# Sigma 50mm 1.4 AF issues question



## Dave_NYC (Apr 26, 2013)

So I'm in the market for a 50mm 1.4 (I cannot justify the additional cost of the 1.2L for what I'm doing, no matter how much I'd love to get it) after running into AF issues with a Canon 50mm 1.4. I have previously tried a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and LOVED how sharp it was at 1.4 - 2 (primarily where I would use it), but had major issues with a shifting depth of field and AF issues.

As I mentioned though, I loved the IQ on the Sigma. But I am wondering what the ratio of this lens having AF issues is, and for those who owned one and had AF issues: whether sending it in to Sigma definitively fixed the AF issues for the body you were using.

So two questions really, for those who own one of these:
If you own one, did you have AF issues out of the box?
If you did have AF issues, did sending it into Sigma fix it?


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 26, 2013)

The sigma 50mm AF is in-consistant. It will lock fine on one shot then the next shot it's completely erratic. Atleast the 50L is predictable in its behavior, but his sigma needs to be revamped to the art series.


----------



## rs (Apr 27, 2013)

I got mine replaced by the retailer as image first copy was front focusing by a huge margin. The second copy nails focus every time - and I have used it on four different bodies, all with equal levels of success.


----------



## yogi (Apr 27, 2013)

I have it, but havent used it much so far(never enough time). I must have gotten a good copy because the focus works fine for me. Would like the Canon 1.2L, but already have the Sigma 1.4 & Zeiss 1.4. Maybe one day for the 1.2L, but how many 50mm's do you need? Still....


----------



## deleteme (Apr 28, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The sigma 50mm AF is in-consistant. It will lock fine on one shot then the next shot it's completely erratic. Atleast the 50L is predictable in its behavior, but his sigma needs to be revamped to the art series.



I am wondering why this is so? I was led to believe that the lens was controlled by the AF module in the camera where there was an iterative process that ceased when focus was achieved. 
Or is it a matter of calculation about the amount OOF and then a signal sent to the lens to move to a predetermined position? If so why do they hunt?

At any rate my Sigma 50 was a pile of stinking manure when it arrived. I sent it to Sigma who repaired it noting that an element was loose (!!???!!). It is now razor sharp but can skunk me on focus every once in a while.
OTOH I went through 3 Canon 50 f1.4s that all exhibited AF issues on all my bodies. I am wondering if the focal length is cursed.


----------



## yogi (Apr 28, 2013)

Maybe it is a quality control issue for the Sigma. Mine focused fine right out of the box, but i wonder how long it will last. The 50's must be cursed! I still cant get my Zeiss to autofocus.


----------



## pwp (Apr 28, 2013)

Good choice on the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4.

I regret selling a perfectly good Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 and replacing it with a bigger, heavier Sigma 50mm f/1.4. When the Sigma nailed focus, it was fabulous. But it was so inconsistent that it couldn't be trusted for commercial work, or any type of work for that matter. 

This focal length is now handled by the stellar 24-70 f/2.8II which for me has rendered all primes in this range obsolete.

-PW


----------



## infared (Apr 28, 2013)

I own one. Have had it for about two years. I have used it on a Canon 5D Mark II & III. It focuses just fine. I had read all of the mixed reviews etc. so I really checked the focusing when I first received the lens. I used a tripod etc. and checked it out very carefully... if it had issues I was prepared to just return it to B&H. I like the lens a lot...but I know that others have had a lot of trouble with the lens.
It's interesting what Roger has to say at Lens Rental:
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/sigma-50mm-f1.4-dg-hsm-for-canon


----------



## sdsr (Apr 28, 2013)

I'm hoping that Sigma will redo their 50mm 1.4 and make it as good as the 35mm 1.4; that should solve the issue for good. I have the Canon 1.4 but am not wild about it, and even though I had read endless complaints about the Sigma I thought I would buy one on the off-chance I received a good copy. The copy I received was atrocious - nothing was remotely sharp at any aperture, not the subject nor anything in front of or behind it. Rather than commence a tiresome replacement hunt, I returned it for a refund and decided to wait for something better. (Meanwhile I may try the Panasonic/Leica 25mm 1.4 for my Olympus OM-D instead....)


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 30, 2013)

pwp said:


> Good choice on the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4.
> 
> I regret selling a perfectly good Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 and replacing it with a bigger, heavier Sigma 50mm f/1.4. When the Sigma nailed focus, it was fabulous. But it was so inconsistent that it couldn't be trusted for commercial work, or any type of work for that matter.
> 
> ...



i've got both and to be honest i'm not super impressed with either (not in the same league as the sigma 85 or the new 35) my wife still likes the canon 1.4 i should sell the sigma i give this lens an OK but i cant rave about it like i can about the 85 and the 35.

i'm waiting patiently to see what simga do with a 24-70 if it gets OS I personally dont use that zoom but its my wifes favourite (version 1) however the weight becomes a drag on long shoots for her and IS would help alot
so if sigma do something good here it will be awesome otherwise it'll be the v2 for her.

i would be interested to see a comparison of the 24-70 v2 @35mm vs the sigma 35


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 30, 2013)

Dave_NYC said:


> So I'm in the market for a 50mm 1.4 (I cannot justify the additional cost of the 1.2L for what I'm doing, no matter how much I'd love to get it) after running into AF issues with a Canon 50mm 1.4. I have previously tried a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and LOVED how sharp it was at 1.4 - 2 (primarily where I would use it), but had major issues with a shifting depth of field and AF issues.
> 
> As I mentioned though, I loved the IQ on the Sigma. But I am wondering what the ratio of this lens having AF issues is, and for those who owned one and had AF issues: whether sending it in to Sigma definitively fixed the AF issues for the body you were using.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't buy anything from Sigma at this point except for those lenses already in the A/C/S lineup.


----------



## rpiotr01 (Apr 30, 2013)

I have one and rarely use it because of AF issues. Sometimes front, sometimes back, never predictable. I'd use it as a MF lens but the MF ring is a little stiff, not fluid enough. I read a theory that it's a mechanical piece inside the lens that isn't seated properly, so that when the camera thinks AF is confirmed, the piece in the lens that controls focus isn't moving exactly where it's supposed to. The issue is a Sigma QC issue, as their tolerances in build are too large.

Obviously this isn't a professional opinion, and obviously I have no technical experience with this sort of thing based on the fairly pathetic description above, but it makes common sense to me. Sadly we're starting to see the same issue pop up in reports about the 35 1.4, which has seriously put me off buying it.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jun 4, 2013)

Autofocus performance is in general a mysterious and frustrating topic. I have had a Sigma 50mm F/1.4 for around 3-4 years. I got it to use on my 5D classic, but it front focussed enough to be annoying and there is no micro-adjust on that body. (Canon calibrated the body for me shortly after I bought it used.) I managed to get some use out of it for portraits by focusing on the subjects ear, then the eyes would be sharp! :

When I got my 5D III last Fall, the Sigma worked great with it, needing very little MFA. I use it a lot now for full body portraits at about F/2.0 to F2.8 to get just the right background blur. Sorry I don't have any acceptable images to post right now, most of my work is not appropriate for this site.


----------

