# Bought Sigma 35mm 1.4, bad copies?



## zedd (Oct 15, 2013)

Hi, so recently I purchased a Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art lens for Canon. Definitely seemed like a sharp copy, but I noticed that it started to make a high pitched squeak while focusing towards infinity occasionally. Initially hard to replicate, it now makes the noise consistently.

Because of this, I decided to buy another copy which came in today. Also sharp and doesn't squeak, but it does sound louder than the first copy. Also when comparing the focusing between the two copies with the lens cap on, the second copy seems to be much faster.

I know the first Sigma is bad because of the squeak, but what do you think about the second one? Is it normal, or should I try for a third one?


----------



## zedd (Oct 15, 2013)

I recorded some videos, though the audio isn't as loud it seems to be in person. Also, the squeaking in the first copy can't be heard in the video, but it's definitely there.

Copy #1: http://youtu.be/c8WI3urdrrk
Copy #2: http://youtu.be/yfH33ilOK24


----------



## J.R. (Oct 15, 2013)

Lenses are usually long term purchases. By all means go through a third and a fourth sample to ensure that you get a lens you actually like. 

It's all about personal satisfaction with a purchase. Even if people at this forum were to tell you everything is fine, the niggle won't go away.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 15, 2013)

Have you contacted Sigma about this?


----------



## FocalFury (Oct 15, 2013)

The AF on my first copy died within a few days. Second copy was fine.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 15, 2013)

I had two copies of the S35 and did notice a variance in AF speed. Also, there was a slight squeak in both copies. Although the sound was present, it was very slight and not enough to bother me. The primary reason they were returned though was the inconsistent AF on both copies when mounted on two different 5D3s. They were horribly inconsistent and not AFMAable due to variances in distance and lighting that caused the misses. I have however, been considering giving it another try since the dock adds a ton of adjustment functionality (wasn't released yet when I had the lenses).


----------



## sunnyVan (Oct 15, 2013)

Have had 2 copies. Both are nearly completely silent. Any squeaky noise would have freaked me out.


----------



## zedd (Oct 16, 2013)

Haven't contacted Sigma yet. Figured I'd just try again to see if I could get a better copy first.

Here are videos with the mic next to the lens, though it's not very good quality since I'm just recording with my phone :/

Copy #1: http://youtu.be/SBaPTcyILh0
Copy #2: http://youtu.be/-yAoMkB2j4w

Had to max out my volume to really hear anything, but for the first copy you can really hear the squeak/noise at 0:12-0:13. Second copy is louder than the first, but is that how it's supposed to be? Maybe because the focus is faster than the first one? Everyone says that the focus should be dead silent, but maybe I'm taking it too literally...


----------



## BozillaNZ (Oct 16, 2013)

This post is my take on explaining why HSM is so crappy:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3372965

I personally won't buy any Sigma lens any more, until I can either see, or do a disassemble to make sure their motor does not use paint as the friction material any more.


----------



## chilledXpress (Oct 16, 2013)

Argghhhh... video in portrait orientation!!! The bane of all video.


----------



## zedd (Oct 16, 2013)

chilledXpress said:


> Argghhhh... video in portrait mode !!! The bane of all video.



Haha, sorry. Didn't really think it mattered since I was recording more for the sound than anything.


----------

