p.35 #1 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
lucas lumiere wrote:
Wow, 34 pages littered with back and forths like this.
Can we come to a consensus that the siggy 35 is optically amazing, but that the trade-off is that there may be some copies with focus issues. Is the dock for lens adjustments available yet? Would that resolve the focus issues?
I bought myself a used 35L mostly because I liked the colours better. It's sharp enough for me.
Peace.
Of course there exist some copies with faults or focus issues. But the 35L also have copies with faults or focus issues. And here have been a few threads about focus problem with that lens also.
p.35 #3 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
Of course there exist some copies with faults or focus issues. But the 35L also have copies with faults or focus issues. And here have been a few threads about focus problem with that lens also.
No argument there.
I personally think Sigma has a real winner on it's hands. In fact, I think the sigma 50 and 85's are both really good too. Sigma seems to have really upped their game in the past couple of years. I will also say that at least in Canada, they seem to have really excellent product support as well. Good on them.
p.35 #4 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Still happy with my 2nd copy of the Sigma - the first one was all over the map depending on distance and lighting. The 2nd copy is a +8 MFA and deadly accurate. It lives on my 5d3 - sold the 35L to keep it. The Sigma just has that 3d effect and wow factor, and I use it around F/2 - F/2.2 to get rid of the vignette, but it's sharp wide open.
This one hit inadvertently as my daughter moved her head. Focal point on this one was actually off near her temple. Coincidentally, the AF was off enough that it almost put it in perfect focus.
p.35 #6 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
To reiterate, the AF was all over the place depending on distance and lighting conditions.
The only other lens I have that has exhibited anything similar to this extent is my Conurus modded Contax Zeiss N 50mm. Only difference is, I can enter independent AFMA values at close, mid and far distances which adjusts the whole focal range respectively but simultaneously. Not the case for the S35. Not yet at least. Hopefully the dock and chip on the mount will allow for multiple values. Even then, I don't know that it would have accounted for all the AF variances with the copy I just had.
There is one copy left at Canoga Camera out here in So Cal. Opted to return instead of exchange with BH. Will be testing this next copy out in store.
Sven - Definitely agree with you regarding the 35L as I have already stated in a previous post about every company having defective products somewhere along the way. No one is 100%.
Hence the reason I'm continually baffled at the fact that people in this thread think I'm BSing about my genuine desire to own a good working copy of this lens.
p.35 #9 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
AF inconsistencies is a results of not-well-calibrated lens and bodies. The differences in lens optical shifting can also send the bodies AF sensor and AF firmware to North Pole anytime. With Sigma, you might have another variable since their lenses motor step was mapping one-to-one to each individual canon bodies AF driver. So, the chances to find a good sigma lens is always harder than a canon one because of those reasons and that does not mean they don't exist. With all the great images shown here, Sigma 35 is one hell of a lens.
p.35 #10 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Here is a link to the DigitalRev review of Canon 35L 1.4 vs Nikon 35 1.4 vs the Sigma 35 1.4. There was apparently a bokeh survey which showed the Sigma on top. It may be dodgy as there are other variables (such as the type of pose of the girls) which may have affected the results but interesting tongue in cheekiness video. http://www.digitalrev.com/article/battle-of-the-bokeh-canon/NzI2ODkwODA_A
p.35 #11 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
mttran wrote:
AF inconsistencies is a results of not-well-calibrated lens and bodies. The differences in lens optical shifting can also send the bodies AF sensor and AF firmware to North Pole anytime. With Sigma, you might have another variable since their lenses motor step was mapping one-to-one to each individual canon bodies AF driver. So, the chances to find a good sigma lens is always harder than a canon one because of those reasons and that does not mean they don't exist. With all the great images shown here, Sigma 35 is one hell of a lens.
Which means that if I own a Sigma lens with AF inconsistencies, and if I want Sigma to fix it for me, I should send my Camera with the lens?
And then Sigma will fine tune the lens to my camera, right?
p.35 #14 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Rickuz wrote:
To all ye who bought the Sigma 35 and experienced AF inconsistencies.
Did you simply replace the lens with a better copy, or did you send it to Sigma for calibration?
If you did the latter, did Sigma fix your lens?
Sigma have a USB dock (don't think they have started to sell it) where you can fine tune and adjust the AF on all their new lenses. Roger Cicala and a few other have been writing about it, and what they belive it can do
p.35 #15 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
To reiterate, the AF was all over the place depending on distance and lighting conditions.
The only other lens I have that has exhibited anything similar to this extent is my Conurus modded Contax Zeiss N 50mm. Only difference is, I can enter independent AFMA values at close, mid and far distances which adjusts the whole focal range respectively but simultaneously. Not the case for the S35. Not yet at least. Hopefully the dock and chip on the mount will allow for multiple values. Even then, I don't know that it would have accounted for all the AF variances with the copy I just had....Show more →
This is where statistics come in. We can examine the data here.
On one of Canon's best AF sensors, the 5D3, we have
Sigma 85 f/1.8 moderate AF variability 6.3%, good AF accuracy 2.8%
Canon 85 f/1.2 low AF variability 3.4%, excellent AF accuracy 1.9%
Canon 85 f/1.8 low AF variability 3.5%, excellent AF accuracy 1.8%
Why should anyone be surprised that third party lenses struggle more with AF accuracy and have moderately poor AF variability than their original counterparts?
p.35 #16 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
Sigma have a USB dock (don't think they have started to sell it) where you can fine tune and adjust the AF on all their new lenses. Roger Cicala and a few other have been writing about it, and what they belive it can do
Yes that thing sounds awesome on paper, but I wonder if it will be able to cure inconsistencies in the auto focus?
I can live with having to microadjst my lenses, but AF inconsistencies is 100% unacceptable.
p.35 #17 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
thw2 wrote:
This is where statistics come in. We can examine the data here.
On one of Canon's best AF sensors, the 5D3, we have
Sigma 85 f/1.8 moderate AF variability 6.3%, good AF accuracy 2.8%
Canon 85 f/1.2 low AF variability 3.4%, excellent AF accuracy 1.9%
Canon 85 f/1.8 low AF variability 3.5%, excellent AF accuracy 1.8%
Why should anyone be surprised that third party lenses struggle more with AF accuracy and have moderately poor AF variability than their original counterparts?
None of this have anything to do with the Sigma 35 lens of course. I didn't know Sigma had a 85/1,8 lens either ?
It's a beta software you refer to. A beta software that depends on result uploaded from unknown users. Just look at the threads here at FM from FoCal users. Everyone does the test in a very different way. Different light, different distance, some indoors others outdoors.
you will also get very different result depending on what body (lens) combo you use in the software.
It could have some (little) meaning if it actually where the 35mm lenses we talk about in your test chart. But it's very different tele lenses.
I would not call it statistics either. If you read on his chart and website, they have tested the Sigma 85 with 13 bodies That's a lot less than the amount of bodies and people that have tested the Sigma 35 in this thread......or in any of the polls about the Sigma in this forum
p.35 #18 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
None of this have anything to do with the Sigma 35 lens of course. I didn't know Sigma had a 85/1,8 lens either ?
It's a beta software you refer to. A beta software that depends on result uploaded from unknown users. Just look at the threads here at FM from FoCal users. Everyone does the test in a very different way. Different light, different distance, some indoors others outdoors.
you will also get very different result depending on what body (lens) combo you use in the software.
It could have some (little) meaning if it actually where the 35mm lenses we talk about in your test chart. But it's very different tele lenses...Show more →
Typo. That's a Sigma 85 f/1.4 lens. And yes, Sigma 35 f/1.4 data is not presented.
Sure, there are different users. But all using the same model of lens on the same model of camera. If the data is supposed to lie all over the place based on different test conditions etc, then how do you explain the tight AF consistency of the Canon 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2 etc etc etc, as compared to the Sigma data?
I do not know why you are so defensive about Sigma lenses. You own Sigma shares? Perhaps you own many Sigma lenses? I used to have third party lenses but dumped them all because of poor AF consistency.
p.35 #19 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Why would I be defensive about the Sigma ? I own 2 Sigma lenses and 9 Canon lenses. There is no data from the Sigma lens, so how can I explain it then? But the lenses you write about have nothing to do with the new Sigma 35. It's a huge difference in both build and optics. From Roger Cicala & LensRentals.com about that.
Roger's Take
Roger Cicala
President of LensRentals.com
It’s been a long time since a take was so easy. This is the sharpest 35mm made. It costs a lot less than the Canon 35 f/1.4mm or the Zeiss 35mm lenses. Any questions? It’s extremely well built and everything I’ve been able to see, inside and out, indicates quality control has really improved at Sigma.
If you’re a bokeh fanatic, you may like something else better (or maybe not, that’s a subjective call). If you need Image Stabilization, then the 35mm f/2 IS may be worthwhile. Otherwise, this is the 35mm lens.
Arguably as good or better than anything else made, and at a lower price
p.35 #20 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
Roger's Take
Roger Cicala
President of LensRentals.com
It’s been a long time since a take was so easy. This is the sharpest 35mm made. It costs a lot less than the Canon 35 f/1.4mm or the Zeiss 35mm lenses. Any questions? It’s extremely well built and everything I’ve been able to see, inside and out, indicates quality control has really improved at Sigma.
If you’re a bokeh fanatic, you may like something else better (or maybe not, that’s a subjective call). If you need Image Stabilization, then the 35mm f/2 IS may be worthwhile. Otherwise, this is the 35mm lens.
Arguably as good or better than anything else made, and at a lower price ...Show more →
Roger's take:
- sharpest 35mm
- costs a lot less than...
- well built
- everything I’ve been able to see, inside and out, indicates quality control has really improved
- a bokeh fanatic, you may like something else better
- Image Stabilization...
- arguably as good or better than anything else made, and at a lower price
That's a lot less than the amount of bodies and people that have tested the Sigma 35 in this thread......or in any of the polls about the Sigma in this forum