# Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 22, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16403"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16403">Tweet</a></div>
Bryan at The-Digital-Picture has completed his review of the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1045458-REG/sigma_311101_50mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art series lens</a>. As you’re probably used to reading, this lens is a stellar performer and nearly as good optically as the Zeiss 55 f/1.4 Otus, which costs 4 times as much.</p>
<p><strong>Says Bryan

</strong><em>“While I will dock a few points from this lens for occasional AF inconsistency, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is now the overwhelming favorite in the 50mm field. This lens delivers excellent image quality, has a beautiful design and for what you get, a very attractive price. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is the easy 50mm choice for those with a moderate budget.”<strong>

</strong></em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></strong></p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JPL7CK6/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00JPL7CK6&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1045458-REG/sigma_311101_50mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/SG5014REOS.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## dadgummit (Apr 22, 2014)

"occasional AF inconsistency"

Noooooooooooooooooooooo!! This is why I retuned all of the copies of their old 50mm... Hopefully the Sigma dock can fix this.

Otherwise the review looks great. My biggest concern with this lens was if it sacrificed a nice smooth OOF for sharpness. The few "Bokeh" (I never know if I am using that word correctly) pictures I have seen look good though.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 22, 2014)

The review was great to read, and I really liked the look of the headshot of Brianna. The AF inconsistency is a bit of concern, though. Always enjoy Bryan's reviews.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 22, 2014)

I've had the 35A for about 2 months now and what Bryan has said about the 50 mm is pretty much what I am finding. Amazing pictures, even wide open, when it nails the focus. But there are some AF consistency issues. I am actually going to try MF for awhile, see how I like that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2014)

[quote author=Bryan @ TDP]
Below I share ten 100% crops from one of the more-formal focus tests I performed. The subject is a large book properly aligned with the camera at a relatively close focus distance. Starting with a slightly defocused lens, each shot was autofocused using the center AF point that was very comfortably and completely covered by the book. The first 5 and last 5 images from this particular test are presented below and are representative of the larger test group. … The camera was a tripod-mounted EOS 5D Mark III with mirror lockup and the 2-sec self-timer in use.
[/quote]

Of those 10 shots, 4 are sufficiently OOF as to be unusable (3, 4, 6, 10). A 60% hit rate with a static subject and a tripod-mounted camera, particularly one with an excellent AF system, does not inspire confidence. 


Also, this is a departure from the norm for Bryan's lens tests (and one, frankly, with which I'm not too pleased):

[quote author=Bryan @ TDP]
My evaluation lens was a short term loan from Sigma, as they offered the production-grade lens before it was commercially available.
[/quote]

Any time a manufacturer supplies a product to a well-known reviewer, a big unanswered question is whether the provided copy is truly representative of units purchased retail. Clearly, it would be in Sigma's best interest to pre-test a batch of them and pick the best copy they can find for review (in fact, they are supposed to generate measured MTFs for every lens they produce, so they have the data already). 

I've always felt that one of the strengths of Bryan's reviews (in addition to their thoroughness and readability) is that he purchases review copies through standard retail channels (B&H may put him near the top of the preorder queue, but that's fine), and therefore avoids the potential confound of bias introduced by testing a 'hand-picked' lens from the manufacturer. I hope Bryan chooses to test one or more copies of the lens purchased retail to see if the results align with the copy provided by Sigma.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Is there a lens out there that never has occasional AF inconsistency?



Does a 40% miss rate really constitute _occasional_ inconsistency? I think not...


----------



## bereninga (Apr 22, 2014)

Even the missed focus shots are sharper than the Canon f/1.4. ;D


----------



## bholliman (Apr 22, 2014)

bereninga said:


> Even the missed focus shots are sharper than the Canon f/1.4. ;D



Did you look at the 10 samples shots of the butterfly?  As Neuro pointed out, 4 are seriously out of focus, definitely NOT sharper than the Canon f1.4!

Overall a nice review and a quality lens. However, the AF issues would hold me back from ordering one.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 22, 2014)

Feeling better about my cancelled pre-order now that LensTip and Brian are both reporting AF issues. With the 50L, if it misses focus, it's almost always my fault 

Given how good it is otherwise, I hope Sigma can improve the reliability.


----------



## Joe M (Apr 22, 2014)

Drat it anyway. The image quality comparisons between it and the two Canon alternatives are tantalizing. It's got amazing sharpness right to the edge even at 1.4-2 in comparison. But focus inconsistency is something that ruins it all. Overshooting is fine to a point. I really like Bryan's tests and I hope he can pick up another sample or two at random to compare. You'd think Sigma gave him a great copy. I hope not and there is hope for this lens' AF consistency.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> [quote author=Bryan @ TDP]
> Below I share ten 100% crops from one of the more-formal focus tests I performed. The subject is a large book properly aligned with the camera at a relatively close focus distance. Starting with a slightly defocused lens, each shot was autofocused using the center AF point that was very comfortably and completely covered by the book. The first 5 and last 5 images from this particular test are presented below and are representative of the larger test group. … The camera was a tripod-mounted EOS 5D Mark III with mirror lockup and the 2-sec self-timer in use.



Of those 10 shots, 4 are sufficiently OOF as to be unusable (3, 4, 6, 10). A 60% hit rate with a static subject and a tripod-mounted camera, particularly one with an excellent AF system, does not inspire confidence. 


Also, this is a departure from the norm for Bryan's lens tests (and one, frankly, with which I'm not too pleased):

[quote author=Bryan @ TDP]
My evaluation lens was a short term loan from Sigma, as they offered the production-grade lens before it was commercially available.
[/quote]

Any time a manufacturer supplies a product to a well-known reviewer, a big unanswered question is whether the provided copy is truly representative of units purchased retail. Clearly, it would be in Sigma's best interest to pre-test a batch of them and pick the best copy they can find for review (in fact, they are supposed to generate measured MTFs for every lens they produce, so they have the data already). 

I've always felt that one of the strengths of Bryan's reviews (in addition to their thoroughness and readability) is that he purchases review copies through standard retail channels (B&H may put him near the top of the preorder queue, but that's fine), and therefore avoids the potential confound of bias introduced by testing a 'hand-picked' lens from the manufacturer. I hope Bryan chooses to test one or more copies of the lens purchased retail to see if the results align with the copy provided by Sigma. 
[/quote]

I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, but I understand the conundrum as a reviewer. These days it seems like most reviews are published before retail copies are technically available. Waiting until the lens launches to the public means that you lose the early momentum/hits that are so important to building a brand and a website.

I don't have an "in" with Sigma, so I am waiting for a copy to be provided to me from a retailer for review right now...and it's taking a while.

P.S. Your point about the AF is very well and clearly stated. That's a problem...and not a small one, particularly if one intends to use this lens commercially. You could by with it doing portraiture, but certainly not event work.


----------



## kphoto99 (Apr 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a lens out there that never has occasional AF inconsistency?
> ...



Compare this to Zeiss missing 100% of AF shots


----------



## Phenix205 (Apr 22, 2014)

I was wondering how the AF consistency test would turn out with this lens using FoCal. Most of Canon's new lenses get 99% AF consistency. If this one is in the 60-70% range, I may just wait for the Canon's new version. Sharpness is meaningless if focus is missed.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 22, 2014)

.
Does this guy get paid by the word?

He desperately needs a good editor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, but I understand the conundrum as a reviewer. These days it seems like most reviews are published before retail copies are technically available. Waiting until the lens launches to the public means that you lose the early momentum/hits that are so important to building a brand and a website.



Thus the suggestion to test additional lens(es) purchased through normal retail channels, once they become available.

I do appreciate the quandary, but I'd argue that merely adds another potential source of bias (and please note the use of the word _potential_). If delivering an early review to gain momentum/hits is that important (and I'm sure it is), what if the review is negative? It seems possible that a negative review would result in the reviewer *not* getting an advance copy of the _next_ lens from that manufacturer, and thus losing out on the momentum/hits for the next round.

The full text of the review indicates a 40% AF miss rate in formal testing, and includes statements like, "_...the longer I focus tested this lens, the less sure I was about its focus accuracy,"_ and, "_Sometimes, most images are properly focused and when my shots counted, this lens delivered. But sometimes, more images are out of focus than I am comfortable with._" To me, that does not equate to, "_...occasional AF inconsistency._" Which of those statements made it into the concluding paragraph of the review, which is the part most likely to be picked up and quoted, as it was in this post by CRguy?


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 22, 2014)

The AF problems are really bad =(.... I hate AF inconsistency at events... I own the old 50mm of Sigma, and sometimes it or my camera (5DII) produced faulty AF photos.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, but I understand the conundrum as a reviewer. These days it seems like most reviews are published before retail copies are technically available. Waiting until the lens launches to the public means that you lose the early momentum/hits that are so important to building a brand and a website.
> ...



Your points about the potential on a negative review are very solid. It seems that most lenses these days are pretty decent, although I try to be equally transparent about what I perceive as weaknesses in them. I've never had any issues with the people I deal with, but I'm also small potatoes.


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 22, 2014)

kphoto99 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...



My thoughts exactly! Hey, at under a grand, this lens offers most of the performance of the Zeiss, but it sucks because the AF is inconsistent while the Zeiss with no AF and 4x the cost is awesome?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 22, 2014)

bereninga said:


> Even the missed focus shots are sharper than the Canon f/1.4. ;D



Not that I'm giving any merit to your statement. But even if I were, you should put into perspective that you are comparing it to a $300 lens that has been as low as $265 in the last year (not to mention the fact that it is a design from the last millenium).


----------



## Phenix205 (Apr 22, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



As Bryan said, if you buy and use it as an MF lens, nothing beats its excellent value. Most people rely on AF in majority of shooting situations, and if it is indeed as bad as 40% missing rate, it's just a shame for such a high optical quality lens. Look forward to hearing from more on the AF consistency tests.


----------



## Artifex (Apr 22, 2014)

"_Interesting is that, according to the owner's manual, "You can [snip] adjust the amount of focus ring rotation to operate Full-time MF function." via the dock."_.
I'm not sure I understand well this sentence (english is not my native language). Does this means that it would be possible to have, for instance, a 270° focus throw instead of 90° in manual focus? Help would be appreciated, thanks!


----------



## traveller (Apr 22, 2014)

This is a real bummer, as I rate AF consistency as one of the most important aspects of this type of lens. I've found that for the most part, missing focus is far more destructive to resolution than a few hundred line widths per pixel height difference in MTF50. Of course, this new Sigma 50mm and the Zeiss Otus are exceptional in that they are clearly far superior at large apertures to the conventional double-gauss designs. 

The situation might not be so bad except that my camera's focusing screen (5D3) is pretty useless at showing depth of field at large apertures, so it's easy not notice the fact that the focus is off; this also makes accurate manual focus almost impossible below f/2.8.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The full text of the review indicates a 40% AF miss rate in formal testing, and includes statements like, "_...the longer I focus tested this lens, the less sure I was about its focus accuracy,"_ and, "_Sometimes, most images are properly focused and when my shots counted, this lens delivered. But sometimes, more images are out of focus than I am comfortable with._" To me, that does not equate to, "_...occasional AF inconsistency._" Which of those statements made it into the concluding paragraph of the review, which is the part most likely to be picked up and quoted, as it was in this post by CRguy?



+1. 
The observations in the body of the review seem to have been toned down a lot in the summary.
AF inconsistency is a biggie. I will hope that it is correctable via firmware. 

By the way, one advantage of reviewing pre-production or early production samples is that Sigma gets the opportunity to fix things before shipping out mass orders to the customers. Probably the only advantage IMO. 

Let's hope for the best and keep fingers crossed.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 22, 2014)

Artifex said:


> "_Interesting is that, according to the owner's manual, "You can [snip] adjust the amount of focus ring rotation to operate Full-time MF function." via the dock."_.
> I'm not sure I understand well this sentence (english is not my native language). Does this means that it would be possible to have, for instance, a 270° focus throw instead of 90° in manual focus? Help would be appreciated, thanks!



Ok, I think I get it now.
Here's what it says in the manual: "It is possible to adjust the timing to operate Full-time MF function." And it provides the following image.
I think it means you can change the amount by which the focusing ring has to be turned to trigger the MF override. So, let's say your fingers accidentally touch the focusing ring, that will not change the focus.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 22, 2014)

Allthough I was and still am interested in buying a decent - or lets call it high value for money - 50 mm lens right now I must say, I am lucky not beeing in any hurry. Because this review made me patient.

first:


neuroanatomist said:


> Of those 10 shots, 4 are sufficiently OOF as to be unusable (3, 4, 6, 10). A 60% hit rate with a static subject and a tripod-mounted camera, particularly one with an excellent AF system, does not inspire confidence.


This was, what I was most afraid of: AF-issues with this 3rd party lens. So let's see, what comes with retail product tests. 

second:


neuroanatomist said:


> Also, this is a departure from the norm for Bryan's lens tests (and one, frankly, with which I'm not too pleased):
> [quote author=Bryan @ TDP]
> My evaluation lens was a short term loan from Sigma, as they offered the production-grade lens before it was commercially available.


Any time a manufacturer supplies a product to a well-known reviewer, a big unanswered question is whether the provided copy is truly representative of units purchased retail. ...
[/quote]
neuroanatomist explained it very well, what might be the difference between selected test lenses and retail products. 
But also a really big "plus" to Bryan Carnathan that he was telling this important fact so plainly.

So I am again lucky not beeing in any hurry and maybe see if ther is and what might be the answer comming from Canon.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 22, 2014)

But according to a very lengthy thread about the 35 Art I was specifically told there are no AF issues with the GV Sigmas :

First off I don't think it's as simple as, oh I'll wait two weeks for Sigma to fix the AF with a firmware, they have already tested it on the 5d3 and 1dx extensively, I guarantee that, and as it is now, it's the best they can do with the option they have, reverse engineering. It's of course very sad and to a lot of people, me included, it's the biggest deal breaker of them all. 

And if you buy an MF lens you know you have to turn the ring in order for focus to be achieved, but seeing time and time again your AF lens not delivering is the worst thing I can imagine (in photography).


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 22, 2014)

kphoto99 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...



This comparison is as pointless as comparing a Audi with (automatic) transmission problems to a stick-shift Ferrari.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I don't think Audi makes cars that 'occasionally' mis-shift, causing the car to lurch and hot coffee to spill all over the driver. Just sayin'…


----------



## thepancakeman (Apr 22, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Only if the Audi has comparable performance to the Ferrari and works fine in manual mode.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 22, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > kphoto99 said:
> ...


I think the Zeiss is actually closest to a Tesla single-speed, high-torque transmission, but powered by human electricity . The Sigma would be like a new driver missing the occasional shift :-[. And the 50L, like a sweet dual-clutch automatic 8).


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 22, 2014)

Just waiting for the apologists to scold those of us who like reliable AF, or tell us we aren't true photographers.

A whole bunch of photographers paid a whole bunch more money for a 5D3 than for a 6D precisely because they wanted better AF. Unless this latest review is an aberration, or Sigma addresses AF problems without forcing us to buy a USB lens tweaker thingy, I can live with my ef 50mm 1.4 for now.

All that said, I'm surprised nobody has been discussing how odd it seems that AI Servo was apparently ok, but One Shot on a tripod wasn't...Any conjecture?


(Btw, have the 35 A, like it very much, and have had only one fairly dim-light AF struggling event, one that couldn't be reproduced. Like it came and went.)


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 22, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > kphoto99 said:
> ...



I had a hard time finding a car manufacturer that makes a faulty automatic transmission in an otherwise excellent car. I don't think there are any, actually. 
Hence the hypothetical example.

Pancakeman, I am sure you won't find much difference in a regular city commute between a Ferrari and an Audi, and while the Sigma works 'fine' I think the Otus can boast a much better manual focusing mechanism (throw, smoothness, accuracy of distance scale, etc.).


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 22, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Just waiting for the apologists to scold those of us who like reliable AF, or tell us we aren't true photographers.
> 
> A whole bunch of photographers paid a whole bunch more money for a 5D3 than for a 6D precisely because they wanted better AF. Unless this latest review is an aberration, or Sigma addresses AF problems without forcing us to buy a USB lens tweaker thingy, I can live with my ef 50mm 1.4 for now.
> 
> ...


No scolding, but it's likely because Canon doesn't license their AF algorithms and Sigma (and the others) have to reverse-engineer them. Also, there are 2 other reviews (Phoblograper & LensTip) that have mentioned this same issue and given that one in in Poland, that has to be from at least 2 different lenses. As to why this would be different than the 35 Art, I'm not sure. There is a little less DOF, but beyond that. they should be very similar.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 22, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> All that said, I'm surprised nobody has been discussing how odd it seems that AI Servo was apparently ok, but One Shot on a tripod wasn't...Any conjecture?



I did comment on that and hypothesized it is an incompatibility with Canon's algorithm- therefore not necessarily Sigma's fault, just the trade-off with third party lenses, as Mackguyver mentions.

BTW, Mackguyver, I don't agree with your analogy. Zeiss is highly dependent on human factor (although the long throw is forgiving), while the Tesla is not (talking about acceleration, not going off the road). The Sigma AF is not controllable by the photographer, while the new driver can get better at shifting.
I have no experience with either the 50L or with a sweet dual-clutch (which isn't technically 'automatic' by the way). My car has one of the worst dual-clutch transmissions ever made in an otherwise excellent car (I suppose I should have compared that to the Sigma...).


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 22, 2014)

sagittarriansrock said, "I did comment on that and hypothesized it is an incompatibility with Canon's algorithm- therefore not necessarily Sigma's fault, just the trade-off with third party lenses, as Mackguyver mentions."


Missed that--But why would you say it isn't Sigma's fault? Who is making a lens first released in a CANON mount? If they CAN'T get it right, why put it on the market and lose all the respect they've been earning with the newer products?

If it isn't Sigma's fault, then who is to blame? Canon for being crafty?


----------



## brad-man (Apr 22, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Just waiting for the apologists to scold those of us who like reliable AF, or tell us we aren't true photographers.
> ...



This is what I find curious about Brian's results. I have the 35, and although it (or I) occasionally misses focus, it is nowhere near 40%. I have not done formal testing, but I would place the number of AF misses around 5-8% under normal shooting conditions (whatever they are).


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 22, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> sagittarriansrock said, "I did comment on that and hypothesized it is an incompatibility with Canon's algorithm- therefore not necessarily Sigma's fault, just the trade-off with third party lenses, as Mackguyver mentions."
> 
> 
> Missed that--But why would you say it isn't Sigma's fault? Who is making a lens first released in a CANON mount? If they CAN'T get it right, why put it on the market and lose all the respect they've been earning with the newer products?
> ...



It might be their fault. But not necessarily so. It might be an unavoidable issue with any and all third party fast lenses with AF. And how many of those do we have?
Tamron and Tokina don't make fast lenses. Zeiss and Samyang don't make AF lenses. And all of Sigma's earlier (Local Vision) lenses have had AF inconsistency issues.
So Sigma might have be at the receiving end of a raw deal. Let's see if they can fix it via firmware. I am hopeful, but not confident.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 22, 2014)

Well, the early adopters will boldly tread, thank you. If AF truly is a problem, and it can be fixed by firmware, then it's a shame if early adopters find themselves forced to buy a USB dock. Otoh, shipping a lens in for a firmware fix has to cost something, and I don't think even Canon pays for shipping to them for a warranty repair. 

I've micro-adjusted my Sigma 35mm 1.4 A on my 5D3 with good, consistent results. Knowing that works, the idea of having to buy into the USB dock is just one more stumbling block, imo.


----------



## jebrady03 (Apr 22, 2014)

Several USERS have reported AF inconsistencies with the Sigma 35 Art, I'm one of 'em. In poor lighting I end up with about a 40% hit rate, even using AI Servo and BBF on my 70D. Once the 35mm IS USM hits the refurb store, I'm selling mine. I also won't be purchasing the 50 Art.
Im really disappointed... :-/

Edit: I should note that I never go looking for problems but decided to see if my 35 Art would benefit from MFA 2 nights ago. It needed -5, so that might explain some of the difference between my 60% miss rate and Bryans 40% miss rate. 

Edit 2: just checked, it was -3, not -5


----------



## JustMeOregon (Apr 22, 2014)

Something doesn't add-up... Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning, maybe I've had too much, or maybe I'm hoping that my faith (and pre-order) in Sigma's new-found quality is not misplaced... But something just _feels_ wrong here.

Just as most everyone else, I've read every other review out-there on the Sigma 50A, and the only other one that mentioned _anything_ about any AF issues is the Lenstip review. There, the missed focus problems were limited to a single camera-body type -- the 1Ds MkIII. When Lenstip tested the 50A on a 50D and a 5D MkIII the result was "pretty much predictable, with the number of misses reaching 6-7%." Of course any missed focus is not a good thing, but Lenstip's failure rate of 6-7% (that is described as "only a good result") is pretty much what I feel I get from my Sigma 35A that I'm _very_ happy with.

But, there is a HUGE difference between a 6-7% failure rate and a 40% failure rate!

As much as I respect (& rely on) Bryan's reviews at The Digital Picture, something just doesn't feel right here.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 22, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Just waiting for the apologists to scold those of us who like reliable AF, or tell us we aren't true photographers.
> ...



As i have said many times before...I am done with Sigma. Their AF reliability is one of the factors for me and the fact that they aren't anywhere near Canon's durability or fiscal stability. Buy a Canon L and it's worth equal or even more in 5 years than you paid for it and wills till look new. Buy Sigma and it generally looses about 1/2 it's value over 5 years...if you can sell it and it'll look like it's been through hell and back. 

I'm not so sure it's just about Sigma having to reverse engineer their AF on Canon bodies. I tried the Nikkor 24mm f1.4 on a D700 when that lens was first released and I got horrendous AF inconsistencies. I was really surprised, but found that when I returned to my Canon kit, my focus nailed every time. This was contrary to a lot of "Nikon focus better than Canon" mantra on various forums. But that's what i found, I later tried their 35mm f1.4 and had the same issue. Ok, I'm talking about Nikon lenses on Nikon bodies....but, what if Canon has has better fast aperture lens focussing and Nikon and Sigma were a bit behind? If the Sigma lenses match the Nikon lenses for AF consistency and yet the Sigma is slightly lacking against Canon...what does that say about Nikon AF? Every Nikon f2.8 zoom which i have tried has shown excellent AF, but every fast prime has been quite bad.


----------



## cazza132 (Apr 22, 2014)

Geez, why is everyone bagging the crap out of this lens? I use the Siggy 35 1.4 for astro at f2.0! A stunning lens for that sort of work. IQ better than the 17tse at f4 and the 70-200 f2.8LII at f2.8. One of the few lenses that can handle wider than f2.8 for astro. Name me another for sub $2000?

I know we having a crack about AF issues here, but I haven't heard to many bad reports about the 35's AF. For Af, is the Canon 50L any better? - I bet it's slower. I have heard of AF inconsistencies with that and the 85L.
I bet Sigma update their AF algorithms anyway, so their production versions will improve with time - and you have the dock that can upload those.

I know people have different needs, but if I didn't have the 35mm Siggy already, I would go this for sure for pure IQ alone. If the 35 is anything to judge by, and Sigma's recent form with IQ, I would definitely love a 20mm f1.8 or a 135 f1.8. I wouldn't doubt their capability to produce these


----------



## giltaminphotography (Apr 22, 2014)

Their are bad copies and good copies. So maybe it was a bad one? I've tested my sigma 35 art mounted onto my 6d ,shot a portrait in very very low light at 1.4 and nailed the shot 15 times in a row. I was shocked to see not one missed. Their are tones of rumours that their are bad copies of the 35 art too. One thing I will vouch for is when I shot my canon 14L and 35art in almost pitch black light, my 14L would be able to focus everytime meanwhile my 35 art would take awhile.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 23, 2014)

I'll wait for Canon to release an awesome and cheap 50mm 1.8 IS lens. I have a hard time dropping money on a 50mm lens for some odd reason.


----------



## kbmelb (Apr 23, 2014)

I love my 50 1.2 but realize it isn't perfect and while I am rarely disappointed with it's results, I was romanced by the promise of the Sigma Art 50. With the results of this review I am going to hold on to my beloved Canon.

I rarely miss focus with the 1.2 even wide open so I won't be wanting to deal with that shortcoming on the Sigma.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 23, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> I'll wait for Canon to release an awesome and cheap 50mm 1.8 IS lens. I have a hard time dropping money on a 50mm lens for some odd reason.



Cheap?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 23, 2014)

dadgummit said:


> "occasional AF inconsistency"
> 
> Noooooooooooooooooooooo!! This is why I retuned all of the copies of their old 50mm... Hopefully the Sigma dock can fix this.
> 
> Otherwise the review looks great. My biggest concern with this lens was if it sacrificed a nice smooth OOF for sharpness. The few "Bokeh" (I never know if I am using that word correctly) pictures I have seen look good though.



Man what is it with 50mms?? Why can they never AF? Zeiss 50mm new or old or older don't AF. Canon 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 don't AF (1.2L maybe does if you escape focus shift). Old sigma doesn't new sigma doesn't. Zuiko doesn't AF.


----------



## Invertalon (Apr 23, 2014)

I just tried my 4th... Yes, 4th copy of the Sigma 35... I have written Sigma off at this point. I tried, but I just could not deal with the AF.

The first two I tried right when the lens came out... MA changed heavily indoors vs. outdoors... 0 MA near to far outdoors, +10 required indoors. Was a PITA.

Fast forward to last week, I tried another. Copy 1 seemed to work fine indoors vs. outdoors but was decentered... OK, just get another... I have had plenty of Canon lenses that I needed to exchange.

Got the replacement, indoors to outdoors is perfectly fine (thankfully). However, the AF is just way too darn unreliable. Some shots are so far OOF you wonder how the camera ever thought it was right. Yet the next photo be perfectly sharp, the next somewhat soft, sharp again, way out of focus the next, etc... Mostly near infinity focus it had these issues.

I just slapped my 35L back on and sent the Sigma back home for the last time... Until Sigma can have even better AF, the Canon options are for me.


----------



## skullyspice (Apr 23, 2014)

sounds like a dud. i'll stick with the 1.2


----------



## Snodge (Apr 23, 2014)

A review before the lens is released? I think instead it should be a preview, not a review! I'd also like to see some other full reviews just in case there was something wrong with that particular lens that was (p)reviewed...


----------



## Invertalon (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> With that much trouble, one has to wonder whether the problems are with the lenses or somewhere else ... like the camera or the "driver".



Trust me... It is Sigma. When all of my Canon glass works perfectly in terms of AF and all (4) sigma lenses are all over the place, I think I can rule out operator error. 

Optically aside from the one decentered one, they were amazing. The AF though is a whole nother story... Also note, two copies of the Sigma was on one 5D3 and the other two on another. So I can rule out the body as well. 

The 35L nails focus. When it misses, it may be slight but usable. The Sigma misses by a mile at times. Makes no sense. With my commercial work I can't risk that just for sharpness. AF is very important. It's not like I didn't try though.... 4 copies over a year or more? It's not like I gave up after one...


----------



## Dreamer (Apr 23, 2014)

I have to admit I have been waiting for the outcomes of the Sigma reviews following the success of the S35/1.4A. I'm actually not sure why either - i have been reasonably happy with my C50/1.4 and I cant yet justify the $ for the C50/1.2L. I say reasonably, but i mean really , as at first when i started using it was a bit hit and miss_ (focus, bokeh et cetera) _and after hovering around here for a while realised this is what you have to accept with a relatively old, fast lens. 

Then I read about someone having super success using FoCal and decided to give it a go. Having tried to micro adjust it a few times, I kept doing it until I got 3 successive scores that were the same (-3). Well - it's been a revelation! I love my C50/1.4. For the price and rewards I get from it - I will just wait to see what Canon may have in terms of an upgrade in the near term. That way i can stay within the same eco system with minimal risk and fuss. Who knows - may lash out for the 50/1.2L, but don't think I deserve that just yet.

Just my 2 cents worth . For me, in order to move away from Canon eco system, the rewards must really match the risks of investment (ie; price, quality, consistency, durability, resale). 8)


----------



## pwp (Apr 23, 2014)

dadgummit said:


> "occasional AF inconsistency"
> Noooooooooooooooooooooo!! This is why I returned all of the copies of their old 50mm...


Arrrgh! Me too. The old Sigma 50mm f/1.4 was a beauty...when it focused. I went through two copies, trips to Sigma and finally gave up; thanks eBay.

-pw


----------



## callmeasyoulike (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



+1 ;D


----------



## TM (Apr 23, 2014)

Great review, as usual. Now I'm considering cancelling my pre-order. Was hoping it would be as solid as my Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art lens, but if that's not the case, I'll stick with that and my other Canon L lenses.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> [quote author=Bryan @ TDP]
> Below I share ten 100% crops from one of the more-formal focus tests I performed. The subject is a large book properly aligned with the camera at a relatively close focus distance. Starting with a slightly defocused lens, each shot was autofocused using the center AF point that was very comfortably and completely covered by the book. The first 5 and last 5 images from this particular test are presented below and are representative of the larger test group. … The camera was a tripod-mounted EOS 5D Mark III with mirror lockup and the 2-sec self-timer in use.



Of those 10 shots, 4 are sufficiently OOF as to be unusable (3, 4, 6, 10). A 60% hit rate with a static subject and a tripod-mounted camera, particularly one with an excellent AF system, does not inspire confidence. 


Also, this is a departure from the norm for Bryan's lens tests (and one, frankly, with which I'm not too pleased):

[quote author=Bryan @ TDP]
My evaluation lens was a short term loan from Sigma, as they offered the production-grade lens before it was commercially available.
[/quote]

Any time a manufacturer supplies a product to a well-known reviewer, a big unanswered question is whether the provided copy is truly representative of units purchased retail. Clearly, it would be in Sigma's best interest to pre-test a batch of them and pick the best copy they can find for review (in fact, they are supposed to generate measured MTFs for every lens they produce, so they have the data already). 

I've always felt that one of the strengths of Bryan's reviews (in addition to their thoroughness and readability) is that he purchases review copies through standard retail channels (B&H may put him near the top of the preorder queue, but that's fine), and therefore avoids the potential confound of bias introduced by testing a 'hand-picked' lens from the manufacturer. I hope Bryan chooses to test one or more copies of the lens purchased retail to see if the results align with the copy provided by Sigma. 
[/quote]
I totally agree with your views. I was a bit surprised that Bryan published this as a full review and not just a preview. His objectivity takes a hit when he writes this based on a copy provided by Sigma. On the other hand, he still provides what appears to be a frank, open and honest review. I hope he goes back and provides a revision when he get copies through his regular retail channels. I also would have liked to see more image examples.

I have the 50 Art on preorder and I am looking forward to see what it is worth. But my experience with the 35 Art, where the AF perfomance is a bit unpredictable, is that I end up leaving the lens in the bag (if a 35/1.4L II came around, I would definitely try that). If the same thing happens with the 50 Art, and especially because my main reason for getting it is to use it from f1.4-2.8, I'll probablly reach for the Otus instead.


----------



## Rudeofus (Apr 23, 2014)

I really wonder what is so damn hard about reverse engineering that Canon lens protocol. We are not talking about some one man show running a startup on a shoe string budget and Ramen noodles, AFAIK Sigma is a sizable company that can design outstanding lenses. It's not like they'd have to crack AES encryption to make this work. They build up all this reputation for the new 50A, only to see it shredded by their poor electronics/firmware. 99-yard football seems to be their favorite sport ...

To those who wondered why AI works for the 50A and single shot AF doesn't (reliably): single shot AF is usually an one effort procedure: measure point spread, calculate AF motor movement, perform motor movement, done. If the measurement is off, or the motor does not move as intended, your AF will be off. With AI the measure/calculate/move procedure is performed continuously, and therefore will only fail in focus shift situations (see 50L).


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 23, 2014)

Besides some cases of users having problems with the 35A, I believe in the majority of cases the lens works quite well.

I can't imagine why this 50mm should be a step back. It is either a lens design problem (big issue) or a small software quirk that will soon be corrected via firmware update (small issue).

It's a pity because the rendering of this lens looks really stunning.


----------



## candyman (Apr 23, 2014)

How many (p)reviews of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART actually report problems with the AF? I read a few but only found this report at TDP. Is it possible that Bryan had bad luck with his copy? Although it was provided by Sigma?

EDIT: Lenstip reports an AF problem specific with the Canon 1Ds MKIII. Maybe they should have tried another FF to see if it is that camera or the lens....

I used to own the 'old' Sigma 50mm f/1.4. I never had AF problems with that one. I got rid of it because I did not like to performance on the FF but loved it on my 7D.
It is possible that production copies will perform outstanding where always you have some copies that are not okay.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 23, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> I really wonder what is so damn hard about reverse engineering that Canon lens protocol. We are not talking about some one man show running a startup on a shoe string budget and Ramen noodles, AFAIK Sigma is a sizable company that can design outstanding lenses. It's not like they'd have to crack AES encryption to make this work. They build up all this reputation for the new 50A, only to see it shredded by their poor electronics/firmware. 99-yard football seems to be their favorite sport ...
> 
> To those who wondered why AI works for the 50A and single shot AF doesn't (reliably): single shot AF is usually an one effort procedure: measure point spread, calculate AF motor movement, perform motor movement, done. If the measurement is off, or the motor does not move as intended, your AF will be off. With AI the measure/calculate/move procedure is performed continuously, and therefore will only fail in focus shift situations (see 50L).



It's not about the lack of skills, it's matter of not violating patents Canon own.


----------



## kphoto99 (Apr 23, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> I really wonder what is so damn hard about reverse engineering that Canon lens protocol. We are not talking about some one man show running a startup on a shoe string budget and Ramen noodles, AFAIK Sigma is a sizable company that can design outstanding lenses. It's not like they'd have to crack AES encryption to make this work. They build up all this reputation for the new 50A, only to see it shredded by their poor electronics/firmware. 99-yard football seems to be their favorite sport ...
> 
> To those who wondered why AI works for the 50A and single shot AF doesn't (reliably): single shot AF is usually an one effort procedure: measure point spread, calculate AF motor movement, perform motor movement, done. If the measurement is off, or the motor does not move as intended, your AF will be off. With AI the measure/calculate/move procedure is performed continuously, and therefore will only fail in focus shift situations (see 50L).



I have been thinking about this also and I'm beginning to suspect that Canon has software in the body to prevent the third party lenses from focusing consistently. Basically if the camera does not recognize the lens as Canon it would insert random miss focusing.

It would be nice to see how the AF performs on some old cameras, especially old Rebels since I would suspect that there would not be any thing in the firmware. Better yet how it performs on a film camera.

Or alternately if the lens is miss identified by the camera as some other Canon lens, it is apply a correction which is appropriate for the Canon lens but not good for the Sigma.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 23, 2014)

candyman said:


> How many (p)reviews of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART actually report problems with the AF? I read a few but only found this report at TDP. Is it possible that Bryan had bad luck with his copy? Although it was provided by Sigma?
> 
> EDIT: Lenstip reports an AF problem specific with the Canon 1Ds MKIII. Maybe they should have tried another FF to see if it is that camera or the lens....
> 
> ...



Lenstip claims the issues were with the 1Ds3, but non with the 5D3. Bryan reports issues on a 5D3.

Good news is that it's probably a software quirk. I would wait a little before buying the lens, but I'm confident Sigma will release a firmware update soon. 

We should also wait to see how widespread is the problem. 

_It's also interesting to notice that both tested lenses (lenstip and TDP) came from Sigma_. Maybe they weren't really retail-ready models and had a beta firmware?


----------



## candyman (Apr 23, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > How many (p)reviews of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART actually report problems with the AF? I read a few but only found this report at TDP. Is it possible that Bryan had bad luck with his copy? Although it was provided by Sigma?
> ...




Thanks for straighten out my sloppy reading. You're right. 
In any case you are right about waiting...waiting for the first production copies to see the result of AF


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 23, 2014)

kphoto99 said:


> I'm beginning to suspect that Canon has software in the body to prevent the third party lenses from focusing consistently. Basically if the camera does not recognize the lens as Canon it would insert random miss focusing.



If that came out to be true, a lot of people will lose what respect they had for Canon and the other manufacturers would jump on this.

Gone are the days when photographers expect to only use one manufacturer's lenses. 

At my local photo club, I see more and more second party lenses. I don't have any brand loyalty when it comes to lenses. I want to be able to choose lenses from other manufacturers if I feel it is a better lens for my purpose.

It is one thing for Canon to not cooperate with second party lens manufacturers. That's just business. But to deliberately put in coding to hinder second party lenses is, in my opinon, not acceptable. That's just my opinion though.

I want to buy Canon lenses because I feel they are the best lens for my purpose.. not because I have to because of coding.


----------



## candyman (Apr 23, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> .............
> It is one thing for Canon to not cooperate with second party lens manufacturers. That's just business. But to deliberately put in coding to hinder second party lenses is, in my opinon, not acceptable. That's just my opinion though............




Reminds me of software companies. I know that some of them got to deal with lawsuits that they lost. They had to open the software and had to pay huge sum of penalty.
But the two might not be the same...
It may be about violating patents and we know what is going on between Apple, Samsung, HTC, Nokia etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Live View focusing uses different communication protocols with the lens. Using that method would not have tested the lens' performance with PDAF, which was the whole point of the test. A 2 s delay should be quite sufficient at a 50mm FL, given the quality of support gear that Bryan has (I have ample shots – thousands – taken for AFMA to support that assertion). 

It's the peanut gallery commentator who has been found wanting, as is frequently the case on this forum.


----------



## Rudeofus (Apr 23, 2014)

Viggo said:


> It's not about the lack of skills, it's matter of not violating patents Canon own.



Canon made fast EF compatible glass over 17 years ago, all relevant patents must have expired by now, if they ever existed. A few years ago there was a long thread in some german photo forum about the Canon EF lens protocol and the way Sigma reverse engineered it. The conclusion was that Sigma did not put much effort into it and as a result had AF problems that seemed to have pestered them forever. This may have been ok when they made mostly cheaper substitutes for Canon/Nikon accessories, but with their new ambition towards optical excellence they clearly have some homework to do.



kphoto99 said:


> I have been thinking about this also and I'm beginning to suspect that Canon has software in the body to prevent the third party lenses from focusing consistently. Basically if the camera does not recognize the lens as Canon it would insert random miss focusing.
> 
> Or alternately if the lens is miss identified by the camera as some other Canon lens, it is apply a correction which is appropriate for the Canon lens but not good for the Sigma.



If a Canon camera indeed introduced targeted random focus shifts for third party glass, then it would be fraudulent for third party manufacturers to sell lenses as fully functional. Somehow I doubt this, and the fact that so many people seem to be happy with third party accessories seems to confirm my doubt. But here's the thing: even if they perfectly reproduced Canon's protocol, if their HSM drive loses steps due to sticky surfaces or whatnot, they would have inconsistent focusing. Remember that regular AF is a single effort process. This would more likely explain why poor AF performance seems to be so random.

If the camera sends some lens specific corrections, these are either fixed parameters, or based on parameters sent by the lens to the camera. In both cases the lens should have full control how it responds to data sent by the camera.




AcutancePhotography said:


> If that came out to be true, a lot of people will lose what respect they had for Canon and the other manufacturers would jump on this.



The last major incident happened with the introduction of the 10D, when a range of Sigma lenses stopped working. It has been proven conclusively, that Canon introduced a pointless protocol change, just to become incompatible with Sigma lenses ("the work ain't done until Sigma won't run"). People still blame this on Sigma and only use it as a justification to stick to Canon accessories, even if it limits their options and, on average, is more expensive. Rarely do you see "bad Canon, stop messing pointlessly with your protocol!" postings.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2014)

kphoto99 said:


> Or alternately if the lens is miss identified by the camera as some other Canon lens...



In fact, that is exactly what happens…by design. Third-party manufacturers pick a Canon LensID code to incorporate into their lens firmware, as part of the reverse engineering to work with the Canon AF systems. 

This has caused problems for third-party lenses in the past. For example, Canon had an issue (which as far as I know, they have never corrected) that resulted in the off center cross-type AF points of the 40D/50D/60D/7D (and quite possibly the newer bodies using the same AF modules, T4i/T5i/70D) behaving as single-orientation lines instead of crosses with certain lenses. The affected Canon lenses are quite old, like the 35-80 and 80-200 variable aperture zooms, so very, very few users would be affected. Users of Canon lenses, that is... Popular Tamron lenses like the 17-50/2.8 VC and 70-200/2.8 'borrowed' the codes from those old Canon lenses, so when you use those lenses on one of the affected bodies, you have only one cross-type point instead of 9 or 19. 

The nice thing about the new Sigma lenses is that the firmware can be updated via the dock.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 23, 2014)

.
"For What It's Worth"

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear


One person testing one lens = one opinion.

Given my excellent year-long and extensive experience with the Sigma 35mm A, I want to hear a lot more opinions. I'm hoping Roger at LR will weigh in on this after testing more than one lens.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 23, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> "For What It's Worth"
> 
> There's something happening here
> ...


So far, PopPhoto has said nothing bad about AF, ThePhoblographer has said that it struggles a bit in low light, and FStoppers test in bright daylight listed "Autofocus very fast and accurate" as a Pro for the lens. I think it's too soon to tell.


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 23, 2014)

I think this AF scare is a bit premature. Bryan tested one lens, as has oft been the claim against Klaus tests in photozone.de... Let*s wait until Lens Rentals do their testing on multiple copies. 

Btw, FWIW I have never had any AF issues on the 35 A, and besides a small flare issue I absolutely love that lens. 

Edit:

Distant.star I did not see your post before I posted mine, but as you see I agree. 

Btw: I love that song


----------



## brad-man (Apr 24, 2014)

Quasimodo said:


> I think this AF scare is a bit premature. Bryan tested one lens, as has oft been the claim against Klaus tests in photozone.de... Let*s wait until Lens Rentals do their testing on multiple copies.
> 
> Btw, FWIW I have never had any AF issues on the 35 A, and besides a small flare issue I absolutely love that lens.
> 
> ...



+1

_There's a man with a lens over there
Telling me, I got to beware_
_Sigma fans speaking their mind
Getting so much resistance from behind..._


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 24, 2014)

wow i cant believe the near hysteria this caused

I still have mine on preorder for the first on to hit the sigma store in shanghai

and FWIW 

My existing sigma 50 which was optically good but had lousy AF on my camera 
has been taken by my wife and seems to be performing excellently on her camera
both are 5Dmk3. The canon 50 1.4 is lousy on both cameras but works well enough on the 5Dmk2 bodies


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> wow i cant believe the near hysteria this caused



Yeah, well we're all either fanbois with no objectivity or Canon-bashers with no objectivity, right? :

Two reviews have noted AF issues with the lens, other reviews have not (though many reviews don't actually test AF performance). Maybe Roger Cicala will get a large batch and provide some solid evidence one way or the other.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > wow i cant believe the near hysteria this caused
> ...



heres hoping roger can get a batch and test. his batch testing seems to provide the most objective and comprehensive analysis of lenses available. also if there are issues I hope they can be sorted with the sigma dock and the issues aren't random and all over the place like the old 50 was (well for me anyway) its odd that my wifes 5Dmk3 seems to have no problem with this lens and is providing amazing images wide open with remarkable AF consistency where as for me it was all over the place...


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 24, 2014)

brad-man said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > I think this AF scare is a bit premature. Bryan tested one lens, as has oft been the claim against Klaus tests in photozone.de... Let*s wait until Lens Rentals do their testing on multiple copies.
> ...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 24, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



I seem to be the only person who objects to Sigma passing their poor quality control onto their user base by flogging a device to do what should have been done in the factory. Come on guys....wake up. Sure it might be cool to play with those features....but it should be right out of the factory. As it stands, I would not trust a mail order Sigma lens on first use. It's likely to a fair amount of pre-use adjustment.


----------



## mjcmbk (Apr 24, 2014)

I checked the forum at TDP and found this post from the reviewer, Bryan: 

Thanks for the great discussion, everyone!

My review copy of the 50 Art was indeed manufacturer-provided (the only way to get one right now) and that of course leaves open the question of cherry picking. I will be very surprised if the copy I evaluated is noticeably better than the retail-purchased copies coming soon. If it is, Sigma's practice of selecting ultra-high performing models for evaluation purposes will quickly be called out. I'll try to get a retail copy of this lens in for testing. That way, we will all know. Sean will also be using this lens in more depth soon. We will advise on any inconsistencies we discover.

As for a 40% miss rate being high, I completely agree. My experience was not always that case. For example, I was probably getting a hit rate in high 80% range shooting runners at the track meet and probably in the mid-90% range during the long portrait session. Results with other subjects were mixed. Sometimes great. Sometimes not.

Let me know if you have any more questions!


----------



## infared (Apr 25, 2014)

I have to say...I think that half of the people here complaining about the focusing of the 35mm f1.4 Art, must work for Canon.... Mine focuses spot on ...all the time and I just LOVE the lens. it's one of those lenses that just stuns you every time you open the files. In actual shooting situations my lens is very consistent, and one of my favorites to reach for.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 25, 2014)

infared said:


> I have to say...I think that half of the people here complaining about the focusing of the 35mm f1.4 Art. Mine focuses spot on ...all the time and I just LOVE the lens. it's one of those lenses that just stuns you every time you open the files. In actual shooting situation my lens is very consistent.



I'm in the half not complaining about my 35mm Art, but taking the claims in the review very seriously. One juror, though, doesn't decide a case. But I'm also back to waiting for the next round of rebates for the ef 50mm 1.2.

I'm very happy with my Sigma 35mm Art, and with my Sigma 15mm fisheye. What does that have to do with the performance of a soon-to-be-released 50mm?


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 25, 2014)

infared said:


> I have to say...I think that half of the people here complaining about the focusing of the 35mm f1.4 Art. Mine focuses spot on ...all the time and I just LOVE the lens. it's one of those lenses that just stuns you every time you open the files. In actual shooting situation my lens is very consistent.



+1. I didn't even think I'd like a 35mm lens on a FF body. I bought the 35mm Art as an impulse at Christmas because I got tired of waiting for the 50mm. I have to say, I love this lens. The AF is very accurate, and the colors are vivid, and it is razor sharp. Also, the field of view is very versatile, and it is nice to have so much DOF at f/1.4 compared to a longer lens like a 50mm or like my 85mm (at f/1.8). The thing lives on my camera.


----------



## infared (Apr 25, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I have to say...I think that half of the people here complaining about the focusing of the 35mm f1.4 Art. Mine focuses spot on ...all the time and I just LOVE the lens. it's one of those lenses that just stuns you every time you open the files. In actual shooting situation my lens is very consistent.
> ...




Ah...yes...photographers..not peepers...ahhhhh...I may eventually buy the 50mm and a dock...I want to see Dustin Abbott review both first. I hope that that can happen. Until then I am loving my original Sigma 50mm!
35mm is CLASSIC on a FF for all the reasons you mentioned and the Sigma Art is a classic, too!!!


----------



## Phenix205 (Apr 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I trust Bryan like many of us here do. I doubt he just randomly shot some photos then made made some comments on his own website without thinking it through. If you have a different approach for testing AF, I'd be very interested in hearing about it. Or you can just post a summary of what you find out using your protocol.


----------



## razeac (Apr 25, 2014)

Nice discussion here. I have been a lurker for quite a long time now. Forums here have helped me my choice for 5d mark II vs a 7D.. 
I pre ordered a sigma 50 1.4 art last week, I thought they're going to deliver the lens next month. To my surprise, I just received an email from the distributor that they already sent the item and it's on its way. Btw, I live in Norway. 

I have been reading about this AF issues here on the forums but I'll still would like to try the lens. Norway has this 14-day return policy. 

But when the lens arrive, hopefully by Monday - I'd really like if you guys could help me test the lens. I'm not a pro reviewer of camera gears, but if you guys help me out on testing the lens then maybe we'll clear up some issues with this lens.


----------



## iMagic (Apr 25, 2014)

I would think any decent lens AF test would entail testing both accuracy and precision. Accuracy being roughly the degree of closeness to true focus and precision being the degree to which in unchanging conditions, the focus is repeatable. It appears that the TDP test showing AF problems exhibits poor precision. While the TDP test in field conditions for Servo shows that accuracy is not necessarily a problem. So it will be interesting to see what real world testing reveals. In the end, at least for me, unreliable AF is a deal breaker. But it is very nice to see competition in the marketplace ;D


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 25, 2014)

Here's my take on reviews and testing: What passes for "testing" in most reviews and internet reports is not really testing in the strictest sense. Statistically speaking, the sample sizes are far too small to draw meaningful conclusions with a reliable degree of veracity. Nor are test conditions sufficiently configuration managed to alleviate or mitigate outside sources of measurement error or data variability. In the cases of Sigma, Tokina, Zeiss, etc., the testing should include multiple samples mounted to multiple bodies of the major available models of camera. Further, the configurations of the camera bodies should be recorded, managed, and synced to a standard for each lens/model level 1 configuration. In other words, it would not be valid to test multiple bodies of a camera that have different settings, even if the lens is the same one used across that round of tests. 

Obviously no layperson has access to this level of equipment in order to provide a comprehensive account of how a lens truly performs. The best that can be said for any given "result" reported in various reviews is that on that day, with that camera set the way it was set, with that very lens, this was the result. Often we don't even know enough about the conditions of that event to draw valid conclusions. 

Some have noted that when we see trends across multiple reviewers that we can use that as evidence. Strictly speaking, that is not the case without a significant amount of analysis of the events under consideration along the lines of what I outline above. Just because two entities report issues, the results are not necessarily directly correllated unless the conditions under test were held exactly the same. Put another way, we're back to anecdotal evidence. Correlation is not causation. 

That isn't to invalidate what was observed. In fact, it probably points to a need for more in depth and controlled testing in order to produce results from which a true root cause analysis can be conducted. 

Another missing ingredient from most tests is a DIRECT control group. Oh...this reviewer has recorded results for this lens and the OEM lens you say? Once again, that comparison is only really valid if both lenses were tested under the exact conditions with the exact, serialized configurations. You want to say, in this case, that this Sigma's focus precision is worse than, say, the EF 50mmL f/1.2? You had better have tested both lenses across a statistically relevant sample set of each lens, and across a statistically relevant sample size of each model of camera tested, and under very strict configurations both to the camera, target setup, support, light values, etc. 

Others here will disagree with what I wrote, but what I'm really saying is that we should ask the HARD questions about anything we're reading, especially if we're inclined to base our equipment investments on the data and conclusions. 

The only entity I'm aware of with the access to enough population of lenses, cameras, and valid, calibrated test equipment is LensRentals. When Roger reports trends in test results for a given lens or body, I will generally place a greater faith in the applicability of the result as indicative of the true qualities of the equipment in question. But Roger isn't in the business of reviews or equipment testing. His tests are conducted against known baselines and intended to return the equipment to serviceable conditions. This means certain aspects of even his testing are not recorded or even necessary for his mission. So even his information must be understood as not strictly indicative of the absolute properties of a piece of equipment. He's said as much in one of his blog posts. 

In other communities I participate in, we have established relationships with various members of the manufacturers such that engineers (in some cases the LEAD engineer) come and share their data with us. They participate in the forums to the point that they even allow us to question their data, results, conclusions, etc. Sometimes the data agrees with our outside anecdotes or even controlled testing. Sometimes not. I think it would be great if we had Canon, Sigma, Tokina, etc. engineers participate here or at least somewhere. Chuck is a good start, but truthfully, he gets beat up A LOT whenever I've seen him appear. He's also a tech rep, not an actual engineer. And my sense on this forum, so far, is that some here would not be able to play like grown ups. That happened to one manufacturer on one of the forums I'm talking about and they left the discussion and forum altogether. It was a loss to the community based on a few jackasses who could not respectfully discuss disagreements. Getting the various reviewers to participate in these discussions from time to time would be valuable as well. I, for one, would ask folks like Bryan some hard questions about their data and methods. Respectfully. Not to poke black eyes at manufacturers or review/testers, but to discover and discuss any holes relative to the data and conclusions. Over time, respectful discussions can benefit the whole community in getting better in their area of the sandbox. We know more, they build better products and provide more open data. 

Anyway...I'm not saying that the various reviews are all garbage. Rather, I'm imploring people to understand what they are really seeing, and the limitations and assumptions made through the process when the review is produced. They are good data points in the case of several of the well-known sites. But they are not gospel. I, for one, am a long way from pronouncing the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 an AF disaster. It's on my list of equipment acquisitions over the next few months.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 25, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> Here's my take on reviews and testing: What passes for "testing" in most reviews and internet reports is not really testing in the strictest sense.



Very well put. An important thing to keep in mind.

A lot of "testing" on photo sites is just a recording of anecdotal evidence. Which still has worth, but should not be confused with actual metric testing. 

One of the problems with anecdotal evidence is confirmation bias.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 25, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Which still has worth



....and stop......that is all. There is value to the observations, it is something for us to consider and evaluate. Each person will value those observations differently. No lens is perfect. The Sigma has been getting rave reviews optically, but now we have two trusted testing sites that have observed AF issues, of single copies, of preproduction lenses. That is all. BOTH sites still recommended the lens. 

Bryan/TDP even concluded:

"_While I will dock a few points from this lens for occasional AF inconsistency, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is now the overwhelming favorite in the 50mm field. This lens delivers excellent image quality, has a beautiful design and for what you get, a very attractive price. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is the easy 50mm choice for those with a moderate budget."_

Lenstip:
"_....-Those arguments are so strong that we didn’t have any qualms about giving the Sigma our “Editors Choice Award” badge, even though it had a slight coma slip-up during our test and its autofocus performance on the EOS 1 Ds MkIII was patchy_."

Even the groups pointing out the potential flaws are still calling this the "overwhelming favorite in the 50 mm field" and have no qualms about giving it the "Editors Choice Award" badge.


----------



## mevbo (Apr 26, 2014)

Hope mine comes soon... I ordered on 4-11 and no word yet from B+H


----------



## Shane1.4 (Apr 26, 2014)

Has anyone received a notice yet that it has shipped from B&H?


----------



## Rudeofus (Apr 26, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> In other communities I participate in, we have established relationships with various members of the manufacturers such that engineers (in some cases the LEAD engineer) come and share their data with us. They participate in the forums to the point that they even allow us to question their data, results, conclusions, etc. Sometimes the data agrees with our outside anecdotes or even controlled testing. Sometimes not. I think it would be great if we had Canon, Sigma, Tokina, etc. engineers participate here or at least somewhere. Chuck is a good start, but truthfully, he gets beat up A LOT whenever I've seen him appear. He's also a tech rep, not an actual engineer. And my sense on this forum, so far, is that some here would not be able to play like grown ups. That happened to one manufacturer on one of the forums I'm talking about and they left the discussion and forum altogether.



That is what is most telling of Sigma, Canon, ... if an acknowledged reviewer reports about a test failure, I would expect any credible manufacturer to pick up a phone, contact the reviewer and try to sort out the problems. If you know Simon Galley from Ilford (mostly on APUG), that's the kind of response I would expect, and his presence is greatly appreciated there and has given a lot of credibility to Ilford's product. Sigma and Canon prefer to hold their ears shut and sing "la la we hear nothing!!", and I am not sure that this kind of behavior is beneficial to their reputation.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 26, 2014)

Shane1.4 said:


> Has anyone received a notice yet that it has shipped from B&H?


It should be just around the corner. They have started shipping in Norway and I would assume B&H were higher on Sigma's priority list. I should get mine next week. Really looking forward to it.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 26, 2014)

I bought mine today, super exciting ! Will have it my hands on Wednesday or Tuesday .

I bought from the webshop so I can test it for 14 days and return if rubbish.


----------



## Pag (Apr 26, 2014)

Sigma should give a cut of the profits to Zeiss. If the Otus didn't exist, people would look at the new Sigma 50mm and think "It's really nice, but a lot more expensive than the Canon 50mm f/1.4. Is the difference really worth it?". Now though, people look at this lens and think "Wow! This lens is almost as good as a $4000 lens and for just a quarter of the price. What a bargain!" Sigma is going to sell way more copies of this lens because the Otus exists


----------



## SoullessPolack (Apr 27, 2014)

Pag said:


> Sigma should give a cut of the profits to Zeiss. If the Otus didn't exist, people would look at the new Sigma 50mm and think "It's really nice, but a lot more expensive than the Canon 50mm f/1.4. Is the difference really worth it?". Now though, people look at this lens and think "Wow! This lens is almost as good as a $4000 lens and for just a quarter of the price. What a bargain!" Sigma is going to sell way more copies of this lens because the Otus exists



Well, yeah, obviously. That's how smart businesses work: they know the quality and advantages another company has, and use it to their own advantage. Why should they give a cut to Zeiss? This isn't a communist country.


----------



## candc (Apr 27, 2014)

One of the earlier reviews (ir/slrgear) points out that the sigma traded a bit of sharpness for higher micro contrast and that even though the otus had slightly higher resolution on the charts that the sigma looked sharper to the eye. They said that they would go with the sigma even if both lenses cost the same. 

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30

I learned from a discussion on another thread that the canon 50 f/1.2 has really nice bokeh due to that being a primary factor in its design. Apparently some spherical aberration was designed in for that. The canon probably has more consistant af? I would like to see some real world samples comparing the canon and sigma because for me the choice would be between those two lenses and not the otus, even if they all cost the same.


----------



## Terrierist (Apr 27, 2014)

mevbo said:


> Hope mine comes soon... I ordered on 4-11 and no word yet from B+H


I ordered mine bright and early from B&H on the morning of 4-11. Just received an email this morning that it was not yet in stock and they would keep me posted.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 27, 2014)

Seems like us in Norway were lucky, I want even on a pre order list, but it was many available that I could simply but one. Strange BH haven't received them yet..


----------



## zlatko (Apr 28, 2014)

candc said:


> I learned from a discussion on another thread that the canon 50 f/1.2 has really nice bokeh due to that being a primary factor in its design. Apparently some spherical aberration was designed in for that. The canon probably has more consistant af? I would like to see some real world samples comparing the canon and sigma because for me the choice would be between those two lenses and not the otus, even if they all cost the same.



I too would like to see a comparison of those two lenses -- for overall rendering of various subjects. The Canon 50/1.2L has been my main 50 for a long time and I love the way it draws. It is simply beautiful. The new Sigma is interesting and no doubt sharper wide open, but will it draw as beautifully? I'm not sure I'd want to carry the bigger & heavier Sigma for the extra sharpness alone.

As for autofocus, the 50/1.2L really benefits from the improved AF of Canon's top-end cameras (currently the 1DX or 5DIII). It is a better autofocusing lens with the 5DIII than it was with the 5DII. And it is a better autofocusing lens with the 5DIII than with the 6D.

The Otus is will likely prove to be the best 50 for a DSLR. But due to size, weight, price and manual focus, the Otus will not be a practical alternative for most photographers.


----------



## razeac (Apr 28, 2014)

I find it weird that there is only 1 shop in Norway that have the lens in stock. When I preordered they said they will begin shipping next month.. Maybe this afternoon I will receive the lens, if the norwegian postal doesn't screw up with its delivery. They're notoriously known for their long delivery times.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 28, 2014)

razeac said:


> I find it weird that there is only 1 shop in Norway that have the lens in stock. When I preordered they said they will begin shipping next month.. Maybe this afternoon I will receive the lens, if the norwegian postal doesn't screw up with its delivery. They're notoriously known for their long delivery times.



Ordered from FotoVideo on Saturday and still haven't received tracking number and confirmation that it has been sent yet, so combine that with the slowness of "Posten" and we're looking at Friday instead of Tuesday.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 28, 2014)

zlatko said:


> The Otus is will likely prove to be the best 50 for a DSLR.



Sure, if you can conjure up the rather limited range of circumstances in which a manual lens can be made to work well on a dslr. In the highly unlikely event I ever acquired one I would used it on a mirrorless camera instead so that I could take advantage of the in-viewfinder focus peaking and magnification that make manual lenses fairly easy to use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2014)

sdsr said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The Otus is will likely prove to be the best 50 for a DSLR.
> ...



+1

Also, you'd better have an appropriate focusing screen installed (not the stock one) if you plan to focus through the VF and shoot at wider apertures.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 28, 2014)

Viggo said:


> razeac said:
> 
> 
> > I find it weird that there is only 1 shop in Norway that have the lens in stock. When I preordered they said they will begin shipping next month.. Maybe this afternoon I will receive the lens, if the norwegian postal doesn't screw up with its delivery. They're notoriously known for their long delivery times.
> ...


Got mine from Japanphoto (Norwegian mail order) today  No time to try it before the weekend though.


----------



## razeac (Apr 28, 2014)

Mine has arrived. I just received an sms and its ready to be picked up. I'm not home yet.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > razeac said:
> ...



I am on the waiting list at japan photo, but haven't heard from them yet, didn't know they had them yet. I'm very envious Eldar, but luckily it's only a couple days out.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > razeac said:
> ...



Let us know how you like it Eldar


----------



## Eldar (Apr 28, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...


I can assure you that it will be plenty of comparison shots with the Otus. I need to know what the extra $3k is worth 

I am also crossing my fingers for the AF system. I don´t want to get the same will-it-focus-properly-worry I have with the 35A.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Just because you experienced the AF issues I had with my 35 I am HIGHLY interesting to see our two 50'arts does with AF. Let's hope Sigma really made it this time with most if the copies.


----------



## zlatko (Apr 28, 2014)

sdsr said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The Otus is will likely prove to be the best 50 for a DSLR.
> ...



Manual focus lenses where used for many years on SLRs. The only thing different about focusing a manual focus lens on a DSLR is the focusing screen. But Canon offers the old-style focusing screens for certain camera bodies; these show the actual depth of field even at f/1.4. That's all that's need to make the Otus work well on a DSLR.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



I would love to see you actually start a new thread with comparison photos and anecdotes. I will have a copy for review soon, but will probably never have the Otus in hand for comparison purposes!


----------



## Viggo (Apr 28, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



That's a great idea. "Experience with 50 art & Otus" or something.


----------



## razeac (Apr 28, 2014)

Hey guys,







When I bought my 17-40mm F4L, I changed it 3 times because of front/back focusing and severe MA on the camera..

This Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art though, it's very precise - I don't need to change it..

I went outside 30 mins earlier and took some shots. I must say, I have the same satisfaction when I bought my 70-200 F2.8 L non IS. This lens is a blast!!! 

I tried myself to miss my focus on different apertures. It did none!


----------



## aalbert (Apr 28, 2014)

Awesome to see it on the streets… Anybody stateside heard of B&H shipping yet ? I placed my order on the 18th, so I know I am not at the top of the list, but am hoping to still get it in the first wave…. Any idea how many B&H has coming in?


----------



## Viggo (Apr 28, 2014)

razeac said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow! Grattis! That's awesome to hear about the AF  it's very promising!


----------



## razeac (Apr 28, 2014)

some sample shots













damn flickr changing everything on its UI...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Manual focus lenses where used for many years on SLRs. The only thing different about focusing a manual focus lens on a DSLR is the focusing screen. But Canon offers the old-style focusing screens for certain camera bodies; these show the actual depth of field even at f/1.4. That's all that's need to make the Otus work well on a DSLR.



The resolution of current digital sensors exceeds that of film, particularly when you consider the 'typical' print sized enlarged from 35mm negatives vs. print sizes easily possible with a ≥18 MP digital file. That means slight focus errors that were tolerable with film are often unacceptable with digital.

Also, Canon doesn't really offer 'old-style' focus screens, they offer 'not-so-old-style'. Currently, you can get a screen with without the same degree of laser microetching for brightness - those are the 'super precision matte' screens that show you the true DoF of fast lenses…*or* you can get screens with manual focus aids (split prism or microprism) but they're based on the stock screens that don't show the true DoF of fast lenses. When shooting film, there were focus screens that both showed the true DoF of fast lenses _and_ had the split prism/microprism collar focusing aids.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 28, 2014)

razeac said:


> some sample shots



Thanks a lot! Keep'em coming! ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 28, 2014)

razeac said:


> some sample shots
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know about you guys, but those two photos look good to me  

Have you try shooting at smaller apertures? Any focus shift?

Thanks


----------



## aalbert (Apr 28, 2014)

Agreed… I like… Can't wait to try it out.


----------



## Artifex (Apr 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Manual focus lenses where used for many years on SLRs. The only thing different about focusing a manual focus lens on a DSLR is the focusing screen. But Canon offers the old-style focusing screens for certain camera bodies; these show the actual depth of field even at f/1.4. That's all that's need to make the Otus work well on a DSLR.
> ...



Though you are right, it is still possible to get those old focus screens on DSLR through specialize web site. I use a Canon EC-B focus screen (split-screen focus aid and precision matte) on my 6D and it works quite well. The biggest problem, for me, is that the viewfinder is still much smaller on DSLR than on good old bodies, such as the Pentax K-1000. Manual focus lens are still a joy to use with the proper screen and some practice, although it is not for everybody.


----------



## Monchoon (Apr 28, 2014)

Artifex said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Where do you get that focus screen for a 6D ?


----------



## Shane1.4 (Apr 28, 2014)

Keep the sample shots coming! I love seeing what it can do wide open and seeing the quality of the bokeh.


----------



## razeac (Apr 29, 2014)

took some shots at home.. 

this is at f13







this is f8 (looks really good)






and some bokeh night shots (do note, I was on the 2nd floor level terrace - and was standing on a flimsy chair so there might be some obvious misfocus here as I was afraid for my life if I fall LOL - 1.4 is so thin!)











btw, very low light. almost pitch black. used flash on the shots. I'm surprised the 5d mk II focused center together with the lens


----------



## dadgummit (Apr 29, 2014)

Out of focus looks pretty good, no onion either. I like what I see. I am really rooting for this one to be good. I have lost the sigma lottery way too many times to preorder though.


----------



## Artifex (Apr 29, 2014)

Monchoon said:


> Artifex said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



http://www.focusingscreen.com


----------



## Monchoon (Apr 29, 2014)

Artifex said:


> Monchoon said:
> 
> 
> > Artifex said:
> ...


----------



## Viggo (Apr 29, 2014)

razeac said:


> took some shots at home..
> 
> this is at f13
> 
> ...



Really nice, it looks good ! Now it's daylight, find some cars to track , lol ;D

My copy is "expected delivery" tomorrow. Fingers crossed.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 29, 2014)

just got mine! 

First one in Shanghai and probably china 

awesome and evening is approaching!


----------



## Viggo (Apr 29, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> just got mine!
> 
> First one in Shanghai and probably china
> 
> awesome and evening is approaching!



Fire up a sample thread, I'll join in tomorrow. Congrats on your new lens!


----------



## Salimou (Apr 29, 2014)

I'm so jealous right now!

Guys, please give us some portraits pictures, alot, alot, alot! Please! I need it in my life!


----------



## macrodust (Apr 29, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> just got mine!
> 
> First one in Shanghai and probably china
> 
> awesome and evening is approaching!



Hey, based in Shanghai? Me too. Where did you get yours and what did you pay? I've seen that they're all over Taobao now, but I usually go to the Xing Guang camera stores at Luban Road.

How's the AF behaving?

Cheers!


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 29, 2014)

Viggo said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > just got mine!
> ...



CONGRATS, 
It looks like x-mas came early for you guys 

Couple things when you guys test this ARTY: AF consistency, focus shift, sharpness, bokeh, color, contrast.... ;D ;D ;D Ok...I'm asking too much :-X

Can't wait to see more photos


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 29, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



trying to upload photos now but its taking forever!
AF consistancy so far looks ho hum to me I've only had it a few hours but feel its front focusing a bit I also bought the dock and obviously can AFMA it with focal when i have time. Its not so far out that its ruining shots though
consistancy is hard as i've only been shooting in low light so its a bit hit and miss anyway

no focus shift i can see but it breathes a fair bit if that matters to you

sharpness = OMG its insane

bokeh = as above plus even more insane you will see in the pics i post

colour = awesome

contrast = a little less contrasty than the 35 but still nice and a tweek in LR away so no issue really.

so watch the lens gallary thread i made as my images go up. I'm uploading now


----------



## Rudeofus (Apr 29, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> no focus shift i can see but it breathes a fair bit if that matters to you



Very interesting. Did you test this under the right circumstances? At or near minimum focus distance, aperture stopped down to F/2.8-F/4?

There have been many theories, that modern Canon DSLRs compensate for 50L focus shift in software. If the 50A doesn't exhibit this shift, and it obviously can't rely on any Canon to support this kind of quirk, then this puts more shame on the 50L.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 29, 2014)

here is a teaser bokeh and sharpness edited shot of a handpainted grain of rice in a pendant
100% crop included


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 29, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



So sharpness is good as my 50L ;D....Just Kidding ;D ;D ;D

Sounds like I need to order one from BH


----------



## Viggo (Apr 29, 2014)

The 50 art contains floating elements to correct for focus shift, and I have seen a review where they tried and it absolutely seems like a complete non issue.

Love those shots! Color looks really nice, and of course the sharpness seem preeeetty nice!


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 29, 2014)

i'm waiting for someone to complain about the bokeh....


----------



## Phenix205 (Apr 29, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> i'm waiting for someone to complain about the bokeh....



I smell some onion in it.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 29, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> i'm waiting for someone to complain about the bokeh....


The bokeh is crap and my Canon 50L clearly kicks your Sigma 50A's butt  I'm just kidding!!! Those are great shots and the sharpness, color, and contrast are all excellent. Since you mentioned bokeh, here is my *subjective* opinion on the subject. 

Overall, the bokeh is very pleasing and soft, and in 20140429-13.jpg, the bokeh is especially impressive on the Buddha head in background on the left. Point light sources look to be handled very well (good flare resistance, too).

In the negative column (and this is being picky), the rear bokeh of the defocused necklaces in 20140429-29.jpg and abacus beads in 20140429-47.jpg has a bit too much contrast in the "transition zone" and comes out a little harsh IMHO. The front bokeh transition zone in 20140429-32.jpg is handled better and is a bit softer.

Compared to the 50L, I would say that the bokeh is a bit smaller in diameter, has more contrast and is just a tad less smooth in the transition zone. I think the sharpness and price more than make up for what appear to be very minor differences.

Based on these images, I would say that (possible AF issues aside), Sigma has a winner on their hands. Thanks for posting the photos and congrats on the new lens!


----------



## candyman (Apr 29, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



So, what is your opinion about the weight, size and handling of the lens?


----------



## Salimou (Apr 29, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Oh my God, you make me crazy! 
Please post some portraits!!! PLEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASE!!!


----------



## razeac (Apr 30, 2014)

Guys, its very late now around 1am here in Norway and I still have to sleep for tomorrow's work @ 7am. lol

There are a lot of you here asking for some portraits. I can't find a decent model, so I just took the courage to volunteer. Please bear with the very bad looking model here. Just see the general picture and how the lens performs. I lit some candles for some bokeh too.. 

It's indoors, setup is a flash right side of the subject, shoot thru umbrella. Triggered by phottix - TTL (I'm getting too lazy to manual adjust the flash)

Camera setting: ev1/25 aperture 1.4, iso 1600, cto 1/2 gel 430ex triggered by phottix ttL thru umbrella






I asked my wife to take the shot, live view manual focused on my eyewear. you can see her at the reflection I hope you guys enjoy the samples. This lens is so SHARP!! dammit... ;D



Camera Setting: ev 1/40, aperture f2.0, iso 1600, same flash settings as above





enjoy everyone.. and good night! hahaha


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 30, 2014)

candyman said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


It's almost identical to the sigma 85 in size and weight
Af is reasonably slow in very low light I have not tested in good light yet


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 30, 2014)

Here is an example of the AF inconsistency
both shots spot focus point set on the M
these are 100% crops no editing


----------



## JustMeOregon (Apr 30, 2014)

PLEASE! More feedback on AF-consistency!

Everyone knows that the 50A is devastatingly sharp. And the comparative quality of the bokeh will be argued longer than "MaryAnn or Ginger"... But it's the AF accuracy & consistency that I'm most concerned about. I really need TDP's 40% miss-rate to be put into some kind of sensible perspective for me to feel good about my B&H pre-order...


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 30, 2014)

JustMeOregon said:


> PLEASE! More feedback on AF-consistency!
> 
> Everyone knows that the 50A is devastatingly sharp. And the comparative quality of the bokeh will be argued longer than "MaryAnn or Ginger"... But it's the AF accuracy & consistency that I'm most concerned about. I really need TDP's 40% miss-rate to be put into some kind of sensible perspective for me to feel good about my B&H pre-order...


look its still better than the old sigma 50, the canon 50 1.4 and the 50 1.8
i havent done any calibration with the dock or afma yet as i'm travelling


----------



## razeac (Apr 30, 2014)

Typo at first image. It's not 1.8 aperture. It's 1.4!


----------



## Viggo (Apr 30, 2014)

Got mine today, just ran it through FoCal with my normal setup. It said +19 at 50x the focal length, and it said +3 at 25x focal length. Ran it through the AF (in)consitency test and it shoots three or so shots then the forth shot it drops completely oof. Ending up with a consistency of 92,6%. 

I will do the whole test again now, need a coffe first. And I'll posting my findings.

Does anyone know if the "different distance afma" works for me? I mean, +3 at 1,25m and +19 at 5 meters, can that be plotted in to the lens via docking so it changes the afma automatically after the distance I focus on?

Dissapointment so far, but still early.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 30, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Got mine today, just ran it through FoCal with my normal setup. It said +19 at 50x the focal length, and it said +3 at 25x focal length. Ran it through the AF (in)consitency test and it shoots three or so shots then the forth shot it drops completely oof. Ending up with a consistency of 92,6%.
> 
> I will do the whole test again now, need a coffe first. And I'll posting my findings.
> 
> ...


Does not sound promising. I will be testing mine during the weekend. I have just made some random shots so far, so I am not in a position to say anything. Will run it through FoCal tonight. 

It would be interesting to know how the AF works in various light situations. So far I have not seen if/how that impacts the results.

The only reason for having this lens is to have AF on 50mm from f1.4-2.8, often in dimly lit circumstances. If I can't trust it, I may as well stay with the Otus. But I'm still hoping and crossing my fingers. There are lots of opportunities where the MF Otus is rather useless (I am using the standard focusing screen though).


----------



## Salimou (Apr 30, 2014)

razeac said:


> Guys, its very late now around 1am here in Norway and I still have to sleep for tomorrow's work @ 7am. lol
> 
> There are a lot of you here asking for some portraits. I can't find a decent model, so I just took the courage to volunteer. Please bear with the very bad looking model here. Just see the general picture and how the lens performs. I lit some candles for some bokeh too..
> 
> ...



Thank you so much mister. That what I was waiting for since yesterday. Finally, portraits samples and damn it, this is so sharp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :-*


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 30, 2014)

I've yet to have a Sigma lens which doesn't have AF issues...sorry but in my experience, it goes with the brand.
70-200 f2.8 EX DG, 100-300 f4 EX DG, 180 EX macro, 12-24 EX DG, 24-70 f2.8 EX macro, 120-300 f2.8 OS
All of them had inconsistent AF compared to Canon L versions, which is why I sold them and bought Canon L.

There's more to a lens than just it's optics.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 30, 2014)

It seems like in practical use the +19 is better than the +3, even up close, so i don't know what that was. But it kept giving me the same two numbers.

AF is a little inconsistent when it really shouldn't be, I try and try to really be precise, but it sometimes refuses to focus properly, and if those ten in a row is a one chance only, you can't trust it. The difference with the 50 L or 85 L missing focus is that you can just fire off 4-8 shots and absolutely know at least a couple is perfectly sharp, with sigma it's highly possible you don't get single one, even when I pull focus completely off and start the shot again and again... 

That being said, the IQ is sublime and I love everything else and it's simply awesome. This is a tough choice in sending it back and leave it, or keep and accept that it can't be trusted in some cases in order to get those really nice ones. Colors and bokeh and the feel is just there.


----------



## candc (Apr 30, 2014)

i would suggest that anyone who has bought this lens and is happy with the iq but is having some difficulties with the af should get the dock. it seems the new global vision lenses can have af issues that cannot be set correct with in camera afma. the af problems are usually distance dependent which is adjustable with the dock. many of the inconsistencies will be corrected because the lens will not be predisposed to front or back focus at a given distance so slight variations in focusing are more likely to be in the acceptable range. its a bit of a hassle doing the calibration but worth it if you want to keep the lens.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 30, 2014)

I plan on buying the docking on thursday, I'm willing to try anything to make this lens optimized. 

And even a complete AF junkie like myself that have NO patience with wiggly AF is willing to sacrifice that 2470 mk2 accuracy for the fantastic IQ the 50A provides. What a lens.... The kids will be home soon, let's put the AF to a real test ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 30, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Got mine today, just ran it through FoCal with my normal setup. It said +19 at 50x the focal length, and it said +3 at 25x focal length.  Ran it through the AF (in)consitency test and it shoots three or so shots then the forth shot it drops completely oof. Ending up with a consistency of 92,6%.
> 
> I will do the whole test again now, need a coffe first. And I'll posting my findings.
> 
> ...



WOW...  

hope things will work out


----------



## metacove (Apr 30, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Got mine today, just ran it through FoCal with my normal setup. It said +19 at 50x the focal length, and it said +3 at 25x focal length. Ran it through the AF (in)consitency test and it shoots three or so shots then the forth shot it drops completely oof. Ending up with a consistency of 92,6%.
> 
> I will do the whole test again now, need a coffe first. And I'll posting my findings.
> 
> ...



I have the Sigma 35 Art and the dock. They do allow you to program in different AFMA values at 4 different distances. Like 6", 18", 4', Infinity. I was able to really "dial" in my lens using their dock. Plus I get future firmware upgrades.

I suggest getting the dock just for future proofing the product.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 30, 2014)

metacove said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Got mine today, just ran it through FoCal with my normal setup. It said +19 at 50x the focal length, and it said +3 at 25x focal length. Ran it through the AF (in)consitency test and it shoots three or so shots then the forth shot it drops completely oof. Ending up with a consistency of 92,6%.
> ...



Thanks, that confirms my hope 

Man I love this lens now. FoCal was way off on this one.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 30, 2014)

I'm afraid I caved in. Sold my Sigma 35 and bought the 35L... 
I know I will love the L, but feeling sort of guilty of betraying the Sigma brotherhood...


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 30, 2014)

metacove said:


> I have the Sigma 35 Art and the dock. They do allow you to program in different AFMA values at 4 different distances. Like 6", 18", 4', Infinity. I was able to really "dial" in my lens using their dock. Plus I get future firmware upgrades.
> 
> I suggest getting the dock just for future proofing the product.



How does dialing the different values for different distances work for multiple bodies? Is 1 set of Sigma dock distance values good for all bodies, or does it have to be done and recorded for each body?


----------



## razeac (Apr 30, 2014)

guys, how do you upload raw files? i tested the lens for some focus problems with the focus test chart... 

i guess i have a good copy, or my camera body likes the lens... 

i did 8 shots, flash assisted tests, flash failed 2 shots, but the focus is still spot on. I used center focus on 5d mark II.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 30, 2014)

I found the time to run it through Focal today. In general I was a bit skeptical when I saw the spread/setting. Compared to for example the 85/1.2L II, it was not good. But I have now shot about 100 single shots (AF set to one shot) and almost every single one has been properly focused. Every shot has been at f1.4 and the majority has been shot indoors in not-well-lit surroundings. I was really skeptical, given my not so good experience with the 35 Art, but in stead I am actually quite impressed. But I was impressed with the 35 also. It took some time before I got quite inconsistent results, so I´ll await the champagne popping for a while.

I hope to have time this weekend to shoot something worth posting. I´ll also try to find time to do some direct comparison with the Otus.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 30, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I found the time to run it through Focal today. In general I was a bit skeptical when I saw the spread/setting. Compared to for example the 85/1.2L II, it was not good. But I have now shot about 100 single shots (AF set to one shot) and almost every single one has been properly focused. Every shot has been at f1.4 and the majority has been shot indoors in not-well-lit surroundings. I was really skeptical, given my not so good experience with the 35 Art, but in stead I am actually quite impressed. But I was impressed with the 35 also. It took some time before I got quite inconsistent results, so I´ll await the champagne popping for a while.
> 
> I hope to have time this weekend to shoot something worth posting. I´ll also try to find time to do some direct comparison with the Otus.



Same here, I went away from the FoCal values and went out shooting and dialed in a setting I felt was good, and it's been very good, I accept some fails just because, but I don't think my 50 L's were that much better. I'll buy the docking and have a go at the fine tuning, but so far, REALLY happy my money went into this lens. I missed a great 50 and the performance is stunning. And to able to shoot up close and a 50 with no distortion is a loong wait finally over. 

If you're on the fence, just go for it!


----------



## candc (Apr 30, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> metacove said:
> 
> 
> > I have the Sigma 35 Art and the dock. They do allow you to program in different AFMA values at 4 different distances. Like 6", 18", 4', Infinity. I was able to really "dial" in my lens using their dock. Plus I get future firmware upgrades.
> ...



The dock makes changes to the lens regardless of what it is mounted to. I have found that once I set it up using one body that its been good on others. I do have a case where my 120-300 is proper on 2 70d's and a 40d but was backfocused a bit at 300 on the 6d. Instead of reprogramming the lens I just set the afma on the camera to-5 on the tele end and its fine.

So to me the calibration you do with the dock is something that I think should have been done at the factory. Anyhoo, the dock is very useful but it does irritate me that its necessary in the first place


----------



## Dylan777 (May 1, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I found the time to run it through Focal today. In general I was a bit skeptical when I saw the spread/setting. Compared to for example the 85/1.2L II, it was not good. But I have now shot about 100 single shots (AF set to one shot) and almost every single one has been properly focused. Every shot has been at f1.4 and the majority has been shot indoors in not-well-lit surroundings. I was really skeptical, given my not so good experience with the 35 Art, but in stead I am actually quite impressed. But I was impressed with the 35 also. It took some time before I got quite inconsistent results, so I´ll await the champagne popping for a while.
> 
> I hope to have time this weekend to shoot something worth posting. I´ll also try to find time to do some direct comparison with the Otus.



Music to my ears Eldar 

I need to sell my 50L first.... ;D


----------



## razeac (May 1, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I found the time to run it through Focal today. In general I was a bit skeptical when I saw the spread/setting. Compared to for example the 85/1.2L II, it was not good. But I have now shot about 100 single shots (AF set to one shot) and almost every single one has been properly focused. Every shot has been at f1.4 and the majority has been shot indoors in not-well-lit surroundings. I was really skeptical, given my not so good experience with the 35 Art, but in stead I am actually quite impressed. But I was impressed with the 35 also. It took some time before I got quite inconsistent results, so I´ll await the champagne popping for a while.
> ...



wow..  can't imagine you'll do that  it's nice to hear that this lens is so capable


----------



## Dylan777 (May 1, 2014)

razeac said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



I was just kidding about selling my 50L 

I'll order the 50 art and give it a try - decision will be made once I hand on both lenses


----------



## Random Orbits (May 1, 2014)

candc said:


> The dock makes changes to the lens regardless of what it is mounted to. I have found that once I set it up using one body that its been good on others. I do have a case where my 120-300 is proper on 2 70d's and a 40d but was backfocused a bit at 300 on the 6d. Instead of reprogramming the lens I just set the afma on the camera to-5 on the tele end and its fine.
> 
> So to me the calibration you do with the dock is something that I think should have been done at the factory. Anyhoo, the dock is very useful but it does irritate me that its necessary in the first place



Did you find that the -5 on the 6D was good for all distances?


----------



## Phenix205 (May 1, 2014)

Roger at lensrentals.com has posted his take on this lens. Go check it out. Again, amazing image quality that almost matches Zeiss 55.


----------



## candc (May 1, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > The dock makes changes to the lens regardless of what it is mounted to. I have found that once I set it up using one body that its been good on others. I do have a case where my 120-300 is proper on 2 70d's and a 40d but was backfocused a bit at 300 on the 6d. Instead of reprogramming the lens I just set the afma on the camera to-5 on the tele end and its fine.
> ...



Yes, it seems to me the way it works best is that you use the dock to calibrate the focus and then its within the tolerances you would expect on a particular body. If you put the lens on another body you may get a slight front or back focus due to a bit different allignment between the camera and lens but its consistent and easily correctable with in camera afma. You could use the dock to recalibrate the lens on different bodies but then you would have to do that every time you change bodies. The lens does not recognize what body it is mounted on and set itself accordingly like the camera can do with different lenses.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 1, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> Roger at lensrentals.com has posted his take on this lens. Go check it out. Again, amazing image quality that almost matches Zeiss 55.



Indeed interesting reading, and I hope he get more lenses soon than the seven he has now


----------



## Shane1.4 (May 1, 2014)

Mine just shipped from B&H! Ordered on the 11th.


----------



## aalbert (May 1, 2014)

Congrats Shane… My order from the 18th still shows as "On Order" but at least we know that they are receiving stock of the lenses, and the process has begun.


----------



## magz (May 1, 2014)

For reference, my order which I placed around 7:40 AM PST still says On Order.


----------



## aZhu (May 1, 2014)

Ahhh! this is so exciting. I just sold my 50mm f/1.4 in anticipation for the new Sigma. It's going to be a very long 4-5 business days after I get my shipping notification...


----------



## aalbert (May 1, 2014)

Check with your local dealer before waiting.. Seems that there are a lot of single unit allocations out there. Myself and one other person on the board have cut the line by going that route.


----------



## Salimou (May 1, 2014)

Shane1.4 said:


> Mine just shipped from B&H! Ordered on the 11th.



Lucky man! 
Can you do some portraits without flash when you will have it please? Just one or two, I will appreciate it alot.


----------



## Shane1.4 (May 1, 2014)

Salimou said:


> Shane1.4 said:
> 
> 
> > Mine just shipped from B&H! Ordered on the 11th.
> ...



Absolutely! It won't arrive till Tuesday but I will get right on that!


----------



## Eldar (May 1, 2014)

I am actually a bit surprised, reading of all of you still waiting for your delivery. Norway is a tiny country, with a population similar to downtown Chicago. But we got the Zeiss Otus very early and everyone I know who ordered the 50 Art over here has now received it. I would have thought B&H, Adorama and their peers would have been first in line.


----------



## Salimou (May 1, 2014)

Shane1.4 said:


> Salimou said:
> 
> 
> > Shane1.4 said:
> ...



Wow, thank you in advance then! I love you! Haha!


----------



## distant.star (May 2, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I'm afraid I caved in. Sold my Sigma 35 and bought the 35L...
> I know I will love the L, but feeling sort of guilty of betraying the Sigma brotherhood...



Any such "brotherhood" is a figment of your imagination.

A lense either works for you or it doesn't.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 2, 2014)

distant.star said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I'm afraid I caved in. Sold my Sigma 35 and bought the 35L...
> ...



Well, I didn't really give the 35A a fair chance. And I know mine was a perfectly fine copy, no AFMA needed.
Unfortunately, the resale value of Sigmas (especially mine was a refurb on top of that) is so poor, I couldn't afford to take a chance.


----------



## mackguyver (May 2, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Unfortunately, the resale value of Sigmas (especially mine was a refurb on top of that) is so poor, I couldn't afford to take a chance.


I hope that improves with these newer lenses, but I took a beating (nearly 50% loss) on my mint condition Sigma 12-24 II when I sold it, while breaking even or making money on every Canon I've sold. My Tokina 16-35 held it's value quite, well, too.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 2, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, the resale value of Sigmas (especially mine was a refurb on top of that) is so poor, I couldn't afford to take a chance.
> ...



Well, the 35A sells for $ 700-720 on FredMiranda only a year and a half from its release, about $ 200 less than the new price. That wasn't promising. I got offers of $ 500-550 for my mint, refurb lens and realized returning it to Sigma was the smart thing to do.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 2, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


----------



## wickidwombat (May 3, 2014)

I have not bothered to run mine through focal as i dont want to adjust AFMA if i dont need to and to be honest focal is a fair bit of work on the 5Dmk3 

so i just tried the sigma dock first

it gives you the ability to change 4 distances
MFD 0.4m
0.7m
1.5m
and infinity

I knew i was happy with infinity from the city shots the other night in shanghai
I was fairly sure it was pretty good at MFD but checked anyway and shot a bunch at 0.7 and 1.5

MFD was 100% ok 

i had a couple of wacky mis focuses at 0.7 but most were spot on so i decided to leave 0.7 as is

but 1.5 showed consistant front focus of 40 to 50mm so i dialed in -10 in the sigma software and the front focus got worse (looks like its not intuitive you need to dial in + to correct front focus and - to correct back focus  )

so i dialled in -10 now it look a little back focused so i dialled it down to -5 and it was a bit front focusing still so I decided to settle on -7 which looks pretty good

I haven't gone and shot anything properly other than bits and pieces around the house but so far AF looks to be pretty bang on every time at every distance now

I would be carefull doing a blanket AFMA as it will change the distance for all focal lengths and in my case i only needed to correct the 1 distance in the mid focus range as MFD and inifinity were fine.

I think the sigma dock is a better way to go for this If i can be bothered or need to check more i'll run it through focal and see what it comes back with and i'll test the lens on a bunch more bodies (another 5Dmk3 a couple of 5Dmk2 a 1Dmk3 and 600D and EOS-M)

once i've done some serious shooting I'll get back but so far it looks good !


----------



## sgtpepper (May 5, 2014)

Got my 50mm 1.4 art one week ago (Norway, FotoVideo.no)
After one week of use with 5d mk III my intuitive impression was that focus accuracy was quite OK at infinity, but not perfect. However, at closer distance it was very much off.

Using the USB-dock I experimented with test shots for a couple of hours, ending up with the following adjustments:
0.4 m : +15 
0.7 m : +14
1.5 m : +7
infinity: +1

I based the adjustments mainly on comparing live view focusing with normal AF, trying to make focus hit the same way with mirror up and mirror down. Live view focus with mirror up was of course extremely consistent, but slow. Normal AF with mirror down varied a bit in some test shots, but not noticeable more than what I was seeing when calibrating focus on my Canon 70-200 2.8L IS mk II. 

As you probably realise, the adjustments I ended up with is not something that could have been corrected only by micro adjustment in the 5D mk III.

Portraits shot near 0.7 m and 1.5 m seems to hit with focus around 75% of the time for me at aperture f/1.4, after adjusting focus with Sigma USB-dock. Before adjusting it was not focusing well at these distances.
I have only been shooting in good light, although with heavily back lit subjects (shooting more or less into the sun). 
the 25% misses are probably my mistake, dealing with moving subjects or me moving. The misses on the 25% were only slight misses, with somewhat blurred eyes, and quite even spread where sharp focus had hit either just behind or just in front of the eyes. 

DoF at f/1.4 is so narrow that subject motion or camera motion easily makes the shot OoF.

I only have one other lens, the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS mk II. For me there is no practical difference in focus speed and accuracy between that high end tele zoom and the Sigma 50 art. Shooting at f/2.8 at 200 mm gives me about the same focus hit ratio (75%) with the Canon and the Sigma 50 art at f/1.4, when shooting at high enough shutter speeds to eliminate camera shake and subject motion blur. Both lenses has been focus micro adjusted. Probably, I am guilty of some slight recomposition after focus confirmation, risking an OoF shot while trying to improve image composition.

As I said above, I think the 25% misses that I experience is mainly due to subject motion or camera motion in the time from focus confirmation to shot taken. It is really difficult to judge when not using a tripod, and when the subjects are people that move around a bit. To me, the AF and sharpness in Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art lens really gives confidence so far, just like my Canon 70-200 2.8L IS mk II.

It is fantastically sharp at f/1.4, and gets even slightly sharper when stopped down a bit . I will probably use it at 1.4 most of the time, as it is more than sharp enough for my use, and I like the blurred backgrounds at this aperture. 

Just keep in mind, if I had to use this lens without adjusting focus in Sigma USB-dock, I would have been extremely unhappy with the performance, and probably would have returned it within the first week of use. In my opinion, it is no point buying this lens without having access to the USB-dock, as it is a very high risk of focus inconsistency before correcting it in the USB dock.


----------



## Viggo (May 5, 2014)

+1 for the docking, it is needed, no doubt.

I have winged my calibration so far and it depends very much on the "mood" of the lens, I can sometimes shoot 30 shots in a row on static subjects that are perfectly tack sharp, but then the next day at the same distance it just can't hit. It's a bit of a concern. 

I will do FoCal calibration tonight at all the 4 distance and compare to my on the fly settings. And tomorrow I'll be doing more testing with more moving subjects. As of now I feel the tracking sometimes is REALLY good even at 1.4, but then I can go an hour without a sharp picture, again a bit of a worry for me.


----------



## Viggo (May 6, 2014)

No one else got theirs yet?

I'm having a hard time with my 50... I have done FoCal at all the four distances and 4000 testshots and gone through a variety of my own adjustments, but nothing seems very stable and accurate. It seems really good for a while then I get nothing sharp, tracking so far is worse than the 1d3 and canon 50 f1.4...

One shot or Servo doesn't matter it's to unstable to really determine a front or back focus at any distance. About to throw in the towel..


----------



## Eldar (May 6, 2014)

Viggo said:


> No one else got theirs yet?
> 
> I'm having a hard time with my 50... I have done FoCal at all the four distances and 4000 testshots and gone through a variety of my own adjustments, but nothing seems very stable and accurate. It seems really good for a while then I get nothing sharp, tracking so far is worse than the 1d3 and canon 50 f1.4...
> 
> One shot or Servo doesn't matter it's to unstable to really determine a front or back focus at any distance. About to throw in the towel..


It seems to me that you have done a lot more with yours than I have so far. I have only done FoCal on app. 2 meters and so far everything seems to be working well on all distances. I will put it through some more challenging light and subject situations and see. 

In fact, what I have seen so far is good enough for me to question whether I should keep the Otus or not. But that requires stable and reliable autofocus.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 6, 2014)

Viggo said:


> No one else got theirs yet?
> 
> I'm having a hard time with my 50... I have done FoCal at all the four distances and 4000 testshots and gone through a variety of my own adjustments, but nothing seems very stable and accurate. It seems really good for a while then I get nothing sharp, tracking so far is worse than the 1d3 and canon 50 f1.4...
> 
> One shot or Servo doesn't matter it's to unstable to really determine a front or back focus at any distance. About to throw in the towel..


used the dock?
i dont think a general focal and afma is the way to go ith this lens
see my previous post regarding my copy


----------



## Viggo (May 6, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > No one else got theirs yet?
> ...



See my posts two posts up 

I have done FoCal at all 4 distances that can be adjusted via docking.

0.4m = +1
0,7m = +17
1,5m = +10
Infinity = 0

It seems quite good in daylight, although it's raining today and that plays havoc with AF. But in tungsten indoors is really poor.

But again, that could change in an hour. It's no clear cut miss to the front or back.

*EDIT* Care to share the AF settings you guys use
With it?


----------



## wickidwombat (May 6, 2014)

did you check you measured your distances from the target to the mark on the top of the camera that marks the sensir plane like a O with a line through it and not the front of the lens?


----------



## Sporgon (May 6, 2014)

This all sounds a bit alarming to me. As someone who's very much into 'plug & play' I think I'll be sticking to Canon; hurry up with the EF 50 1.8 IS


----------



## Viggo (May 6, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> did you check you measured your distances from the target to the mark on the top of the camera that marks the sensir plane like a O with a line through it and not the front of the lens?



FoCal tells me the distance, but also double checked with the distance scale on the lens.

Tried it more outside today, and it's the same story, I can shoot 30 shots, refocused in between, and it is VERY sharp and clearly spot on. Then turn around at another distance, go back to the first and it just won't lock no matter what I do. And it's not always about the distance, but some subjects I just won't focus on, and then it will. Impossible to get consistent hit or miss.


----------



## candyman (May 6, 2014)

I just wonder.....I do not own the Canon 50mm f/1.4 or Canon f/1.2......are they always spot on with the autofocus? I assume you have to AFMA with those as well. And they may differ in copies.


I am going to pickup my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art tomorrow. I am very curious about the quality of my copy. Anyhow I ordered the dock based on experiences here. I may go into Focal AFMA on Friday


----------



## zlatko (May 6, 2014)

candyman said:


> I just wonder.....I do not own the Canon 50mm f/1.4 or Canon f/1.2......are they always spot on with the autofocus? I assume you have to AFMA with those as well. And they may differ in copies.


Yes, you should AFMA those as well. Pretty much all lenses benefit from AFMA.


----------



## zlatko (May 6, 2014)

sgtpepper said:


> It is fantastically sharp at f/1.4, and gets even slightly sharper when stopped down a bit . I will probably use it at 1.4 most of the time, as it is more than sharp enough for my use, and I like the blurred backgrounds at this aperture.
> 
> Just keep in mind, if I had to use this lens without adjusting focus in Sigma USB-dock, I would have been extremely unhappy with the performance, and probably would have returned it within the first week of use. In my opinion, it is no point buying this lens without having access to the USB-dock, as it is a very high risk of focus inconsistency before correcting it in the USB dock.



Wow, good to know! Thanks for this post.


----------



## drjlo (May 6, 2014)

zlatko said:


> sgtpepper said:
> 
> 
> > Just keep in mind, if I had to use this lens without adjusting focus in Sigma USB-dock, I would have been extremely unhappy with the performance, and probably would have returned it within the first week of use. In my opinion, it is no point buying this lens without having access to the USB-dock, as it is a very high risk of focus inconsistency before correcting it in the USB dock.
> ...



Imagine a company like Sigma deciding to make something like the unprecedented USB dock. How many consumer complaints, lens returns, and bad publicity it must have taken to force Sigma to market the usb dock, which is meant to accomplish things that should have been done at the factory :'(

Even with the USB dock, it seems like there are copies out there that have AF that "drifts" over time and are consistent even after the dock adjustments. Having dealt with Sigma service before, all I would say is buy it from a store that will let you return/refund without too much hassle.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 6, 2014)

Viggo said:


> +1 for the docking, it is needed, no doubt.
> 
> I have winged my calibration so far and it depends very much on the "mood" of the lens, I can sometimes shoot 30 shots in a row on static subjects that are perfectly tack sharp, but then the next day at the same distance it just can't hit. It's a bit of a concern.
> I will do FoCal calibration tonight at all the 4 distance and compare to my on the fly settings. And tomorrow I'll be doing more testing with more moving subjects. As of now I feel the tracking sometimes is REALLY good even at 1.4, but then I can go an hour without a sharp picture, again a bit of a worry for me.



Thanks for sharing your thoughts Viggo.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 6, 2014)

candyman said:


> I just wonder.....I do not own the Canon 50mm f/1.4 or Canon f/1.2......are they always spot on with the autofocus? I assume you have to AFMA with those as well. And they may differ in copies.
> 
> I am going to pickup my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art tomorrow. I am very curious about the quality of my copy. Anyhow I ordered the dock based on experiences here. I may go into Focal AFMA on Friday



The AF on my 50L is good with 5D III center AF point. It's +6 through FoCal @ 7ft(my fav distance on 50mm)


----------



## Viggo (May 6, 2014)

Here's a couple of examples from today's trip to kindergarten to pick up the kids.

I have oversharpened a bit to really show the point of sharpness.

This first one I aimed at the center, at the white house between the two small green trees, I tried 10 times, same result. 
Focus point is WAY in front.






This one I aimed at the play house with the tilted roof, also tried ten times, same result.
Focus is in front at the small "fence" around the sandbox.





This one I aimed at the window center where the small black and yellow sign is. 
Focus is PERFECT.





This one I simply aimed at the house.




Focus is also very good and I have nothing to complain about.

All of these is are just random shots and a fairly nice representation of the variation I see between shots. And this goes for all distances and is not consistent, tomorrow the front focused shots might be sharp and vice versa. And as for tracking of movement, I don't think I have had two sharp shots in a row at all. And the oof ones are WAY out....


----------



## candyman (May 6, 2014)

Just to exclude: are you using single point selection only for all images?


----------



## mackguyver (May 6, 2014)

Viggo, I haven't kept up with the thread, but it looks like you are focusing on objects (the pole in particular) that are too small and that might be an issue. If you're using Spot AF, then ignore my comments, but if it's standard single point, that could be the problem.


----------



## Viggo (May 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Viggo, I haven't kept up with the thread, but it looks like you are focusing on objects (the pole in particular) that are too small and that might be an issue. If you're using Spot AF, then ignore my comments, but if it's standard single point, that could be the problem.



I'm not focusing on the pole. I focused on the white house back there. I use normal single point and just as info, that is NOT the problem, I have shot the same places with all my lenses, and most recent the 85 L II and it never ever misses. And I have shot the FoCal Target as well, or any sign with high contrast text which are flat, same result. FoCal btw says 99,4% AF consistency which is the exact same as my 24-70 II. Anyone else noticed the 50 Art shows up as the 35 L in FoCal?


----------



## Viggo (May 6, 2014)

candyman said:


> Just to exclude: are you using single point selection only for all images?



Yup, center point only. But I have tried 4 point expansion and different AF cases and One Shot, it makes no difference.


----------



## mackguyver (May 6, 2014)

Viggo said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo, I haven't kept up with the thread, but it looks like you are focusing on objects (the pole in particular) that are too small and that might be an issue. If you're using Spot AF, then ignore my comments, but if it's standard single point, that could be the problem.
> ...


Interesting and disappointing, especially given that the 85 and other lenses don't have any issue. The FoCal report just makes it all the more confusing, but I don't think anything other than real-world results matter. I hope you're able to get this sorted out as it seems like an excellent lens in all other regards.


----------



## Viggo (May 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Thanks! Me too, because this lens is pretty much as good as it gets, and only the 200 f2 L is showing the same insane IQ all over the frame, crazy.

I'm not giving up just yet, I will do another calibration, and test in better weather, rain could screw with the AF. But so far, the very poor tracking is a big issue for me.


----------



## Viggo (May 6, 2014)

My son got a few Angry Birds Mashem the other day. Let's hope I can avoid feeling quite that badly face planted by the 50 Art as the Pinky is in this shot.


----------



## Viggo (May 6, 2014)

I'll do another one from the same trip today, also at 1.4. MAN, this is a great lens at 1.4 (when it sticks)


----------



## aZhu (May 6, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I'll do another one from the same trip today, also at 1.4. MAN, this is a great lens at 1.4 (when it sticks)



WOW that is amazing! I can't wait to get my hands on one to test it out.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2014)

Viggo said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > did you check you measured your distances from the target to the mark on the top of the camera that marks the sensir plane like a O with a line through it and not the front of the lens?
> ...



when you do your test shots maybe try NOT use focal
just set up on a tripod and measure with a tape measure from the target to the mark on the camera body for 0.4, 0.7 and 1.5m thats what I did then i took a bunch of shots to check.
removed the lens put into the dock tweeked calibration
put back took more shots etc.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2014)

candyman said:


> I just wonder.....I do not own the Canon 50mm f/1.4 or Canon f/1.2......are they always spot on with the autofocus? I assume you have to AFMA with those as well. And they may differ in copies.
> 
> 
> I am going to pickup my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art tomorrow. I am very curious about the quality of my copy. Anyhow I ordered the dock based on experiences here. I may go into Focal AFMA on Friday



the canon 50 f1.4 is very inaccurate


----------



## scottburgess (May 7, 2014)

What I would really like to see is a string of photos comparing the Canon and Sigma 50 f/1.4's. Anyone have access to both?


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2014)

I decided to run mine through focal pro to see how my dock calibration was
it came back recomending a -1 (not much i'll leave it on and see how it goes

see the screen shots of the AFMA and consistancy check

also sharpest aperture is f4 with a rating of 1950!
but f1.4 to f10 are still 1800!


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> What I would really like to see is a string of photos comparing the Canon and Sigma 50 f/1.4's. Anyone have access to both?



ive got the
sigma 50 art
sigma 50 1.4 DG
canon 50 1.4
canon 50 1.8 mkII

I just need to get motivated to compare them
I KNOW the art leaves the others for dead so its more for other peoples interest than my own


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 7, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> scottburgess said:
> 
> 
> > What I would really like to see is a string of photos comparing the Canon and Sigma 50 f/1.4's. Anyone have access to both?
> ...



Do it, wickid! You'll have all our well wishes!


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2014)

viggo how much sharpening are you adding to those images in LR?


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2014)

here you go

the lenses


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2014)

sigma 50mm f1.4 Art


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2014)

sigma 50mm f1.4 DG


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2014)

canon 50mm f1.4


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2014)

canon 50mm f1.8 mk2


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2014)

this was all shot tethered on a tripod
lit by an LED video light
focused via live view and tweeked on the eyeball of the dragon for peak focus
exposure was set to approximately +1 EV for all shots
Auto White balance

images are JPG straight from the camera


----------



## zlatko (May 7, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> sigma 50mm f1.4 Art


Interesting. The two Sigma lenses seem to offer the most background blur.


----------



## Viggo (May 7, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> viggo how much sharpening are you adding to those images in LR?



As stated I added a bit too much to really emphasize the focal point. Redid everything today and it seems the small "macro target" in FoCal isn't working with the 50 at mfd. and infinity I simply couldn't do in FoCal. But now it looks much better. I'm not 100% ready to say it works, but it's much better. The Sigma doesn't seem to like Ai Servo, so I more often tap the button that switch to One Shot and it does the trick. It's slowly turning into a winner here.


----------



## candyman (May 7, 2014)

Viggo said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > viggo how much sharpening are you adding to those images in LR?
> ...


I guess it is like riding a bycicle or car....by practice it is getting better and better. Of course a bycicle or car by itself can always have a problem. 
Looking forward to getting my Sigma 50mm today.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2014)

Viggo said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > viggo how much sharpening are you adding to those images in LR?
> ...



Like I said calibrate it manually using the dock and then use focal to check my focal check showed only a +1 change to afma


----------



## Viggo (May 7, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



What's your luck with say, tracking a car driving away or slower moving subjects in bursts?


----------



## sgtpepper (May 7, 2014)

Viggo said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > viggo how much sharpening are you adding to those images in LR?
> ...



This sounds more in line with what I am experiencing with my 50 Art. I generally do not like Ai Servo, so I only use it when it is absolutely necessary, which it hasn´t been yet during the first 10 days of using the 50 Art . 

I mostly use One Shot AF, with single point spot focus and AF priority (not release priority). With this setting I have consistently good focus behaviour with the Sigma Art 50. I typically shoot portraits, so most of my targets are at 0.5 to 1.5 meters distance, and holding quite still. Also, I typically shoot with sufficient available light to get good exposures at ISO 100 - ISO 400. It is a situation that is not challenging the AF system very much, but at f/1.4 the DoF is very narrow, especially when the subject is close to the camera, so even slight AF inaccuracies will ruin the shot.

Only when subjects are moving too much for me to aim the point of focus in an exact manner I switch to single point focus without "spot", but still i usually prefer to One Shot AF when the movement is slow. I only took a few pictures with that settings so far, and they seem OK, but it is not a good basis for concluding. In any cases, subject motion makes it difficult to objectively blame the lens of any focus misses.

My skill with Ai Servo is too basic to conclude on lens focus performance. It seems to depend solely on my ability hold the camera stable, while pointing at more or less the same location on the moving subject. I would not blame the lens for any focus misses in such situations. I always expect quite a few shots at moving targets to be OoF at f/1.4. 

I am very happy with the 50 Art AF performance at the moment, after tuning it in the Sigma USB dock.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 7, 2014)

Viggo said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...


Did you see the pic of my daughter coming down the slide in servo at 1.4?


----------



## Viggo (May 7, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



Lol, yeah I did. And I actually tried a bit today myself. Got out my sons RC car and drove with my toe and shot off with Case 2 and 4 point, and it nailed 9 out of 10 shots, even though it was close and goes pretty fast. It's looking up..


----------



## razeac (May 9, 2014)

I thought I posted this pic already, so I scanned the whole thread.. lol

anyway, I was busy with this lens lately. As Viggo said, one shot seems to work a lot with this lens. It's hopeless with ai servo. The way I do it with one shot focus, I spam the af button... i mean literally spam just to hit focus... 

its really sharp at 1.4..


----------



## Viggo (May 9, 2014)

Now that's a car! Love the the angle and it works very well with shallow dof.

I'm actually glad to hear that your experience is very similar to mine, because that means it's not copy variation, but just the lens. Somehow that's way better to me. 

Mine has grown on me, and I swear a lens and camera needs to be used a bit together before they start to work together, I know it's sounds crazy. I have a bit better luck with servo, but sometimes I too have to spam the AF button to really get a sharp picture.

Have you experienced the bug where AF-ON button won't start focus if the shutter is pressed halfway?


----------



## razeac (May 10, 2014)

Hei Viggo, thanks for your comment.  Yes I think it's the communication between the 5d Mark II and the 50 Art. I still don't have the dock yet. But what I am thinking now is to buy a focus screen to assist the autofocus. I mainly do portraits. 

With regards with af bug, I am not sure if I am saying this correctly but I have disabled that halfway button function on the camera. So now, if I let someone take a picture of me using my camera, I need to explain the whole process of pressing the Af button or the pic will be just a useless unfocused shot. Lol


----------



## Viggo (May 10, 2014)

razeac said:


> Hei Viggo, thanks for your comment.  Yes I think it's the communication between the 5d Mark II and the 50 Art. I still don't have the dock yet. But what I am thinking now is to buy a focus screen to assist the autofocus. I mainly do portraits.
> 
> With regards with af bug, I am not sure if I am saying this correctly but I have disabled that halfway button function on the camera. So now, if I let someone take a picture of me using my camera, I need to explain the whole process of pressing the Af button or the pic will be just a useless unfocused shot. Lol



Yeah I have the same setup. I also use the AF-ON button for AF and only metering on the shutter. But if I start metering by holding down the shutter button halfway, like you normally would do to start AF, and then push the AF-ON button, it sometimes won't focus at all. So then I have to release the shutter completely and push the AF-ON first and then the shutter. It's very annoying ..


----------



## scottburgess (May 10, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Lol, yeah I did. And I actually tried a bit today myself. Got out my sons RC car and drove with my toe and shot off with Case 2 and 4 point, and it nailed 9 out of 10 shots, even though it was close and goes pretty fast. It's looking up..



No offense, Viggo, but this is starting to sound like lens witchcraft: the Sigma 50mm works right if there is a full moon, you balance on your left leg, and say "boogum" before you turn the camera on. I probably wouldn't tolerate a lens with these autofocus issues--I'd send it back for an exchange or refund. Sigma should offer to "make it right" on every one of these lenses which doesn't perform. Perhaps they'll get the message when they start choking on the returns.

The purchase exception, from my perspective, would be for folks who are willing to accept a manual focus lens but can't afford the Otus 55mm or TS-E 45mm II, or can't wait for the likely fall/winter release of the latter.

I'm happy for folks here who own one that they are finding ways of making the Sigma work for them, and kudos to Viggo and others who are sharing their secrets of getting some autofocus performance. But I'm _quite saddened_ to hear it is such a flaky product out of the box. Very disappointing design and quality control, especially for a leading product that is more than double the cost of the comparable Canon. My recommendation to others will be to wait through 2015 for a possible Canon upgrade if they really want an f/1.4 with autofocus. This result puts a pall over the entire revised Sigma lineup for me.


----------



## Viggo (May 10, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, yeah I did. And I actually tried a bit today myself. Got out my sons RC car and drove with my toe and shot off with Case 2 and 4 point, and it nailed 9 out of 10 shots, even though it was close and goes pretty fast. It's looking up..
> ...


Non taken 

But I respectfully disagree with you, but I felt the same way you do about the 35 Art. But the 50 is an epic lens, it really is. Canon almost have no lens comparable, and no where near the IQ at 1.4. It's close to my 200 f2 in all aspects, distortion, CA control, sharpness etc. I'm not saying it's 100% equal, but it's very close, and that is pretty crazy. It makes me very annoyed with the 85 L and it's ca issues now, again, crazy.

The AF is much better than 35 Art I had and it's veryvery stable, when the contrast is there. 

And as for calibration I applaud Sigma for providing the docking, their hands are tied when it comes to AF patents that Canon and Nikon have. And that the provide a solution to overcome that and really have a tool to make it hit perfect is awesome, and it's not very expensive either, even if you have only one Sigma.

Here's a shot at 1.4 in indoor daylight. I can live with annoying AF misses for IQ like this and the good AF performance you get.


----------



## scottburgess (May 10, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Here's a shot at 1.4 in indoor daylight. I can live with annoying AF misses for IQ like this and the good AF performance you get.



That's excellent work, Viggo. I am having to rely on autofocus more, so different strokes for different folks. Glad you're getting such great stuff out of it!


----------



## Viggo (May 10, 2014)

Thanks! Yeah, I need a working AF as well, but I don't have the pressure of, say, a wedding photographer. And if I absolutely can't afford to miss, I use the 24-70. Or maybe try the 50 at f2.8, lol.


----------



## razeac (May 11, 2014)

Viggo said:


> razeac said:
> 
> 
> > Hei Viggo, thanks for your comment.  Yes I think it's the communication between the 5d Mark II and the 50 Art. I still don't have the dock yet. But what I am thinking now is to buy a focus screen to assist the autofocus. I mainly do portraits.
> ...



I hope you find a fix for that soon Viggo. I'll be surely pissed if I have it on my camera.


----------



## Viggo (May 11, 2014)

razeac said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > razeac said:
> ...



Yeah, and I think it possibly can happen between shots in a burst, because sometimes in a burst it tracks VERY poor, and when I check images 2,3,4 the point of focus haven't moved from first shot.

I think it's a firmware issue with lens.


----------



## skitron (May 13, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



That is odd that it would be so different on identical bodies.

My dg did the roulette thing until I sent it to Sigma, has been decent,but not perfect since though. LOL, maybe the art has to be returned to them as well before it works?


----------



## Viggo (May 13, 2014)

I shipped my 50 Art to service this evening. It seems me and Eldar experienced the same exact thing. It looks to be perfect, then a few days later it starts to drift and miss and then become perfect with yet another calibration, few more days same story over.

So if a reviewer only does the number of shots over a short periode it works brilliant. But more thorough and it goes straight down the , ehm, sounds like litter..

Hopefully something can be done. But I will take a stab at it and say this is done by Canon, a small disturbance in the firmware that handles AF communication. Would be VERY interesting to try my lens mount converted to a Sigma camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2014)

skitron said:


> It might be time to give the Sigma bodies a serious look if they work well with their current glass. Anyone know of any credible reviews of their current bodies?



I read a review Michael Reichmann's (Luminous Landscape) review of the DP2M (which uses the Foveon X3 sensor) that raved about it. Was it credible? Well, he listed one of the cons as "poor image quality above ISO 400." I find it hard to rave about a camera with ISO performance similar to some of the earliest CMOS sensors, but if all you do is shoot at ISO 100, maybe you can consider a Sigma body.


----------



## skitron (May 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > It might be time to give the Sigma bodies a serious look if they work well with their current glass. Anyone know of any credible reviews of their current bodies?
> ...



I'm all for just using something that works. That said, I actually deleted my post after reading some reviews on B&H, apparently while you were replying... High ISO is very important to me, so the Sigma body is a non starter. Plus some complained about af...


----------



## scottburgess (May 14, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Hopefully something can be done. But I will take a stab at it and say this is done by Canon, a small disturbance in the firmware that handles AF communication. Would be VERY interesting to try my lens mount converted to a Sigma camera.



I wish you lived out here: we could hook it up to my old Elan IIe and see how it functions on that. In fact, I hope someone here will test the lens with an old film body.

I am not so quick to claim Canon jimmied the interface software. I think it just as reasonably results from a poor reverse engineering of the latest Canon interface unless I see reasonable evidence to the contrary. Hopefully someone here will have an old EOS 1V or EOS 3 or EOS D30 or something to test their Sigma 50mm Art with. I would be more suspicious that Canon is to blame if the AF works perfectly on bodies from the late 90s and early 00s but fails only on the newest models. Likewise, I would suspect Sigma is likely to blame if the behavior is more uniform.

Some folks care to investigate and report back?


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

Has anyone read the comments on some of the Nikon sites? Do they report similar issues?


----------



## wickidwombat (May 14, 2014)

mines been perfect since i calibrated it and posted those reports
I'll keep checking though....


----------



## Viggo (May 14, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> mines been perfect since i calibrated it and posted those reports
> I'll keep checking though....



That's great, thanks. I'm glad people have working copies, keep us posted! I must say I'm beginning to really doubt it all. Does it make sense that I buy two sigma lenses and they both do the same while 98% of other people have flawless copies? Sorry, but I don't think so. It's just a little far fetched my luck is that bad, especially since we all got from the first batch. And a fellow Norwegian in Eldar also experience the same issue.

If anybody use it on a different body than the 1dx or even has that and another body, does the focus act up on those bodies as well?

And I was thinking the same thing about Nikon and the Sigma, maybe I'll I sign up there and start a thread about it.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 14, 2014)

Viggo said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > mines been perfect since i calibrated it and posted those reports
> ...



I think you have the worst luck of any person on the planet with lenses...


----------



## Viggo (May 14, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



;D perhaps, perhaps. I thought that when I bought the 35 Art when everybody was loving it and mine didn't work, it took a lot, but I admitted mine was one of a select few that didn't work. That's why I bought the 50 Art brand new and didn't wait, an easy return or repair or exchange compared to buy used, and guess what, glad I did. So my faith in Sigma is extremely limited now, if the 50 Art doesn't turn out right, that's it, I could never recommend buying Sigma to anyone ever again. And the "new" Sigma is still flawed with the same thing they always were. And it's just sad, because they got it 95% perfect.


----------



## Sporgon (May 14, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Has anyone read the comments on some of the Nikon sites? Do they report similar issues?



I did a google search on AF issues with this lens and it apperas to be throughout Nikon and Sony too. Same thing; AF apperas to drift over time.


----------



## Viggo (May 14, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone read the comments on some of the Nikon sites? Do they report similar issues?
> ...



I did the same and couldn't find anything, do you have a link?


----------



## Sporgon (May 14, 2014)

@Viggo, I re traced my search links and my apologies: the flicr boards were dealing with the old Sigma 50 1.4, not the new Art. I'm not picking up the CR threads on this either though, so will keep looking.


----------



## Viggo (May 14, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> @Viggo, I re traced my search links and my apologies: the flicr boards were dealing with the old Sigma 50 1.4, not the new Art. I'm not picking up the CR threads on this either though, so will keep looking.



Thanks! Maybe Sigma are working on a firmware and have paid google to remove it. "Eeeeexcelleent" *touching finger tips*


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

Here is a typical example of the AF issue.

Single AF point on her right eye. Potentially I could have ended up with a slight front focus in this case, since her eyebrow and hair is closer to me. Instead you can see the focus plane on top of her head.

5DIII. 1/50s, f1.4, ISO6400


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

Here´s another, shot 1 minute earlier. Single AF point on her left eye, spot on.
Same data


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

Here is another, from the canals of Amsterdam, where it worked. Single AF point on the front white deck of the boat.
5DIII, 1/50s, f1.4, ISO6400


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

And while we´re at it, here´s one that didn´t work. Single AF point on the right eye of the blonde. As you can see, the focus plane is on the glass. 
5DIII, 1/50s, f1.4, ISO12800


----------



## DominoDude (May 14, 2014)

Eldar said:


> And while we´re at it, here´s one that didn´t work. Single AF point on the right eye of the blonde. As you can see, the focus plane is on the glass.
> 5DIII, 1/50s, f1.4, ISO12800



The image quality of the Sigma is great, but the reliability of the AF is so so low that I won't ever buy a Sigma again. I have the earlier version of the 50/1.4 DG EX HSM, and it's the most expensive doorstop I've ever bought.
Only being able to tell in post processing if a shot is a keeper, or not, and it is only luck that decides if you get any keepers at all. Micro focus adjusted mine 3 times and every time I get different amounts of compensation. According to Sigma it's a lens that's within spec's when they have tested it for me.

I hope you will get more consistent, and good, results out of your new Art lens.


----------



## jacksonz (May 14, 2014)

hiya, just joined the forums for this thread. Bought my 50 art 2 weeks ago and have been trying it out in and out of studio and on my commercial shoots. First 5 shots I took at 1.4 outside the sigma store in shanghai, 2 were completely out of focus, it wasn't even an issue of focus shift, like NOTHING was in focus. The other 3 were amazing sharp at 1.4. In studio, half body and closeups were amazing at f8. Full body shooting from 4 meters away with a 200w modeling lamp, the lens would focus 1 feet in front of the model 50% of the time... adjusted +6 in a 5dmk2 and single point focus, the shift was much better but still some 'soft' images. Outdoors in bright sunlight almost all images were dead on. I thought I had a bad copy and was going to swap it, but by the looks of it I'm not going to bother. 

I still think i'll keep it as when the focus is right, this lens in incredible.. but I won't be using it for my commercial work much as the inconsistency is way too much.


----------



## Viggo (May 14, 2014)

I had only been shooting that lens for nearly two weeks, and started trying and comparing to the 85 L and I couldn't believe the difference, I had almost gotten used to all the oof shots from the Sigma. I just deleted and moved on, but trying the same subject 5-10 times and it's ten meters in front just isn't acceptable. The 85 is like glue!


----------



## razeac (May 14, 2014)

autofocus issues are really disturbing  .. but I'm just trying to enjoy the lens with MF assist  I remember my wedding photographer, he had this d3 with some of the most amazing nikon lenses, but still i can notice him using mF...


----------



## skitron (May 15, 2014)

Viggo said:


> But I will take a stab at it and say this is done by Canon, a small disturbance in the firmware that handles AF communication. Would be VERY interesting to try my lens mount converted to a Sigma camera.



I rather doubt it is Canon firmware since it would be a pain to write code to make it drift after a period of time. Now making it have random misses all the time is a different story, that would be easy to code. Who only knows if Canon would bother with such a thing....


----------



## metacove (May 15, 2014)

So.... To those that have used both. If I can purchase the 50mm Art or the 50mm 1.2L which should I choose ? I'm still leaning toward the art because my 35 Art is amazing.


----------



## Viggo (May 15, 2014)

metacove said:


> So.... To those that have used both. If I can purchase the 50mm Art or the 50mm 1.2L which should I choose ? I'm still leaning toward the art because my 35 Art is amazing.



I can't tell you honestly, I don't think I'll go back to the 50 L as I like to shoot up close and off center. And I really don't like the 50 L for those purposes, IMO it's just way too soft to be useful at the largest apertures. If I were you I would seriously consider the 85 L and if that isn't too long it's the best portrait lens I've tried. For me it's a tad too long as I love the 50, but the difference in overall IQ over the 50 L is so worth it.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 15, 2014)

metacove said:


> So.... To those that have used both. If I can purchase the 50mm Art or the 50mm 1.2L which should I choose ? I'm still leaning toward the art because my 35 Art is amazing.



I've got both and the 35 art is amazing but the 50 art is amazinger...


----------



## metacove (May 15, 2014)

I just called Sigma's American office. The lady I spoke to put me on hold when I asked about availability of the 50mm Art. After she returned she mentioned that they are getting their next shipment of Art lenses next week. I asked if they were getting a significant amount and she said she couldn't say (as in she didn't know). 

Hopefully several preorders get fulfilled next week.


----------



## epsiloneri (May 17, 2014)

To add another user experience, the AF of my copy of the Sigma 50/1.4 ART works just fine so far (I've had it a week), both in real-life shooting and from FoCal. This contrasts to the previous Sigma 50/1.4 EX, which has very problematic AF for me. Attached are the FoCal-produced contrast plots for 5D3 with

1) Sigma ART 50/1.4 @ 1.6m distance to target (AFMA=0)
2) Sigma ART 50/1.4 @ 2.6m distance to target (AFMA=+3)
3) Sigma EX 50/1.4 @ 1.6m distance to target (AFMA=+9)

As you see, the AF seems fairly consistent and a predictable function of AFMA for ART, but not so much for EX. There appears to be a small dependence on distance, although it could also be the accuracy of FoCal; I would have to make more tests with a larger distance range to find out. I've used AFMA=0 so far, and it has worked just fine in actual photography. Not more misses than expected for such a shallow DOF (similar to what I'm used to from e.g. the excellent 85/1.2L II). I also have had no problems with the Sigma 35/1.4 ART.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 18, 2014)

why did you set it up at 1.6m and not 1.5m I think this is quite a big varience you might experience problems with your calibration I measured the distance from the camera sensor plane to the target for each distance required on the sigma calibration


----------



## epsiloneri (May 18, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> why did you set it up at 1.6m and not 1.5m I think this is quite a big varience you might experience problems with your calibration I measured the distance from the camera sensor plane to the target for each distance required on the sigma calibration


I don't have the USB dock (yet) so I'm not making distance-dependent MA calibrations. This was just to check the reliability of the AFMA at different distances. The variance of the AF is normal and comparable to the best Canon lenses. Or were you referring to the 1.5-1.6m difference?


----------



## Viggo (May 18, 2014)

epsiloneri said:


> To add another user experience, the AF of my copy of the Sigma 50/1.4 ART works just fine so far (I've had it a week), both in real-life shooting and from FoCal. This contrasts to the previous Sigma 50/1.4 EX, which has very problematic AF for me. Attached are the FoCal-produced contrast plots for 5D3 with
> 
> 1) Sigma ART 50/1.4 @ 1.6m distance to target (AFMA=0)
> 2) Sigma ART 50/1.4 @ 2.6m distance to target (AFMA=+3)
> ...


Mine was also great the first week. Keep us posted after three weeks again. I still very much doubt I'm so unlucky to get a non working copy of a brand new lens. Either there is an extreme copy variation or it's a lens flaw. Design or poor production.


----------



## hammar (Jun 10, 2014)

Well, this is a disappointment! I've spent the last couple of days reading through reviews and forum threads and finally read through this thread from page 1 tonight. I had a pretty clear understanding that this lens was awesome in terms of optical performance but I wasn't sure what the deal was with the AF. I have been offered by a local photo store to swap my four year old 24mm f/1.4L II USM for a brand new 50 Art, which I think is a OK deal given that the market for used 24/1.4L II is flooding right now (after 24-70 II came out I guess).

Anyway, after reading through this thread, it is quite clear that if I get the 50 Art, I must consider it to be an MF-only lens, just like the Otus. I think I will wait for a) Sigma fixes the issues (not likely) or b) Canon eventually releases a new 50L (not likely soon).

What I don't understand is how Sigma can release an unfinished product like this! Surely, they must understand that people will test the performance and realize that they have bought a faulty product!?


----------



## Viggo (Jun 10, 2014)

hammar said:


> Well, this is a disappointment! I've spent the last couple of days reading through reviews and forum threads and finally read through this thread from page 1 tonight. I had a pretty clear understanding that this lens was awesome in terms of optical performance but I wasn't sure what the deal was with the AF. I have been offered by a local photo store to swap my four year old 24mm f/1.4L II USM for a brand new 50 Art, which I think is a OK deal given that the market for used 24/1.4L II is flooding right now (after 24-70 II came out I guess).
> 
> Anyway, after reading through this thread, it is quite clear that if I get the 50 Art, I must consider it to be an MF-only lens, just like the Otus. I think I will wait for a) Sigma fixes the issues (not likely) or b) Canon eventually releases a new 50L (not likely soon).
> 
> What I don't understand is how Sigma can release an unfinished product like this! Surely, they must understand that people will test the performance and realize that they have bought a faulty product!?



Have no fear, just make sure you can return it for a working copy if you get a faulty one. My second copy is staying for sure, it's really really nice


----------



## hammar (Jun 10, 2014)

Can you use MF with focus confirm on the 5D3 without the issue? Or would the camera just confirm the focus at the same wrong location, just as with AF?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 11, 2014)

hammar said:


> Well, this is a disappointment! I've spent the last couple of days reading through reviews and forum threads and finally read through this thread from page 1 tonight. I had a pretty clear understanding that this lens was awesome in terms of optical performance but I wasn't sure what the deal was with the AF. I have been offered by a local photo store to swap my four year old 24mm f/1.4L II USM for a brand new 50 Art, which I think is a OK deal given that the market for used 24/1.4L II is flooding right now (after 24-70 II came out I guess).
> 
> Anyway, after reading through this thread, it is quite clear that if I get the 50 Art, I must consider it to be an MF-only lens, just like the Otus. I think I will wait for a) Sigma fixes the issues (not likely) or b) Canon eventually releases a new 50L (not likely soon).
> 
> What I don't understfand is how Sigma can release an unfinished product like this! Surely, they must understand that people will test the performance and realize that they have bought a faulty product!?


Seriously how many lenses do you think Sigma have made compared to the hand full of problem copies people have raised issues about? You need to take your internet with a good dose of salt I think.


----------



## hammar (Jun 11, 2014)

Yes, but I haven't read a single account of people NOT having issues with this lens. The best I have found is people of "only" had to adjust the focus in FoCal and after that it was "ok".


----------



## candyman (Jun 11, 2014)

hammar said:


> Yes, but I haven't read a single account of people NOT having issues with this lens. The best I have found is people of "only" had to adjust the focus in FoCal and after that it was "ok".



That is almost standard procedure.....for L-lenses as well


----------



## Viggo (Jun 11, 2014)

hammar said:


> Yes, but I haven't read a single account of people NOT having issues with this lens. The best I have found is people of "only" had to adjust the focus in FoCal and after that it was "ok".



So you didn't read my comment on the bottom of last page then?

Afma adjustment is needed in 98% cases. Only lens I left at "0" was the 50 L, what does that tell you? Nothing .. 

My 300 f2.8 L IS had to be shipped to canon for adjustment when it was one month since it was made at the factory, because even at +20 it missed by two hundred feet, what does that tell you? Nothing. Things have to be calibrated, no matter what you buy. 

I'm sitting here editing shots from the 50 Art and it's absolutely faaaantastic! Love it!


----------



## Viggo (Jun 11, 2014)

Love the sharpness up close with the 50 Art. If I had done this shot with the 50 L you couldn't tell where I had focused and the cat would pretty much be purple, lol.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 11, 2014)

hammar said:


> Yes, but I haven't read a single account of people NOT having issues with this lens. The best I have found is people of "only" had to adjust the focus in FoCal and after that it was "ok".



I used the sigma dock to adjust mine
anyway buy the lens or don't but my suggestion to take the internet less seriously still stands
It doesn't bother me if you don't buy the best value for money 50mm lens ever made by anyone
I don't have stock in sigma either


----------



## Viggo (Jun 11, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> hammar said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but I haven't read a single account of people NOT having issues with this lens. The best I have found is people of "only" had to adjust the focus in FoCal and after that it was "ok".
> ...



Perhaps we should buy in? I mean, it will only increase.


----------



## brianleighty (Jun 11, 2014)

Sigma isn't a publicly traded company.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 11, 2014)

brianleighty said:


> Sigma isn't a publicly traded company.



:'(


----------



## infared (Jun 11, 2014)

Personally I cannot wait to purchase mine. I will when there is no backlog...no hurry.
Gee.. I have 30 days to return it at B&H for full refund. I am sure it will be a great lens tho.
One thing you can bet. I am not going to over measurebate it and spend the rest of my life here complaining about it...I will be out creating images!!!!! ;D    8)
...but hey...I loved my original Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Had a GREAT copy...just sold it for $500! LOL...$100 more than I paid for it.as they have been backorder for a while and I had a colleague who loved the lens and wanted my copy!!!!..Hated to see it go...but I cannot justify owning that and the new one....WHAH!!!!!

I would also like to read Justin's review before purchase, as I know that that should be coming soon!


----------



## scottburgess (Jun 11, 2014)

infared said:


> Personally I cannot wait to purchase mine. I will when there is no backlog...no hurry.
> Gee.. I have 30 days to return it at B&H for full refund. I am sure it will be a great lens tho.
> One thing you can bet. I am not going to over measurebate it and spend the rest of my life here complaining about it...I will be out creating images!!!!! ;D    8)
> ...but hey...I loved my original Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Had a GREAT copy...just sold it for $500! LOL...$100 more than I paid for it.as they have been backorder for a while and I had a colleague who loved the lens and wanted my copy!!!!..Hated to see it go...but I cannot justify owning that and the new one....WHAH!!!!!
> ...



Oh, then you're gonna love this: Popular Photography apparently did a test on the new lens and concluded it was not as good as the last 50mm f/1.4. I nearly coughed up breakfast when I read about that!


----------



## hammar (Jun 11, 2014)

What? Their review says nothing about the old one being better.

http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2014/04/lens-test-sigma-50mm-f14-dg-hsm-art-lens


----------



## roguewave (Jun 11, 2014)

hammar said:


> What? Their review says nothing about the old one being better.
> 
> http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2014/04/lens-test-sigma-50mm-f14-dg-hsm-art-lens



Why, it says:
In terms of our SQF test, the new Sigma beat out the 50mm f/1.4 offerings from Canon, Nikon, Sony and the Sony Zeiss. However the *original Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX lens* and the monstrous Zeiss 55mm Otus lens *did edge it out*, ever so slightly. Oddly enough, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX still holds the title of being our benchmark for 50mm f/1.4’s in this test.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 11, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Love the sharpness up close with the 50 Art. If I had done this shot with the 50 L you couldn't tell where I had focused and the cat would pretty much be purple, lol.



What's causing the halo effect around the ears of the kitty?


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 11, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Love the sharpness up close with the 50 Art. If I had done this shot with the 50 L you couldn't tell where I had focused and the cat would pretty much be purple, lol.
> ...



Probably the ear fuzz.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 11, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



I don't know, didn't even notice lol. Could be a side effect from a bit of CA removal?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 12, 2014)

Could be the fuzz. On a kitty. Don't want to say more. Not even in jest. :


----------



## infared (Jun 12, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Personally I cannot wait to purchase mine. I will when there is no backlog...no hurry.
> ...



LOL! Scott ...THAT is pretty funny! The old Sigma 50mm "Edged it out"???? (In what parameter?? Size? Price?) Guess they got a lot of hits on their site?
What is even funnier is that Pop Photography included the old Sigma DG f/1.4 in the same sentence with the prized and worshiped (hear angels sing), Otus. quite amusing.
The old one is a cool "little" lens compared to these newer, pricier entries....apparently Sigma is going to keep producing it...the lens has gone up in price and the Canon version is quite scare lately....


----------

