Before getting this i looked at the Canon 1.4 and 1.2 and found the
sigma to be the best in terms of quality and price. My first copy of this lens had the sporadic focus issue at different distances. Despite those early setbacks i exchanged the lens for another and what a lens its turned out to be.
I finally got a chance to really shoot with it at a concert Two weeks ago.
I used the 1D Mark III (fresh from canon with their latest FW and fix).
Below are some sample. Only processing was a slight WB correction, a little sharpening and Luminance noise reduction. The colored lighting made white balance a challenge and i wasn't sure how the low light AF would work.
I had almost100% keeper rate. I took shots between f1.4 - 2.0 and ISO 3200 and 6400. The sharpness and low-light focus capabilities were spot on.
In short, this is a great lens (with a +6 AF micro adjustment of my 1d/d1s +6)
Seems to be front-focusing a tad. I don't think these are extraordinarily awesome examples of the capabilities of the lens. I wish I could jump on the Sigma, but after too many go-rounds with their lenses and persistent reports of focusing problems with the 50, I just can't do it.
I loved my Siggy for the one hour that I owned it before the focus ring developed a nasty squeak. Not to mention the intermittent front focusing. And the crazy halation. Sigma admitted there were serious problems but I'd lost confidence by then. Shame too - I really wanted to like this lens... YMMV of course.
Front focus? The three i tested in the shop all back focused about 2 feet (at subject distances over 15 feet). Shame too as i really wanted to buy one.
My first copy had a serious front focusing issue, I sent it back. The second is great, very sharp (can be used at f/1.4, which is not the case of my Canon 50/1.4), with awesome bokeh. A great lens IMHO. I am selling my Canon.
Some 100%-crop focus tests shooting down a wall using a 1Ds2 and tripod.
At 25 feet (red arrow pointing at focus target), slightly more area in focus behind the target than in front but it's probably designed that way for portraits: http://www.phototurbo.com/temp/50sigma25ft.jpg
Focus seems right on the money! Definitely need your focus target to stand out against the background though, initially I put the target on a cinder block seam and the AF picked up the seam instead of the target.
Note the purple fringing before focus plane and green after, to be expected I suppose with CA of about 1/3 pixel wide-open. Very nice lens though, well-built and solid, good match for the 1Ds2.
I believe the design has issues, and they appear to be ongoing. As happy as I am for you that you are satisfied (and I genuinely am) seeing one in-focus shot is just not enough to convince me.
jvarszegi wrote:
I believe the design has issues, and they appear to be ongoing. As happy as I am for you that you are satisfied (and I genuinely am) seeing one in-focus shot is just not enough to convince me.
I don't think anyone here needs to convince you. That part is up to you. I have see and read about many people being very happy with their Sigma. I for one am also very happy. Wether you get a Sigma or not does not take away from the photos I get with mine.
If the Canon 50mm 1.4 was in focus 100% of the time and the Sig 50% of the time, I'd still take the Sig. I'd rather have a few photos with gorgeous bokeh than lots of photos with poor bokeh.
chez wrote:
I don't think anyone here needs to convince you. That part is up to you. I have see and read about many people being very happy with their Sigma. I for one am also very happy. Wether you get a Sigma or not does not take away from the photos I get with mine.
Yes, one of the happy ones is the OP of this thread, who has posted some front-focused pictures. Some of the happy ones also admit that AF accuracy is not the best, but they are willing to live with it. I think this thread attests to the common experience with the lens, which is overwhelmingly negative regarding AF though very positive concerning optics. I am afraid that I would be one of the very common ones unhappy with the AF, which I would need.
jvarszegi wrote:
[Yes, one of the happy ones is the OP of this thread, who has posted some front-focused pictures. Some of the happy ones also admit that AF accuracy is not the best, but they are willing to live with it.
How do we know the OP images are front-focused? We don't know which AF points were used. Perhaps the camera locked on to the microphone stand. Also, these are low-light shots, which may have been a challenge for the body AF. What shutter speed? Perhaps singer movement affected sharpness a tiny bit.
Too many variables for these photos to be considered proof of anything, other than bokeh.
