Your lens looks pretty good to me. Experiment some more with it.
Sending it in probably won't hurt, but there's always a small chance that it could
come back worse. So evaluate whether it's worth that small risk. This is a great
piece of glass. I hope you end up happy with it.
I don't know. I just got it last night and only took around ~20 photos.
I think I'm in love with the look this lens produces though. The focusing issues are only with autofocus, right? If I had to only use this lens on manual focus, I think I'd be fine with that.
Future Man wrote:
If I had to only use this lens on manual focus, I think I'd be fine with that.
I've said exactly the same thing. I don't complain about MF when I use Leica glass. The only difference is that the Sigma is clearly sharper and creamier.
(Note to Leica mob: I did not say "better.")
(Note to Sigma mob: I haven't had to use the Sigmalux as an MF lens, since AF works just fine for me.)
Just got mine about a week ago. Nice lens...focus is spot on, and it's surprisingly sharp wide open. CA is also very well controlled. On my 1Ds, this thing will focus in almost total darkness without AF assist . Great little lens...it's definetly a keeper.
jlw82 wrote:
Wich one have the nicest creamy bokeh of the new nikon 50mm 1,4 and the sima 1,4?
Sigma, by a longshot. The new Nikon 50 has the least creamy bokeh of the 4 current f1.4 options in the 50-58mm range (It is much better than the old 50/1.4D though).
Based on my experiences with sigma in the past, Sigmasux is the only moniker I could give their lenses. (Granted I haven't tried their 50/1.4 but I have no desire to really.)
I've had a few aftermarket lenses in my time. Most have been pretty lousy, and I've learned to go with Canon (or Pentax, or whatever the camera is supposed to use) when possible. I suggest you try out the Sigmalux before you bash it. It's not like other aftermarket lenses. (Neither is their 500mm f/4.5, but that's a slightly different lens.)
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Based on my experiences with sigma in the past, Sigmasux is the only moniker I could give their lenses. (Granted I haven't tried their 50/1.4 but I have no desire to really.)
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Based on my experiences with sigma in the past, Sigmasux is the only moniker I could give their lenses. (Granted I haven't tried their 50/1.4 but I have no desire to really.)
-Ed
I had a lot of bad experiences with western women before meeting my (non-western) wife, but that doesn't mean all western women are evil. (Does it?)
Joking aside, everything I have seen and heard about the Sigma 50/1.4 tells me the moniker is appropriate. And no, I don't really like Sigmas much either, based on the ones I have owned.
I just bought one too. The Nikkor G was very nice, but since I shoot mainly wide open, I wanted to try something that gives better bokeh at large apertures. The Nikkor was good for being of the usual double gauss design, but the Sigma is waaaaaaaaaay better. I was a bit afraid that it would be just as harsh at larger distances (since most bokeh test are done at short distances), but it isn't.
This is the first lens I've tried (aside the Nikkor 28/2.8 AIS) that gives "medium format quality" of the OOF background. It looks like you've shot at f/2.8 when it is f/1.4!
The detail sharpness is lower than with the Nikkor, but it "handles" contrast in a way that makes the pictures look sharper allover.
Drawbacks? Well, it is very bulky, but not too heavy on the D700. I intend to buy a Voigtländer 40/2 for when I want a smaller combo.
Edit: And the vignetting! The Nikkor vignettes alot at f/1.4, but the Sigma doesn't.
think i'll exchange my nikon 50 1.4 for å sigma somewhere down the road!