how can you tell? All the happy AF owner I read about can use one shot or Live view for all I know..



I bought it at a store so I tested it before buying, I read all that stuff about AF problems so I was expecting something but honestly *nothing*! I got a perfect copy, as perfect as they come! It's so perfect that for a while I considered all the talk about AF problems a smear campaign against Sigma or just badmouthing from people who had had problems with the AF in Sigma's _previous_ lenses. That's how good my 35/1.4 is. I got incredibly lucky because on top of it being a perfect copy I got it for a reduced price! Brand new. Thinking about the day I bought it still makes me smile. I'll never sell this lens! Ps. I use AI-Servo most of the time, tracks flawlessly. Every time I read about the AF problems in the bad copies I get a little happier, not because I hope for anyone to have a bad copy (I wish everyone had a perfect copy) but because I'm so lucky to have this copy.

If the good copies of 50/1.4 are as good as my 35/1.4, I'll buy it, even if it costs $1300. Honestly, it's worth it. Just test the lens in the store to see if you got a good copy. The store I go to lets you take the lenses out of the store too (and they let you go test it further down the street), you can test it thoroughly if the store near you lets you do that.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 7, 2014)

flowers said:


> FlipperNYC said:
> 
> 
> > Can't wait. Have the Sigma 35 Art love it. Refresh Canon Rumors everyday at least 5 times waiting to pre order. 1300 is more than I thought but will not stop me from pre ordering. Worst case its not worth it and send it back. Best case finally have and auto focus 50 prime better than my 24-70 II.
> ...



Happy for you you have a great copy, but this is what I mean, what if you don't get a great copy of the 50?

And you can't test it thoroughly in the shop, because it needs to be calibrated first. What I'm gonna do is buy two 50's and see if they perform equally, then keep the best and buy another two elsewhere and test in the same way I did with the 35, that would make a better chance. The real problem is for people who can only buy one and don't know how good it's suppose to be. My 35 said almost 99% focus consistency in FoCal, but try shooting in my living room it was useless.


----------



## flowers (Feb 7, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Happy for you you have a great copy, but this is what I mean, what if you don't get a great copy of the 50?
> 
> And you can't test it thoroughly in the shop, because it needs to be calibrated first. What I'm gonna do is buy two 50's and see if they perform equally, then keep the best and buy another two elsewhere and test in the same way I did with the 35, that would make a better chance. The real problem is for people who can only buy one and don't know how good it's suppose to be. My 35 said almost 99% focus consistency in FoCal, but try shooting in my living room it was useless.



Then I'd be really sad  But I'd make sure that wouldn't be the case before buying the lens! The store I use throws your test images onto a screen as large as you like and you can zoom in and see if the lens really focused where it was supposed to focus, you can test as thoroughly as you want. I hope you understand if the lens has no focus issues, no calibration is needed! If it needs calibration you have AF microadjustment in-camera, you can do it or the store clerk can do it (they know how to do that in the store I go to but I've heard there are some stores where the clerks aren't that knowledgeable). I just manually tested focus consistency to a static object (3mm wide) and to a moving object (empty coke bottle mid-air that I threw with my free hand). Perfect consistency, perfect focus. The only inconstencies were when the AF point was not on target, those pictures were perfectly focused too: on the spot where the AF point was. No lens error, only user error. Lens did perfectly, I failed 2 times out of 30. I only tried it with AI-servo, I don't know if there' a difference when using One Shot mode.
I don't know about the software but I think many times when people say their lens has AF problems it's user error they have overlooked. Of course some lenses really have AF problems but I think the number is lower than claimed.

I think it might be hard to test a new sigma if you've never had a perfect copy of a new sigma lens, but after using my 35 I feel certain I would know right away if there was something wrong with the 50. After all, if you're coming from perfection then no flaw can go unnoticed because all flaws are different from what you're used to.

I did my tests in my living room under relatively dim CFLs and no light from outside. No focus problems!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 7, 2014)

It looks like that price includes tax (Goods and Services Tax [GST]) which Wikipedia says is 10%, so the lens is actually $1362.73 AUS (pre-tax) or *$1219.92 US* according to Google's conversion


----------



## Viggo (Feb 7, 2014)

flowers said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Happy for you you have a great copy, but this is what I mean, what if you don't get a great copy of the 50?
> ...



On the go afma isn't good enough. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with a lens that needs to be calibrated. It's a matter of production tolerances. All my lenses have a -/+ afma value and they work perfect, at 0 they did not.

I am used to perfection from the 35 L, and that is what I compared to and it showed the Sigma useless, and trust me, that's not user error, I'm almost offended by that. Maybe you must look outside YOUR experience, and not defending the Sigma 35 as being perfect if you have only tested one. Other people may have , and they do, a different experience. That is my whole point, buying Sigma seems like a lottery still, and People who buy them even calls them self lucky to get a great copy, see what I mean? I want to know that a brand new lens actually works, and maybe it does, it just doesn't work better than the Canon equiv for AF. And to me that makes it a useless lens.


----------



## rs (Feb 7, 2014)

rs said:


> It does say 'Pricing listed is anticipated only, where final price and ETA are to be announced'. This is nothing more than a placeholder to allow people to place preorders with them.



Just to re-iterate my point, that price is just a guess to allow for pre orders. Much like this other Australian retailers guess:

http://www.dirtcheapcameras.com.au/digital-camera-lenses/slr-lenses-by-brand/sigma-lenses/sigma-50mm-f-1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-for-canon-mount.html

$899


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 7, 2014)

How about people wait till the price is officially announced?


----------



## jhaces (Feb 7, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> How about people wait till the price is officially announced?



On a rumors site!?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 7, 2014)

jhaces said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > How about people wait till the price is officially announced?
> ...



Seriously. That's like asking us to actually _use_ our cameras. Silly person.

- A


----------



## cliffwang (Feb 7, 2014)

rs said:


> Just to re-iterate my point, that price is just a guess to allow for pre orders. Much like this other Australian retailers guess:
> 
> http://www.dirtcheapcameras.com.au/digital-camera-lenses/slr-lenses-by-brand/sigma-lenses/sigma-50mm-f-1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-for-canon-mount.html
> 
> $899



899 is good price. However, I feel that 35mm is more useful for me.


----------



## flowers (Feb 7, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I am used to perfection from the 35 L, and that is what I compared to and it showed the Sigma useless, and trust me, that's not user error, I'm almost offended by that. Maybe you must look outside YOUR experience, and not defending the Sigma 35 as being perfect if you have only tested one. Other people may have , and they do, a different experience. That is my whole point, buying Sigma seems like a lottery still, and People who buy them even calls them self lucky to get a great copy, see what I mean? I want to know that a brand new lens actually works, and maybe it does, it just doesn't work better than the Canon equiv for AF. And to me that makes it a useless lens.



I call my self lucky because so many people keep telling me my sigma 35 shouldn't be working as well as it is! But I get your point. I'm sorry, I did not mean to offend, I only said it's possible it's a user error too. If you're sure it's not I believe you. Please don't be offended. I don't think all Sigmas are perfect, I'm just very surprised to read so many negative comments. If I'm that lucky, maybe I should play the real lottery! Ha ha.
I will take the Sigma QC problem more seriously. I don't think all the people who complain can all be complaining for nothing, I believe it's a real issue. It just seemed exaggerated from my POV. I hope you can understand. Maybe I will need to rethink about buying the 50 when it comes out. I will not buy it without testing it!


----------



## flowers (Feb 7, 2014)

cliffwang said:


> 899 is good price. However, I feel that 35mm is more useful for me.



You don't have one yet? Please get one soon, you will be happy to own it. Please don't buy it used and test it well before buying, there seems to be too many bad copies out there, I don't know what's wrong. I hope you get a good copy!


----------



## Viggo (Feb 7, 2014)

flowers said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I am used to perfection from the 35 L, and that is what I compared to and it showed the Sigma useless, and trust me, that's not user error, I'm almost offended by that. Maybe you must look outside YOUR experience, and not defending the Sigma 35 as being perfect if you have only tested one. Other people may have , and they do, a different experience. That is my whole point, buying Sigma seems like a lottery still, and People who buy them even calls them self lucky to get a great copy, see what I mean? I want to know that a brand new lens actually works, and maybe it does, it just doesn't work better than the Canon equiv for AF. And to me that makes it a useless lens.
> ...



Thanks, appriciated ! And yeah! You should play the real lottery, lol ;D I do hope that Sigma can iron out the copy variation and keep up the great job they're doing so everybody who gives them a chance and buy their gear will be very happy, they certainly have taken a big step.


----------



## flowers (Feb 7, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Thanks, appriciated ! And yeah! You should play the real lottery, lol ;D I do hope that Sigma can iron out the copy variation and keep up the great job they're doing so everybody who gives them a chance and buy their gear will be very happy, they certainly have taken a big step.



Yes I hope so too  They need to work harder to make all their customers happy, not just some!


----------



## Radiating (Feb 7, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > dadgummit said:
> ...



Did you read the link at all? The performance of this lens is not in question. The data has shown that they the performance will be as extreme as they claim.



> will it meet and exceed the current canon 50's?



If by "meet or exceed" you mean *182%* the average spacial resolution of the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and *178%* of the Canon 50mm f/1.4, then yes. Basically at a given aperture you can expect slightly better performance in the extreme corners with this new Sigma than you will see in the center of Canon's other 50mm lenses.

We already have the data, and we already know how the performance will stack up. 



> And, how will it stack against the new canon 50 Is when it comes out? Now those are things I wonder.



The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART is an incredibly complex and incredibly huge 50mm lens that uses a radical retrofocal optical formula pioneered by Zeiss with the Otus. It's fundamental design shift that is nothing like any other 50mm lens and requires a huge lens with tons of expensive glass. 

There is basically zero chance of a small cheap consumer 50mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 receiving the radical design responsible for the doubling of performance relative to the competition.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 7, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I do think that using the Sigma 35mm as a reference is a little bit risky. I mean, if you have a great copy never sell it, but it doesn't talk google long to find lots and lots of people have inconsistent AF, and I was one of them. It's no point for a lens to have that fantastic IQ, which it really does have, when it can't deliver that IQ when you need it to. Not even certain if you take 8-10 shots. It should be possible to buy ten 35 lenses and have them perform VERY similar, that is not the case now.
> 
> The worst part is that it might be hard to tell the difference of a poor copy or if the Sigma just works like that. If you buy one and it doesn't seem right and you exchange for three-four others and they are the same with a bit too many missed shots, is it a design flaw or all poor copies, how can you tell? All the happy AF owner I read about can use one shot or Live view for all I know..



I go out of my way to purchase a large number copies for each lens I get and keep the best one and I have not had a single problem with Sigma's autofocus in their newer lenses. Not a single problem out of 12 copies (4 each) purchased of the 18-35mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4. I've also purchased a used Sigma 85mm f/1.4 to test it out before buying new and it had focusing issues, but only because it had the older version of the autofocus chip. When I had the newer autofocus chip installed after talking to Sigma's representatives as part of reselling the lens, all the autofocus issues went away. Sigma does not have any unusual autofocus issues in their newer lenses, period. Out of 13 copies tested with the newer autofocus chips, none had the slightest issues, and each focused with pinpoint accuracy every single time.

Canon has focusing issues too, in fact, out of all the lenses I've purchased, Sigma has had a track record of 1 in 11 having focusing issues, and Canon has a track record of 1 in 8.

The problem is with perception - whenever a Canon lens has a focusing issue it's always an isolated outlier that represents a small minority of unlucky users that will be quickly and conveniently resolved under warranty. Whenever a Sigma lens has the EXACT same issue, it's seen as a systematic problem that's common to the majority of users that is a huge hassle to fix.

Maybe in reality both currently have an occasional minority of problems now and then and you're no better off choosing either one with newer lens designs.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 7, 2014)

I have said this before in a different capacity... but if you give me closer to the performance of a lens that doesn't have auto focus... and a third of the price with auto focus... I really don't care if the auto focus works perfectly or not... because it feels like it was thrown in for free.

I don't mind the size of the lens... or the weight... but I am concerned about the focal length. I used to love the 50mm range... then I got other lenses with prettier bokehs... and now I'm concerned that I won't be able to fall in love again.




Radiating said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...


----------



## rs (Feb 7, 2014)

cliffwang said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Just to re-iterate my point, that price is just a guess to allow for pre orders. Much like this other Australian retailers guess:
> ...



Except 899 is just another wild guess made by a retailer to allow for pre-orders to be taken. Unless one of the retailers is incredibly good at guessing, neither price is representative of the RRP. Wait until Sigma announce the price before making any judgement.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 7, 2014)

Radiating said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I do think that using the Sigma 35mm as a reference is a little bit risky. I mean, if you have a great copy never sell it, but it doesn't talk google long to find lots and lots of people have inconsistent AF, and I was one of them. It's no point for a lens to have that fantastic IQ, which it really does have, when it can't deliver that IQ when you need it to. Not even certain if you take 8-10 shots. It should be possible to buy ten 35 lenses and have them perform VERY similar, that is not the case now.
> ...



I suggest googling to see I am not the only one. I have had at least 30-35 lenses made by Canon and the two I have had a problem with was a miscalibration fixed under warranty and only because of massive front focus, after I got them back they were perfect. So again, just because one person says something doesn't make it true all over. One of the known problem lenses is the 24 L II, I'll give you that one, it's one lens with a huge problem with AF. Other than that copy variation from Canon is not about AF. But I'm done trying to argue with people over the 35, I sold mine because it was rubbish and 10 shots of the same thing gave 10 different levels of sharpness.

I'll try the 50 art and keep my fingers crossed that it can focus and get sharp images every time, if not, well it's gone and I'll be yet another 50 L which is lovely but way to soft.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 8, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I suggest googling to see I am not the only one. I have had at least 30-35 lenses made by Canon and the two I have had a problem with was a miscalibration fixed under warranty and only because of massive front focus, after I got them back they were perfect. So again, just because one person says something doesn't make it true all over. One of the known problem lenses is the 24 L II, I'll give you that one, it's one lens with a huge problem with AF. Other than that copy variation from Canon is not about AF. But I'm done trying to argue with people over the 35, I sold mine because it was rubbish and 10 shots of the same thing gave 10 different levels of sharpness.
> 
> I'll try the 50 art and keep my fingers crossed that it can focus and get sharp images every time, if not, well it's gone and I'll be yet another 50 L which is lovely but way to soft.



Why don't you want to give the 35mm f/1.4 ART another chance? It's an amazing lens. Tons of reviewers have loved it and I had several copies that gave me nothing but good performance. The optics are simply stunning.


----------



## flowers (Feb 8, 2014)

Radiating said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest googling to see I am not the only one. I have had at least 30-35 lenses made by Canon and the two I have had a problem with was a miscalibration fixed under warranty and only because of massive front focus, after I got them back they were perfect. So again, just because one person says something doesn't make it true all over. One of the known problem lenses is the 24 L II, I'll give you that one, it's one lens with a huge problem with AF. Other than that copy variation from Canon is not about AF. But I'm done trying to argue with people over the 35, I sold mine because it was rubbish and 10 shots of the same thing gave 10 different levels of sharpness.
> ...



Exactly  I really recommend giving it another try, you're missing out... It's the favorite lens of most of its owners for a reason!


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 8, 2014)

So what are the complaints here? With any wide open prime with a shallow depth of field, AF can be off. That's why there is micro adjustment. Are the complaints saying that AF was off by over the 20 +/-? Or are they saying that even after you get a micro adjust number, the AF is just random and all over the place...? 

Would the dock fix the issue and people are just cutting bait before fixing the problem?

I'd rent the dock for a weekend... but I'm not quite sure I would buy it for just one lens. And obviously if the firmware changed... then I would rent it again... 

Thanks for the clarification... I'm never quite sure what complaints are genuine or a factor of user error.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> So what are the complaints here? With any wide open prime with a shallow depth of field, AF can be off. That's why there is micro adjustment. Are the complaints saying that AF was off by over the 20 +/-? Or are they saying that even after you get a micro adjust number, the AF is just random and all over the place...?
> 
> Would the dock fix the issue and people are just cutting bait before fixing the problem?
> 
> ...



The problem with mine, and also with a lot of others, is that when it's perfectly adjusted it's random. I tried 1000 shots aiming locking and taking the picture, defocus my lens and then do the same again on the same exact spot, over 10 shots, there would be 10 different degrees of sharpness or rather, softness. That makes the lens miss for no appreant reason, even when the camera says it's in focus. Which again means, you can trust the image to be sharp at all, even if everything indicates it, until you review the image after it was taken.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2014)

flowers said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Thanks, for the suggestion, but I already had two 35 L's and bought just to see if it could replace my beloved L. I already knew about the focusing issues from reading about the lens before I bought it. I bought it from a good friend for a very nice price, and he said it was excellent and loved it, but needed the cash. I run it through FoCal and it all looks VERY promising, very sharp super consistent AF and it doesn't look good for my L. All set and done, I try it around the house and it just can't get a sharp shot, but the thing that worried me was the complete variation of sharpness, so I kept trying, and when it hit it looked VERY sharp, so I ran it through FoCal again, tuned my setup, and got the same exact results. Then took it outside, same deal, no matter the distance and or light, completely impossible to get two images in a row sharp. So I decided I'm keeping the 35 L, which afma'd at 0 within 1,5 minutes of calibration and works 100% of the time. And then trade that for the 35 L II which I have been waiting for since forever. The Sigma is 20-25% cheaper used than new here, so buying new ones and trying and trying to get lucky with one is something I don't see being worth it.

The 50 is different because there isn't anything that would do what the Sigma does AT ALL, IF it works, so that is a lens I would keep for years, IF it works. And so, I'm willing to buy it new, and try a few copies to really find the one that works, or so claimed by people, that there actually are copies that can work. My thought is, if it's such a large number of off lenses, how long does a good one really last? I have heard of 35's that drift in afma value over time, and that must be the worst symptom ever....


----------



## flowers (Feb 8, 2014)

Viggo said:


> The 50 is different because there isn't anything that would do what the Sigma does AT ALL, IF it works, so that is a lens I would keep for years, IF it works. And so, I'm willing to buy it new, and try a few copies to really find the one that works, or so claimed by people, that there actually are copies that can work. My thought is, if it's such a large number of off lenses, how long does a good one really last? I have heard of 35's that drift in afma value over time, and that must be the worst symptom ever....



Agreed, it will be an amazing lens if it's just as promised. Now now, you're jumping on the other side of the fens and doing exactly what you took offence to in the first place: doubting the experiences of other people with their copy of the lens. I can't say how my s35 will behave in 10 years, but I can vouch for it being perfect right now.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2014)

flowers said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > The 50 is different because there isn't anything that would do what the Sigma does AT ALL, IF it works, so that is a lens I would keep for years, IF it works. And so, I'm willing to buy it new, and try a few copies to really find the one that works, or so claimed by people, that there actually are copies that can work. My thought is, if it's such a large number of off lenses, how long does a good one really last? I have heard of 35's that drift in afma value over time, and that must be the worst symptom ever....
> ...



Well, my friend didn't notice anything wrong with it :


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 8, 2014)

flowers said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > The 50 is different because there isn't anything that would do what the Sigma does AT ALL, IF it works, so that is a lens I would keep for years, IF it works. And so, I'm willing to buy it new, and try a few copies to really find the one that works, or so claimed by people, that there actually are copies that can work. My thought is, if it's such a large number of off lenses, how long does a good one really last? I have heard of 35's that drift in afma value over time, and that must be the worst symptom ever....
> ...



+1

I don't quite understand how we got to the belief that the sig 35 is a lottery. It works perfectly well for the vast majority of people. Sure, there are some problematic copies, as there are a lot of problems with 24-70 II. People are too quick on blaming it on Sigma for anything they don't like.


----------



## Jibz (Feb 8, 2014)

+1



Three of my friends and I got the sigma 35 ART and all of us are extremly happy with it... The AF is perfect on 5D II and 5D III and it is so sharp... 

I think that many people are happy with it and don't need to write here to complain...
Sorry for the ones who got a bad copy... It happens... even with Canon.
In the past I got a really bad copy of a 70-300 L. I returned it thinking I'll never buy it again because of its bad image quality. Later I tested an other one... and wow ! It was nothing like the first one. Now this is one of my 2 prefered lenses !


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2014)

Again, my friend said the same thing about the one I bought, "it's excellent" well it wasn't, and if it's just an occasional thing, I would find my lucky extremely poor to have 100% of Sigma lenses perform inconsistent with the AF. And I have tested others, not only the 35. 

And to get yet another 35 Art when I have the already awesome L makes no sense. It's a lot of hassle to buy and sell just to not get anywhere near what I already own...

So for the Sigma fanboys that must defend their purchase, leave me out of it, you're not changing my mind at all. 

That being said, if the 50 art I buy delivers what it said to do, I'll wave the Sigma flag myself...


**EDIT** Just today, spoke to another friend who asked about buying my 35 L, and I asked him why, because he does have the Siggy, he didn't say much so I asked him if he focused a shot, took the picture, pull it out of focus and tried the same thing for 10 pictures, were they all sharp? And his exact words were "Neh, hehe, it's mostly a lottery indoors with the Sigma"


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 8, 2014)

drjlo said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > If it's true then they got too greedy too early.
> ...


+1 ... I would not spend over $1000 for a third party prime lens (if it has 100 mm or below focal length).


----------



## Radiating (Feb 8, 2014)

Viggo said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...



I don't see the 35mm f/1.4 II coming any time soon.

Canon seems to have abandoned core DSLR pro lenses. The rate at which they are releasing meaningful core upgrades to their pro lines is so low that Nikon and Sigma accounted for 10 times more core lens products combined than Canon in 2013. Canon seems to have been focusing all their efforts into weird niches to try to expand their market because DSLR sales have leveled out, and they have been failing to expand anything (Video, small dslr's like the SL1, IS in primes, touchscreens etc). 

The only traditional lenses Canon has released in 2013 were in the pipeline way before 2013, and according to Canon reps I've talked to have only been released so that the research on them wasn't wasted. 

Anyways your experiences with the 35mm ART are rare and isolated, the odds of repeating the same results are very low.



> The 50 is different because there isn't anything that would do what the Sigma does AT ALL, IF it works, so that is a lens I would keep for years, IF it works. And so, I'm willing to buy it new, and try a few copies to really find the one that works, or so claimed by people, that there actually are copies that can work. My thought is, if it's such a large number of off lenses, how long does a good one really last? I have heard of 35's that drift in afma value over time, and that must be the worst symptom ever....



I have had no such issues. I bought three Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses right when they came out and had zero issues from then until now with 4 5D Mark III bodies, and 3 crop bodies. The thing about reading information about lenses like this online is that people only post when they have a crazy problem. Nobody posts when everything is A OK. The majority of lenses are A OK.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2014)

Isn't my microphone on here? *taptap* hello? 

AF Inconsistency is not rare not isolated. 

Read the comment section here for example:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/sigma-35mm-f1-4-arrives-announces-new-world-order


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 8, 2014)

Radiating said:


> I have had no such issues. I bought three Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses right when they came out and had zero issues from then until now with 4 5D Mark III bodies, and 3 crop bodies. The thing about reading information about lenses like this online is that people only post when they have a crazy problem. Nobody posts when everything is A OK. The majority of lenses are A OK.



That's the way it is with most complaints. Hotels, stores, restaurants... that's why word of mouth is so important... because you better do a GREAT job otherwise people will hear it. 

I do find it disconcerting about the AF being inconsistent... but again... if the lens approaches the Otus... (which doesn't have auto focus)... then I'm not sure I mind. My left hand still works and I manually focus when I want... so does my daughter... So the AF is a bonus when performance is this outstanding. 

I can understand the 35 argument... where the sigma is a little better than the L, but no light years beyond. I feel that this 50 is going to be light years beyond the Canon offerings.

When I had my canon 50mm f/1.8, I loved it and I was so ignorant I shot at f/1.8 all the time and I wondered why my shots were soft... then I learned that it sharpens up around f/2.8 or so... as does its bigger brother, the f/1.4. I upgraded to the f/1.4 because I had some extra cash, but I never loved it. Why do we buy a sports car? The bitches... yes... but to drive fast. Why do we get primes... to shoot wide open. Without that possibility... We might as well just get a miata... a car that kinda looks like a sports car.


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 8, 2014)

Radiating said:


> I have had no such issues. I bought three Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses right when they came out and had zero issues from then until now with 4 5D Mark III bodies, and 3 crop bodies. The thing about reading information about lenses like this online is that people only post when they have a crazy problem. Nobody posts when everything is A OK. The majority of lenses are A OK.



Sigma had two issues in the past: manufacturing consistency and poor/incomplete reverse engineering of the lens protocol. They seem to have more or less resolved the first issue with their art line, but they may still be lacking in the latter department. It comes as no surprise, that your good experiences come with Canon's popular camera models, whereas Viggo seems to have never ending issues with Sigma lenses and his 1Dx.

To give you one example: I have a Sigma 28-70 F/2.8 that works like a charm on 5D II and random crop cameras, but with the center AF point of my EOS 3 it has extreme front focus. All other 44 AF points are good, but center AF point is so far off that it is blatantly obvious even in the view finder.

Result: you have 99% happy customers who won't understand the 1% who bitch and moan, and you have 1% unhappy customers who won't understand how anyone can accept such a faulty product.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2014)

Jdramirez: I agree with you on the 50. If it is in fact the best 50 ever with AF, and I'm pretty sure it is, then I can accept a slower AF, but I can't live with an inconsistent AF. If it's to dark to work or to low contrast, that is also acceptable. But a black and white checker board in 10 ev light and 1 in 10 images sharp, that is in no way okay. And since it seems that there are perfectly AF'ing 35's also, there should not be an inconsistent issue at all.


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Feb 8, 2014)

I'm expecting this lens to be as good as, but not better than, the 35mm Art. On that basis, I'm expecting to pay similar money for this lens.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Feb 8, 2014)

Viggo said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > So what are the complaints here? With any wide open prime with a shallow depth of field, AF can be off. That's why there is micro adjustment. Are the complaints saying that AF was off by over the 20 +/-? Or are they saying that even after you get a micro adjust number, the AF is just random and all over the place...?
> ...



My experience over 3 months with the lens is not equal to yours, Viggo. The lens measures more accurate, by an insignificant margin in Focal, than my 35L across four different bodies. I can also add that a friend's Sigma 35 performs nearly exactly as mine across those same four bodies. The focus consistency test, conducted indoors in both adequate and low light levels, via Focal, measures better than my 35L. In practice, during actual shoots, the Sigma 35's AF performance is indistinguishable from my 35L. I have had my 35L for more than a decade, so I'm very familiar with that lens. The sharpness of the frames is better overall on the Sigma than the 35L. I am finding that I prefer the sum-total image quality of the Sigma more for some applications, but there remain some situations for which the 35L's qualities continue or shine over the Sigma. I have been considering getting rid of one of them, but now I think I will keep both as artistic options in different applications. That will also ensure that I never have to face an event without a fast 35 which is my main lens in such situations. 

I am still looking at the long term durability of the Sigma, but that is going to be years in the observing.


----------



## tianxiaozhang (Feb 8, 2014)

Assuming solid, fast, accurate, sharp, nice bokeh, I'll take one 100% if around 800.



ahsanford said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I welcome that price, it might be much less copy variation, higher tolerance, actual precise AF and superb optical quality. It might even be both sharp and nice bokeh.
> ...



I still use the 50/1.8....



brad-man said:


> During all this speculation, keep in mind that the MSRP of the 35 Art on Sigma's own website is $1400. As we all know, the actual price has always been $899. I would expect the new 50 to be similarly priced. Since I'm waiting for the 85 & the 135 Art, I really really hope so...



This gives me hope....


----------



## Badger (Feb 8, 2014)

We sometimes forget we are on a rumor site! All we have seen for sure is a picture OF THE LENS!


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



I accept your experience and don't think you are wrong in any way. The problem is that your experience is what it SHOULD be when you pay money, my experience is a product that you MUST buy and or try multiple copies of to get you paid for. That's a big difference IMO .. That is also no proof that my experience and others with me, are wrong either. I accept that there are working 35 art lenses, but you must accept that there are quite a few that's not working as they should, and that is an inconsistency in QC that's not acceptable. Fact.


----------



## dgatwood (Feb 8, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I accept your experience and don't think you are wrong in any way. The problem is that your experience is what it SHOULD be when you pay money, my experience is a product that you MUST buy and or try multiple copies of to get you paid for. That's a big difference IMO .. That is also no proof that my experience and others with me, are wrong either. I accept that there are working 35 art lenses, but you must accept that there are quite a few that's not working as they should, and that is an inconsistency in QC that's not acceptable. Fact.



To be fair, Canon has inconsistency problems in some of their lenses, too. For example, I gave up trying to find a copy of the 28-135 that didn't have unacceptable levels of lens creep right out of the box. And after lenses get used for a while, some Canon zoom lenses end up with pretty significant copy variation:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I accept your experience and don't think you are wrong in any way. The problem is that your experience is what it SHOULD be when you pay money, my experience is a product that you MUST buy and or try multiple copies of to get you paid for. That's a big difference IMO .. That is also no proof that my experience and others with me, are wrong either. I accept that there are working 35 art lenses, but you must accept that there are quite a few that's not working as they should, and that is an inconsistency in QC that's not acceptable. Fact.
> ...



I'm not questioning the IQ and sharpness of the Sigma at all. People gotta read before answering... AF AF AF AF AF !


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 8, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I accept your experience and don't think you are wrong in any way. The problem is that your experience is what it SHOULD be when you pay money, my experience is a product that you MUST buy and or try multiple copies of to get you paid for. That's a big difference IMO .. That is also no proof that my experience and others with me, are wrong either. I accept that there are working 35 art lenses, but you must accept that there are quite a few that's not working as they should, and that is an inconsistency in QC that's not acceptable. Fact.
> ...



I had one of those for a short period of time... lens creep was crazy. I didn't have one until I had a ton of experience with other lenses... but yeah... it was pretty bad.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 8, 2014)

Viggo said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Yeah... but there is a good contingent of us... who say any auto focus on a premier lens is just gravy... and Canon has been derelict for years to provide us with a 50mm that WOWS!!! So we are willing to consider a lens that doesn't have the best AF... 

I guess what I'm saying is that we are willing to settle... 50mm... can't be too sharp because the bokeh suffers (50L)... can't have a reliable auto focus motor because it will cost too much (50 f1.4)... can't have a solid build quality like the mk i because it will cost more (50 f/1.8 mkii). We've been making sacrafices... and in this instance... we we willing to gamble on the auto focus because the image quality is presumed to be so outstanding.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...



I can say as much as I'm going to get it 100% sure and I'll keep exchanging, if I need too, to get the best copy possible. I need AF for my photography and I can live with a lowish keeper rate due to slower AF for tracking. If it doesn't lock properly on still subjects, I'll move on.


----------



## flowers (Feb 8, 2014)

Viggo said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



I don't know you and I don't know you're friend. I edit my photos at 200%-400% magnification so I know exactly how perfect the focus is.  Seeing how defensive you are it seems like it's really just a case of user error and you want to defend your choice of Canon vs third party. Your choice is your right but don't present your prejudice as a fact. I'm happy to let anyone try the AF consistency of my 35 as long as it stays on my camera. I won't sell it and I won't lend it to anyone. I took you seriously until you started your sly underhand (and then not so underhand) suggestions of nobody else knowing how to check AF consistency than you. Somtimes everyone gets so sure that they're right about something that there's no other possibility than everyone else being wrong. Usually in those cases it turns out that the reason for the assumption wasn't based on reason but on emotions. If I can get AF consistency out of my 35 on a 5d2 and you can't get any out of several 35s on a 1DX and you claim the only possibility is that all Sigma 35s are duds, rethink your ideas of where the fault might really lie. I'm rewriting this post now as I saw your other reply where you acknowledged that perfect copies exist. I understand there might have been a lot of bad 35's out there, maybe it was when the lens first came out. Maybe Sigma upped their quality control and now make 99.9% perfect 35's. It's possible, isn't it? You might have used more than one bad copy of the sigma 35 but you can't draw the conclusion that most 35's are duds from that. I have Canon lenses and I have Sigma lenses, I don't take sides. I have spoken against Sigma lenses when it's deserved. I have also spoken against Canon lenses when it's deserved. I'm not interested in who makes the lenses, I'm interested in how well they perform. Maybe that should be your main concern too.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 8, 2014)

flowers said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > flowers said:
> ...



Some people have a hard time understanding something. I said the problem isn't a faulty lens design, since there are good copies out there, I said because of the amount of bad copies it makes buying a good one much harder than it should be. I'm not sure how many times I have to state something before people can actually read it right.

User error? Seriously??? I have owned multiple copies of 24 L II, 35 L, 50 L, 85 L, 135 L, 300 f2.8, and now the 200 f2.0L and I know how to pinpoint a bugs eye through a bush with any of those, so please, leave the "user error" out of this. It took me 10 minutes to figure out MY 35 wasn't working, and the SAME issue I can easily find others who experience, including my friend.

If you have sharp focus, looking at that at 100% or 900% doesn't make a difference, it's sharp, I get it. I saw on MY screen the shots were off, so I switched to the 35 L and tried the same, no issue, and I did try with my gf's 5d2, same thing. Are you still going to be so arrogant as to saying I know how to use a 35 f1.4 from Canon, but that the Sigma needs a whole other skill set to be able to achieve sharp focus? I hope not, therefor, a dud copy.

And it's not some weird fault I make up because I loooove Canon so much and different from anyone, it's seen in several copies. No matter how great your copy or copies are, it's not going to fix the one I had, and it's not going to fix others copies with the same issue, is that so hard to grasp? 

If I was such a Canon fanboy who hates Sigma, why would I buy a Siggy 35 for money, when I already had two working 35 L's? 

wow....


----------



## flowers (Feb 9, 2014)

Viggo said:


> If I was such a Canon fanboy who hates Sigma, why would I buy a Siggy 35 for money, when I already had two working 35 L's?
> 
> wow....



I really didn't mean for this to turn into an argument, I'm sorry for my choice of words. Maybe I misinterpreted some of the things you said. No, of course a Sigma doesn't require different set of skills for AF than a Canon! I believe your lens is a dud, and I believe there are other duds out there but it did seem to come across like you were saying a very significant percentage of them are duds and that just isn't likely. If it was true I'd expect Sigma to be bankrupt by now. I don't doubt your honesty or ability to AF but I also ackowledge that sometimes people convince themselves of things that aren't always so out of frustration or many bad experiences. I believe this wasn't the case with you and you just had a bunch of bad luck. I said earlier that "I wish everyone's copy was perfect, Sigma needs to improve their QC so all of their customers can enjoy their products and not just some". I stand by those words. I also know that people are biased, especially people with negative reviews. http://web.mit.edu/simester/Public/Papers/Deceptive_Reviews.pdf I just came across that paper recently. It says that negative reviews of products are more often false than positive reviews. It makes sense, like many other people pointed out when people are happy they often say nothing but when they are unhappy they can get very vocal. That's why I think it makes mcuh sense to be a lot more critical of negative reviews than positive reviews. I treated your posts from that POV while also considering the possibility that your experiences are genuine.
Why your posts came across as they did is because you pegged the Sigma 35 against the Canon 35L. You made the 35L the point of comparison, no one else. Even if you had 50 35L's and 50 Sigma 35's, what would that prove? 50 out of 1 million is 0.005%. I agree that all companies should invest a lot in their quality control. I don't agree that you can draw definite conclusions of any amount of copies you can get your hands on as even as a full-time professional, not even if your only job is reviewing lenses. It's just not possible to get your hands on enough lenses to make reasonably reliable conclusions. Test 10 lenses a day for a year = 3650 lenses. If we assume Sigma made 1 million 35 Arts, that's 1000000/3650 = 0.365% of all the Art 35's tested. A little better, but you're beginning to see how it's not really reliable. Though somewhat unlikely, it's a lot more likely that you got 10 bad copies in a row than that 100% or even 99% of Sigma 35's are faulty. I don't say this as a Sigma fan but as someone who tries to have an unbiased view.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 9, 2014)

Gentlemen, please let us return to the topic on the price of the Sigma 50mm. :-X


----------



## flowers (Feb 9, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Gentlemen, please let us return to the topic on the price of the Sigma 50mm. :-X


Yes, please let's return on topic. I apologize and withdraw any comments that might evoke a need for a further response. If you need to continue please PM me and let's keep this thread clean. I'm sorry for my part for getting off-topic.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2014)

flowers said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Gentlemen, please let us return to the topic on the price of the Sigma 50mm. :-X
> ...



Huzzah. Back to the vital, world-turning topic of new lens price speculation.

- A


----------



## Radiating (Feb 9, 2014)

Chapman Baxter said:


> I'm expecting this lens to be as good as, but not better than, the 35mm Art. On that basis, I'm expecting to pay similar money for this lens.



You're comparing apples to oceans.

"I'm expecting this new 180-550mm IS STM lens be as good as, but not better than, the 18-55mm IS STM. On that basis, I'm expecting to pay similar money for this lens."

Let me rephrase your statement into an apples to apples comparison.

"I'm expecting this new 50mm ART to have double the performance of any comparable 50mm lens in it's price range. On that basis I expect to pay at least 25% less money for it."

Much better. 



Viggo said:


> Some people have a hard time understanding something. I said the problem isn't a faulty lens design, since there are good copies out there, I said because of the amount of bad copies it makes buying a good one much harder than it should be. I'm not sure how many times I have to state something before people can actually read it right.



You do realize that Canon's 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2 are some of most defective lenses in production from any manufacturer, with defect rates of 13.75% for the 35mm and somewhere within 2% of that for the 50's according to lens rentals, which manages over 12,000 copies of 350 lenses.

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 has a defect rate that is around half of what you get from Canon (strictly comparing to the 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.2).

Sigma used to have a defect rate around 17% for some of it's popular lenses, so they deserve the bad reputation though.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 9, 2014)

*Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked*

Yes, done with this. Back on topic.

If it's less than the 50 L or the same I'm getting one. Maybe Sigma will make a 350 dollar f1.8 for those who won't pay for the f1.4. And that it will be better than Canon equiv.


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Feb 9, 2014)

Radiating said:


> Chapman Baxter said:
> 
> 
> > I'm expecting this lens to be as good as, but not better than, the 35mm Art. On that basis, I'm expecting to pay similar money for this lens.
> ...



This lens will not compare with the Zeiss Otus. There is nobody who will pay that kind of money for a Sigma. Sigma knows where their market is. It will be a very good lens, as good as the 35mm and that, to my mind, will be good enough (a lot better than any Canon 50mm).


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 9, 2014)

Chapman Baxter said:


> This lens will not compare with the Zeiss Otus. There is nobody who will pay that kind of money for a Sigma. Sigma knows where their market is. It will be a very good lens, as good as the 35mm and that, to my mind, will be good enough (a lot better than any Canon 50mm).



Markets change. Generally with performance. Kia is selling a luxury car. I think most would agree their market base is cheap value cars... but evidently they think they can expand their market.

If Sigma believes they stumbled upon greatness, and the build quality, image quality, and AF performance... then people will notice. They can sell the lens originally at $900... and if it is truly that amazing, demand will exceed supply and the price will rise.

Thank about when the Wii first came out and there weren't any available. Retailers would package a ton of cheap crap with the system and sell it for $500+. 

If the Sigma is in high demand, retailers will bundle the lens with filters, lens pens, lint free cloths, etc.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 9, 2014)

I hope Sigma decides to take on everything Canon and Nikon has to offer, if it's better or cheaper of both. As long as the lens does the job, I really don't care which name is on the box, but I do care about what I saved of money to put into other purchases.


----------



## spomeniks (Feb 11, 2014)

In support of the argument that the ~$1400 price is merely an RRP, place holder, etc, and that the final price will be something far closer to that of the 35mm 1.4, I think we can learn something from the specs.

One point made was that the 50mm might be more expensive than the 35mm due to the fact that the design requires more glass. I don't think this is true because of one thing: the weight. While both lenses share a very similar outward design, the 50mm is slightly bigger. BUT, while the 35mm weighs 665g, the 50mm weighs only 470g (http://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_35_1p4 and http://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_50_1p4_a respectively). There is obviously less glass in the 50mm.

My theory is that the design is less sophisticated and so there is a very small likelihood that the price would be more than the 35mm. I might be totally wrong but I thought I'd share this


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 11, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I hope Sigma decides to take on everything Canon and Nikon has to offer, if it's better or cheaper of both. As long as the lens does the job, I really don't care which name is on the box, but I do care about what I saved of money to put into other purchases.



I agree... I have a Rokinon fisheye that is really good... and I grew bored with the focal length, but I don't care that it isn't a Canon or what have you... though it does have a red ring around it.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 11, 2014)

spomeniks said:


> In support of the argument that the ~$1400 price is merely an RRP, place holder, etc, and that the final price will be something far closer to that of the 35mm 1.4, I think we can learn something from the specs.
> 
> One point made was that the 50mm might be more expensive than the 35mm due to the fact that the design requires more glass. I don't think this is true because of one thing: the weight. While both lenses share a very similar outward design, the 50mm is slightly bigger. BUT, while the 35mm weighs 665g, the 50mm weighs only 470g (http://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_35_1p4 and http://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_50_1p4_a respectively). There is obviously less glass in the 50mm.
> 
> My theory is that the design is less sophisticated and so there is a very small likelihood that the price would be more than the 35mm. I might be totally wrong but I thought I'd share this



It seems to be 815g, not 470.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 11, 2014)

I am looking somewhat for a decent 50 mm with an actual optical and mechanical design. 
I was interested in the Sigma, as I thought the list price would be somewhere close to the 35 mm art.
Now I'm no longer interested in this.
I have no urge, so let’s see ...


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 11, 2014)

you know I've gone full circle I really really wanted it and now I don't know.

is the Sigma 50 going to be on par with the Canon 100 L or is it new standard?

I have sharp lenses.


----------



## slclick (Feb 11, 2014)

I am in no way anticipating that price. Furthermore I'm not letting a leaked faux price determine my desire. I have nothing to base this upon but I anticipate Sigma starting this lens near the $999-1099 USD range, a premium over the 35 and a pricing zone no other 50 fits into, well one with AF that is.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 11, 2014)

*Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked*

Think I will have to try it couple times in the shop, to make sure it's worth it, lol.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 11, 2014)

*Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked*



Viggo said:


> Think I will have to try it couple times in the shop, to make sure it's worth it, lol.


 I want to go to nyc and spend a few hours trying on gear at b&h... though I have a small concern that they will pretty woman me.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 11, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> you know I've gone full circle I really really wanted it and now I don't know.
> 
> is the Sigma 50 going to be on par with the Canon 100 L or is it new standard?
> 
> I have sharp lenses.



I'm not sure I get the comparison between a 50/1.4 and a 100/2.8 ???


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 11, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > you know I've gone full circle I really really wanted it and now I don't know.
> ...



I'll bust out my depth of field calculator.... and it's broken. 

I suppose my point is that if the 50 and the 100L at a similar depth of field are equal in sharpness and the pettiness of the bokeh... I may pass. I realize they are different focal lengths with different innate properties... but still. It the 50 v my new 135L. I suppose what I'm saying is that I was something transcendent for my money.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Feb 11, 2014)

i am still rockin' an old 50 1.8 II, which I am looking to replace. This sigma might well fit the bill... but like anything, i'll see what people say once they get their hands on it before i make any decisions!


----------



## giltaminphotography (Feb 11, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



I just picked up the 100L macro and I don't find it that sharp, I was using it for portraits and I'm thinking I may go back to 85L and return the 100L. The sigma 35 is sharper then the 100L so there's a good chance the Sigma 50 will be sharper too. I need this bad boy to be released already.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 11, 2014)

giltaminphotography said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



Really...? I had two 100 Ls and I've loved them both.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 11, 2014)

I'll let other people buy this then I might buy one second hand on craigslist or ebay when they are disappointed, maybe.


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 11, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> you know I've gone full circle I really really wanted it and now I don't know.



I'm confused: did you go full circle or only half-circle? Full circle is when you're back where you started (you wanted it, then you didn't, now you do again.)


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 11, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > you know I've gone full circle I really really wanted it and now I don't know.
> ...


I'm at 540 degrees at the moment.... so full circle and change.


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 11, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



Haha! I hear ya--I'm usually good for at least 1080 before I make any useful decisions. Thankfully, this one isn't one of them. But 5DIII vs 7DII and yay or nay on Tamron 150-600 on the other hand have got me doing Olympic caliber spins.


----------



## jhaces (Feb 11, 2014)

*Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked*



jdramirez said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Think I will have to try it couple times in the shop, to make sure it's worth it, lol.
> ...



Pretty woman? I feel like they Stockholm Syndrome me every time


----------



## Eldar (Feb 12, 2014)

*Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked*



jhaces said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...


This is getting really deep, especially for someone with my native tounge ... I know the Stockholm Syndrome, but what does "they will pretty woman me" mean?


----------



## flowers (Feb 12, 2014)

*Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked*



Eldar said:


> jhaces said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


It means he will find himself suddenly getting a lot of _suggestive_ attention from the store clerks.
Suggestive in the sense of buying more gear of course.
That's my take at least


----------



## Viggo (Feb 12, 2014)

No, it means a makeover , lipstick, curly hair, a new dress, blush and all the trimmings. Then he must pay for all new gear buy sleeping with Nikon fanboys.. Oh, the horror...


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 12, 2014)

25 seconds to 1:25 seconds.

Pretty Women Shopping both scences


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 12, 2014)

- May I help you ? - I'm just checkin' some L lenses out.

Are you looking for something in particular ?

No. Well, yeah. Something... with pretty bokeh and reach. 200 f/2, 200-400 x1.4, 85L...

Yes.

- You got nice stuff. - Thank you.

- How much is this ? - I don't think this would fit your body.

Well, I didn't ask if it would fit. I asked how much it was.

How much is this, Marie ?

It's very expensive.

- It's very expensive. - Look, I got money to spend in here.

I don't think we have anything for you.

You're obviously in the wrong place.

Please leave.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 12, 2014)

Viggo said:


> No, it means a makeover , lipstick, curly hair, a new dress, blush and all the trimmings. Then he must pay for all new gear buy sleeping with Nikon fanboys.. Oh, the horror...



I hate in movies when I see a "pro" photog rocking a t2i... or something silly like that. Sure there are some... but not as it relates to the context of the movie.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 12, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> - May I help you ? - I'm just checkin' some L lenses out.
> 
> Are you looking for something in particular ?
> 
> ...



Years ago I was a postman working in parcels. One day I was in the Jaguar showroom delivering to a sales man who was on a phone call. While I waited I was looking in the window of a very nice XJ6. When the sames man finished he walked over and said "Hey! Do you fancy a test drive in this?" I was a little embarrassed and told him why I was here and held out his parcel. He replied as he signed for his parcel "I didn't ask if you could afford it, I was asking if you wanted a test drive and the offer still stands. You might not be able to afford it today, or tomorrow...but who knows what the future holds for us". We went for a spin and I fell in love with the marque due to his investment in me. Fast forwards 20 years...I'm now a lot more successful and I now drive an XKR convertible. It's my 3rd Jag. His words became a promise and came true, if only all salesmen were that wise. 
A wise salesman sows opportunities which others can follow up on, a poor salesman is only interested in low hanging fruit and is a consumer and not a producer.


----------



## flowers (Feb 13, 2014)

Viggo said:


> No, it means a makeover , lipstick, curly hair, a new dress, blush and all the trimmings. Then he must pay for all new gear buy sleeping with Nikon fanboys.. Oh, the horror...


Huh? must be a movie I didn't see...


----------



## flowers (Feb 13, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> 25 seconds to 1:25 seconds.
> 
> Pretty Women Shopping both scences



haha wow thanks for the link! so great


----------



## flowers (Feb 13, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> A wise salesman sows opportunities which others can follow up on, a poor salesman is only interested in low hanging fruit and is a consumer and not a producer.


A very interesting and educational story. Thank you for sharing


----------



## Grumbaki (Feb 13, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Years ago I was a postman working in parcels. One day I was in the Jaguar showroom delivering to a sales man who was on a phone call. While I waited I was looking in the window of a very nice XJ6. When the sames man finished he walked over and said "Hey! Do you fancy a test drive in this?" I was a little embarrassed and told him why I was here and held out his parcel. He replied as he signed for his parcel "I didn't ask if you could afford it, I was asking if you wanted a test drive and the offer still stands. You might not be able to afford it today, or tomorrow...but who knows what the future holds for us". We went for a spin and I fell in love with the marque due to his investment in me. Fast forwards 20 years...I'm now a lot more successful and I now drive an XKR convertible. It's my 3rd Jag. His words became a promise and came true, if only all salesmen were that wise.
> A wise salesman sows opportunities which others can follow up on, a poor salesman is only interested in low hanging fruit and is a consumer and not a producer.



Sorry to burst the bubble but he was probably late on his test drive quota. But nice story the way you put it.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 13, 2014)

Grumbaki said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Years ago I was a postman working in parcels. One day I was in the Jaguar showroom delivering to a sales man who was on a phone call. While I waited I was looking in the window of a very nice XJ6. When the sames man finished he walked over and said "Hey! Do you fancy a test drive in this?" I was a little embarrassed and told him why I was here and held out his parcel. He replied as he signed for his parcel "I didn't ask if you could afford it, I was asking if you wanted a test drive and the offer still stands. You might not be able to afford it today, or tomorrow...but who knows what the future holds for us". We went for a spin and I fell in love with the marque due to his investment in me. Fast forwards 20 years...I'm now a lot more successful and I now drive an XKR convertible. It's my 3rd Jag. His words became a promise and came true, if only all salesmen were that wise.
> ...



Do they have quotas at luxury car dealers? I went to the Acura dealer a while back and they just gave me the keys and said, go at it. The Honda dealer... the salesman came with.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 13, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Years ago I was a postman working in parcels. One day I was in the Jaguar showroom delivering to a sales man who was on a phone call. While I waited I was looking in the window of a very nice XJ6. When the sames man finished he walked over and said "Hey! Do you fancy a test drive in this?" I was a little embarrassed and told him why I was here and held out his parcel. He replied as he signed for his parcel "I didn't ask if you could afford it, I was asking if you wanted a test drive and the offer still stands. You might not be able to afford it today, or tomorrow...but who knows what the future holds for us". We went for a spin and I fell in love with the marque due to his investment in me. Fast forwards 20 years...I'm now a lot more successful and I now drive an XKR convertible. It's my 3rd Jag. His words became a promise and came true, if only all salesmen were that wise.
> A wise salesman sows opportunities which others can follow up on, a poor salesman is only interested in low hanging fruit and is a consumer and not a producer.


That is AWESOME! ... no matter what others say about that salesman's motive, he sure was a good salesman ... a sale isn't only about selling the product, it is also about customer service ... and that salesman displayed great customer service.


----------



## iron-t (Feb 13, 2014)

If it's $1300 I likely will not buy it. In the rare circumstance in which my 35mm Art is just too wide, I'll settle for my Canon 50mm f/1.4. This may be mostly psychological but at $1100 I might just go for the 50mm Art.

Coming in at 1/3 the price of the Otus but with similar build quality, nearly-as-good optics and AF? If all that can be said, I think Sigma will get quite a few takers even at this price.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 13, 2014)

iron-t said:


> If it's $1300 I likely will not buy it. In the rare circumstance in which my 35mm Art is just too wide, I'll settle for my Canon 50mm f/1.4. This may be mostly psychological but at $1100 I might just go for the 50mm Art.
> 
> Coming in at 1/3 the price of the Otus but with similar build quality, nearly-as-good optics and AF? If all that can be said, I think Sigma will get quite a few takers even at this price.



The release price might be $1300... but after a year on sale (or an Amazon lightening sale) it might be $1100.

This year Amazon had a 35 art for $700 as part of their lightening sale.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 13, 2014)

iron-t said:


> If it's $1300 I likely will not buy it. In the rare circumstance in which my 35mm Art is just too wide, I'll settle for my Canon 50mm f/1.4. This may be mostly psychological but at $1100 I might just go for the 50mm Art.
> 
> Coming in at 1/3 the price of the Otus but with similar build quality, nearly-as-good optics and AF? If all that can be said, I think Sigma will get quite a few takers even at this price.



The only difference is that the Otus is cool and can be shown off, the Sigma can't. This is why I think the price will be < 1000 USD.


----------



## slclick (Feb 13, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> iron-t said:
> 
> 
> > If it's $1300 I likely will not buy it. In the rare circumstance in which my 35mm Art is just too wide, I'll settle for my Canon 50mm f/1.4. This may be mostly psychological but at $1100 I might just go for the 50mm Art.
> ...



I beg your pardon! My two Sigma Art lenses attract a great deal of attention.


----------



## iron-t (Feb 13, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> The only difference is that the Otus is cool and can be shown off, the Sigma can't. This is why I think the price will be < 1000 USD.



I'll give you that the Otus is cool, but I'd rather show off my exacting standards and practicality than my massive disposable income and badge worship any day.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 13, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> iron-t said:
> 
> 
> > If it's $1300 I likely will not buy it. In the rare circumstance in which my 35mm Art is just too wide, I'll settle for my Canon 50mm f/1.4. This may be mostly psychological but at $1100 I might just go for the 50mm Art.
> ...




Sometimes the psychological stuff is really really illogical. Here's the situation we are dealing with performance numbers and perception wise:

Lens Designers: "Hi there Sir, there has been a major breakthrough in lens technology that allows us to double the performance of any prior 50mm primes, this is the single greatest improvement in image quality in the history of photography lenses in one generation, and it costs 25% less than the top of the line competitors, has better build quality and feel and has no drawbacks whatsoever"

Photographer: "Great that's the best thing I've ever heard a lens designer invent, perfect"

Lens Designer: "That's what we thought, it's called the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART, and it costs $1300"

Photographer: "That's too much for a Sigma"

This makes no sense.


----------



## flowers (Feb 13, 2014)

Radiating said:


> Sometimes the psychological stuff is really really illogical. Here's the situation we are dealing with performance numbers and perception wise:
> 
> Lens Designers: "Hi there Sir, there has been a major breakthrough in lens technology that allows us to double the performance of any prior 50mm primes, this is the single greatest improvement in image quality in the history of photography lenses in one generation, and it costs 25% less than the top of the line competitors, has better build quality and feel and has no drawbacks whatsoever"
> 
> ...



It only makes sense if the next step is not:

Photographer: "What am I saying, of course I'll pay $1300 for it."

By the way, I am so annoyed! My sigma 35 has really performed perfectly until now, today it started showing first signs of imperfection!  (AF inconsistency indoors. Viggo, I owe you an apology.) So sad. It's never done that before. It's still 99.5% perfect but... I really thought since it was a perfect copy it would stay that way. Sigma, please make your quality control better!


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2014)

flowers said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes the psychological stuff is really really illogical. Here's the situation we are dealing with performance numbers and perception wise:
> ...



And that is why I will never, ever, buy a third party lens. Sure Canon lenses have issues, but I know how to get them fixed and I also know there will never be a compatibility issue with any EOS body, ever. To me that is worth far more than some extra lppmm.


----------



## slclick (Feb 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...



Boy I am glad I don't that that philosophy, I love my Art lenses as much as my L's.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...



Oh, man, I'm so sorry to hear that, it really sucks.. But thanks for the apology, I didn't want to be right you know...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2014)

slclick said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > flowers said:
> ...



Why? You can have any philosophy you want, I am happy for you, but I know that only photographers see the differences in most of these crazy lens choices 99% of the time. Clients just don't, clients see moments, posing, lighting, composition, post processing etc . This constant hand wringing about a few lppmm, or distortion, aberrations etc is just crazy.

As a working pro I value reliability, consistency, and compatibility far higher than many here, I also came to AF when Sigma were having huge issues with Canon camera protocols, so much so that I personally know one photographer who ended up with 8 Sigma paperweights as they would not re-chip them. Yep I really like the idea of a USB dock to micro AF at various distances etc, but that system will work until it doesn't, then my trusty EF 50 f1.4 will be taking the same shots it has for the last ten years and you will not.


----------



## NancyP (Feb 13, 2014)

At that rate, my third party M42 and AIS Nikkor lenses will NEVER stop working, because they never communicated with the camera in the first place.....  You can't get any more reliable than manual lenses treated kindly.

There are a lot of factors that go into purchase decisions, including price, size and weight, IQ vis-a-vis resolution, other IQ factors (astrophotographers want low coma, for example), AF reliability, need for cast-iron reliability on a crucial pro shoot and a preferred status in the repair queue in the Canon Professional Service system.

I will tell you that if I wanted a lens for hill-climbing backpacking, the Nifty Fifty or Shorty Forty might beat out the Otus.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 13, 2014)

NancyP said:


> At that rate, my third party M42 and AIS Nikkor lenses will NEVER stop working, because they never communicated with the camera in the first place.....  You can't get any more reliable than manual lenses treated kindly.
> 
> There are a lot of factors that go into purchase decisions, including price, size and weight, IQ vis-a-vis resolution, other IQ factors (astrophotographers want low coma, for example), AF reliability, need for cast-iron reliability on a crucial pro shoot and a preferred status in the repair queue in the Canon Professional Service system.
> 
> I will tell you that if I wanted a lens for hill-climbing backpacking, the Nifty Fifty or Shorty Forty might beat out the Otus.



Exactly, there are far more considerations than lppmm or corner sharpness involved in many peoples buying decisions.


----------



## flowers (Feb 13, 2014)

Viggo said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > flowers said:
> ...


Thank you. It's not too bad, hopefully it won't get worse! I actually noticed it in a room that's really dimly lit, I'll try it out in better lit rooms, maybe it's just the low light levels and the camera's few AF points (though I was using the center point only so that really shouldn't happen...) I'll see if I need to play around with the MFA... I still love the lens, I just love the images it can produce, but I also need an AF I can rely on! And it should manage to nail focus on _black text on white paper_ even in dim lighting! (I used it as a "if it's working fine it must at least nail focus on black text on white paper" test, but sometimes it even front focused in that case.) I really hope it's just a minor glitch. Hopefully it's not doing that whole "AF gets misaligned over time" thing. Or, and this is what I'm really hoping, I might just be worried for nothing and it might have been user error since I noticed it while hand holding and using AI servo to lock focus. I have pretty steady hands, but I really hope that I'm just an idiot and it was because of the hand holding. I haven't tested it using a tripod yet but I will tonight. I was hand holding because I was doing some AF testing that involved movement. When I noticed the inconsistency I did the tests hand holding still but not moving the camera or the subject. I'm still hoping it was just shaky hands! But I felt like it would be more honest to write it, I was pretty vocal about my 35 being so great...


----------



## slclick (Feb 13, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > At that rate, my third party M42 and AIS Nikkor lenses will NEVER stop working, because they never communicated with the camera in the first place.....  You can't get any more reliable than manual lenses treated kindly.
> ...


----------



## sdsr (Feb 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> [...] I know that only photographers see the differences in most of these crazy lens choices 99% of the time. Clients just don't, clients see moments, posing, lighting, composition, post processing etc . This constant hand wringing about a few lppmm, or distortion, aberrations etc is just crazy.



I'm sure that's right, if what matters is the perceptions of clients. Those of us (un)lucky enough not to be professional photographers are our own clients, as it were, and, just like any other interest/hobby, if you get "into" it enough you start to care about all sorts of details that others just don't notice (and, when they're pointed out, don't care). Some distinction that may seem trivial to me might matter to you, and vice versa; and while it's probably true that all manner of differences among lenses and bodies are simply invisible unless you go pixel-peeping - in which case it really is crazy to obsess with this sort of thing if you don't pixel-peep, print small, etc. - some of us do.

And for those sorts of reasons it's hard to answer questions such as "I own body x and lenses y & z; should I upgrade to body A or lens C", especially if what motivates the question is some hoped for change in image quality. In a different life I used to sell cds of classical music, and new customers would always be taken aback when they asked for a recommendation for a recording of some piece of music because, instead of just saying "this one's the best" I would ask them questions about their tastes in interpretation and tried to tell them that they mightn't notice what I notice (and vice versa), care about what I care about, etc.

Sometimes, just for the heck of it, I'll show my other half a couple of photos for comparison purpose (noise, botched lighting, etc.), and as often as not he'll prefer the "wrong" one and not notice what is, to me, an obvious flaw. It's an enviable state, in some ways - often, when looking at others' photos, I'll find myself looking at all the trivial stuff that we're supposed not to care about (and I'm quite sure that I never noticed chromatic aberrations, noise, etc. on HD TV shows until I got into photography a few years ago). But once you get into the habit of scrutinizing details it's hard to stop....


----------



## Radiating (Feb 14, 2014)

flowers said:


> I noticed it while hand holding and using AI servo to lock focus. I have pretty steady hands, but I really hope that I'm just an idiot and it was because of the hand holding. I haven't tested it using a tripod yet but I will tonight. I was hand holding because I was doing some AF testing that involved movement. When I noticed the inconsistency I did the tests hand holding still but not moving the camera or the subject. I'm still hoping it was just shaky hands! But I felt like it would be more honest to write it, I was pretty vocal about my 35 being so great...



AI servo isn't designed to lock focus, it tries to achieve focus quickly and constantly refocus to track action at the cost of accuracy. You shouldn't expect AI servo to get accurate focus in low light, switch to one shot in low light situations, it's a night and day difference in those situations.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 14, 2014)

sdsr said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > [...] I know that only photographers see the differences in most of these crazy lens choices 99% of the time. Clients just don't, clients see moments, posing, lighting, composition, post processing etc . This constant hand wringing about a few lppmm, or distortion, aberrations etc is just crazy.
> ...



Absolutely, I am not belittling "hobbyists", enthusiasts, and amateurs, indeed many here have much more equipment, and more expensive equipment than me. There is nothing wrong in owning something just for the sake of owning it either, as an extreme, if people want to spend a million dollars on a Leica they will never use I fully understand too and is fine with me. I just worry sometimes that impressionable enthusiasts read too much into some of the "chat", yes ultimate this or that has its place, but that is very often far removed from what you need to make great images and sometimes that gets lost in the noise. Having said that, this is primarily a gear orientated forum and maybe I am just being overly sensitive, after all there are many forums and sites where people more focused on image making post.


----------



## Ewinter (Feb 14, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> iron-t said:
> 
> 
> > If it's $1300 I likely will not buy it. In the rare circumstance in which my 35mm Art is just too wide, I'll settle for my Canon 50mm f/1.4. This may be mostly psychological but at $1100 I might just go for the 50mm Art.
> ...



I show most people the 35mm 1.4 Art and they'd die to own one. I'd rather go "look at my amazing lens, it cost me $1300 and I can do everything I want with it" than "Look at my amazing lens. It cost me $4500 and doesn't autofocus, so I can't use it for work. But my wallet is sure big"


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 14, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> iron-t said:
> 
> 
> > If it's $1300 I likely will not buy it. In the rare circumstance in which my 35mm Art is just too wide, I'll settle for my Canon 50mm f/1.4. This may be mostly psychological but at $1100 I might just go for the 50mm Art.
> ...



Shown off to _who_, if you don't mind my asking? It's such an exotic piece of tech that only other photogs would know what it is. 

With that same money, you can you get a second FF body along with this new Sigma 50... Just saying.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Zeiss is counting on a _few_ of the Ferrari-driving enthusiasts to pick up an Otus and say "hey, look at my pricey new toy", but more likely they are aiming to impress the best pros with the best tool in that focal length.

- A


----------



## Viggo (Feb 14, 2014)

Radiating said:


> flowers said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed it while hand holding and using AI servo to lock focus. I have pretty steady hands, but I really hope that I'm just an idiot and it was because of the hand holding. I haven't tested it using a tripod yet but I will tonight. I was hand holding because I was doing some AF testing that involved movement. When I noticed the inconsistency I did the tests hand holding still but not moving the camera or the subject. I'm still hoping it was just shaky hands! But I felt like it would be more honest to write it, I was pretty vocal about my 35 being so great...
> ...



If that's how you have set up your Servo you're doing it wrong. I can keep servo on a target for half an hour if I want to and move a little back and forth, or stay still and it's always locked right. I never ever use One Shot.


----------



## flowers (Feb 14, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > flowers said:
> ...


I do the same with my AI S, it even stayed on target when I jumped at it and pressed the shutter mid-air!
I got some worrisome results  I used normal objects as targets in all cases, not printed targets, but that shouldn't matter. See:

AI F:
1/11 PF
2/11 PF
3/11 FF 5-10mm
4/11 PF
5/11 PF
6/11 BF 7-10mm
7/11 PF
8/11 PF
9/11 PF
10/11 BF 20mm (??)
11/11 PF

PF: 8/11 (72.7%)

AI S:
1/20 PF 
2/20 PF
3/20 PF
4/20 PF
5/20 0-2mm BF
6/20 PF
7/20 PF
8/20 PF
9/20 misF (prev.FP)
10/20 PF
11/20 misF?
12/20 PF
13/20 PF
14/20 PF
15/20 slight FF
16/20 misF
17/20 slight FF (same target as 15)
18/20 PF (white on white? really? that works?)
19/20 misF
20/20 misF

PF:12.9/20 (64.5%)
brighter room:

AI S:
1/30 PF (white on white)
2/30 PF
3/30 PF
4/30 PF
5/30 misF (??)
6/30 PF
7/30 PF
8/30 PF
9/30 PF
10/30 PF
11/30 misF (previous FP) *
12/30 massive FF (what's going on?) *
13/30 misF *
14/30 PF *
15/30 PF *
16/30 PF *
17/30 misF *
18/30 misF * 
19/30 misF * ** these were all overexposed, I forgot to
adjust when moving to the brighter areas
20/30 PF
21/30 PF
22/30 PF
23/30 PF
24/30 PF
25/30 PF
26/30 misF (prev FP)
27/30 PF
28/30 PF
29/30 PF
32/30 PF

PF: 23/30 (76.6%)

Wow that's bad. I admit I didn't always choose the perfect (most contrasty) targets, but this from a lens that manages to AF in low light mid-air no problem. 
The previous were all on a tripod. I just tried handheld (AI S), 8/11 (72.7%) in the dim room. That's the exact same result as with the tripod (with AI F), and I used different targets and the camera was in a different place.

It's never been that bad before, it's been reliable even in lower light levels. Now I'm a little worried  How can the AF just suddenly get so much worse? Or did I just try to focus on impossible things? What really gets me is that it _nailed all the white-on-white targets_. That doesn't even make sense (unless it nailed them because they were the only things emitting enough light?)
All tests were done wide-open. I was hoping it would just be a problem wide-open but I tried AFing on my black lens cap on bubble wrap on white in the dim room and it front focused  even though i had the middle point at the edge of the cap so there must have been plenty contrast.
I should note that both rooms have like the dimmest lighting ever. Many normal homes are probably a lot brighter. This lens still focuses perfectly in bright light. It only seems to have problems in low light.

I love you Sigma 35... Please don't give up, stay with me...

edit: I talked it over with Viggo and realized that's not bad results at all because the light I tested in is actually terrible! (I just never realize how terrible because I'm used to it (really need to replace the light bulbs!))
In bright light it works great so I was just worrying for nothing


----------



## sdsr (Feb 14, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Shown off to _who_, if you don't mind my asking? It's such an exotic piece of tech that only other photogs would know what it is.
> 
> With that same money, you can you get a second FF body along with this new Sigma 50... Just saying.



Or, if you make that second FF body a Sony A7/A7r, you could get the Zeiss/Sony 55mm 1.8, which probably makes photos that are indistinguishable from the Otus 99% of the time, and has AF (and, at present, is $200 off - i.e. $799 - if you buy it with an A7/A7r). Come to that, the Zeiss/Sony on a 7R could well create better images than the Sigma, no matter how good it is, or even the Otus would on any current Canon sensor (leaving aside such questions as whether you need to track fast action). Interesting times....


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 21, 2014)

Hands on from CP+

Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | ART

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Hands on from CP+
> 
> Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | ART
> 
> - A


As is normal with internet experts who have become popular via links, clicks, likes, and linked advertising, he makes several basic errors that are just noise, this, for me, means he loses any credibility.

First, if the lens is projecting a circle then a lens hood needs to be a circle, but if we are using a rectangular section of the projection, as we do in photography, then the petal hood is correct for primes, or a rectangle.

Second, more glass equals bigger T Stop, unless your glass has exceptionally higher transmission characteristics than your comparison. Though the loss is small, the more glass light goes through the less less light comes out the right end, that doesn't mean the Sigma is not an f1.4 but his use of T stop and glass is entirely inappropriate.

He is just repeating memes he doesn't understand and using popular terms in irrelevant contexts, which kinda makes the video an annoyance to me.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 22, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Zeiss is counting on a _few_ of the Ferrari-driving enthusiasts to pick up an Otus and say "hey, look at my pricey new toy", but more likely they are aiming to impress the best pros with the best tool in that focal length.
> 
> - A


This is simply silly! The Zeiss Otus is a lens like no other and the consumer group you refer to would never bother to use something that requires that much attention to detail to have any use of it at all.

All this comparison between an unreleased Sigma and the Otus has no meaning. They are built for totally different applications and use. The Sigma will Never compete with the Otus and the Otus will Never compete with the Sigma. Just like a Bentley does not compete with a Ford and a Ford never competes with a Bentley.

I have the Sigma 35/1.4 Art and based on the images we have seen of the 50/1.4 Art, the build quality can be expected to be the same. And it is a very fine lens. But compared to the Otus, the Sigma is plastic! The production tolerances, glass quality, mechanical quality, focusing mechanism (manual as it is) etc. is in a totally different league. It is a very long way from having a great design to produce stable, maximum performance from that design.

Yes, I´m sure that in certain cases the Sigma will produce equal IQ to the Otus and in lots of shooting situations I would much rather have the Sigma than the Otus. But looking at the sum of quality differences it is not difficult to understand why the Zeiss is a much more expensive lens.

And for the record, I have not received a single comment about the Otus other than a raised eyebrow why I bother to use i MF lens in these AF times. And I will most likely also buy the Sigma 50/1.4 Art, because it would fill a totally different need.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 22, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Shown off to _who_, if you don't mind my asking? It's such an exotic piece of tech that only other photogs would know what it is.
> 
> 
> - A



Let me rephrase: Zeiss lenses are prestigious items, Sigma lenses are not.

Do you think everyone who buys Leica couldn't be happy with a Canon or Nikon? 
Did you notice manufacturers try to differentiate their premium products also visually? Canon has red rings and white lenses, Nikon has gold rings, etc. 
If you buy a Rebel, the strap says Canon EOS. If you buy a 5D3 the strap says Canon EOS 5D Mark III. 

I wasn't insinuating that the Otus is all about appearance; I'm saying that people are reluctant to spend too much money on items that don't give them gratification at various levels besides performance. Vanity is an important motivational component behind expensive purchases. This happens at a parallel level with respect to performance and is not limited to photography. Sometimes it merges with performance in the desire to own the latest & greatest.


----------



## flowers (Feb 22, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Hands on from CP+
> 
> Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | ART
> 
> - A



So do we finally know the price? I tried to look for it but I didn't see it for sale?


----------



## ScottyP (Feb 22, 2014)

Sure the Zeiss is nice. If it is even sturdier than the Sigma, that is fine, but what is the point of added toughness (beyond a certain point) in a lens that is so expensive most people baby it, and will never, ever subject it to abuse? It isn't even weather sealed anyway.

I imagine that if most Otus owners got a cosmetic scratch on the barrel they would be sick to their stomachs even if the functionality was unimpaired due to the aforementioned toughness. If you could make a lens out of the same stuff Wolverine's claws are made, and charged $50,000 for it would one sell the Otus and pick one up because it is indestructible?


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 22, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> Sure the Zeiss is nice. If it is even sturdier than the Sigma, that is fine, but what is the point of added toughness (beyond a certain point) in a lens that is so expensive most people baby it, and will never, ever subject it to abuse? It isn't even weather sealed anyway.
> 
> I imagine that if most Otus owners got a cosmetic scratch on the barrel they would be sick to their stomachs even if the functionality was unimpaired due to the aforementioned toughness. If you could make a lens out of the same stuff Wolverine's claws are made, and charged $50,000 for it would one sell the Otus and pick one up because it is indestructible?



adamantium. the word you are looking for is adamantium.


----------



## slclick (Feb 22, 2014)

After consulting the Cosmos, I have come up with the price of $1299.00. If I am wrong, well that's what get for asking a bunch of hipster doffus'.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 22, 2014)

slclick said:


> After consulting the Cosmos, I have come up with the price of $1299.00. If I am wrong, well that's what get for asking a bunch of hipster doffus'.



1300... probably, but if you wait for a sale I'm thinking $1100.


----------

