joekraft wrote:
I'd be interested to hear from people who decided to hold onto the copy they had, but get it serviced. I have a lab down the street, I think max it would cost me would be $20, since the calibration would be a warranty issue if it is out of spec, and that way, I would at least know I have a copy that is as good as it can be. But, if halation, etc., cannot be fixed by a lab, but is a characteristic of the sample, then maybe there are things a lab can't fix.
I'm interested to know this as well.
I dont have "a lab down the street", but would be willing to send it back to Sigma if it needed to be calibrated.
Mine back-focuses (on my 40D) at beyond maybe 10 feet. Sigma support told me that they don't regard that as a warranty issue but that if I send them the camera and lens they'll calibrate it for the camera with no charge. I'm going to do that, but haven't yet. After I get it back I'll try to remember to either dredge up this thread or start a new one to post the results.
Other than that issue, it's really a magnificent lens (although I haven't tried it for landscapes).
Here's one that was at shot at f8 with live view & manual focus (with a towel over my head!)
Hmm. I spoke to the lab this morning, they are sigma-certified, and told me calibration would be covered under warranty. I wonder if they were mistaken, if Sigma told you that. Nice shot.
Sent mine in, was FF'ing a little bit, got it back and it's perfect, my favorite lens, no microadjustment needed.
Joekraft....No, they weren't mistaken, it was done under warranty, with very good customer service I might add. All in all took 8 days.
I really wanted this lens to work for me because I saw instances where it performed great at 1.4 but the AF was inconsistent. I tried one when it was first released and sent it back when I experienced inconsistencies. Under 3ft. it was sharp @ 1.4 but beyond that it increased BF as your subject got further away.
I didn't give up and tried a new one a couple of weeks ago and it front focused under 6ft and BF from 6ft to infinity. I tried MA on both of these lenses but if I got it to work at a certain distance it wouldn't work when the distance was change. It had to be recalibrated for that new distance.
philber wrote:
Fact is, based on the present 34 responses, 24% report some kind of trouble. That is a huge percentage. Particularly if you consider that some of those probably hand-picked their lens, and others may have already returned one copy. So all is not well in Sigmaland methinks
Well, you have to consider that some might have pegged their lens as bad, when they just don't know how to use it. We've all seen flawed tests on forums, and with such narrow DOF surely some cases are simply false positives.
I'm not claiming there aren't bad copies, or denying there might be/have been some problem with the lens, but I wouldn't treat the actual numbers as gospel.
CKrueger wrote:
Well, you have to consider that some might have pegged their lens as bad, when they just don't know how to use it. We've all seen flawed tests on forums, and with such narrow DOF surely some cases are simply false positives.
I'm not claiming there aren't bad copies, or denying there might be/have been some problem with the lens, but I wouldn't treat the actual numbers as gospel.
Actual numbers should not be treated as gospel, but their relativity to other such polls on other lenses with the same potential false-positives is still much higher than one would like to see.
Reading up a bit...It seems Bryan from the Digital Picture had received a very poor copy noting: "the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens has proven very inconsistent for me in the focus accuracy department..."
Obviously there is a large sample variation out there, but I figured I may as well have posted the review.
I bought one last month, but in a Nikon mount, to compare against my Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AF-S.
Sadly the Sigma was an absolute dog - the focus was plain awful up to 10ft, the lens suffered from awful green fringing and thus it went straight back. The Nikkor nailed the shots every time.
Lord Fluff wrote:
The only lens I have ever had to return out of about 30 I've owned (also the only non-Canon).
- Random focus problems, off by +/- 3ft at medium distance
- Lower resolution than Canon 50 1.4
- 'Glowy' quality, especially wide open
Huge disappointment, especially being priced higher than the Canon. Some examples here seem good, but the term 'Sigmalux' that some use is laughable - Leica may be many things but reliable is one of them. 'Sigmasux' would have covered my copy better.
Random AF (backfocus) issues seem to be the problem with mine at medium to long focusing distance. No problem at minimal focus distance, oddly enough. If it nails the focus though, I like the way the IQ it generates; sharp and contrasty but yet smooth bokeh.
