Ian Ivey wrote:

I've had the Sigma 50 f/1.4 for around two years ... When it hits, it's great. When it misses, the shot is useless.

That about sums up the Sig 50.

hardlyboring wrote:

There has to be some reason the lens is SOOO much cheaper than the Canon/Nikon version.

Do you think a Leica body is worth $7000.00?

deepbluejh wrote:
I have used/owned

One 50L which was perfect
Two 85Ls which were both perfect

One Sigma 50 which was sketchy
One Sigma 85 which was sketchy

My experience is not unique either. I won't be putting my money in the Sigma 35 anytime soon other than to just play around with it, then resell it. For me, dependability is just as important as image quality and Sigma just has not delivered on this front. They has a long way to go to regain my trust in their fast aperture lenses.

There are reams and reams of threads and reviews all over the web communicating that the 50L is a "sketchy" lens.
You had one 50L that was "perfect" so now they are all perfect? I don't know man. You sound like a Canon salesman.

I know this is old, but I gotta give props for the slick way around the rules for SEO link driving. I need to do some gear reviews too.

I have a bag FULL of Sigma lenses and they've all been pretty good to me. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not anal about IQ and all that technical stuff. Pixel peeping and measurbating definitely is not my thing. I'm interested in good IQ at normal viewing sizes, good build, good focus, and decent price.

I think it's safe to say that the original 50 with the old finish was a good lens....if you had a good copy. I was fortunate enough to have a really good copy that needed no MA. Good thing because that was my main lens for 3 years on a 5Dc. A good 2/3 of the stuff on my blog was shot with that lens. It was perfect until I dropped it toward the end of the 2011 season.

The 85 was a huge improvement over the 50. Better build and the new finish holds up way better than the old 'crinkle' finish. IQ on the 85 is every bit as good as the new 35 IMO. There's some purple fringing in certain conditions but not nearly as bad as the 85/1.8 it replaced. That lens had so much purple I nicknamed it Barney. Once my 50 fell (literally) out of favor I leaned heavily on the 85. The only real drawback is focus speed compared to the 50 but that improved a lot with the 5D3. It's like a new lens.

The 35 is a pretty sweet lens. I used it right out of the box for one wedding and it performed flawlessly. It was MA'd to +1. I don't think the 35 is any better than the 85 in terms of sharpness. Focus speed and accuracy is really good. CA is pretty much gone. Having been a 50mm shooter since the early 80's, I'm still getting used to the 35mm focal length (it's a little wide to me) but I think I may end up keeping it. I just need to use it more to be sure.

maxwell1295 wrote:
Having been a 50mm shooter since the early 80's, I'm still getting used to the 35mm focal length (it's a little wide to me) but I think I may end up keeping it. I just need to use it more to be sure.

I'm toying with getting this lens because it performs so well but like you I struggle a bit with the 35mm length. I have an X100 and I constantly find it too wide or cropping a lot.

^^get closer

phillip ino wrote:
^^get closer

Then what is close to the camera looms and gets very big and what is further from the camera gets very small.

Those of you who have had this or a 50, did you ever think that it wasn't worth have a 35 and 50 together in your lens kit?

maxwell1295 wrote:

I think it's safe to say that the original 50 with the old finish was a good lens... that was my main lens for 3 years on a 5Dc.

I have used the Sig 50 on a 5D classic, as well. Optically it was quite good. In low light in one-shot mode, it sometimes hunted and gave up autofocusing when the Canon 50/1.4 could lock on with ease in the exact same lighting. The Canon 50 also performed much better in servo mode, meaning a much higher percentage of shots in focus, than the Sig 50.

Mark_L wrote:

I struggle a bit with the 35mm length.

That makes three of us. I'm very comfortable with 50 and 35 always seems too wide. I've shot with the 35L a bit and found it very nice as far as sharpness, color, and contrast but never did get used to it seeming always just a bit too wide. Maybe if a 50 shooter would just keep shooting and shooting at 35 it would become more acceptable

D. Diggler wrote:
Mark_L wrote:

I struggle a bit with the 35mm length.

That makes three of us. I'm very comfortable with 50 and 35 always seems too wide. I've shot with the 35L a bit and found it very nice as far as sharpness, color, and contrast but never did get used to it seeming always just a bit too wide. Maybe if a 50 shooter would just keep shooting and shooting at 35 it would become more acceptable

I think you probably do get used to it but perhaps requires a different shooting style, a lot of photojournalists use wider lenses because you get more of the 'in the scene' feeling. It seems to work best used in landscape orientation in an environmental portrait kind of way and you have to be very careful with camera height.

I think I'm just a long lens kind of guy and only go wider when constrained by space, I've shot cakes at 200mm and with an 85mm half body is about as close as I go. The X100 is forcing me to find ways to work a wider lens.

I really like 35mm. My 35mm lens is technically a bit cr*p in terms of optical performance, but it doesn't really bother me. This new Sigma does seem to have great optics though, I'd certainly be tempted if I didn't already have a 35mm. Indeed, if this was available when I was looking I'm sure I would have gone for it.

RichardLavigne wroteI don't think that the falling out of love really had much to do with performance, as it did with support...To me, it is apparent that Sigma is very serious about making products that professionals can and will use. The weak link that I see is their support and service.

That is one of the things that has always caused me to hesitate when I think about purchasing a Sigma. With my Nikon lenses and NPS if I ship it to them in on Monday morning I generally will have it back by Friday or the following monday. I guess I could always rent a Sigma while the one I own is being repaired.

I’m just waiting for this damn thing to be released for Sony!! I sold my Minolta 35 1.4 months ago in anticipation ($900 has just been sitting in my photo gear bank account for months now…lol). It is supposed to start shipping 4/30… I hope the release date doesn’t get pushed out again

As much as I love it´s performance it is quite a piece of glass. I hate that.
But, apparently one cannot have it all, right.

-rememeber the time when I used my 35/2.0 D, so cute-


heiko

do some lenses produce more noise effect? is there such thing?

I picked up the Sigma 35 about a month ago and it's now my most favorite lens I've ever owned. I wasn't sure about the 35mm FL, but after using it at a couple weddings and an engagement shoot now, I absolutely love it. Not as wide / distorted as I'd feared. I'm amazed at the IQ wide open, and stopped down to 1.8 or 2.0 is perfection. I had the Sigma 50 before this and liked it alot, but wide open it wasn't as sharp as I was hoping and the AF was hit or miss at times. Get the 35 if you're considering it! You won't regret it.