# Waiting for a Sigma 50 "A" like their 35 to appear?



## ScottyP (Apr 20, 2013)

It seems like there's a big demand for a new 50 mm lens. The old sigma 50 mm got mixed reviews, and even the Canon 50 mm lenses get mixed reviews. If sigma could make a 50 mm lens that is as well made as their new 35mm lens, it should sell like hot cakes, right?


----------



## alexturton (Apr 20, 2013)

If they made a 50mm 1.2 with similar quality to their new 35 and under £1k I'd buy it.


----------



## Hannes (Apr 20, 2013)

to me it isn't so much a case of if but rather when they will launch it. I'm honestly surprised that it wasn't the first A lens to be released but then 35mm makes a lot of sense on a crop camera as well as a full frame one


----------



## Ewinter (Apr 20, 2013)

God yes. Can't wait


----------



## pwp (Apr 20, 2013)

I foolishly sold a very good EF 50 f/1.4 and replaced it with the well reviewed Sigma 50 F/1.4. When it nailed focus it was fantastic, but the AF was so inconsistent that the lens couldn't be trusted and sat unused. 

But a new Sigma 50 as good as the new 35? That would be interesting and would likely sell its socks off. Personally I wouldn't get one or any other prime in the 24-70 range because the new EF 24-70 f/2.8II has rendered every prime in that range obsolete for the way I shoot. I've sold my Sigma 50 f/1.4, my 24 f/1.4II and if I had a 35 that would be gone too. The new zoom is amazing and primes just sat unused.

But that's just me. There is a huge market for stellar primes and an update from Sigma would be a welcome big seller.

-PW


----------



## bvukich (Apr 20, 2013)

I'm more interested in the 85, but the 50 would be nice too.


----------



## infared (Apr 20, 2013)

Hmmmm....I recently bought the 35mm and have owned the Sigma 50 for a couple of years now...and I love both lenses. The fifty must be a good copy because it hits focus just fine for me....Oh don't get me wrong...I would love to see a 50mm with the across-the-frame sharpness of my new 35mm. That would be fantastic. I find it interesting that there are relatively weak choices for a normal lens for a full-frame camera. I find this odd because the lens has much simpler construction than a wide or tele lens...but I guess it can be made very complicated (and a lot better) like the upcoming Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 ZE with 12 elements which will cost upwards of $3500 for a manual focus lens but is touted to be the best 50mm ever produced. We shall see.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zb_t5pZuMAM&feature=fvwrel
If Sigma launches a fast, new Art-Line 50mm with the image quality of the 35mm...I would be very interested, especially if the cost is as reasonable as the 35mm.


----------



## Ewinter (Apr 20, 2013)

I'd get both the 50 and the 85 if they made them like their 35.

Don't get me wrong, the 24-70 II is awesome. Great for work, but i prefer using >f2 primes for my personal stuff


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 21, 2013)

I'd be on the buy list at $850.00 if it were f/1.4. Unless Canon somehow swooped in suddenly with an IS version at 2.0 for the same price. But Canon does not swoop fast.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 21, 2013)

My Voigtlander Nokton SLii 58mm f/1.4, has across the frame sharpness wide open, along with fantastic color and contrast. It's just a manual Nikon-mount lens, but I really don't feel the need to buy another 50mm lens. Its focus confirmation works great, via the adapter. And the focus ring is a pleasure to use.

In my opinion, Sigma (or anyone) should make a faster lens, such as an f/0.9 in EF mount. That would be interesting. It might be worth paying over $2k (even for a Sigma!)...provided of course that it was decently sharp and focused well. Better would be a 95mm version, even at a correspondingly higher cost.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 21, 2013)

I use my standard zoom for 50mm. I have the Sigma 35, and am hoping the 85 is next. Wait. Did I hear someone say 24?


----------



## silvestography (Apr 21, 2013)

pwp said:


> I foolishly sold a very good EF 50 f/1.4 and replaced it with the well reviewed Sigma 50 F/1.4. When it nailed focus it was fantastic, but the AF was so inconsistent that the lens couldn't be trusted and sat unused.
> 
> But a new Sigma 50 as good as the new 35? That would be interesting and would likely sell its socks off. Personally I wouldn't get one or any other prime in the 24-70 range because the new EF 24-70 f/2.8II has rendered every prime in that range obsolete for the way I shoot. I've sold my Sigma 50 f/1.4, my 24 f/1.4II and if I had a 35 that would be gone too. The new zoom is amazing and primes just sat unused.
> 
> ...


Let's not forget that Sigma is likely to update _their_ 24-70 f/2.8 to fit under their new company model. If they stick up with their "L Glass Killer" releases, a lens like that might be, likewise, more worth getting than any of their primes in that range.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 21, 2013)

Count me in for that. Current 50L has nice bokeh, but not quite sharp. Not to mention, focus shift.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 21, 2013)

silvestography said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > I foolishly sold a very good EF 50 f/1.4 and replaced it with the well reviewed Sigma 50 F/1.4. When it nailed focus it was fantastic, but the AF was so inconsistent that the lens couldn't be trusted and sat unused.
> ...



Agreed, and the price might be comparable to the Tamron...or even beneath it, if there's no "OS". But Sigma are slow to release new lenses...so that would be a 2014 or 2015 lens, wouldn't it?


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 21, 2013)

dilbert said:


> I'd rather see Sigma do a 19mm or 20mm or 21mm wide angle "A" lens. There's nothing available for Canon that's a prime, wide and auto-focus.
> 
> Canon's widest is 24mm and if Sigma did a 24mm, they'd just be copying Canon. They should man up and do something new.



Sigma have had a 20mm f/1.8, I guess it wasn't worthy? Didn't look like it was.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather see Sigma do a 19mm or 20mm or 21mm wide angle "A" lens. There's nothing available for Canon that's a prime, wide and auto-focus.
> ...



@CarlTN
I took a look at "The Digital Picture" and compared the Sigma 1.8 20 to the Canon 16-35 2.8 ii (at 20mm), both at f/2.8 and with EOS 1Ds mk ii:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=375&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=412&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0
Comparing ISO Charts isn't everything but in this case I think it is a good hint about the IQ of the Sigma. It just doesn't improve too much if you close it furthermore.

@dilbert: That's right, for me a 16 or 17mm f/4.0 with great IQ, small footprint and reasonable price would be very welcome (if it's from Canon or Sigma or ... doesn't matter).


----------



## brad-man (Apr 21, 2013)

dilbert said:


> I'd rather see Sigma do a 19mm or 20mm or 21mm wide angle "A" lens. There's nothing available for Canon that's a prime, wide and auto-focus.
> 
> Canon's widest is 24mm and if Sigma did a 24mm, they'd just be copying Canon. They should man up and do something new.




Have to respectfully disagree. An _inferior_ lens manufacturer would make lenses other than what Canon offers so as to offer no apples to apples comparisons. Sigma is making (so far in their art line) _superior_ lenses in critical flavors that go head to head with the _best_ that Canon has...


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 21, 2013)

If they make the rumored 135 f/1.8, a 50mm 1.2, and a 24 1.4, with the quality of the 35mm 1.4. Bam, I'm dumping all my canon primes and switching to sigma. 8)


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 21, 2013)

dilbert said:


> I'd rather see Sigma do a 19mm or 20mm or 21mm wide angle "A" lens. There's nothing available for Canon that's a prime, wide and auto-focus.
> 
> Canon's widest is 24mm and if Sigma did a 24mm, they'd just be copying Canon. They should man up and do something new.



That could be said about the 35mm too, but it seems that it made many people happy (including me).

24, 28, 35, 50, 58, 85, 100 and 135 are very popular and "recognizable" focal lengths. Canon, Nikon, Sony, zeiss etc have their own version. Sigma is just joining the big game - at least for now. However they had a 20mm, so it might be that something wider will come.

I wouldn't buy the 50mm. The focal length on ff is too similar for me - just a bit of cropping. However, the run lured 135mm.... That's another story.... Slurp!


----------



## Pitbullo (Apr 21, 2013)

If/when Sigma updates their 50 1.4 into the Art line, they should make it a f/1.2 just to annoy Canon. Would be awesome!


----------



## skitron (Apr 22, 2013)

Pitbullo said:


> If/when Sigma updates their 50 1.4 into the Art line, they should make it a f/1.2 just to annoy Canon. Would be awesome!



Well, maybe not to annoy them, but do the new one as f/1.2 and then keep the current 50 to fill the current price point.

LOL, they just need to make sure they do to the current ones whatever they they did to mine when I sent it to them *before* they all hit the store shelves instead of *after*. Mine was a problem child as delivered, but very well behaved after a trip in for service.


----------



## risc32 (Apr 22, 2013)

before i got my sigma 35mm i would have loved something just like it at 50mm, but now that i have the 35mm i'll just crop to 50mm. i like this better anyway, as cropping a 50mm to 35mm is a pain.


----------



## pj1974 (Apr 22, 2013)

The only lens that I'm really waiting for to complete my lens collection (aka 'lens arsenal') is a 50mm prime. 8)

My *essential* criteria:
1) wide open aperture of f/2 or faster
2) IQ wide open - sharpness, contrast, vignetting & CA very decent
3) IQ stopped down by 1 stop and more - awesome in every regard
4) bokeh wide open - great smooth, creamy at foreground, background and transition zones
5) bokeh stopped down - no ugly bokeh / circular aperture blades please!
6) AF - accurate, fast (full USM/HSM preferred, will consider STM if well implemented)

My *non-essential * (ie 'extra bonus' points) criteria:
7. build quality - solid, metal mount, usable focus ring with FTM focus
8. weight / size: not too heavy / big (less than 500gr is possible)
9. IS - image stabilisation of 4 stops would be sweet (if not to the detriment of the above points)
10. filter size of filters that I have several of (ie 58mm, 67mm or 72mm preferable).
11. close MFD (so I can get nearby items in focus - for that 'effect')
12. price less than $800 if it ticks the above boxes (even if initial RRP is a bit higher, I'm interested in the online / street price after some time).

Now, if Sigma produce a great prime, and there are 95% of people / reviewers happy with it - no QC / AF issues - then I'll happily buy Sigma. I currently already have 1 Sigma lens (UWA) which I'm very happy with.

So... the same is on: Canon, Sigma (& others?) Who's gonna produce such a lens (first)? 

Regards

Paul


----------



## Nishi Drew (Apr 22, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> If they make the rumored 135 f/1.8, a 50mm 1.2, and a 24 1.4, with the quality of the 35mm 1.4. Bam, I'm dumping all my canon primes and switching to sigma. 8)



Yep, the only thing Canon I'll be running are the flashes, there isn't much to justify me using their cameras, just that, well, all my Siggy glass is in EOS mount ~


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 22, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Have to respectfully disagree. An _inferior_ lens manufacturer would make lenses other than what Canon offers so as to offer no apples to apples comparisons. Sigma is making (so far in their art line) _superior_ lenses in critical flavors that go head to head with the _best_ that Canon has...



There's only one superior lens in their art range at the moment, the 35mm f1.4. But like many Sigma lenses before, how well does it focus? The rest of Sigma's range are sub par with Canon counter parts. With Sigma, you get what you pay for.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 22, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Have to respectfully disagree. An _inferior_ lens manufacturer would make lenses other than what Canon offers so as to offer no apples to apples comparisons. Sigma is making (so far in their art line) _superior_ lenses in critical flavors that go head to head with the _best_ that Canon has...
> ...



You are terribly misinformed. The new 35mm focuses like a dream. And the USB dock has been designed to counter possible tricks by Canon in the future.

And the statement in red is plainly false.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 22, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



Ok, lets qualify this a bit more. I've owned a Sigma 180 macro and used several, the AF ring was so gritty it was difficult to fine tune the focus. When compared with a Canon 180 L, there was amassive focal length difference between these two lenses. The Canon has a much longer focal length at close distances and I'm pretty sure the Sigma lost focal length as I focssed closer....not what I wanted in a Macro lens. I had a 100-300 f4 EX DG...it was pretty unspectacular in sharpness, but more seriously it's AF was pretty inaccurate, often mis focussing. It had the most stupidly huge hood...because it flared so badly in bright light. I had a 70-200 ED DG mkI, it had dreadful back focussing issues at Min Focus distance. It had AF inconsistencies, sometime accurate and sometime way off. I have a 12-24mm EX DG. A nice lens, but it's been back to Sigma twice. Once for Aperture motor burnout and a whole lens group coming loose. I had a Sigma 120-300 OS DG and to be frank it was terrible. It was sharp enough, but it was so huge. It's AF was erratic and imprecise. It was way short of the 300mm stated, closer to 280mm at infinity but down to a dissapointing 240mm at Min focus distance. When compared to my Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, the small increase in Focal length wasn't worth the poor AF and massive extra bulk. None of these AF issues were related to Microfocus, the Sigma HSM motor system just isn't in the same league as the Canon USM system. I had a Sigma 24-70 (non HSM), it was a noisy AF system, but very good. The big issue was the rubbish hood and awful flare on sunny days. When I replaced it with the Canon 24-70L (mk I) it blew it away in every regard. Generally I find that Sigma lenses have a warm cast, but this varies between lens designs. 
I hear from several friends who have the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4, they too get focus inconsitencies. 
I don't get these issues with Canon L lenses. After the 120-300 OS DG dissapointment, I bought a 400mm f2.8 L IS which really put the Siggi in it's place. It's not just the sharpness, it's the AF's amazing accuracy. 
So I'm sure you see that I have a long history with Sigma lenses in a professional basis. Most of my lenses went back to sigma and couldn't be fixed. 

I'm all ears for Sigma releasing newer better lenses, but I've heared this story SO many times. I trust in Canon because they make reassuringly good kit and their prices reflect this. As I said before, and i'll restate again....the only superior lens (to Canon) in their catalogue at the moment is the 35mm f1.4. Every other lens is in some way deficient compared to it's Canon counter part.


----------



## sleepnever (Apr 22, 2013)

I'd be all over a 50 A series to upgrade my canon 50 1.8 II. I can't justify the jump to the 1.4 because it really isn't that much better optically for the money and I don't have $1600 for the L version. I'd love a 50 A that is the same quality in every way as their 35 A. I want that 35 A too =)


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 22, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



I'm sorry about your personal misadventures, but your opinions are very much in disagreement with the majority of what I've read/experienced myself - especially for some of the lenses you mentioned. 

If you're happier with Canon lenses good for you, but I still think your generalizations are far from reality.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 22, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> I'm sorry about your personal misadventures, but your opinions are very much in disagreement with the majority of what I've read/experienced myself - especially for some of the lenses you mentioned.
> 
> If you're happier with Canon lenses good for you, but I still think your generalizations are far from reality.



He said the 70-200 and 400 f/2.8 IS are better than the 120-300 and 100-300, which is absolutely true. Canon's telephotos and super telephotos are some of the best in the world. He said the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and Sigma 85mm f/1.4 focus inconsistently, which is a common complaint (although both are pretty good optically). And he finished it off saying that the 35mm f/1.4 is the only lens superior to it's Canon counterpart (which most people agree on).

It seems like you're reading what he said very selectively since most of what he did say tends to mirror what I've read/experienced. And he's not really making "generalizations" he was very specific about the lenses and the problems that they had. You're pretty much trying to get him to say that 3rd party lenses are better on a Canon body than a Canon lens, and that just isn't true.

But let's be realistic, prior to the Art 35 Sigma didn't get near as much praise, but it's still just one lens in a giant lineup. I do have high hopes for the future art series lenses though.


----------



## Shane1.4 (Apr 22, 2013)

I would buy a new 50 in a heartbeat. Canon or sigma.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 22, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry about your personal misadventures, but your opinions are very much in disagreement with the majority of what I've read/experienced myself - especially for some of the lenses you mentioned.
> ...



He said that all of Sigma lenses, except the new 35mm, are worse than their Canon counterpart.

Now, it doesn't seem to me that Canon has anything similar to a 120-300/2.8 or a 100-300/4, right? What's the point of comparing a 120-300 zoom with a 400mm prime (that costs *5 times* as much)? And by the way, every comment I've read on both lenses was ecstatic.

Let's compare apples to apples at least. Many people prefer their Sigma 50mm (in spite of focus quirks) and 85mm to their Canikon and even Zeiss equivalent because of the razor-like center sharpness wide-open and nice bokeh. Many people preferred the 50-500's smoother bokeh to the 100-400L. 17-70mm VS Canon 17-85mm. And so on.

Beware that I'm not stating the opposite: I'm not saying every Sigma lens is great or better than its Canon equivalent. I'm going so far as disagreeing with the opposite assertion.

Some people have a very different mind attitude towards Canon and other brands. When Canon products have problems, well, it just happens, sample variation is a hard reality and so on. When other products, most of the time much cheaper, have similar/other problems then it's all about terrible QC.


----------



## rpiotr01 (Apr 22, 2013)

My current Sigma 50 sits largely unused because of inconsistent focus. It's just never quite on. Beautiful lens optically but man, I can't trust the focus. Based on what I've read about the 35 1.4, I'm considering selling the Sigma 50 and my Canon 28 1.8 and replacing with the Sigma 35 1.4. I like the wider FOV and I think it can replace most of what I wanted to do with the 50 anyway. 

I think if they re-did their 50 1.4 with the "A" treatment it would be a HUGE hit among Canon shooters. But it damn well better focus better than the current version, because what's out there now just isn't acceptable.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 24, 2013)

all i can say is i too wait for a new 50mm f1.4 to replace my old EF 50mm f1.4.

if it´s a sigma ART lens and it´s in the same league as the sigma 35mm f1.4 i would buy it without a second thought.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 24, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> all i can say is i too wait for a new 50mm f1.4 to replace my old EF 50mm f1.4.
> 
> if it´s a sigma ART lens and it´s in the same league as the sigma 35mm f1.4 i would buy it without a second thought.



Buy the 35 & put it on your 7D


----------



## CarlTN (May 6, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> It seems like you're reading what he said very selectively...



Not trying to get in the middle of this argument specifically, but it does seem like over half the contributors in this forum, find sport in reading things (and quoting them) selectively, and sometimes out of context (happens to me a lot)...So I guess I feel justified in doing it here. I see something I want to talk about it, so I quote it alone, by itself...then I expound my own sentiment.

The more egregious culprits seem to be absent in the above exchange, so that's a good thing. It gets extra annoying when their posts appear to exceed 8000 words. At about the 3000 word mark, there are self indulgent, narcissistic diva issues going on...Again I'm _not_ directing this part at any of you in this thread.

However, this type of thing, happens in literally every forum, not just here...as most of you know I'm sure.

Some of you need to chillax a bit. So what if one person has had bad experiences with specific Sigma lenses, and the other not so much? I recently bought a much maligned Sigma telephoto zoom lens, and am glad I did. I had an open mind, and wanted to try something for myself. I found most of the naysaying, nitpicking negative reviews, to be just that. It cost half what the similar Canon model cost (and that Canon design is nearly a decade older). The Canon replacement or "update", if it ever comes, will cost 3x to 4x what the current Sigma lens sells for. Will it be 4x better? Certainly not. Will it be 2x better? No. Is the current one 2x better? No, optically I say it's not _any_ better. 

What's important is, can you get a specific lens to work the way you want it to, at the price you are willing to pay, making compromises if necessary (however small) you are willing to live with? I've been able to do that. 

With the money I saved, I put towards buying a 6D. Talk about a radically good camera for the money, and money far better spent than on an old white Canon lens...just so I could say I have one like all the millions of other blowhards who have one.

So, what's less important, is buying a name brand for the snob appeal. I'm not saying that's the only reason to buy Canon glass. Most Canon glass is fine and dandy (I have a couple of L lenses), but some of it is highly overvalued for what it is. The Canon 35mm f/1.4L is a stark example, given the new Sigma offering.

Will Canon's update to their 35mm be worth the extra money, over the Sigma? I say no, no matter how sharp it is. More sharpness over the Sigma lens, clearly is not called for...unless you are a pixel peeper with a future 60 MP full frame body, and you never print smaller than 40 x 60 inches at 240 or 300 dpi. In other words, you probably aren't that person, nor is anyone...especially if you have to wait till 2017 for that camera that you want so much, to finally come down the pike...You're pining away for a pipe dream that is not even necessary to perform mind-blowingly terrific photography...today, in the here and now!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 7, 2013)

I am a professional wedding photographer and I also do a fair amount of landscape and bit of wildlife work. I've tried long and hard with Sigma and Tamron lenses. In a professional context, I have found their AF systems lacking. I have found their quality control extreamly poor and their durability certainly isn't in the pro league. 
Flaking off paintwork, lenses which a massively out of spec when new, elements which become loose easily, aperture motors which burn out. As I said before, as a pro, I am done with Sigma. It's a brand I've lost faith in. I buy Canon because the little bit more money gives me a far more reliable and durable product. 
Let me give another example, I used to use a Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 Dii lens. Optically it was very nice, although it had very strong curvature and distortion at 17mm. It had nice colours, but the AF was loud and rough. After 5 professional weddings, it literally fell apart on me. I know use it as paperweight and a pen holder. This lens lasted me less than a year. I replaced it with a 16-35 f2.8 II L, which cost an awfull lot more money...but it's never missed a beat. It's silent to use and very well built. I've been using it now for my 6th season...
My current 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II is now 2 years old and it looks immaculate even though it's had a hard life. It's still optically amazing. My Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG looked rough as hell after a year when all the paint started to flake off and it had to be sent to Sigma three times that year for calibration issues, one of which was never resolved. 
If you want to buy off brand, go for it and enjoy. It's your hard earned money and your photography requirements....but for this photographer...I'm done with Simga and Tamron.

As to Sigma lenses which are better than Canon, I'd like to add one more to the list, the Siggi 15mm f2.8 fisheye. I think it's a little sweet heart of a lens and better than the Canon variant...but watch that paint flake finish! 

The 120-300 OS was heralded by Sigma as Prime sharp....so comparing it to a 70-200 f2.8 II L or a 300mm f2.8 L should be fairly reasonable? I still stand by my statement that the 70-200 f2.8 II L is a better and cheaper option, the 300L is an even better option and the Siggi can't really compete on any level with either.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 8, 2013)

valid points GMC

I think sigma zooms to date have definatley not been nearly as good as some of their primes

I only have the sigma 85 the 50 and the 35 primes

the new 35 is in another league to the other 2 and quite fankly one of the best lenses i've ever used

the 85 is very very good i use it alot (I use this lens more now than the 70-200 II and that is at weddings)
its sharper at f2 than the 70-200 is at f2.8 its lighter and less obtrusive it is my goto portrait lens.

the 50 well its ok but not great like the other 2 lenses its not really much better than the canon 50 f1.4 and its bigger and heavier


----------



## CarlTN (May 8, 2013)

GMC, I have no experience with the Sigma zoom lenses you mention. I only know the one I have, is not painted, and is not a 70-200, and is not an f/2.8. The white Canon lens I was referring to, is also neither of those focal lengths or apertures. I don't doubt the version 1 300 f/2.8 Canon prime, is a better lens at 300mm, than the Sigma 120-300 (whether original, 2011, or the yet released version). But 300mm is not the Sigma's only focal length. It's a zoom, and the only f/2.8 zoom that covers 120-300mm. I admit I'm disappointed in the delay of the latest version of that lens, and also that the optical formula appears to be the same. But as for large superteles, I personally would rather have the 200 f/2L, than the 300 f/2.8 version 1. It's not something I have to have right now, and that's a good thing, because I need to buy a "used" Porsche 911, before I go spending $4k to $5k on a lens.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 8, 2013)

The last time I was at Focus on Imaging in Birmingham, I visited the Sigma stall. They had a new 70-200 2.8 there for playing with. It was very nice but the one on the stand had some pretty awful front focus (not a little) and the big 300-800 f5.6 was a lot of fun....but it was soft wide open over 500mm. Pretty sharp under that focal length....but what's the point in having an 800mm f5.6 if you can't use it wide open? My 400mm f2.8 L IS is sharper with a 2x TC and costs less. I had a go on their 500mmm f4.5, which was nice but again didn't compare to the Canon version. At that point I figured I was done there. 
I still own and use a Siggi 12-24mm mkI, which is still a pretty unique lens in the market place. Quality control was awful with this particular lens, but a good one is a good find. I think it's amusing that Sigma have bought out this dock thang....getting us to pay for a device to correct their awful QC and on our time too....come on Sigma. I suspect that Sigma's QC is going to drop even further now...and they will blame their userbase for not stumping up the cash for the USB dock.


----------



## Albi86 (May 8, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think it's amusing that Sigma have bought out this dock thang....getting us to pay for a device to correct their awful QC and on our time too....come on Sigma. I suspect that Sigma's QC is going to drop even further now...and they will blame their userbase for not stumping up the cash for the USB dock.



Because other manufacturers have no problem at all. Every camera and lens is just perfect, no sample variation, no manufacturing tolerances. None of that. I wonder why they keep offering AFMA on high-end models though?

And of course the possibility to have AFMA on 4 distances and for zooms at 4 extensions (i.e. 16 total parameters) is really really bad. Ridiculous that it even allows users to MA their lenses on bodies without an AFMA feature. Poor bastards with a 60D should just knock their head on Canon's manufacturing tolerances, because this is what they paid for. And for 60 bucks? Puah. When Canikon will do the same they will charge 200-300 and people will be happy then. 

Seriously, if you don't like Sigma products for whatever reason that's fine. Everybody has preferences and likings/dislikings. I just don't get your zealous attempt to make it an objective-matter-of-fact point.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 9, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> Seriously, if you don't like Sigma products for whatever reason that's fine. Everybody has preferences and likings/dislikings. I just don't get your zealous attempt to make it an objective-matter-of-fact point.



I'm just passing on my personal and professional findings from buying and selling lenses over the last 15 years bud. Sorry to hear that you think I'm zealous...and all that other stuff. I'm mostly replying to previous comments. When asked a question, I generally respond...not that I'm too fussed if anyone disagrees with me. This isn't a popularity contest. I don't have an axe to grind, but Sigma lost me years ago as a customer. If people ask me 20 times, they will get the same responce 20 time. As to Canon's QC, I've bought more Canon glass than Sigma over the years and their QC is a lot better than Sigma from my experiance. Not that I haven't had problems, I've had a few lenses which needed to go back to Canon (covered in the 1 year warrenty - CPS platinum cover).


----------



## CarlTN (May 9, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's amusing that Sigma have bought out this dock thang....getting us to pay for a device to correct their awful QC and on our time too....come on Sigma. I suspect that Sigma's QC is going to drop even further now...and they will blame their userbase for not stumping up the cash for the USB dock.
> ...



Most certainly plus ONE...


----------



## CarlTN (May 9, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, if you don't like Sigma products for whatever reason that's fine. Everybody has preferences and likings/dislikings. I just don't get your zealous attempt to make it an objective-matter-of-fact point.
> ...



With all due respect, a lot has happened technologically, since 15 years ago. So whatever you did back then, has very little to do with what is happening with design and production today. I too, have bought and sold several lenses and cameras myself, in just the last 5 years...and used them professionally. That alone does not make my opinion count more or less than anyone else's. 

And to say that Sigma's offering of a USB dock, is simply meant to correct for poor quality control, is to simply be closed minded, and to promote ignorance. If Canon or Nikon offered lenses for each other, they would do the same thing. Sigma makes lenses for use on most manufacturer's bodies, so there is always going to be variation and compatibility issues...usually software related. It has nothing to do with poor quality control. Sure Sigma has had some poor quality control, but problems with autofocus accuracy, really is not an issue of quality control. It's an issue of compatibility with a different manufacturer who makes the camera body that lens is going on. And that company has a DISINSENTIVE to make sure their camera works well with a third party lens manufacturer. Canon and Nikon, would rather you only buy their lenses, especially if they can also charge more for them than Sigma does.

Bottom line, being biased against Sigma as a company, does not make you special. It makes you a sheep, who never strays outside Canon's herd.


----------



## aznable (May 12, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The last time I was at Focus on Imaging in Birmingham, I visited the Sigma stall. They had a new 70-200 2.8 there for playing with. It was very nice but the one on the stand had some pretty awful front focus (not a little) and the big 300-800 f5.6 was a lot of fun....but it was soft wide open over 500mm. Pretty sharp under that focal length....but what's the point in having an 800mm f5.6 if you can't use it wide open? My 400mm f2.8 L IS is sharper with a 2x TC and costs less. I had a go on their 500mmm f4.5, which was nice but again didn't compare to the Canon version. At that point I figured I was done there.
> I still own and use a Siggi 12-24mm mkI, which is still a pretty unique lens in the market place. Quality control was awful with this particular lens, but a good one is a good find. I think it's amusing that Sigma have bought out this dock thang....getting us to pay for a device to correct their awful QC and on our time too....come on Sigma. I suspect that Sigma's QC is going to drop even further now...and they will blame their userbase for not stumping up the cash for the USB dock.



for new 70-200 do you mean the lens that won as the best expert lens at tipa awards 2011 or something newer? had the same lens and i had to adjust focus with a +3....so? i had to adjust a canon 70-200 f/4 with a +7...the canon was ff "badly"...lol!
and could you tell me why canon services provides by payment the adjustement of focus for lenses? i do not believe they fix sigma lenses.

and now the brutal fact...sigma 35 mm destroys canon offering costing significantly less...40% or so


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 13, 2013)

aznable said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > The last time I was at Focus on Imaging in Birmingham, I visited the Sigma stall. They had a new 70-200 2.8 there for playing with. It was very nice but the one on the stand had some pretty awful front focus (not a little) and the big 300-800 f5.6 was a lot of fun....but it was soft wide open over 500mm. Pretty sharp under that focal length....but what's the point in having an 800mm f5.6 if you can't use it wide open? My 400mm f2.8 L IS is sharper with a 2x TC and costs less. I had a go on their 500mmm f4.5, which was nice but again didn't compare to the Canon version. At that point I figured I was done there.
> ...



I didn't say when I went to Focus on Imaging, it was just around the time for their Macro HSM mk 1 I think. Again it was so far out of adjustment, I called over the attendant and he confirmed it. And then put the lens under the counter with a post it note on it. It was worse than my old copy. 
It's been surprising how many 70-200mm f2.8 lenses Sigma has put out over the years. I'm assuming this is to correct various design faults with each successive model. Other brands like Nikon or Canon tend to get it right first time and let that model run for a good 10 years or so. That said, I took some great pictures with my old copy. 

My 70-200 EX HSM f2.8 (new at the time) was so far out of calibration...it had to go to Sigma twice with the Camera. It was bad. I'm not going to re-tell my Sigma woes here again, I did that a few pages back. Hello if you are new to this thread  

I've sent only one lenses back to Canon for being out of Calibration, which I did under their 1 year warranty. It didn't cost a thing and came back perfect. 

Yep, it true about the new Siggi 35mm, it's a fine lens from Siggi. I don't think it destroys the Canon, but it's a sharper lens. I've had my Canon copy for about 5 years now and I've taken a lot of photos with mine. It's easily paid for itself many times over. The Siggi fisheye's are very good too and I particularly have a soft spot for their 12-24mm, although my copy had been back to Sigma twice.


----------



## rpiotr01 (May 13, 2013)

I wish the problem was simple front or back focus. The problem with some Sigma lenses is that focus goes back and forth between front, spot on, and back. Or maybe I shouldn't generalize - that's the problem with MY Sigma 50, and I've read many other similar accounts with other lenses including the new 35 1.4. You can't account for it, just need to either hope it hits or use MF (which stinks, because there is little throw in the focus ring and it's not very smooth). To me that speaks to some sort of poor alignment of a physical piece of the lens, not just computer error, which is in turn related to QC. 

I REALLY want the 35 1.4, but I'm too put off by recent experience to bother. Maybe I'll get over it some day and break down, or maybe that USB thingie will work.


----------



## CarlTN (May 14, 2013)

rpiotr01 said:


> I wish the problem was simple front or back focus. The problem with some Sigma lenses is that focus goes back and forth between front, spot on, and back. Or maybe I shouldn't generalize - that's the problem with MY Sigma 50, and I've read many other similar accounts with other lenses including the new 35 1.4. You can't account for it, just need to either hope it hits or use MF (which stinks, because there is little throw in the focus ring and it's not very smooth). To me that speaks to some sort of poor alignment of a physical piece of the lens, not just computer error, which is in turn related to QC.
> 
> I REALLY want the 35 1.4, but I'm too put off by recent experience to bother. Maybe I'll get over it some day and break down, or maybe that USB thingie will work.



Rather than buy the Sigma 35, it just sounds to me like you should sell your Sigma 50mm f/1.4. I've not read any good reviews for that lens. Sigma's own MTF charts show sharpness drops off massively towards the borders and corners, even on a crop body. And that's if you achieve "perfect focus"...It just seems to me that they designed it as a compromise lens. You would be better off selling it, and just buying a used or new Canon 1.4 or 1.2, if you need more autofocus accuracy. Or else just use a 24-70 f/2.8 (either the Tamron, or the old or new Canons...obviously that's getting into higher cost territory). 

Achieving consistent and accurate autofocus with an f/1.4 or faster lens, can definitely sometimes be asking for trouble, even if it's a Canon lens. I've personally never achieved that, nor can I reliably get sharp focus manually, through the viewfinder, enough of the time to do it in a professional setting.

From a marketing standpoint, even Sigma critics would admit that they needed to "rebrand" their line...calling it "art", "sport", etc. In an attempt to set the new designs apart from the older ones. However, it seems to me that the "sport" 120-300 f/2.8, just may be the same old optical formula...so that kind of pollutes the pool water for the "new line". The "look" of the lens bodies for the new line though, is simply stunning.

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 may wind up standing alone as the only "Canon killer" lens they make. I hope it's not, but you never know, until the (unbiased) tests are in.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 14, 2013)

My Sigma 50mm 1.4 sat on the shelf a lot when my primary camera was a 5D classic. The focus was just too erratic to make use of it at wide apertures. My 7D was a bit better, but still not great.

When I got my 5D Mark 3 about 7 months ago, the Sigma suddenly started focusing very well! I now use it a lot hand held as a full body portrait lens at about F/2.0 in soft available light where I focus on the eyes and let the body be blurred. That's what I bought it for in the first place. I have to admit that I'm not getting tack sharp images this way, but it works fine for the boudoir business and saves me a lot of retouching. LOL

Anyway, the point I'd like to make is that some of the erratic focus may be due to the camera body you are using.


----------



## hanifshootsphotos (May 14, 2013)

If Sigma introduces a new 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 I sincerely hope they can wrap their arms around QA; my 35mm 1.4 was a dud from jump street, see and feel my pain here:

Sigma 35mm 1.4 Squeaking On Canon 60D

Optically great, but I can't say I will miss it. I'll stick with Canon gear (for now)


----------



## CarlTN (May 16, 2013)

I would have exchanged it for another one before I decided to "stick with canon"...and I also would have shot the video in the horizontal aspect. Looks too much like the stupid videos all the 14 year olds shoot, if you do it vertically...just my two cents.

Isn't it also a factor for you, hanifshootsphotos, that you might be a little peeved that your Canon 35mm f/1.4, is worth a bit less on the used market than it was, before the Sigma came out?


----------



## hanifshootsphotos (May 16, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I would have exchanged it for another one before I decided to "stick with canon"...and I also would have shot the video in the horizontal aspect. Looks too much like the stupid videos all the 14 year olds shoot, if you do it vertically...just my two cents.
> 
> Isn't it also a factor for you, hanifshootsphotos, that you might be a little peeved that your Canon 35mm f/1.4, is worth a bit less on the used market than it was, before the Sigma came out?



For starters thanks for the l laugh, I seriously needed it that video was brutal why didnt I just use my 60d to illustrate the point?!? You're right the used market is flooded with 35mm 1.4 hoovering around 1K and a little below. After I cool down I may try another Sigma 35mm or get something completely different.


----------



## aznable (May 19, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I didn't say when I went to Focus on Imaging, it was just around the time for their Macro HSM mk 1 I think. Again it was so far out of adjustment, I called over the attendant and he confirmed it. And then put the lens under the counter with a post it note on it. It was worse than my old copy.
> It's been surprising how many 70-200mm f2.8 lenses Sigma has put out over the years. I'm assuming this is to correct various design faults with each successive model. Other brands like Nikon or Canon tend to get it right first time and let that model run for a good 10 years or so. That said, I took some great pictures with my old copy.
> 
> My 70-200 EX HSM f2.8 (new at the time) was so far out of calibration...it had to go to Sigma twice with the Camera. It was bad. I'm not going to re-tell my Sigma woes here again, I did that a few pages back. Hello if you are new to this thread
> ...



i had the HSM mk II and it was front focusing a lot on 50D (i ended with a +16 mfa) and almost perfect on 450D...so the fault is Sigma or Canon? And i have at lest one more person that got the same results... weird; then some months after i got the OS version of the lens , beacuse of a good offer from amazon in eu, and the focus was quite good on both cameras (just a +3 to achieve the maximum sharpness). And dont think sigma did a lot of 70-200 because as far i remember there are four lenses so far

1) 70-200 APO
2) 70-200 HSM
3) 70-200 HSM II (it's not a redesign, it's a rework to make the lens cheaper, so smae perfromance)
4) 70-200 HSM OS (total redesign)

canon did 3.

know peoples that had to exchange the Canon 35L 1.4 twice before they got a good sample and for what i know, canon doesnt offer free calibration for their lenses, at least here in italy, but maybe i am wrong, because i own just a canon lens (a shitty 17-85... +5 for the record); i am not sure it's completly a sigma QC fault the AF problems, because with nikon the problems are not so pronunced as with canon. i think the accuracy of focues with canon camera is more firmware dependant than other brands, but with the new dock, i guess a lot of problems will go away


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 20, 2013)

aznable said:


> i had the HSM mk II and it was front focusing a lot on 50D (i ended with a +16 mfa) and almost perfect on 450D...so the fault is Sigma or Canon? And i have at lest one more person that got the same results... weird; then some months after i got the OS version of the lens , beacuse of a good offer from amazon in eu, and the focus was quite good on both cameras (just a +3 to achieve the maximum sharpness). And dont think sigma did a lot of 70-200 because as far i remember there are four lenses so far
> 
> 1) 70-200 APO
> 2) 70-200 HSM
> ...



A +5/-5 micro adjust is quite minor and easily within a lens / lens mount manufacturing tollerences. But a +15/-15 is pretty obviously a lens issue. Especially if it's the same across multiple cameras. I'm currently running a pair of 5DIII's and a 5DII and I had to micro adjust every lens on every camera. None of my lenses were more than +5/-5 adjustment across all three cams. One of cams consistently needs more - adjustment than my other two. 

Sigma seem to pop out a new 70-200 fairly regularly:
70-200 f2.8 APO
70-200 f2.8 EX HSM
70-200 f2.8 EX DG HSM (new shell and coatings)
70-200 f2.8 EX DG MACRO 
70-200 f2.8 EX DG MACRO II
70-200 f2.8 OS
I dare say the new OS version is about to be re-designed in their new Sport livery and new outer casing.

It's tricky to compare with Canon, because their IS and non IS versions are not replacements but are options.
ef 70-200 f2.8 L, there has only been one.
ef 70-200 f2.8 L IS was a very old lens, the very first 70-200 with IS and predates digital SLR's. This lens was only recently upadated with the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II. 
So if you compare Canon non IS, there's only been one lens and if you compare IS lenses...there has only been two.

I'm not saying that Canon don't have QC issues, but in my experiance they are a lot less common and far less sevear than Sigma's QC issues. My Sigma issues were very bad and quite frequent. 

Here in the UK, if a Canon lens is out of spec it can be sent in for calibration under warrenty. I belive this is a Europe wide policy. but they will charge if the lens is within expected tollerences. I've only had one lens which has needed this...unfortunatly a lot of people don't think to send it in under the manufacturers warrenty.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Jun 2, 2013)

Talking about the Sig 35mm, I just had a mishap the other day and dropped the baby 4ft onto concrete 
Never dropped a lens or camera before and it had to be my best lens right before a wedding shoot!!
But alas, the build quality! It hit the mount and bent it a little, and there's a big scuff on the side near the mount, which caused it to be real tough to get it back onto my 5DII, but with force it clicked in.
And it works! No broken glass, aperture and AF work perfectly, and dead on with no need for AFMA.
No weird flares and signs of anything wrong, I'm impressed with Sigma~
Per chance there could be misalignment or some sort of failure-waiting-to-happen, but as long as it could get through the next even then I'm sending it in for warranty right away, hopefully they fix any problems.

So yes, a new A 50mm would be sweet, although I got a 35mm because 50mm I find is too boring, but I'll be paying close attention to their new releases~


----------



## brad-man (Jun 2, 2013)

Glad to hear your 35 survived such a bad fall. It's nice to know it's built as well as it appears to be. I'm also waiting for the next FF release in the Art line. I'm hoping for an 85 or the rumored 135 f/1.8 OS. I'm dying to pick up the USB dock, but there's nothing about my 35 that I want to change. Perhaps the next lens will give me an excuse...


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jun 4, 2013)

*Sigma USB dock*

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909813-REG/Sigma_USB_Dock.html

I'm hoping for reports from some of our Sigma 35 owners soon!


----------



## bvukich (Jun 8, 2013)

*Re: Sigma USB dock*



drmikeinpdx said:


> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909813-REG/Sigma_USB_Dock.html
> 
> I'm hoping for reports from some of our Sigma 35 owners soon!



Sweet... 4x distance settings you can calibrate prime lenses at, and 16 (4 distance * 4 focal length) for zooms, that's awesome!


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 20, 2013)

Someone at Sigma deserves a big raise or something, for effecting such a radical turnaround in both their image and in their product line. The decision to make the one super high quality 35mm prime got everyone's attention and has people anticipating the follow-up lenses. Then the idea to release the lens "dock" directly addressed and solved their big problems of 1.) perceived inconsistent focus and 2.) future incompatibility with new body firmware. 

Even the guy who decided to kill the god-awful crinkle finish deserves a nice bonus.

To go from a reputation that to almost everyone (rightly or wrongly) said "unexciting and mediocre", almost overnight to being spoken of as a serious rival to top end manufacturers' OEM glass is impressive. Even if you never buy a Sigma lens, you may benefit from the healthy "spurring" effect of stiff competition on Canon's lens quality, innovation, upgrade frequency, and pricing.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 20, 2013)

I frankly am beginning to think I need a 24mm f/1.4, so would be nice if Sigma made one with similar quality and price to the 35mm. 35 is just not quite wide enough for me...I already have the 40mm pancake; I need something a lot wider...and preferably fast aperture, with good sharpness...for less than $1000. Considering the Rokinon, but I would like autofocus.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 23, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I frankly am beginning to think I need a 24mm f/1.4, so would be nice if Sigma made one with similar quality and price to the 35mm. 35 is just not quite wide enough for me...I already have the 40mm pancake; I need something a lot wider...and preferably fast aperture, with good sharpness...for less than $1000. Considering the Rokinon, but I would like autofocus.



I"m with you on that one. As others stated earlier in this discussion, a 24mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2/1.4, and the 135mm 1.8 all of comparable quality to the 35 would be enough reason for all prime shooters to shoot exclusively with Sigma glass. Although I reallyyyyyy want a solid 24mm 1.4 (I've heard mixed things about the Rokinon, so I'm hesitant to get one despite owning their 35 and 85.), I have to say I hope Sigma releases an "A" 50 next (I'd buy the 1.4, but 1.2 would be preferred is it was reasonably priced) as I've had my eye on the Canon 1.2 and I'm not sure how much longer I can hold out. Sigma would get all my money if they came out with a 50mm 1.2 at an even 1k, 24mm 1.4 at $900, and 135mm 1.8 IS at $800.

Also, I think somebody mentioned an UWA earlier, and I want one too! When I shoot UWA I shoot at the wide end almost exclusively, so I don't really want to pay for a 16-35 just to use 16-23mm. I'd really love a solid 17mm or 18mm f2.8 (or f/2...is that's possible) that takes filters and performs on par with the 17mm ts-e,but comes with a price tag of $500-700. That would get my money, too.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 23, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > I frankly am beginning to think I need a 24mm f/1.4, so would be nice if Sigma made one with similar quality and price to the 35mm. 35 is just not quite wide enough for me...I already have the 40mm pancake; I need something a lot wider...and preferably fast aperture, with good sharpness...for less than $1000. Considering the Rokinon, but I would like autofocus.
> ...



I can sympathize!


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 23, 2013)

waiting for an 85 actually. I have the 35 and the EF 135L so all I need is a better than 85 1.8 and faster focusing than 85 1.2 for my atheist trinity


----------



## bvukich (Jul 24, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> waiting for an 85 actually. I have the 35 and the EF 135L so all I need is a better than 85 1.8 and faster focusing than 85 1.2 for my *atheist trinity*



Lol, LOVE IT, I'm so stealing that term.


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 24, 2013)

bvukich said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > waiting for an 85 actually. I have the 35 and the EF 135L so all I need is a better than 85 1.8 and faster focusing than 85 1.2 for my *atheist trinity*
> ...



You know until you responded to me, you had 666 posts. Now you're the Neighbor of the beast.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 26, 2013)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > I frankly am beginning to think I need a 24mm f/1.4, so would be nice if Sigma made one with similar quality and price to the 35mm. 35 is just not quite wide enough for me...I already have the 40mm pancake; I need something a lot wider...and preferably fast aperture, with good sharpness...for less than $1000. Considering the Rokinon, but I would like autofocus.
> ...



Exactly. A wide non-fisheye prime, something like 16mm? Done as a Sigma Art lens. For $650 on Black Friday after its been out a year.


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 26, 2013)

You want the world and you want it now it seems. Look you want an UWA prime with little to no distortion, great color and contrast, a super manual ring? Zeiss has many but not in the price range you listed, that's just not going to happen. Save your dough.


----------

