# Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Coming in October



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 23, 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=16409"></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=16409">Tweet</a></div>
Sigma is planning to announce a 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art series lens at Photokina with availability coming in October of 2014.</p>
<p>There has been no word on the possible 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art or 135mm f/1.8DG HSM Art lenses. I think both the 85 and 135 would be more highly desired than a 24mm prime, though if it’s as good as the 35mm or 50mm, we’ll take it anyway.</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>Source: [<a href="http://photorumors.com/2014/04/22/sigma-24mm-f1-4-art-lens-coming-in-october/" target="_blank">PR</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Woody (Apr 23, 2014)

2014 is turning to be the Year of the Lens... 



...for SIGMA. ;D


----------



## brad-man (Apr 23, 2014)

Yup. Too bad it won't auto focus good enough to hit the broad side of a galaxy ;D

_Must wait for the 85..._


----------



## lycan (Apr 23, 2014)

Sigma, 500mm come on...


----------



## Lightmaster (Apr 23, 2014)

brad-man said:


> Yup. Too bad it won't auto focus good enough to hit the broad side of a galaxy ;D



people pay 4000$ for non AF lens with only marginal better image quality.
i say sigmas AF in the new lenses is pretty good for the money.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 23, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> people pay 4000$ for non AF lens with only marginal better image quality.
> i say sigmas AF in the new lenses is pretty good for the money.


If I can't trust it, it's worthless.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 23, 2014)

Wild guess: Sigma will also introduce the current 85 f/1.4 in ART configuration at Photokina, but is keeping quiet about it to avoid damaging sales of their current lens. The 135 will have to wait a while, since it is a brand new lens.


----------



## Lightmaster (Apr 23, 2014)

> With Canon lenses mounted on a Canon camera, I've watched it focus on something and lock, then I press the focus button again, it de-focuses and refocuses again. Why can't it just "know" that it has acquired focus and not move the second time?



well that´s obvious not?

the camera had to know if you moved it. 
that would mean constant focusing all the time.

otherwise the camera does not "know", if the focus it is set too is the correct focus.

and to know if it has achived optimum focus ist has to have a something it can measure against. that´s why it has to move the focus.


----------



## CANONisOK (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> With Canon lenses mounted on a Canon camera, I've watched it focus on something and lock, then I press the focus button again, it de-focuses and refocuses again. Why can't it just "know" that it has acquired focus and not move the second time?


 That part of the focusing algorithm is necessary because your camera has no knowledge that it hasn't moved or whatever you are shooting hasn't moved. It may have GPS in some models, but I've yet to hear of one with gyroscopes, accelerometers, and radar. ;D

Edit: I see Lightmaster was thinking the same thing I was. Great minds think alike!


----------



## ksagomonyants (Apr 23, 2014)

Woody said:


> 2014 is turning to be the Year of the Lens...
> 
> 
> 
> ...for SIGMA. ;D



The 2014 doesn't end in April


----------



## KarstenReis (Apr 23, 2014)

How quickly "new" Sigma's reputation went downhill. The 35A was hailed a great lens and now a lot of forum members seem to be bashing the 50A before they get their hands on a copy. And now some are already saying that this will have poor autofocus performance. I am quite excited for this lens for night and astro as the Canon 24L has more coma than I would like for star shots.


----------



## docsmith (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Yup. Too bad it won't auto focus good enough to hit the broad side of a galaxy ;D
> ...



Likely, the camera needs more than one data point to optimize/determine focus. With Phase detect, it could be that OoF is used to define what is in focus.


----------



## pwp (Apr 23, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > I say Sigmas AF in the new lenses is pretty good for the money....
> ...


That was how I felt with the erratic and occasionally brilliant old model Sigma 50mm f/1.4.
My two copies got used for some personal work, endless testing but simply couldn't be trusted for client work. Therefore ultimately worthless.

I truly hope Sigma finds an AF fix for the new lenses deliverable via firmware. The optics are clearly awesome, but without dependable AF they're a commercial no-go. 

-pw


----------



## infared (Apr 23, 2014)

Was there any mention of any of the reviewers of the 50mm Art f/1.4 running their test lens thru this process???
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-optimization-pro-and-usb-dock

I think that Roger is very professional and very reliable...and he seems to think the dock and the software are a valuable tool. I just wonder if Brian at the Digital Pic had run the lens thru the software after his preliminary test to see if his copy tested any better????

I would like to see Dustin Abbott get his hands on a retail copy of the Sigma Art 50mm and a Dock and give us his input. Can that happen!?!?!?!?!?!?


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 23, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> well that´s obvious not?
> 
> the camera had to know if you moved it.
> that would mean constant focusing all the time.
> ...


I was about to respond that what you describe sounds like contrast-detect focus, not phase-detect focus, but then I figured: I'll just wait for Neuro to respond: he probably has already researched the problem and filed a patent application for it. ;D


----------



## docsmith (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> KarstenReis said:
> 
> 
> > How quickly "new" Sigma's reputation went downhill. The 35A was hailed a great lens and now a lot of forum members seem to be bashing the 50A before they get their hands on a copy. And now some are already saying that this will have poor autofocus performance.
> ...



Is there a problem with people discussing a potential flaw? I think Roger has already summarized what we are seeing....just with the prerelease copies hitting reviewers it may be happening a bit ahead of schedule.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/a-bit-of-a7r-sanity

BTW...if the 24A is optically similar to the 50A and 35A from f/1.4 to f/2.8 with reasonable coma, I'll buy one in a heartbeat.


----------



## dufflover (Apr 23, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > people pay 4000$ for non AF lens with only marginal better image quality.
> ...


Fine, turn off the AF and treat it like a poor man's Otus which it gets pretty close. Problem solved


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 23, 2014)

Hi Dilbert.
Isn't that why so many of us use BBF, to isolate the focus from the shutter actuation. If your worried about a 0.5mm or 0.020inch focus accuracy shouldn't you be in manual focus with x10 live view to guarantee you have focus locked where you want it within 0.1mm or 0.003937007 inch! ;D ;D

Cheers Graham.



dilbert said:


> The point I was making above is that if you've already focused the lens on X and press the button again, it is doubtful that the lens will end up in exactly the same position as before (and by exact, I mean exact, not some "within half a millimeter.")


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 23, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > people pay 4000$ for non AF lens with only marginal better image quality.
> ...



+1...I think is too early to tell. Sit back and enjoy the show Gents


----------



## KarstenReis (Apr 23, 2014)

docsmith said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > KarstenReis said:
> ...



No problem discussing a potential flaw in a rumored lens as this is what this site is for. But, and this is a big but, already dismissing a 24A because of one review seems a bit premature to me. It would almost be akin to dismissing the rumored 7D Mk II due to poor autofocus from one review of a about to be released new Canon body. I agree with Roger's post and find his writing quite funny. I think the forum stoops down to this level sometimes... http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/hammerforum-com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> When I read back over TDP's review of the S50A and I think to myself on how to obtain the best focus using a tripod, using the AF from the camera with phase detect focusing is not how I'd do it.



The whole point of the test was to determine the accuracy of the SIR PDAF system with the Sigma 50/1.4 A under controlled conditions, with neither camera nor subject moving. Should be pretty simple for an AF system with an accurately-focusing lens. Using Live View would defeat the purpose of the test. 




dilbert said:


> With Canon lenses mounted on a Canon camera, I've watched it focus on something and lock, then I press the focus button again, it de-focuses and refocuses again. Why can't it just "know" that it has acquired focus and not move the second time?



How does the camera "know" that the subject has not moved? Having said that, with many subjects, the focus will not change as the PDAF sensor will determine that it is already properly focused. When the AF does defocus/refocus, that's usually becuase of the characteristics of the subject, for example with a cross-type AF point and a subject having different phase differences in the orthogonal orientations.




dilbert said:


> The point I was making above is that if you've already focused the lens on X and press the button again, it is doubtful that the lens will end up in exactly the same position as before (and by exact, I mean exact, not some "within half a millimeter.")



Slight variances are one thing - you may see differences with image analysis (MTF/SQF values) that would be too subtle to detect visually. The OOF shots in the TDP test aren't subtle…the 50A just flat out missed focus on 4/10 shots.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Apr 23, 2014)

Yessssss!! Maybe we got sigma rumors mistaken for canon rumors for being the year of the lens. Hahaha! Have a great day everyone. ;D


----------



## bereninga (Apr 23, 2014)

I wonder how it'll compare to the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS. I too am surprised they wouldn't release the 85mm before the 24mm.

Regarding the AF, I too am concerned about the Sigma 50mm Art, but I can wait until the lens gets in more consumers' hands to decide. Canon really does need to update the 50mm 1.4.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2014)

bereninga said:


> Canon really does need to update the 50mm 1.4.



Depends on what you mean by update. I wonder which will generate more revenue - the Sigma 50/1.4 A at $950, or the Canon 50/1.4 at $400? I think it might be the latter…and the 50/1.8 at $125 will generate more revenue than both. 

I do think Canon will bring out a 50mm IS prime (f/1.8 or f/2) in the relatively near future. It will be priced lower than Sigma's 50/1.4, and if it has the IQ of the 35/2 IS it will outsell the Sigma 50/1.4A.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 23, 2014)

I found the af test disconcerting too... but it is about context. Run the same test with a 50L and let me see the results. We AOL know that shooting at small depths of field is a game of roulette... sometimes we win... sometimes the eye is blurry and the Damn eye lashes are perfectly in focus. 

And those saying the art is dead.... then the otus certainly never should have been born. Geesh.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 23, 2014)

I'm very curious to see how this compares to the 24L II. Unlike the 50L, it's a very sharp lens and won't be so easy to beat, at least in terms of sharpness. The biggest issue with the 24L II is the vignetting so that might be where they try to outdo Canon.

Also, I really don't get the, "Why not a 85 stuff"? They just release their latest 85mm in 2010 (to a lot of good reviews), while they don't even have a 24 f/1.4 lens. They have a 24 f/1.8, but from the reviews, it looks to be terrible on full frame cameras.


----------



## sanj (Apr 23, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16409"></glusone></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=16409">Tweet</a></div>
> Sigma is planning to announce a 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art series lens at Photokina with availability coming in October of 2014.</p>
> <p>There has been no word on the possible 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art or 135mm f/1.8DG HSM Art lenses. I think both the 85 and 135 would be more highly desired than a 24mm prime, though if it’s as good as the 35mm or 50mm, we’ll take it anyway.</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>
> ...



"We?" Many on this forum will fight you to death for saying that.


----------



## sanj (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> KarstenReis said:
> 
> 
> > How quickly "new" Sigma's reputation went downhill. The 35A was hailed a great lens and now a lot of forum members seem to be bashing the 50A before they get their hands on a copy. And now some are already saying that this will have poor autofocus performance.
> ...



Yep. Mob mentality. So many members pouncing on it too soon.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > When I read back over TDP's review of the S50A and I think to myself on how to obtain the best focus using a tripod, using the AF from the camera with phase detect focusing is not how I'd do it.
> ...



Depends on brightness of scene too. I often focus/re-focus on a subject as I am shooting/ verifying. In good light, my canon lenses either don't change focus distance at all, or very very little, if using single point focus. Most focus changes are probably due to a subtle change in the camera position or change in light quality/contrast on the subject. Defocus/refocus only happens in very low light.


----------



## rpiotr01 (Apr 23, 2014)

dufflover said:


> Fine, turn off the AF and treat it like a poor man's Otus which it gets pretty close. Problem solved



I tried that with the last Sigma 50 1.4 a couple years ago, the focus throw was way too short to be of much use in MF. 

I agree with the poster above, these tests should really be using that USB dock before making a final judgment on AF issues. At least Sigma is trying to address a known issue (that said, that dock should be included with these lenses).

I also don't quite get how anyone can complain about having more excellent lens options. It's no longer the red ring or bust, Sigma has been doing exactly what people wished someone would do and make well-made lenses that compete optically with Canon's L offerings and at discounted prices. Every lens will have it's flaws - or I should say compromises (size, weight, optical performance wide open or in the corners) - but all things considered there are some really great new lenses on the market now, no need to nitpick the flaws. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 23, 2014)

pwp said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Lightmaster said:
> ...



I can totaly sign this!

the AF is the main thing and it need to work to 85-95% perfect...(for lens > 800€/1000$) I think..


----------



## Etienne (Apr 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> bereninga said:
> 
> 
> > Canon really does need to update the 50mm 1.4.
> ...



I bought the Canon 35 f/2 IS over the sigma and love it. It is compact, light weight, great IQ, and hand-held video is amazingly stable, almost looks tripod mounted sometimes. Far superior to my non-stabilized 16-35 at 35mm handheld.

I've use the Canon 50 f/1.4 for video. Even with a shoulder support, it's tough to keep it steady. I'll buy the Canon 50 IS, if it's at least f/2, but I'm still hoping it will be a 50 f/1.4 IS .


----------



## sanj (Apr 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> bereninga said:
> 
> 
> > Canon really does need to update the 50mm 1.4.
> ...



It does not bother you a bit that (according to YOU) Canon has not updated 50mm for >20 years?


----------



## kubelik (Apr 23, 2014)

if coma, astig, and vignetting are good I'd happily buy this over the Canon 24 L II. all of the canon offerings make a very poor showing of the corners when doing wide-field astrophotography.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 23, 2014)

kubelik said:


> if coma, astig, and vignetting are good I'd happily buy this over the Canon 24 L II. all of the canon offerings make a very poor showing of the corners when doing wide-field astrophotography.


That's true, I forgot about the coma (I don't shoot the dark sky much). The new 50 Art has pretty good coma correction, so that's an area that could be improved.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2014)

sanj said:


> It does not bother you a bit that (according to YOU) Canon has not updated 50mm for >20 years?


Nope, but then 1) I have no interest in the 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 II, and 2) if I were to buy a 50mm lens it would be the 50/1.2L which was released 8 years ago, in 2006.

Having said that, the design age of the 50/1.8 II and 50/1.4 certainly don't seem to bother the buyers on Amazon.com, where the Canon 50/1.8 II is the #1 selling lens and the Canon 50/1.4 is the #3 selling lens. You need to go to #36 on their Top 100 list to find the first Sigma lens, and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art isn't on the list at all.


----------



## Rudeofus (Apr 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Having said that, the design age of the 50/1.8 II and 50/1.4 certainly don't seem to bother the buyers on Amazon.com, where the Canon 50/1.8 II is the #1 selling lens and the Canon 50/1.4 is the #3 selling lens. You need to go to #36 on their Top 100 list to find the first Sigma lens, and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art isn't on the list at all.



That list contains quite a few oddities which makes me wonder how accurate it is:
[list type=decimal]
[*]The 24-105 L IS is listed twice, once at rank 13, then again at rank 25. Given that it comes as kit lens to many ff cameras, I wonder how many people buy it later on. In the used market it is sold at fire sale prices ...
[*]Even stranger is the high volume reported for the various 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 lenses. These usually come as kit lenses for crop cameras, why would anyone buy these separately?
[*]I see lots and lots of people running around with crop camera plus superzoom, yet these don't seem to show up in the higher ranks.
[*]The 16-35 shows up higher in rank than the 17-40. Sounds bogus if you ask me.
[*]The 70-200 F/4 showing up lower in rank compared to the 70-200 F/2.8 also strikes me as odd. All people I know with a 70-200 F/2.8 have the IS version, either Mk I or Mk II.
[/list]

Obviously I don't have any insight into Amazon's sales numbers, and I don't run or work in a photo store to provide real world numbers, but I think Amazon's reported numbers raise more questions than they answer.


----------



## sanj (Apr 23, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Having said that, the design age of the 50/1.8 II and 50/1.4 certainly don't seem to bother the buyers on Amazon.com, where the Canon 50/1.8 II is the #1 selling lens and the Canon 50/1.4 is the #3 selling lens. You need to go to #36 on their Top 100 list to find the first Sigma lens, and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art isn't on the list at all.
> ...



I am in the minority here but these 'facts' do not impress me. What would impress me is that Canon uses its might and releases new lenses with better technology in less than 20 years. But that is MY thinking, the guys in commercials at Canon are way smarter than me.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 23, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm very curious to see how this compares to the 24L II. Unlike the 50L, it's a very sharp lens and won't be so easy to beat, at least in terms of sharpness. The biggest issue with the 24L II is the vignetting so that might be where they try to outdo Canon.
> 
> Also, I really don't get the, "Why not a 85 stuff"? They just release their latest 85mm in 2010 (to a lot of good reviews), while they don't even have a 24 f/1.4 lens. They have a 24 f/1.8, but from the reviews, it looks to be terrible on full frame cameras.



They'll beat it in the price tag. I'd guess another sub $1000 offering. If matches image performance... And at that focal length where depth of field is typically less of a concern... it will be fine.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 23, 2014)

I don't know how TDP conducted the test other than the layman's description that he posted, but I'm highly skeptical that there are serious issues with the AF. First, we know nothing of the pre-configuration of the lens and/or camera system. Was it properly calibrated for AFMA? Was it calibrated and checked with the Sigma dock? I would not draw any conclusion about any lens, OEM or otherwise, for which I didn't do some basic configuration and calibration with my equipment that it is interfacing with. 

We also know little of the lighting conditions under which the photos were taken. 

I'm not doubting a reasonable effort to see what would happen when the lens was mounted on a camera body. He does decent work. But these results are more anecdotal than any serious evidence of a focusing issue. The 35 1.4 was initially reported to have issues as well. But those simply aren't bearing out in reality. I can report having run my own Sigma 35 1.4 as well as two from local friends through the full gamut of Reikan FoCal calibration and performance tests. These were run on multiple bodies, both my own and others. Focus consistency for all three of these Sigma 35 1.4 copies always measured in the 97-98% range for all bodies which had AFMA available and which was performed. For reference, all three of the Sigmas tested more consistent than my own Canon 35mm 1.4. Aperture sharpness curve was superior to my Canon on all three copies. Focal point consistency was equivalent between the Sigmas and my Canon. In short, I see no evidence of a shortfall in AF performance on the Sigma 35 1.4 compared to my Canon version based on empirical evidence on fairly well-controlled tests given the sample community I have access to test. And my experience in shooting my Sigma 35 1.4 in the real world bears these "lab" tests out. I have had zero focusing issues in any conditions that were notably different from anything I experience with the Canon version on a given body. 

Part of my day job is engineering developmental and operational test and evaluation design and execution. There is far more involved in properly testing an item than most people give credit for. I trust what Roger at LensRentals says about lenses more than most any others out there. He has a vested, financial interest in establishing a watertight, repeatable test protocol for the thousands of lenses they own. They have invested in the right kinds of equipment and established clearly repeatable conditions under which to evaluate lenses. If Roger, at some point, comes out with an AF performance delta between the Sigmas and their Canon counterparts, I would be inclined to then hang my hat on that. Certainly it will be based upon a test sample far larger than anything we, TDP, DPReview, or others might have access to. 

I am not hesitating one bit to invest in this new Sigma 50mm 1.4. 

My only concern with these new Sigmas is longevity. Will they still maintain their performance after a decade or more of service? My Canon 35 1.4 is far more than a decade old in my hands and has given not a single hiccup. It has been cleaned and serviced by Canon once during that period. Are these Sigmas constructed and capable of the same level of reliability? I don't know. But I'm going to invest in the opportunity to find out. At these prices, both the 35 and 50 Sigmas together cost about the same as a new Canon 35 1.4 alone. Seems like a reasonable risk proposition to me. And I'm known in my day job as risk-averse!


Edit: Oh, and when they come out with this 24 1.4...sign me up. 

And, full disclosure, I did own Sigma's newest 70-200 f/2.8 OS briefly as a replacement to my aging old Canon 80-200 f/2.8L. I quickly rejected it after a few months specifically for sub-par focus consistency and distracting bokeh, particularly with a 1.4x teleconverter. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II I have now is so much better as to be in a completely different league. All of which is to say that I'm not unfamiliar with Sigma products AF issues and unfavorable performance relative to similar Canon products. I am simply astounded on what I've found with the 35 1.4 so far. So much so that it has right of way in my bag at the moment.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 23, 2014)

At 200mm and beyond AF is a big deal, at 50mm it's not a big deal for me, and at 24mm it's half as important as that.

I really, really hope Sigma can produce a decent body to go along with their new lenses. Having a complete system with the Sigma name on it would put the company in an entirely new league.
Forget about being innovative, just match the specs of the 5D3 to a T and copy as much of the controls and menu as you can.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert, last time I checked this site is called *Canon*rumors, and we're all Canon users/fans here. I think some fanboy attitude is to be expected and to put Canon and "Canon shooters" down here, of all places, seems a little ridiculous. Why don't you head on over to Alpharumors and Nikonrumors if you want to trash Canon. I'm sure you'd find a lot of friends there, but your statements aren't going to be too welcome here.


----------



## westr70 (Apr 23, 2014)

brad-man said:


> Yup. Too bad it won't auto focus good enough to hit the broad side of a galaxy ;D
> 
> _Must wait for the 85..._



+1


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 23, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Why don't you head on over to Alpharumors and Nikonrumors if you want to trash Canon.



Except that posts on Nikonrumors don't badmouth Canon anywhere near what Canonrumor posts trash anything not Canon. I haunt both sites regularly. There is a significant difference in the attitudes of each site's members. 

Hop on both sites and do a search for a third party piece of equipment Sigma, Sony, even Pentax and read the posts. You will see a signficiant difference in attitude. 

It is one of the things I wish were better on Canonrumors. But I still come here for the entertainment.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 23, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> I don't know how TDP conducted the test other than the layman's description that he posted, but I'm highly skeptical that there are serious issues with the AF. First, we know nothing of the pre-configuration of the lens and/or camera system. Was it properly calibrated for AFMA? Was it calibrated and checked with the Sigma dock? I would not draw any conclusion about any lens, OEM or otherwise, for which I didn't do some basic configuration and calibration with my equipment that it is interfacing with.
> 
> We also know little of the lighting conditions under which the photos were taken.



What does AFMA have to do with it? AFMA might improve the accuracy (zero mean the error) but it will not affect precision. LensRentals has noted that the newest lenses and the 5D3/1DX have better accuracy/precision than other combinations. Software is software, and Sigma's reverse engineering of the software is not good enough. Until they do, this will always potentially be an issue. They can probably update the software using the dock, but who knows when that will be done.

One of the reasons why I like TDP so much is his experience in using a wide array of lenses/bodies. Using it in real world scenarios gives a better overall evaluation than shooting test charts on walls where AF is not used at all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> [list type=decimal]
> [*]The 24-105 L IS is listed twice, once at rank 13, then again at rank 25. Given that it comes as kit lens to many ff cameras, I wonder how many people buy it later on. In the used market it is sold at fire sale prices ...
> [/list]



#13 is a white box version, #25 is the full retail packaging. 




Rudeofus said:


> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Even stranger is the high volume reported for the various 18-55 F/3.5-5.6 lenses. These usually come as kit lenses for crop cameras, why would anyone buy these separately?
> [/list]



I suspect there are quite a few people who bought kits before the included 18-55mm lenses had IS/VC.




Rudeofus said:


> [list type=decimal]
> [*]The 16-35 shows up higher in rank than the 17-40. Sounds bogus if you ask me.
> [*]The 70-200 F/4 showing up lower in rank compared to the 70-200 F/2.8 also strikes me as odd. All people I know with a 70-200 F/2.8 have the IS version, either Mk I or Mk II.
> [/list]



I don't find those to be particularly strange. The majority of lenses high on the list are relatively inexpensive (the top 10 are all under $500). The 70-300 IS non-L is pretty highly ranked, because it has more consumer appeal than the 70-200/4L (300 is bigger than 200, it must be better, and it has IS, and it's still cheaper!!!). Once you get above a certain price point, the absolute numbers are likely quite low, and people buying a 16-35 or 17-40 likely know what they are buying and why. Many wedding and event photographers use the f/2.8 versions of the ultrawide and 70-200 zooms, so it's not too surprising that they rank slightly higher than the f/4 versions.




sanj said:


> I am in the minority here but these 'facts' do not impress me. What would impress me is that Canon uses its might and releases new lenses with better technology in less than 20 years. But that is MY thinking, the guys in commercials at Canon are way smarter than me.



I think you're in the majority as far as consumers go - you want new products with the best technology at affordable prices and you want them right now. Me too. Canon wants something else…profit.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 23, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you head on over to Alpharumors and Nikonrumors if you want to trash Canon.
> ...


To be fair, I haven't visited the sites much, but do they trash their their own gear as much as the CR posters do? Also, I find the negativity on this site is restricted to a few members and a handful of topics like DR, autofocus, and 3rd party stuff, but overall it's one of the more positive forums I've seen. This is particularly true of the photo sharing threads where people are positive about photos and the vast majority of criticism is positive in terms of tips or suggestions.


----------



## ashmadux (Apr 23, 2014)

brad-man said:


> Yup. Too bad it won't auto focus good enough to hit the broad side of a galaxy ;D
> 
> _Must wait for the 85..._




Have you tried canons 24 1/4? That is the worst focusing lens ive ever seen in my life. Shouldnt be hard to beat it at all. The abysmal focus was even mentioned on the review on this site, which i noticed only after i rented it. It was pathetic.

With Af like that, it might as well be manual


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ...it takes two to tango or in this case autofocus (camera plus lens.)



True, but it's hard to dance with a partner that has two left feet, one of which they tried to reverse-engineer to be a right foot.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 23, 2014)

What does AFMA have to do with it? It has to do with controlling variables in a test environment to ensure the results you are receiving. And despite your protestations, there is an element of accuracy from AFMA related to the precision. We have no way of knowing which of the sample 10 photos is most representative of the most optimum focus his particular camera and lens combination is capable of producing. I can also provide you with test results .pdfs where a non or mis-calibrated lens performed more poorly on the focus consistency tests than it did once properly calibrated (AFMA). That is contrary to the idea that accuracy is unconnected to precision in this application. 

I don't know the algorithms involved, so I cannot hypothesize to any degree of accuracy why that might happen. But it does...often enough to convince me there is something to it.

And I have to wonder if you read my post completely. I mentioned my experience in your vaunted "real world" conditions that not only refutes, at least in the 35mm's case, any sort of worrisome AF consistency issues, but that also corroborates what I saw in much more controlled test conditions shooting those pesky test charts. 

What you're calling "real world scenarios" is what we call in my line of work "operational testing". Beware that all "real world scenarios" or "operational testing" is not equal for purposes of drawing conclusions from them. Test design and controls have a lot to do with the fidelity of data produced. And I'm saying given the paucity of information regarding test controls on TDP's "real world" shooting, we cannot faithfully put much stock in an idea that this 50mm indeed has any AF issues worth worrying about. 

I'm not trying to defend Sigma, per se. I'll dump the Sigmas in a heart beat if the evidence gives me reason to doubt their performance. But I'm similarly not going to simply buy some anecdotal "evidence" as proof without ensuring the evidence is properly controlled to produce the results noted. In this case, the most glaring control missing is sample size. I believe TDP did some fairly exhaustive shooting, probably using fairly common tools, including tripod when necessary. But the results are based on a sample size of 1 lens, which is not adequate to properly draw conclusions from. It's not good enough to dress up a review and AF performance test with accounts of how much and how varied the conditions were that produced the results, even if I grant you 2 test configurations based on his mention of testing both 1DX and 5DMkIII bodies with the lens. Not for me, anyway. I need more data.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 23, 2014)

docsmith said:


> BTW...if the 24A is optically similar to the 50A and 35A from f/1.4 to f/2.8 with reasonable coma, I'll buy one in a heartbeat.



Me too - the coma performance of the 35A is remarkable (far better than the Canon 35 IS).


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 23, 2014)

In regards to negativity... it does seem to be within my tolerance range. Most peddle are more than decent here and those that aren't... I don't know their names so when I see their subsequent posts I don't make the connection.

I am surprised that people are throwing the 50 art under the bus before they have even used it. I use auto focus 95% of the time, but I really don't consider the art deaf on arrival nor do I believe that all subsequent arts will be rendered useless.

It seems that people are indeed jumping the gun.

I'll wait... I'll test at the store... And I'll come to my own conclusion. Reviews are nice... but I wouldn't call them all scientific. Isolating variables can be challenging and scientists don't always do an adequate job of doing so... so I won't hold reviewers to a higher standard.

And after having said all that... I jumped the gun on dismissing the 6d... And in retrospect I have a good deal of esteem for the 6d...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> We have no way of knowing which of the sample 10 photos is most representative of the most optimum focus his particular camera and lens combination is capable of producing.



There are 10 images presented, 6 of which are similarly sharp, 4 of which are not as sharp (and one of those 4 is a blurry mess). Are you suggesting that the 6 similarly sharp images are all random misses from optimum focus that happened to coincide in terms of sharpness? I think Friar William of Occam would disagree with you. 

Precision and accuracy are independent, although they may certainly _appear_ to be related, depending on the resolution of the measurement method relative to the accuracy and precision of the system being tested.

I certainly agree that it's premature to base an overall conclusion about the 50A's AF perfromance on issues found by two review sites, each testing one lens.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 23, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > people pay 4000$ for non AF lens with only marginal better image quality.
> ...



+1


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 23, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> What does AFMA have to do with it? It has to do with controlling variables in a test environment to ensure the results you are receiving. And despite your protestations, there is an element of accuracy from AFMA related to the precision. We have no way of knowing which of the sample 10 photos is most representative of the most optimum focus his particular camera and lens combination is capable of producing. I can also provide you with test results .pdfs where a non or mis-calibrated lens performed more poorly on the focus consistency tests than it did once properly calibrated (AFMA). That is contrary to the idea that accuracy is unconnected to precision in this application.
> 
> I don't know the algorithms involved, so I cannot hypothesize to any degree of accuracy why that might happen. But it does...often enough to convince me there is something to it.
> 
> ...



AFMA improves accuracy but not precision, and I'm pretty sure that TDP knows to AFMA lenses before evaluating them for their reviews. If you don't trust this review, you might as well not trust ANY of TDP's reviews unless you know that the review process that they used for this lens is different than any other. And the subject distance for that series of infocus/out-of-focus shots is constant. If the degree of OOF were constant, then the dock with the multiple distance adjustments might have been of use, but they weren't. My point is this: TDP finds that the lens that Sigma sent them (not bought retail) can have balky AF. What is more likely -- that TDP's copy has a unique software build that is different from all the others or that all the ones being evaluated (pre-retail) all have the same software. Yes, it was 1 copy but it was one that Sigma chose. More reviews/user experience will be available over time, but that TDP found a difference in S35 and S50 AF performance is significant.

And yes, others in this forum have had issues with S35's AF. Eldar has had to change the AFMA amount over time. Why? Perhaps Sigma had to use a different lens ID for the S50 than the S35 and Canon's AF algorithms treat them differently... or not. Perhaps you assumed that all Sigma's new lenses will AF like the S35s you evaluated, but perhaps that is a bad assumption.

I have worked with software/hardware testing, and you can call it operational testing or whatever you want. We "test" every line of code, but there are still issues that are found once the hardware is in the field. But the problems identified in the field are just as valid as those found during the test phase in the lab. The field problems are often hard to duplicate because the environment/exact state under which the error occurred is unknown. Not everything can be duplicated in a controlled environment.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 23, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> In regards to negativity... it does seem to be within my tolerance range. Most peddle are more than decent here and those that aren't... I don't know their names so when I see their subsequent posts I don't make the connection.
> 
> I am surprised that people are throwing the 50 art under the bus before they have even used it. I use auto focus 95% of the time, but I really don't consider the art deaf on arrival nor do I believe that all subsequent arts will be rendered useless.
> 
> ...


I agree and don't put much stock in one review of one lens, either, even from a good reviewer. Until it ships and lots of people have the lens, I don't think we'll really know.



ashmadux said:


> Have you tried canons 24 1/4? That is the worst focusing lens ive ever seen in my life. Shouldnt be hard to beat it at all. The abysmal focus was even mentioned on the review on this site, which i noticed only after i rented it. It was pathetic.
> 
> With Af like that, it might as well be manual


Mark I or Mark II? I have the Mark II and it focuses every bit as good as any other L lens, particularly once it's calibrated with AFMA. Also, have you used the lens?


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 23, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> In regards to negativity... it does seem to be within my tolerance range. Most peddle are more than decent here and those that aren't... I don't know their names so when I see their subsequent posts I don't make the connection.
> 
> I am surprised that people are throwing the 50 art under the bus before they have even used it. I use auto focus 95% of the time, but I really don't consider the art deaf on arrival nor do I believe that all subsequent arts will be rendered useless.
> 
> ...



I don't think it's being thrown under the bus; forums tend to focus on the details. Potential AF-issues aside, it still handily outperforms the Canon offerings in many IQ-metrics, and for many, the Sigma will win out that in segment. I too will wait to see how it does once it is widely available, but it does mean that I won't pre-order it. I haven't pre-ordered any of my camera equipment. I'll give it a year and wait for the first wave of price reductions.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 23, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> ... I jumped the gun on dismissing the 6d... And in retrospect I have a good deal of esteem for the 6d...



I can attest that the 6D and it's AF got a mostly ill-deserved drubbing. While it is true that it's AF sophistication lacks significantly relative to the 1DX/5DMkIII, it is really a better system than the 5DMk II's. This last weekend I ended up shooting my 6D for a portion of triathlon coverage where I was shooting wide angle on the bikes, with flash. I used both single shot and Ai Servo as well as both center and other AF points. In the application I used it, the 6D was more than adequate to the task and I did not feel I would have done better on those particular shots with either the 1DIV or 5DMkIII, which were mounted w/telephotos. 

There are some well noted limitations of the 6D AF due to AF point spacing, and the sensitivity, orientation, and number of non-center points. Not everyone has multiple bodies to address different shooting conditions and needs and might find a 6D just that little bit short for their needs. But after a couple of months of shooting and studying the 6D's AF, I have no issues with it when used in appropriate applications, including some that other forum pundits would swear are outside it's service mission.

But if Canon wants to step up the AF in a follow-on model, I won't argue!


----------



## CANONisOK (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> CANONisOK said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


I think people were just trying to provide helpful answers to a direct question with a pretty obvious answer.



dilbert said:


> But then if a 3rd party behaves strangely, well, it is all the fault of the 3rd party and should never happen!


You are responding to my answer about why the camera behaves the way it does. I somehow missed the part where I mentioned anything about lens brands.



dilbert said:


> The point I was making above is that if you've already focused the lens on X and press the button again, it is doubtful that the lens will end up in exactly the same position as before (and by exact, I mean exact, not some "within half a millimeter.")


If that was your intention you may want to try and think of a different way to phrase future statements, lest you be offended by people's responses. Because that is not at all what you wrote originally.

Back on topic: I am excited about Sigma's offerings across all these product lines! They give us consumers many choices and will hopefully provide Canon some incentive to a) produce improved versions of their already-good lenses, or b) be more cost-competitive after they start to lose significant business to 3rd parties. That said, I haven't seen much movement on either front yet so maybe I am just too naive.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 23, 2014)

+1 on the 24 L II having AF issues, I had three copies, two Canon took back and agreed sucked and the third was pretty useless, but a bit more stable , worst Canon AF I've used of the 30+ Canon lenses I've owned.

People that are defending useless AF needs to know that I don't buy an AF to use it as a manual lens, I must have AF for the photography I do. What the lens cost matters NOTHING if the AF doesn't work, you can't say it's okay for a lens that price, if it doesn't work then it doesn't work and if it cost 1 dollar I still can't use it. Sigma releases it as a fully compatible lens WITH AF, when it's not it becomes a big problem for everybody.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 23, 2014)

Viggo said:


> +1 on the 24 L II having AF issues, I had three copies, two Canon took back and agreed sucked and the third was pretty useless, but a bit more stable , worst Canon AF I've used of the 30+ Canon lenses I've owned.
> 
> People that are defending useless AF needs to know that I don't buy an AF to use it as a manual lens, I must have AF for the photography I do. What the lens cost matters NOTHING if the AF doesn't work, you can't say it's okay for a lens that price, if it doesn't work then it doesn't work and if it cost 1 dollar I still can't use it. Sigma releases it as a fully compatible lens WITH AF, when it's not it becomes a big problem for everybody.


I guess I've been very fortunate with my 24 II  I've used in on many bodies and typically shoot between f/1.4 and f/2 and have never had any issues with it. I agree on AF - if it doesn't work close to 100% of the time, the lens is worthless.


----------



## jasonsim (Apr 23, 2014)

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM does not AF very accurately either. I get some misses even on a 1Dx and must sometimes "rack" the AF, before I can trust it.

The AF on the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art was really reliable for me on the 1Dx and 6D. So, I would not discount that Sigma has improved things drastically in these new Art lenses. 

Kind regards,
Jason



pwp said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Lightmaster said:
> ...


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Apr 23, 2014)

jasonsim said:


> The AF on the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art was really reliable for me on the 1Dx and 6D. So, I would not discount that Sigma has improved things drastically in these new Art lenses.



I'm not sure why people here are still calling for an AF improvement from Sigma. The new Art series remedied AF issues (AF as good as the average Canon, imo), and the USB dock is there to maintain it into the future. All these complaints seem to reference older Sigma lenses, which were obviously sub-par compared to the new quality standard.

Anyway, I was really hoping 24mm would be their next release, so I'm a very happy camper.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> BLFPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > We have no way of knowing which of the sample 10 photos is most representative of the most optimum focus his particular camera and lens combination is capable of producing.
> ...



In this instance of trying to measure precision, the lens could be front or rear focused. So the to and fro of the lens at its furthest point might look like a mess, but if the lens were afma'd correctly, the focus could be within three units of the proper focus... making all of the shots tolerable versus some of the shots being as many as six units of auto focus off.

We want to make sure we are only identifying its precision... not its accuracy which is why afma is a requirement.


----------



## that1guyy (Apr 23, 2014)

ITT: Canon fanboys threatened by Sigma and prematurely attacking Sigma's lenses. How pathetic.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 23, 2014)

Exactly. Without a reference point, it's hard to say what shots are more indicative of the specific sample's ability to focus. And the delta could be a clue to some symptom or reason for the lack of consistency. 

One thing I didn't note yet was that few details are given of the specific setup of the AF, including all AF-related CF settings. Without that information, interpreting the results effectively is problematic at best.

It could very well be the case that certain configurations of AF, for certain bodies or AF modules, give problematic results for these 3rd party lenses, for the well-noted reason that the AF algorithms are developed from reverse engineering. The issue could be local to that specific configuration and not a global issue, and the lens could therefore otherwise perform admirably. Should we throw out the baby with the bath water in that case?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> In this instance of trying to measure precision, the lens could be front or rear focused. So the to and fro of the lens at its furthest point might look like a mess, but if the lens were afma'd correctly, the focus could be within three units of the proper focus... making all of the shots tolerable versus some of the shots being as many as six units of auto focus off.
> 
> We want to make sure we are only identifying its precision... not its accuracy which is why afma is a requirement.



We are able to assess precision, and from this one test with one lens, it's very poor. If all 10 shots were made three units sharper, you would still have six equally sharp shots, and four less sharp shots – i.e., the AF would _still_ be inconsistent. The whole point of AFMA is that it's a global adjustment.

Also, be honest…do you _*really*_ think that Bryan does not AFMA lenses prior to shooting with them and testing autofocus performance?


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 23, 2014)

No. I don't think that. I think there is not enough information to adequately assess the results and pronounce the lens inconsistent as a rule of thumb.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 23, 2014)

it has been well over a decade since I have written a scientific paper. but if I recall correctly when you do perform a scientific tests and you write down the results it is incumbent upon you to describe set up as well as the preparation to eliminate and control variable.in this instance there are sufficient questions which can be brought up. much of the same way scientific papers by prestigious and well-respected scientists are peer-reviewed. the assertion that he did or did not used in a can be disputed because he did not specifically site whether she did or not. additionally it would have been helpful, and maybe I missed it , if he listed the lighting conditions in a unit of measurement such as foot candles or whatever other units.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 23, 2014)

I say it's VERY unlikely that Bryan makes a mistake that big, he KNOWS his stuff better than 98% of us here. Forget that.

Second, Sigma hand picked the lens for him, make no mistake, that lens is not a randomly selected one off the shelves at Sigma. Forget that.

Third, the 35 art has the same issues, some lenses are good and others, like myself had a pi$$poor one. Whic leads me to 

Forth, if the AF is consistent with another reviewers 50 art, and another claim it's faster and better than any other, a third says it's poor in low light and Bryan shows you it's HIGHLY inconsistent, then the issue of extreme copy variation is still a fact. Which makes it a lottery to buy and get a good one. I have also read about 35 art's that worked initially, but then started to drift in afma correction.

It's not about bashing Sigma, it's just such a great shame they have FANTASTIC lenses that can't be trusted...


----------



## sdsr (Apr 23, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I'm not sure why people here are still calling for an AF improvement from Sigma. The new Art series remedied AF issues (AF as good as the average Canon, imo), and the USB dock is there to maintain it into the future. All these complaints seem to reference older Sigma lenses, which were obviously sub-par compared to the new quality standard.



Sigma's newer lenses may be better, but there are complaints about them too - reviewers and users both complain about focusing inconsistency even though they praise the lens in question to the skies in other respects (e.g. 35mm 1.4 and the 1.8 zoom). 

The AF section of Lenstip's review reaches a rather different conclusion from Bryan's: AF accuracy of the 50mm A varies with the camera model - on a 5DIII the fail rate was c. 6-7% (which he describes as good, but not better than that), but far higher on a 1DsIII:

http://www.lenstip.com/400.10-Lens_review-Sigma_A_50_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Autofocus.html

This perhaps shouldn't be surprising, especially given the reverse engineering Sigma is forced to do (remember the Sigma/Nikon D5300 problem?). It's also the case, as Roger Cicala has shown, that some newer Canon lenses focus much more accurately on a 5DIII than on other Canon bodies. As for how consistent Sigma's AF inconsistency is, perhaps Mr Cicala will test that too - no-one else seems to be able and willing to test umpteen copies of the same lens.

(My experience, which is statistically near-worthless, is that of the three Sigma lenses I've owned, and the few I've rented, most of them older, only one gave me AF problems - a copy of the older 50mm 1.4 which seemed to refuse to focus on anything, ever.... Aside from that, my worst focusing lenses were various Pentax lenses and my first Canon 50mm 1.4.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



Fine...but Canon owns the dance club and calls the tunes. If Sigma can't keep up or trips over their own feet, that's not Canon's problem.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Second, Sigma hand picked the lens for him, make no mistake, that lens is not a randomly selected one off the shelves at Sigma. Forget that.
> ...



Because anyone knows that a review over at TDP is the benchmark and have always been serious and accurate with every lens tested, meaning you just make sure to give him a best possible lens because people buy or don't buy according to their findings. And you know as well as I and as well as Sigma, copy variation is a fact, and why would they risk giving him the worst they made? It's no possible they leave that lens to chance. And they still gave him a non working lens, so does that give me high hopes for a retail lens? Nope..

And why do you think he goes out of his to retail buy (almost) every lens tested? And then state it clearly in every review? And equally, states that this lens was provided by Sigma themselves?


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Who dances at the club? Don's you just buy a whiskey sour and lets the girls gyrate up and down?


----------



## Solar Eagle (Apr 23, 2014)

KarstenReis said:


> How quickly "new" Sigma's reputation went downhill. The 35A was hailed a great lens and now a lot of forum members seem to be bashing the 50A before they get their hands on a copy. And now some are already saying that this will have poor autofocus performance. I am quite excited for this lens for night and astro as the Canon 24L has more coma than I would like for star shots.



The key words there are "forum members", and those vocal few who think their complaints change the state of the game represent a very small portion of the market. The gap between what people want and what people get creates suffering for them, and people express pain as anger... I supposed its best to cut the complainers some slack though, since they have it hard enough already... poke poke lol ;-)

As to the lens, this is the Sigma I've been waiting to hear about. I passed on the 35A and bought the 35 IS, and will also be passing on the 50A in order to wait for the 50 IS. If the sharpness wide open and coma are good on the 24A I might actually get it like you say for star shots...


----------



## Lee Jay (Apr 23, 2014)

The order these f/1.4 primes would interest me is 35, 24, 85, and 50 would be last.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 23, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Unless he states that he does or does not, one cannot assume either way => i.e. we don't know.
> 
> Whether or not it was done should be mentioned for completeness.



I see. He also didn't state explicitly that the camera was securely clamped into the tripod head, nor did he state that the tripod was not set up on a sandy beach with the tide coming in, nor that his youngest child was not banging on one of the tripod legs with drumsticks during the test. 

Here's the thing…those bits of silliness above would have affected the results, but *whether or not AFMA was applied would not change the relative sharpness of the shots*, and therefore not change the conclusion.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Apr 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Unless he states that he does or does not, one cannot assume either way => i.e. we don't know.
> ...



Seriously? An appeal to what's relative? AFMA would have shifted the spectrum of focus variability, perhaps into a more accurate range. Pure and simple. Yes, it would not change the measure of focus variability itself (assuming all other things constant), but it would change focus accuracy and objective (not relative) sharpness. So, don't be juvenile and try to trivialize its mention. I would think you'd endorse disclosure of methodologies, but maybe your background isn't that rigorous.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Apr 24, 2014)

Just me, but I wish they were releasing a 28/1.4 ART. I have always preferred that focal length over all others.


----------



## pwp (Apr 24, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I'm not sure why people here are still calling for an AF improvement from Sigma....


If there were no issues, then conversations like this wouldn't exist. 

Most people really want to see Sigma totally bury their past reputation of extreme copy-inconsistency and stabilize to the point where their now optically brilliant lenses can be trusted to deliver. And they're doing this darn quickly. 

The way Sigma is currently progressing it probably won't take too long, but right now they're still not quite ready for high-demand commercial prime-time.

Shooting an expensive job/project for a client, you simply cannot risk using even mildly doubtful equipment whether that's a lens, a body, CF card, lighting equipment and even the car you drive to get there. A professional's reputation is only as good as their last job, you have to deliver 110% of the time or risk losing your business. It's cut-throat. So hurry up Sigma. I like where you're headed.

-pw


----------



## 100 (Apr 24, 2014)

Viggo said:


> It's no possible they leave that lens to chance. And they still gave him a non working lens, so does that give me high hopes for a retail lens? Nope..



Did you actually read the review? 

Bryan wrote things like: 
_With some inconsistency showing in tripod-based One Shot mode AF and with AF being only moderately fast, I was not expecting great performance from this lens in AI Servo AF mode. I was, however, pleasantly surprised that this lens delivered much better results than I expected. I spent a day at the track, capturing close to 1,000 photos of runners in action with the 1D X and 5D III behind the lens._

There is a lot of grey between black and white. 
There are inconsistencies, that’s a shame. We don’t get a percentage though. Sure, 4 out of 10 static shots shown in the review were out of focus, and that’s substantial but anyone who knows anything about statistical research knows that you need a lot more shots before you can draw any meaningful conclusions. 

I imagine Sigma has done a lot of testing themselves before handing out lenses to reviewers, but it’s always possible they missed something. Camera bodies get tested for light leaks and still the first 5D3’s had one. 
Maybe Sigma can iron out the inconsistencies Bryan discovered with a firmware update maybe not, time will tell.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Seriously? An appeal to what's relative? AFMA would have shifted the spectrum of focus variability, perhaps into a more accurate range. Pure and simple. Yes, it would not change focus variability (assuming all other things constant), but it would change focus accuracy and objective (not relative) sharpness. So, don't be juvenile and try and trivialize its mention. I would think you'd endorse disclosure of methodologies, but maybe your background isn't that rigorous.



Yes, seriously. Maybe in your world, AFMA stands for Auto-Freakin'-Magical-Adjustment...but in the real world, it's a systematic correction, and a systematic correction will not compensate for a random error. Maybe your background doesn't facilitate an understanding of those basic concepts. 

"Shift the spectrum of variability?" Yes, it would have shifted it..for better or worse. It _might_ change objective sharpness, it might not. If no adjustment was needed, or if it was already performed (as it most likely was), further adjustment would reduce objective sharpness. In no way would application of AFMA make the four OOF shots sharper while not also affecting the six equivalently sharp shots. If AFMA had been applied such that the most egregiously blurry shot (#3, IIRC) was sharp, you'd have nine OOF shots instead of four. 

The point is that the results show inconsistent AF. Pure and simple. 

As for your innuendo and aspersions, I'm curious...in which field is your advanced degree, and how many peer-reviewed scientific journal articles are listed on your CV?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2014)

dilbert said:


> There could also have been an earthquake (or minor tremors) rumbling through ...



;D 

Maybe. Being from California, I know what earthquakes feel like, and have been through several major ones. Bryan lives in Pennsylvania, where like New England, what gets reported on the evening news as an earthquake causes our house to shake less than our young kids running around upstairs...


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > There could also have been an earthquake (or minor tremors) rumbling through ...
> ...



I live in pa. It has been windy lately... And cold... so there might be a shiver factor.

Here's a dumb question... south this type of inconsistency... how do you afma the lens? Just find a mean, mode or median and pray.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 24, 2014)

Here's the thing, Neuro...I would call that 10 shot sample a REALLY shitty result for Sigma. Worse than many of their older lens' results. And you're buying that without questioning the validity of the test and data? I have lurked longer than I've posted, and frankly, I've come to expect more rigor from your responses. You've got a great academic take on things, and a lot of insight that the more casual Canon user doesn't have, so I'm a bit perplexed here. Please spare us the harping on precision vs accuracy. Clearly those of us carrying on the discussion have demonstrated that we are aware of the difference. I once wrote a defense white paper on the different test methods and protocols required to measure accuracy vs precision. I'm pretty read into the difference. I'm also well versed in the absolute test control and statistical requirements to actually assess levels of precision. I simply don't see that in this review or write up. It certainly wouldn't stand up to peer review of the test results. 

Therefore, I'm not satisfied that this is a valid result, let alone indicative of the general quality of the lens. I have followed TDP for a very long time and agree his reviews and methods are some of the most complete out there...the standard. Y which most are judged, as you note. But here and on other reviews, I think there is a need for much further disclosure of the exact configurations under test, including all camera settings. Clearly there is room for a lot of speculation on why he got this sequence of shots, and not all of it is to Sigma's detriment. Incomplete data can be worse than no data if errors are induced in the analysis.

If the Sigma proves to be a lemon, so be it. But I'm not hanging my hat on that appellation based on this review. Let's not get too sold on the strong TDP review brand that were blind to gaping holes in the data. Question everything. Over on my triathlon forums where we debate aerodynamics and friction to the same degree we here on the canon forum disect lenses, I have a friend who often states, "In god we trust. All others must bring data." I'm not a god guy, but I understand what he's getting at. 

Meanwhile, I'm curious to watch the development of more Art series lenses like the 24..


----------



## tron (Apr 24, 2014)

Now, for this lens o be useful even without being AF perfect it will have to be a superset of Samyang 24 1.4

1. NO Coma
2. No decentering issues.
3. Very good center wide open with good corners.

If the above are met then I would tolerate some minor AF inaccuracies and consider it a successful 24 1.4 lens.

If they are not met then it will face very strict competition form Canon's 24 1.4L II lens and only a really low price will make people prefer it.

P.S Did I mention NO COMA?


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 24, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> I have a friend who often states, "In god we trust. All others must bring data."



Love the line. I doubt I'll steal it because I require evidence from all deities as well.

And even the most well respected scientists have been wrong.

Watson and Crick got right what... what's his name for wrong... what is his Damn name? Christo de jesus!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> ...how do you afma the lens? Just find a mean, mode or median and pray.



The best way is how Reikan FoCal does it – take many shots of a test chart, varying the AFMA value applied, plot the sharpness (measured by image analysis) against AFMA value, fit a curve, and the peak of the curve is the optimal AFMA setting. (The details of the test setup are covered lots of places.) Before FoCal came along, I had done that with a MATLAB script, but it needed TIFs, had no GUI, etc. - FoCal is easier.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 24, 2014)

I think you guys are missing the big "A" on the side of these lenses... for ART! Perhaps the focus issues are for artistic effect!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> I would call that 10 shot sample...



10 shots shown. 

[quote author=TDP Review]
The first 5 and last 5 images from this particular test are presented below and are representative of the larger test group.
[/quote]

Regardless, the real issue is this is n=1 lens. Maybe this lens was the best copy Sigma had made, hand picked by the CEO for a prominent reviewer. Maybe it was a lens randomly selected by some workaday employee. Maybe it was hand picked as an act of revenge by some unfortunate employee as his last official act on the day he received termination notice. We don't know. 

Through many years and many reviews, Bryan has consistently demonstrated honesty and integrity (albeit with a bit of a 'rose-colored glasses' viewpoint). I trust that he did the testing accurately and well. If (best written IF) those results, and Lenstip's findings, turn out to be representative of production lenses, it'll be an issue. For now, it's anecdotal data, and should be considered as such.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 24, 2014)

SoI was afma'ing my 85 f1.8 and I noticed that the plane of focus didn't go in the direction I thought it would... but that wasn't all over the place like this suggests. 

All things considered, I do want consistency in my auto focus... I don't want to treat it like it is a manual focus lens, and I hope the test is flawed.

Simply not using a wired shutter release might make a difference... though that is grasping at straws.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 24, 2014)

The best we lay testers can do is automated testing using products like FoCal. The tool allows you to not only perform repeatable cycles of testing, but allows you to specify variables such as how the lens is de focused between shots. Multiple test runs, altering the variables can help pinpoint possible performance limitations or at least give you further insight into the character of your copy of a particular lens. Over time you can also compare results to note changes or anomalies in the performance that may indicate a need to travel back to the manufacturer for service. One of the key parameter settings for Focal is for mirror lock up, probably alleviating your need for a wired release to control vibrations. 

I have no experience yet with the LensCal product. Maybe someone has a comparison.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Regardless, the real issue is this is n=1 lens.



On this we are in 100% agreement.

Let me also be very clear that I'm not questioning his honesty or integrity. Rather, in my line of work, I don't accept anyone's work without seeing the data to back up the conclusions. Otherwise people get dead. Now we're not risking bodily injury here, even though these new 50s aren't our dad's old compact, lightweight primes. But we are talking about a serious knock on a new product that seems somewhat out of character with the current paradigm. If I were Sigma, and I was looking to build on my newly improving reputation, I would not let a lens anywhere near the street that was such a laggard in focus precision, especially on current flagship cameras of the big OEM players. Certainly I would not release it with the fanfare this lens is getting. I'd slap a Quantaray silkscreen on that puppy and let it die a death in kit lens hell. 

Me? I'm just thinking I'd love to dig in on the at sample shoot and do some root cause analysis. I guess that's the engineer and test geek in me, though.


----------



## jcleare (Apr 24, 2014)

Can't wait for a 24-70 2.8 art !


----------



## sanj (Apr 24, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> I think you guys are missing the big "A" on the side of these lenses... for ART! Perhaps the focus issues are for artistic effect!



Brilliant! Many believe that some Canon lenses are soft for artistic effect. I am so confused these days that I am adding Coke to my scotch. Milk into green tea.


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 24, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> Me? I'm just thinking I'd love to dig in on the at sample shoot and do some root cause analysis. I guess that's the engineer and test geek in me, though.


Sounds like you'd do a good job testing the AF thoroughly if you got the chance. Please share your findings if you do.


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 24, 2014)

tron said:


> Now, for this lens o be useful even without being AF perfect it will have to be a superset of Samyang 24 1.4
> 
> 1. NO Coma
> 2. No decentering issues.
> 3. Very good center wide open with good corners.


Judging from the image quality tool at TDP, the Samyang 35/1.4 seems optically quite the match to the Sigma 35/1.4A, with both better than the EF 35/1.4L. The Samyang 24/1.4 though looks quite a bit worse than the EF 24/1.4L II wide open (though COMA is hard to infer since not explicitly tested). This hopefully means that there is room for improvement for a future Sigma 24/1.4A over the corresponding Samyang. (and yes, the EF 24/1.4L II unfortunately has terrible coma as I know from first-hand experience)


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 24, 2014)

jcleare said:


> Can't wait for a 24-70 2.8 art !


Nope... but the rumored Sigma 24-70 f/2 is very intriguing.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 24, 2014)

I'll just wait until my copy arrives, and test myself. But I'll try it in store and if my results matches those Bryan had, I'm not buying it... Plain and simple. There are endless discussions over the Sigma AF, and when people refuses to realize there is an issue it's no point. If there are great or horrible results, I'll be sure to post my findings and dilbert won't believe them.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 24, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I'll just wait until my copy arrives, and test myself. But I'll try it in store and if my results matches those Bryan had, I'm not buying it... Plain and simple. There are endless discussions over the Sigma AF, and when people refuses to realize there is an issue it's no point. If there are great or horrible results, I'll be sure to post my findings and dilbert won't believe them.



I forget where I heard it (other than everywhere)... but once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a trend. It all boils down to sample size. Maybe Bryan did everything perfectly a just got a bad copy. Maybe the UPS guy played soccer with the box before it got to his front door. But if you and 14 others come to the same conclusion... then what we have here is a cheaper otus with AF usable only at f/4 or f/5.6... which REALLY makes the lens less desirable. 

And there is nothing wrong with questioning scientific fact (which this test would not be considered).


----------



## Viggo (Apr 24, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I'll just wait until my copy arrives, and test myself. But I'll try it in store and if my results matches those Bryan had, I'm not buying it... Plain and simple. There are endless discussions over the Sigma AF, and when people refuses to realize there is an issue it's no point. If there are great or horrible results, I'll be sure to post my findings and dilbert won't believe them.
> ...



Just to make it clear, I don't just guess on this, I simply added Bryan's test as a highly regarded datapoint in the long curve that is others experience with the 35 Art, including mine, and now the tests and reviews and previews I've seen regarding the 50 art, and it shows the same thing. Then there's the theory behind with Canon clearly not sharing anything with Sigma and it seems like it's not possible to make it work in the same way Canon lenses works with AF. That's the point. 

I want Sigma to have a winner here, and I wanted to own the 35 art and have the cheaper lens with better IQ, in the same way I think with the 50 art now. But the 35 I had followed every prediction that it couldn't work. And I suspect the same for the 50, but given how much I want a great 50 with AF , I'm giving the new one a chance. 

If the deal seems to good to be true, it probably is...


----------



## Viggo (Apr 24, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I'll just wait until my copy arrives, and test myself. But I'll try it in store and if my results matches those Bryan had, I'm not buying it... Plain and simple. There are endless discussions over the Sigma AF, and when people refuses to realize there is an issue it's no point. If there are great or horrible results, I'll be sure to post my findings and dilbert won't believe them.
> ...


Want me to write you a tutorial?

It's not very hard, I have the Spyder lens cal and a tripod, but I don't need the perfect value to determine if the lens gives me the same result for every shot, didn't you read Neuro's word in the same exact issue?

I used to work for the same shop I'm buying it in also, so I'm sure they have no problem with me taking it home and run through FoCal and test for a day. The 35 art showed it's flaws from the start, so I don't need a high end lab to see If it works.


----------



## Valvebounce (Apr 24, 2014)

Hi JD. 
I bet that's it, some fool in dispatch put a FRAGILE label on the box, couriers seem to put all the fragile items in a special location just handy for the office vs drivers kick about!  :

All this about AFMA, this is a global adjustment for the lens, so if you move the AFMA point 2 units to the front, you move ALL the future focus hits 2 points to the front, not just the misses. I guess it is possible that AFMA could improve the ability of the camera to resolve the focus points and reduce the miss rate, but it is _*most unlikely.*_
The most important thing here is the lens sample pool of 1, impossible to have a representative test on 1 item, hand picked or otherwise.
With respect to the idea of a hand picked lens, from reading Roger Cicala's blog at Lens Rentals I doubt most lens manufacturers could pick a best of the best given that they can't fix the lenses he sends back as poor quality! 

Cheers Graham.



jdramirez said:


> Maybe the UPS guy played soccer with the box before it got to his front door.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 24, 2014)

sanj said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > I think you guys are missing the big "A" on the side of these lenses... for ART! Perhaps the focus issues are for artistic effect!
> ...



Yes, well, your right, that's a situation that requires some redress, the Coke in the scotch I have no idea on, but I imagine it's similar to adding water to an excellent Red Wine, basically you need retraining, and lots of it would be my recommendation.

But the Milk in the Green Tea ?? Perhaps your too far gone Sanj, you may as well wallow happily in your confusion, especially when it comes to making sense out of some of these Posts, including I might add, this one.


----------



## tron (Apr 24, 2014)

epsiloneri said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Now, for this lens o be useful even without being AF perfect it will have to be a superset of Samyang 24 1.4
> ...


Coma is tested for the mentioned 24mm lenses. Some useful links:

http://www.extremeinstability.com/lens24mm.html

http://www.lenstip.com/245.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html

http://www.lenstip.com/330.7-Lens_review-Samyang_24_mm_f_1.4_ED_AS_UMC_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 24, 2014)

Viggo said:


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



Go for it Viggo and I hope your new 50' works out for you. I really wanted the 120-300 f2.8 OS to work out for me...and I was so bitterly disappointing by it. It was the last in a long line of failures from Sigma for me and at that point I said to myself "enough is enough and I have had it with this particular brand". I personally feel that Sigma need to employ less spin/promises and actually deliver what they promise.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 24, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


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



Spot on. The 50 Art is the last straw.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 24, 2014)

There sure are a lot of people on here who dislike the Sigma brand. There are a few who like it. Being a third party, it should be obvious that issues such as autofocus consistency, can only be so...consistent. Regarding the 50mm Art, I agree with others in this thread who want to see a larger test sample size, before conclusions can be drawn. I already know what the conclusion will be, though. The only conclusion that matters..."it's not a Canon." 

I have a feeling when the 24mm Art comes out, there will be a few who will despise it, no matter how good it is. For no other reason than it's a third party lens. Is that objective? I say, to each their own. Some use third party lenses, some don't. If you can make a third party lens work for you, so be it. If you can't, or don't wish to try, fine. Wide angle fast primes have more of a niche use than 50 and 85mm fast primes. I doubt it would be a big seller relative to the longer focal length fast primes.


----------



## Zv (Apr 24, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I'll just wait until my copy arrives, and test myself. But I'll try it in store and if my results matches those Bryan had, I'm not buying it... Plain and simple. There are endless discussions over the Sigma AF, and when people refuses to realize there is an issue it's no point. If there are great or horrible results, I'll be sure to post my findings and dilbert won't believe them.
> ...



I think he'll be looking for inconsistency in AF altogether rather than consistently missing by the same margin every time. 

AFMA can't solve your AF issues if the thing is all over the place.


----------



## KarstenReis (Apr 24, 2014)

Solar Eagle said:


> KarstenReis said:
> 
> 
> > How quickly "new" Sigma's reputation went downhill. The 35A was hailed a great lens and now a lot of forum members seem to be bashing the 50A before they get their hands on a copy. And now some are already saying that this will have poor autofocus performance. I am quite excited for this lens for night and astro as the Canon 24L has more coma than I would like for star shots.
> ...



Haha. I agree 100%.

I bought the 35A and absolutely love it. It worked pretty well for some star shots but I would like a little wider FOV. I was considering selling it when the 24A comes out but I think I may just keep it and purchase the 24A when it comes out if it is sharp wide open and the coma is good.


----------



## Radiating (Apr 24, 2014)

I've mentioned this a few times and I'll mention this again:

- I've purchased 12 copies of modern Sigma lenses (revised 85mm design, 35mm 1.4 & 18-35mm 1.8 ), and I have not had one single focusing issue with them ever. I've done the same thing for Canon's primes, and purchased multiple copies of each and kept the best one and have had several Canon lenses with focusing issues.

- Statistically Canon non-supertelephoto primes lenses have to be sent out for repair more often on average for focusing problems by Lens Rentals than any of Sigma's new lenses. Sigma without question has more reliable focusing systems than Canon. 

There are tons of threads everywhere about people with Canon lenses that won't focus properly, have developed erratic focusing, or have developed huge micro adjustments that cannot be corrected. Ignoring these issues while making negative comments about Sigma lenses that you have never owned is very backwards. Focusing is not a problem that only affects Sigma. It is annoying to constantly hear these arguments where people come up with reasons not to buy Sigma lenses that are even more severe in the lens they are buying as an alternative.

That's like someone thinking: "Man I sure hate car fires in Tesla's I'm going to make sure to buy that car marked "defective exploding pinto" at my local dealer"

The fact of the matter is that all manufacturers that make autofocusing lenses are releasing bad batches of lenses. Every time you buy a lens you are playing the lottery. I got 3 bad copies of the Canon 16-85mm in a row, that doesn't mean that there has never been a 16-85mm that was a good copy. Plenty of people have the 35mm Sigma, and plenty of people have reviewed the 50mm Sigma, yet only a small handful of people have problems with them. If these lenses really did have constant problems every review would say so. But no, top pros like the guys from f-stoppers have actually had better results from Sigma's new primes with focusing than Canon's primes. And they said that in their review.

If the majority of people are capable of getting Sigma lenses that have no issues whatsoever, then I bet that you can too.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 24, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



First of, what's it to you what I do? Second, why don't you stop assuming something and trolling?

I bought the 35 Art and I have had 3 copies of the 50 L, 4 copies of the ef 50 f1.4 because I love the 50mm. I was
Going to buy the Otus, but ended up taking them too long and I bought the 200 f2 instead. I also had the Zeiss 50 f2 mp and sold it because the MF isn't for me. And so the 50 Art is THE lens I have been wanting and looking for, so I'm one of it's biggest fans, I simply express my frustration over it being awesome and useless at the same time , like every other Sigma, even my 15mm fisheye from Sigma had AF issues. And I have already stated I will try the 50 and perhaps live with a lower hitrate because it's otherwise awesome, BUT to think it's remarkably better and a AF revolution over the 35 Art isn't likely. And initial testing seem to confirm my worries. Only one way to find out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2014)

dilbert said:


> How do you think that looks when viewed without your rose coloured glasses?



Better than looking through glasses smeared with feces. Just sayin'...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



I don't think yours were that way when you bought them. 

Personally, mine are neutral density with polarization - I like my light the same way I like my information: unbiased and orderly.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 24, 2014)

As much as I would like to see a pay per view fight between photogs, maybe we should step back and take a breath.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2014)

But CR is free!


----------



## Viggo (Apr 24, 2014)

I hold a bucket of popcorn with one hand and throw the other one around. Like the old saying "you don't get to have more fun than the fun you create yourself"


----------



## sdsr (Apr 24, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> As much as I would like to see a pay per view fight between photogs, maybe we should step back and take a breath.



Perhaps I'm missing something (I wouldn't be shocked if I were, as I'm not remotely as technologically savvy as many contributors here), but wouldn't this focusing inconsistency problem vanish if Canon and Nikon took mirrorless technology seriously and released some competitive mirrorless bodies? In the world of M43 and Sony e-mount (and presumably Fuji too), Sigma's remarkably inexpensive primes consistently receive very high praise (aside from some wishing they were faster than f/2.8) from reviewers and users and in the - hardly comprehensive, admittedly - reading I've done I've not encountered any complaints about focusing. (That's not to say mirrorless cameras never have focusing problems, but they seem to have nothing to do with the inconsistency problem being discussed here.)

Has anyone reading this attached a Canon-mount Sigma lens (preferably one which focused inconsistently on a Canon dslr) to an EOS M and experienced focusing inconsistency? I would expect the answer to be "no." Presumably someone will correct me if my expectation is false.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2014)

dilbert said:


> I see. I don't wear anything so that I see everything equally, just the way it is, without any filtering.



So, you see everything just the way it is? Apparently that doesn't include seeing the DIGISUPER 75 as a lens. Or maybe you see things clearly, but just don't understand what you're seeing... :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 24, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Perhaps I'm missing something (I wouldn't be shocked if I were, as I'm not remotely as technologically savvy as many contributors here), but wouldn't this focusing inconsistency problem vanish if Canon and Nikon took mirrorless technology seriously and released some competitive mirrorless bodies?



The need for AFMA would vanish. Contast detect AF has certainly been shown to have some inconsistencies, particularly the Canon 5DII and 7D.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 24, 2014)

Well this has turned out to be an interesting thread. 

Yikes you guys get spun up over things.


----------



## EchoLocation (Apr 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > It does not bother you a bit that (according to YOU) Canon has not updated 50mm for >20 years?
> ...


You sound like a broken record. We all know that Canon is the number one seller blah blah blah....
i'm assuming you consider McDonalds, Subway and Applebee's to be 3 of the best restaurants in America and Iron Man III to be the best movie of 2013? 
Profit is one indicator of success, but it is far from being the end all be all of it. While you might be happy with simply owning the system that sells the most, that is far from my main requirement for my camera system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 25, 2014)

EchoLocation said:


> You sound like a broken record.



And yet you seem to feel the need to respond, frequently. Get some earplugs, or a blindfold, or whatever. 



EchoLocation said:


> While you might be happy with simply owning the system that sells the most, that is far from my main requirement for my camera system.



I own the system that best meets my needs…that's my main requirement. The fact that Canon is the market leader indicates that a majority of photographers feel that Canon provides the system that best meets _their_ needs. Hopefully you own whatever system best meets your needs. Does it bother you if that system is not Canon, that you are in the minority? 

I understand that you apparently don't care about sales figures, or don't think they are relevant. From a personal/selfish standpoint, they aren't. But if someone is wondering why Canon hasn't felt the need to update a couple of lenses for >20 years, or is complaining about that fact, or wishing it wil change soon, the fact that those two lenses are among the most popular lenses is one very significant reason that Canon has not felt the need to update them. So whether sales figures matter to you or not, they matter to Canon, they drive the business decisions that Canon makes, and those decisions determine the products that Canon ultimately makes available to consumers. 

Oh, and guess what? Sales figures also impact the business decisions being made by whatever brand meets your camera system needs, too.

Forgot to add...I don't eat at any of those restaurants you mentioned. However, one of my favorite local restaurants went out of business a while back, and now there's an Applebee's in that location. Sales matter.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 25, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> As much as I would like to see a pay per view fight between photogs, maybe we should step back and take a breath.



This could give us a chance on testing AI servo speed and accuracy on our lenses/DSLRs. (﻿° ͜ʖ°)


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, and guess what? Sales figures also impact the business decisions being made by whatever brand meets your camera system needs, too.



I think you're flipping the pancake a bit.

Sales do matter in terms of determining the business decisions of a company. We however are the end users, not the company. To us it can be nice to know why they did this or that, but ultimately it is a very academic interest. Sales figures do not affect our experience once the product is in our hands and do not improve our output or our enjoyment. The first rule of statistics is that it never applies to individual cases.

In the end of the day, I don't really care whether Canon feels the need to update this or that. My money is supposed to be spent on fulfilling _my_ needs, not Canon's. If their products are good I buy them, otherwise I don't and it doesn't really matter if other people think they're good for them. If I have to choose, I'd rather be a quality minority than a trivial majority, yes.

That said, this point is a particularly moot one when it comes to OEM vs 3rd party offers. The reason why the Canon 50mm sells well is that it's Canon's offer in the 50mm range and it's affordable. The real quality of the product matters only to a little extent, since most buyers do not make a lot research ahead of purchasing. Buying a Canon lens for your Canon camera is a very trivial and uninteresting event; preferring a Sigma lens for your Canon camera is instead a choice with significant implications. 

Anyway this isn't even a criticism to the Canon system, since 3rd party offering are part of, and not against, the Canon system.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 25, 2014)

A 24 mm 1.4? And a possible 135mm f/1.8 IS? I never thought a day would arrive where I could switch completely to sigma primes.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Apr 25, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> A 24 mm 1.4? And a possible 135mm f/1.8 IS? I never thought a day would arrive where I could switch completely to sigma primes.



I think there are many of us thinking the same thing. These Sigma Art lenses are coming out at just the right time for me as I am slowly rebuilding my lens kit.

A fast 135mm Art quality lens will be very interesting.

I don't know if I will ever go all Sigma, but so far I have been happy with my new Sigma primes.

Competition will be a good thing for the customer. Canikon better start gettin' busy.


----------



## roguewave (Apr 25, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and guess what? Sales figures also impact the business decisions being made by whatever brand meets your camera system needs, too.
> ...



Absolutely. The explanation that Canon does not update their lenses for > 20 years because the market lets them get away with it is logically correct, but not particularly satisfying for those end users, whose needs aren't completely met.

It's like your kid saying the reason he hasn't been doing his homework is because he can get away with it by copying his friend's solution... a valid explanation, but probably not one you want to hear.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 25, 2014)

roguewave said:


> Absolutely. The explanation that Canon does not update their lenses for > 20 years because the market lets them get away with it is logically correct, but not particularly satisfying for those end users, whose needs aren't completely met.
> 
> It's like your kid saying the reason he hasn't been doing his homework is because he can get away with it by copying his friend's solution... a valid explanation, but probably not one you want to hear.



Your analogy makes it sound like you'd prefer to not hear the truth. The truth in the case of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses is that, "_those end users, whose needs aren't completely met,_" represent the minority of buyers (at least, who's needs are met sufficiently to result in a purchase). Keep in mind that *affordable* is a big need for many buyers. 

If you don't like what Canon, or any vendor, offers...don't buy. That's what I do. Where I take issue is when people suggest that Canon _must_ do this or that to remain competitive, just because that individual's needs aren't being met. To suggest that Canon needs to update their 50mm lenses to compete with the Sigma 50/1.4 A is illogical. Of the Canon lenses, one is ~1/2-stop faster with weather sealing and a renowned bokeh (and frankly is a niche lens anyway) and the other two are 1/2 and 1/8 the cost of the Sigma, and will easily outsell it.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 25, 2014)

roguewave said:


> The explanation that Canon does not update their lenses for > 20 years because the market lets them get away with it is logically correct, but not particularly satisfying for those end users, whose needs aren't completely met.



It's presumably true that anyone who wants to buy Brand X's products is disappointed if Brand X doesn't have a model that does what s/he wants, but it's a fairly trivial observation, isn't it? 

A year or two back Roger Cicala at lensrentals compared a raft of fast 50mm lenses and most respects (that he tested, at least), the old Canon 50mm 1.4 did at least as well as any other, perhaps better (I forget all the details), regardless of price. I may be wrong, but I don't think it's possible to buy a current-production 50mm 1.4 AF lens for as little the price of the Canon 1.4 ($400 new, assuming no discount) that's better, regardless of who makes it. If Canon upgraded it, it doesn't seem unlikely that the price would double, and Canon's most recent prime upgrades (24 IS 28 IS and 35 IS) were not only much more expensive than their predecessors but not terribly fast anyway (2.8, 2.8 and 2 respectively). Chances that Canon would release a new 50mm 1.4 for $400 which meets the needs of picky consumers rather than those who buy most of Canon's lenses seem pretty remote. 

And if Canon can't meet your needs, assuming the reported AF inconsistencies with the new Sigma are exaggerated, and assuming you don't mind paying $900 for it, you can just buy the Sigma and still use it on your Canon bodies. Or you could do something a little different and, say, supplement your Canon gear with a Sony A7r + 55mm 1.8 (which costs the same as the Sigma), like I recently did, and get image quality that I suspect is better than the Sigma will give you on any current Canon body (provided you don't mind the limitations of the Sony body).

So I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about - unless it's annoyance that the home team (Canon) doesn't have all the best players. If other companies made recently upgraded 50mm 1.4 lenses that out-performed the Canon while costing the same, this general complaint would make more sense. But I don't think they do.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 25, 2014)

Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close. They could get away with that before, since there was no real competition. Sigma and Tamron have not been taken too seriously by most enthusiasts/professionals for their inconsistencies in build quality, autofocus or whatever. This information would filter down to the average consumer, causing them to stick with OEM products unless budget restraints were critical. If this current rise in quality is sustained and not just a momentary aberration, this too will become well known and no company will be able to rest on their laurels. This is of coarse good for all consumers. The fact that Sigma is not just meeting, but improving over the OEM brands for significantly less money is amazing. For now, it is just in their high end models. I wonder if Sigma will be able to compete in the lower end of the market as well. That will really make Nikon and Canon take notice.

To steal a line from a previously mentioned "restaurant",_ I'm lovin' it!_


----------



## sanj (Apr 26, 2014)

brad-man said:


> Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close. They could get away with that before, since there was no real competition. Sigma and Tamron have not been taken too seriously by most enthusiasts/professionals for their inconsistencies in build quality, autofocus or whatever. This information would filter down to the average consumer, causing them to stick with OEM products unless budget restraints were critical. If this current rise in quality is sustained and not just a momentary aberration, this too will become well known and no company will be able to rest on their laurels. This is of coarse good for all consumers. The fact that Sigma is not just meeting, but improving over the OEM brands for significantly less money is amazing. For now, it is just in their high end models. I wonder if Sigma will be able to compete in the lower end of the market as well. That will really make Nikon and Canon take notice.
> 
> To steal a line from a previously mentioned "restaurant",_ I'm lovin' it!_



Me too!! Lovin' it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 26, 2014)

brad-man said:


> Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close. They could get away with that before, since there was no real competition. Sigma and Tamron have not been taken too seriously by most enthusiasts/professionals for their inconsistencies in build quality, autofocus or whatever. This information would filter down to the average consumer, causing them to stick with OEM products unless budget restraints were critical. If this current rise in quality is sustained and not just a momentary aberration, this too will become well known and no company will be able to rest on their laurels. This is of coarse good for all consumers. The fact that Sigma is not just meeting, but improving over the OEM brands for significantly less money is amazing. For now, it is just in their high end models. I wonder if Sigma will be able to compete in the lower end of the market as well. That will really make Nikon and Canon take notice.
> 
> To steal a line from a previously mentioned "restaurant",_ I'm lovin' it!_



I think you fundamentally don't get Canon's position. They are a multi billion dollar international corporation and are not overly interested in selling tens of thousands of lenses, they are into selling millions of cameras. Now the P&S cash cow is drying up they are repositioning into the C line, which is probably the only thing keeping any R&D going for us high end body stills shooters, and surveillance cameras hence the ultra low light sensor video R&D etc. They don't see Sigma or Tamron as competition because they aren't, they are comparatively small companies that sell limited quantities of niche products that you need a Canon (or Nikon) product to use, just like ThinkTank, or Adobe.


----------



## sanj (Apr 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close. They could get away with that before, since there was no real competition. Sigma and Tamron have not been taken too seriously by most enthusiasts/professionals for their inconsistencies in build quality, autofocus or whatever. This information would filter down to the average consumer, causing them to stick with OEM products unless budget restraints were critical. If this current rise in quality is sustained and not just a momentary aberration, this too will become well known and no company will be able to rest on their laurels. This is of coarse good for all consumers. The fact that Sigma is not just meeting, but improving over the OEM brands for significantly less money is amazing. For now, it is just in their high end models. I wonder if Sigma will be able to compete in the lower end of the market as well. That will really make Nikon and Canon take notice.
> ...



Where could I read more to get a better idea about Canon's fundamental position please?


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 26, 2014)

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but if Sigma are able to give a 24 mm focal length the edge of frame resolution at 1.4-2 that they have achieved in the 35 + 50 Art line ( much more difficult at 24mm I know), then it would actually be a more significant lens to a much larger audience because as the 24mm has a much greater dof, it would be practical to use it at say 2.8 to achieve adequate dof in low light, allowing landscape shooting at lower ISO's and faster shutter speeds in low light, with little vignette.

I think if this was the case we would see a response from Canon in a 24/1.4 III


----------



## docsmith (Apr 26, 2014)

Count me in the crowd that is simply happy that Sigma is providing a quality alternative. I never thought I'd own a Sigma lens but recently bought the 35A. I am one of the people that feels the AF is a bit off, but there is no doubting its optics and I am still getting to know it as a lens and do like it. Primes are niche lenses for me, but I would likely buy the 24A in a heartbeat if it's optics check out, especially corner sharpness and coma. As a consumer, it is very nice to have quality alternatives. 

While I would love to see additional lens released from Canon and, frankly, find it a bit puzzling what they have and haven't released in 2013 and so far in 2014, I can't bring myself to criticize a company, to the extent some here have, that has produced a wide array of lenses that have been used to produced some of the world's best photographs for decades. And by wide array, I just counted the following off of Canon USA's website:

51 EF lenses
12 EF-S lenses
2 EF-M lenses (3 if you count the EF-M 11-22)
4 TS-E lenses
2 TC extenders
1 MPE lens

So, Sigma has now released 3-4 "Art" lenses that compete well against specific Canon lenses. It's nice for us consumers to have alternatives, I am sure Canon is aware of what Sigma has done, but I seriously doubt it represents much of an impact to Canon's thinking even in regards to their lens lineup, much less their overall corporate strategy.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 26, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close. They could get away with that before, since there was no real competition. Sigma and Tamron have not been taken too seriously by most enthusiasts/professionals for their inconsistencies in build quality, autofocus or whatever. This information would filter down to the average consumer, causing them to stick with OEM products unless budget restraints were critical. If this current rise in quality is sustained and not just a momentary aberration, this too will become well known and no company will be able to rest on their laurels. This is of coarse good for all consumers. The fact that Sigma is not just meeting, but improving over the OEM brands for significantly less money is amazing. For now, it is just in their high end models. I wonder if Sigma will be able to compete in the lower end of the market as well. That will really make Nikon and Canon take notice.
> ...



I think, fundamentally, that Canon's position is to turn a profit. The fact that Canon Inc is a more diversified company that doesn't derive all it's income from cameras and lenses is irrelevant. While I will certainly agree that it's unlikely that the board of directors are sweating bullets and pulling all-nighters over the rise of Sigma and Tamron, I can assure you that they, or at least their subordinates, look at market share in all divisions with great interest. My point was that if Tamron and Sigma, which most certainly are competitors to Canon, continue to develop high quality lenses at much more reasonable prices, then their market share will certainly increase as word gets out. So far, Sigma is only seriously competing at the higher end of the market and so it could be argued that they are in more direct competition with Zeiss (doesn't that sound funny?) than with Canon. But as Sigma's reputation improves, then its products will become more than just niche lenses and lower cost alternatives for the financially impaired.
Next week we shall discuss sensor development (and profits there from) vis a vie Canon vs Sony


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



Sanj, your comment is, I hope, tongue in cheek, just look at the release of the 7D successor, or if we want to keep the ideas to strictly lenses the 100-400, 35 f1.4L, 400 f5.6, 50 f1.4, a high quality ultra wide zoom, or even a decent sub 16mm prime. 

To see how much pressure Canon feels from third party lens makers just look at where the money on lens R&D has gone, specialised high value lenses that set a standard for a system, the 200-400 f4 1.4TC, the 17mm TS-E, the MkII super teles, or for more modest uses, $500+ f2-2.8 moderate wide primes with IS, 24mm f2.8IS, 28mm f2.8IS 35mm f2IS. How much would you bet that the 45mm TS-E and 90mm TS-E lenses will take up the next significant lens releases? Canon are broadening the appeal of their bodies by pushing the envelop of specialised lens designs, they don't seem too interested, or in a hurry, to make competing lenses with the Sigma Art series.

You can make or agree with hyperbolic comments like _"Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close."_ or you can look at the ample evidence that it is not. Don't forget for one second Canon knows to the exact number the market for the 24mm f1.4 premium lens at the price point they are prepared to sell them at. Nowadays it seems the one who shouts loudest or wishes the most gets the most followers, that doesn't make what they are shouting accurate.


----------



## candyman (Apr 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...




You can start here: http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2013/report2013.pdf
No?
Page 15: *2014 Initiatives*


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 28, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> You can make or agree with hyperbolic comments like _"Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close."_ or you can look at the ample evidence that it is not. Don't forget for one second Canon knows to the exact number the market for the 24mm f1.4 premium lens at the price point they are prepared to sell them at. Nowadays it seems the one who shouts loudest or wishes the most gets the most followers, that doesn't make what they are shouting accurate.



I think you are neglecting one important point.

Canon has a multilayer interest in producing lenses. First of all they produce a revenue on their own, otherwise they wouldn't design, manufacture and sell them. Differently from kit lenses and consumer cameras, the target market of expensive lenses is more opinionated and sensitive to quality. The moment you offer them better quality at a lower price, you make them interested. More and more as time goes by and both Sigma and Tamron become established as quality manufacturers.

Second, many people are with Canon because of the lenses and their reputation to be the best. The moment this changes, a big reason for having a Canon system is gone - especially if you take into account that other manufacturers offer better sensors too. So the availability of quality lenses and cameras in different mounts is eventually going to affect camera sales too. Case in point, the latest market share data for Japan showed that Canon is still the market leader but _did_ lose some share. Sigma btw has a quite considerable share of the lens market. 

So as someone stated before, Canon executives are not likely to start pulling their hair already, but at the same time I do agree that the Canon/Nikon duopoly is over and that both companies should really rethink their strategy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You can make or agree with hyperbolic comments like _"Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close."_ or you can look at the ample evidence that it is not. Don't forget for one second Canon knows to the exact number the market for the 24mm f1.4 premium lens at the price point they are prepared to sell them at. Nowadays it seems the one who shouts loudest or wishes the most gets the most followers, that doesn't make what they are shouting accurate.
> ...



Considering the ratio of lenses to bodies sold, it is evident that the vast majority of buyers have only the lens that came with the camera. Bearing in mind that some kits include two lenses, and the Nifty-50 is the most popular lens sold on it's own, it is safe to say that the vast majority of the market is driven by the entry-level segment and in particular by camera bodies (feel free to argue that Sigma makes bodies too, we could use a good chuckle). While higher end lenses will remain a mainstay in Canon's lineup, a relatively small number of good quality third-party lenses is not going to have a major impact on Canon's (or Nikon's) bottom line.

Sigma's recent foray into the design and production of higher quality 'Global Vision' lenses is a major departure from their previous strategy. That suggests they decided they were not successful at competing with Canon/Nikon at the entry level end of the market, and have decided to try competing in a much smaller segment of the market. How successful they are this time remains to be seen, but the fact that the AF bugaboo is still rearing its ugly head for them suggests the road ahead may be bumpy.

Would you mind sharing the source for the recent market data to which you refer?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 28, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You can make or agree with hyperbolic comments like _"Well, the days of Canon/Nikon taking their own sweet time to update lenses is likely drawing to a close."_ or you can look at the ample evidence that it is not. Don't forget for one second Canon knows to the exact number the market for the 24mm f1.4 premium lens at the price point they are prepared to sell them at. Nowadays it seems the one who shouts loudest or wishes the most gets the most followers, that doesn't make what they are shouting accurate.
> ...



Firstly, that was two points, not one.

To address your first, if Canon already make a premium 24/35/50 it becomes a consumer choice, but the high end appeal for many Canon system owners is the unmatched diversity in the EF lens range, things like the 17 and 24 TS-E, the 65 MP-E etc. Now what would attract more people to Canon, yet another 24mm option or a kick ass 45 TS-E? My opinion is the 45 TS-E, we already have a choice of 24's so nobody is going to leave because there isn't one, but people might come for the new lenses that offer ever greater diversity, using that reasoning it makes more sense for Canon to ignore Sigma's latest offerings, until they want to break the communication protocols again and send this second generation of Sigma EF worshipers into the depths of despair the first generation did, and concentrate on completely different lens designs like TS-E's, small medium speed primes with IS, video orientated AF etc.

As for your second, what is the point of a lens without a body? The reputation is not for a lens, it is for the images the system can create, if they keep coming out with class leading bodies, like the 1Dx vs D4s, the 5D MkIII vs the D800 and the 6D vs the D600 (which has been banned from sale in China!) then minor differences in lens output will remain irrelevant. Things like the RT flash system will win far more new Canon converts than a few lppmm on a test chart of a new version of a lens.

But we digress, for Canon stills shooters the writing is on the wall, video and surveillance are the new darlings and progressively less and less will be spent on R&D for purely stills orientated equipment. Canon are making brand new groundbreaking world class lenses at comparative bargain prices, it is just that we are not the market for them. I have exactly the same feeling for stills orientated shooters as I had for the development of film cameras when I bought my two 1VHS's. The only recent key stills only orientated development was the RT flash system, and it is a winner against a sea of copies, clones and competing third party options.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 30, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Sir, am I correct in jumping to the conclusion, that...based on your assertion, I should not buy a woman flowers if she shouts louder than I do? It almost makes sense...



Carl,

It is fairly clear nobody will stop you jumping to conclusions, and all power to you for your enthusiasm and gusto. As for your choice in women, it has been my experience that only relatively inexperienced men think they are the ones that actually make the choice.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 28, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> Sigma is planning to announce a 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art series lens at Photokina with availability coming in October of 2014.
> 
> There has been no word on the possible 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art or 135mm f/1.8DG HSM Art lenses. I think both the 85 and 135 would be more highly desired than a 24mm prime, though if it’s as good as the 35mm or 50mm, we’ll take it anyway.



I didn't pay attention to this announcement in April, but recently I bought a second hand Canon 24mm f/2.8 to get a taste for 24mm primes, and... fell in love with it. And now I want more!

So I checked out the image quality charts on The Digital Picture.com, but there seems to be little improvement in MTF, going from the Canon f/2.8 to the f/2.8 IS model, see: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=246&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=788&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 

I agree that handling, AF and IS would be improvements, but not enough to justify the added cost. And for my porposes the 24mm L II is too expensive, for such a specialty lens. 

So again I feel I'm in need of a lens that doesn't exist, but may be imminent. So please let it be. Here's me hoping for the 24mm Art to be announced at Photokina in September!!! 

In the mean time I think I may sell my 20mm f/1.8 - that focal length is quite close to 24mm and in my experience I don't use the lens all that much because it's too limiting (too wide) for reportage work. I often shoot with a combination of a wide prime (24 or 35mm) on my 5DMkII and a tele-zoom on the MkIII.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 5, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I didn't pay attention to this announcement in April, but recently I bought a second hand Canon 24mm f/2.8 to get a taste for 24mm primes, and... fell in love with it. And now I want more!


Congrats and welcome to the 24mm fan club  It's my favorite which might explain the four lenses I own that cover this focal length which could be just a bit excessive...


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't pay attention to this announcement in April, but recently I bought a second hand Canon 24mm f/2.8 to get a taste for 24mm primes, and... fell in love with it. And now I want more!
> ...



Not to be a dissenter... but 24mm hasn't appealed to me at all. Mind you, I've only shot at f4... so maybe at wider aperture it looks better... when I do use 24, I think... probably could go wider... I can't imagine having a prime lenses at 24... and I'm saying this with all due respect...


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 5, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...


JD, I completely understand, we all have our own tastes when it comes to focal length. I have the same feeling 'could go wider' when I use 35mm and have never loved it, even though it's a classic FL for many people. For me, I feel that 24mm is the widest you can go without unrealistic perspective distortion and I like the challenge of composing this wide. The 24 primes I own (24L II & TS-E 24 II) are the two I use most for landscape and street/editorial type work. 

I'm not sure if you ever saw this thread, but I discuss this a bit more there:
Which Normal to Wide Angle Focal Length Matches Your Vision?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


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



The way to use a 24mm is to get up close to the subject. I agree that 24mm is the widest you can go and still have relatively realistic distortion. While 24mm is not for everything, I've found that it's great for paddock photo's at the racetrack for instance. The 24mm really adds wide-angle drama without going to extremes. When you cannot or don't want to get up too close, 35mm is the better alternative.

And FWIW I never thought about the 24mm focal length much until I decided to buy a prime - that changes the game(and understanding of the focal length) entirely because in a zoom, 24mm is probably the widest you can go and in that case, yes usually the thought is 'I probably could go wider'.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Aug 5, 2014)

Personally, I would be first in line for a *28*/1.4.


----------



## tron (Aug 5, 2014)

And I would love a f/1.4 lens wider than 24mm with very good edges/corners and no coma (for obvious reasons  )


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 12, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...


I agree i find it a ho hum focal length not wide enough or not tight enough
I really like 20mm though its a really nice wide focal length


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 12, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> Personally, I would be first in line for a *28*/1.4.



+1

It seems strange to me how the 28mm focal length has been replaced by the 24. Back in the 'old days' a 24 was around twice as expensive as the equivalent 28, now they are much the same. I wonder if this is why there is a perception that the 24 is the 'must have' focal length. 

I find 28 to be the more versatile focal length of the two; quite wide fov, but not too extreme.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 12, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> I agree i find it a ho hum focal length not wide enough or not tight enough
> I really like 20mm though its a really nice wide focal length



Is that opinion based on full frame use or aps-h?


----------



## beckstoy (Aug 12, 2014)

I need to say this, with Peace & Love:

Please, Sigma, I need your 85 1.4 Art. The 24 prime is useless to me. Peace & Love, Peace & Love! The 85 needs to be your next lens.

If you send us a 24, it will be tossed. I'm saying this with Peace & Love.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 12, 2014)

beckstoy said:


> If you send us a 24, it will be tossed. I'm saying this with Peace & Love.


Plenty of people will there to catch it and they'll be diving for it like a spinster bridesmaid at a Valentine's Day wedding.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 12, 2014)

beckstoy said:


> I need to say this, with Peace & Love:
> 
> Please, Sigma, I need your 85 1.4 Art. The 24 prime is useless to me. Peace & Love, Peace & Love! The 85 needs to be your next lens.
> 
> If you send us a 24, it will be tossed. I'm saying this with Peace & Love.



I've flirted with the 85L mkii so many times... but it is like a case of star crossed lovers... it is just not meant to be. I think the 85L could be sharper, but the bokeh is undeniably magic. 

With the 50mm range... I'd be ok with swapping sides and go with sigma... but with the 85... you need to bring something special to the table.


----------



## Pixel (Aug 12, 2014)

I'm anxiously waiting for a Sigma Art super wide i.e. 15mm 2.8 rectilinear.


----------



## kkelis (Aug 12, 2014)

Any guessing about the pricing? Considering sigma's latest primes


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 12, 2014)

kkelis said:


> Any guessing about the pricing? Considering sigma's latest primes



It appears sigma didn't want to eclipse the $1000 mark with their primes... so I'd guess 949.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 13, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I agree i find it a ho hum focal length not wide enough or not tight enough
> ...


full frame

i loved the 16-35 on apsh it gave 20-48mm effective focal length which was a really nice walk around IMO


----------



## lo lite (Aug 13, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> I agree i find it a ho hum focal length not wide enough or not tight enough
> I really like 20mm though its a really nice wide focal length



I second that. I really love my CZJ Flektogon 20/2.8 although I miss autofocus. A 24mm f/1.4 is already made by Canon so I don't see the need for Sigma to do this too. I'd rather had a 20mm f/1.4 with a close focusing distance of 19mm like the Flek. And yeah, I know there's the 20mm F1.8 EX DG by Sigma but that lens is dated, it has no hypersonic AF (HSM).


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 13, 2014)

lo lite said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I agree i find it a ho hum focal length not wide enough or not tight enough
> ...



Sigma made a 35mm f/1.4 that beats the Canon 35mm f/1.4 on many fronts, including price and it has been a big seller so I suspect Sigma will see a makrket for a 24mm.

I agree the 20mm is dated but honestly its AF is plenty fast for a wide angle prime. It does have a weird dual clutch system which is a poor mechanical workaround to engage or disengage the focus ring vs AF or MF. It is not a big issue for me, but it is possible to set the lens in MF mode and have the focus ring disengaged as well.


----------

