If my 24mm wasn't so good, i would call 'em SigmaTrash!
When a Sigma lens is bad, it is Really Bad.
They don't screw around at all; I am reasonably certain
that they schlep virtually 100 percent of their lenses out the
door with no QC at all. The good copies are the lucky few
that were put together correctly first try in the manufacturing
process. I would really like to see their factory setup one day!
With all due respect, and for all the bitchin we like to do,
Canon does a pretty admirable job - at least with their lenses.
Other than a few cheap models that just don't have performance
built into them they really do get high marks on QC with most all.
Now their recent 1Dxxx cameras, well, that's a whole 'nother topic.
tinke wrote:
With all due respect, and for all the bitchin we like to do,
Canon does a pretty admirable job - at least with their lenses.
Other than a few cheap models that just don't have performance
built into them they really do get high marks on QC with most all.
Now their recent 1Dxxx cameras, well, that's a whole 'nother topic.
is that so..What about the countless threads I read all teh time complaining how someones 24-70L is bad, or their 100-400 is bad. Then there is the 50L..but I guess since it says Canon we can forgive them?
Everyone should post the serial number ("X" the last few digits if you want to) of their good or bad 50, maybe it's just the early production ones. Mine is serial 1007xxx and it tested great on my 1Ds2 and seems fine on my 40D (though I didn't precisely test it on that body).
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. Very nice lens though, well-built and solid, good match for the 1Ds2.
Drew_Persson wrote:
Everyone should post the serial number ("X" the last few digits if you want to) of their good or bad 50, maybe it's just the early production ones.
Good idea. My serial number is 1005xxx and although I haven't had the opportunity to use it all that much yet, it sure seems to be one of the good ones. Oh yes, I'm using it on a 5D.
Instead of repeatedly sending subpar lenses back to a retailer for them to be resold to another shopper, has anyone tried sending the offending lens back to Sigma for service? My 70-200 crapped out on me one time and I sent it to their repair facility with excellent results.
That seems the more productive option, but you are thereby losing the option for a refund if the lens doesn't get much better after a trip to Sigma - too big a risk for me.
Well, it's no wonder why so many get poor lenses then. Think about it. Say that if 10% (just pulling a number out of the air for illustration purposes, I have no idea how many subpar lenses Sigma ships out) of Sigma's lenses come from the factory somewhat deficient in focusing accuracy, then any given retailer would receive about 10% poor performing lenses. So, say for example B&H gets 100 Sigma 50 1.4 lenses in from Sigma and 10 are sub par. Customers buy those 100. Ninety customers are happy and keep their lenses. Ten, however, get bad lenses. Let's say two of those people don't realize the lens is bad and keep it. The other eight get sent back to B&H, which has ordered another 100 lenses from Sigma. They put the eight returned lenses back in stock. So, now they have 108 lenses in stock, 18 of which are bad. The percentage of bad lenes has increased from 10% at B&H to almost 17%. The scenario keeps running and soon half the lenses in stock at B&H are defective.
To address Lord Fluff's response, I guess the fear is that the repair center is not capable or concerned enough to actually repair a lens, or that a lens can be in spec and still not be as good as the buyer wants. In that case I think a more appropriate response would be to keep sending the lens back to Sigma and requesting (demanding) satisfaction and competence. I know I am in fantasy land here, but I just think the current practice of repeatedly sending defective products back to the retailer is counterproductive to solving the underlying problem of defective products being shipped from the factory or possibly being damaged in shipping.
That may be true but my time and effort to troubleshoot QC issues isn't free either, along with shipping back and forth. This just isn't acceptable for a $500 lens. If I have to ship it twice out of pocket and be without the lens during the repair process, I might as well had just purchased a 50L. Its also not acceptable for a reputable dealer to put a lens back in stock if it is sent back due to QC issues. I clearly stated that the lens I shipped back had severe backfocus problems so I would expect that the dealer would send it to Sigma instead of putting it back in stock.
I don't disagree that poor QC isn't acceptable. In fact that is the reason that I haven't bought another Sigma lens. I don't have any desire to be the QC department for any manufacturer. I have read posts about issues with certain Canon and Tamron lenses as well, so is not the only company with issues. It just seems it comes up more often for Sigma than any other manufacturer. I don't like a feeling of doubt when a lens misses focus over whether it was my fault, the camera's fault, or the lens' fault.
As far as what retail stores do with returned lenses or any other item, my experience has been if the item is in "new" condition it is most often put back on the shelf. Maybe I am wrong about what happens to lenses. The time and expense to ship products back to the manufacturer is significant for the store and for the manufacturer, however, so I doubt it happens on a regular basis. If anyone has any first hand knowledge of this process I would love to hear it. I have a friend in the shipping (freight delivery) business who has a BIG screen TV in his house because the customer refused delivery. The company just told the shipper to keep it because they didn't want the expense of returning it. There was nothing wrong with the TV at all. This type of thing happens all the time. My feeling is that very few products are ever sent back to the manufacturer. The retailer may receive credit for a defective item, but that does not necessarily mean the product goes back. Also, a retailer may not want to take the word of a customer with unknown qualifications that a product is actually defective. Customers are often wrong about the defectiveness of a product and unless the retailer has knowledge of the customer's experience and knowledge level they may not want to just take their word that something is wrong with the product.
Regardless, good luck to you all. May you all get sharp and proper focusing products that never need to be returned.
I like the sharpness wide open and the flare and CA resistance but it's the bokeh that really knock my socks off. I compared it with Canon's 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 (tripod, MLU, MF, M) and the difference is striking. Thing is, it has AF "hiccups". Sometimes it has BF, sometimes it has FF and sometimes it's spot on. I'm hoping that calibration solves this (though I'm skeptic) because that bokeh is simply gorgeous. If not, 85/1.2 II - Here I come.
Yes, the bokeh on the Sigmalux ( ) is otherworldly. I don't have another lens that competes with it right now, and it's probably my third least expensive lens. I'm just not that worried about the autofocus. DOF is so thin at f/1.4 and MFD that you have to plan to manually tweak it anyway: For straight-on headshots, do you want the eyelashes in focus or the iris of the eye? It's that thin. (Disclaimer: I haven't tried mine at long distances because I'll never use it like that. It could be off by 100 yards.)
For me, the choice was between (1) the Sigma, (2) the Zeiss ZE model with manual focus but modern aperture, or (3) totally manual Zeiss or Leica glass. Even if you treat the Sigmalux as a manual-focus lens, it still competes with the others on merit.
Note: I am not normally a Sigma guy, though I did like their 500mm f/4.5. I would typically look at Canon and then Tamron/Tokina first. But this particular lens is unique.
Greg Feldman wrote:
Note: I am not normally a Sigma guy, though I did like their 500mm f/4.5. I would typically look at Canon and then Tamron/Tokina first. But this particular lens is unique.
They dont do a bad job with primes at all really...just look at the 30/1.4, 50/70/105/150/180macros
?
) is otherworldly. I don't have another lens that competes with it right now, and it's probably my third least expensive lens. I'm just not that worried about the autofocus. DOF is so thin at f/1.4 and MFD that you have to plan to manually tweak it anyway: For straight-on headshots, do you want the eyelashes in focus or the iris of the eye? It's that thin. (Disclaimer: I haven't tried mine at long distances because I'll never use it like that. It could be off by 100 yards.)