I've been eyeing the Sigma 50 f/1.4 for some time. I've read the reviews, etc. This past week I ordered 3 (yes, three) Sigma 50's. My plan was to test them out and pick the best one and return the others (presumably for one of you to buy ). I've read too much about the variation from lens to lens on this model, so I wanted to be sure I had a good one. After all, I'm planning on keeping this a while.
The lenses came yesterday and here are my first impressions. First, you get the hood and a very nice padded case (think Lowepro lens case only nicer). So if you compare apples to apples, the Sigma isn't much more than the Canon f/1.4. The build quality is miles better than the Canon. Doesn't even compare. The only minor complaint I have is the focus ring is not silky smooth, but I can live with that. It's still WAY smoother than my Canon. This Sigma is "L" quality.
Today I did a microfocus adjustment on all of them and then did a newspaper test at apertures from f/1.4 to f/11. There was a little lens to lens variation, but really not that much. The microfocus adjustment was +3, -3, & -13. I was pretty impressed with the lenses on the test bench, but I also wanted to like them.
And then for grins I put the Canon 50 1.4 on the tripod and tested it out. When I saw the files I couldn't believe my eyes! It performed much better than the Sigma, in the center, at the edges and corners, from wide open to stopped down.
I went out today and took some landscape photos. The Sigma color seemed a little "warmer" than the Canon, but other than that I couldn't tell much difference.
I started out thinking I was certain I would end up with a Sigma, but after a head to head comparison with the Canon, I think I'm going to return them all and stick with the Canon.
EDIT on Oct 10, 2010.
I retested one of the Sigma lenses side-by-side with the my Canon on a brick wall, and here is how they compare.
The Sigma is sharper from f/1.4 to f/2.8, after than the Canon has a slight edge.
The color of the Sigma lens is a bit "warmer".
The Canon lens has more contrast.
The Sigma has a bit more barrel distortion.
The Canon has quite a bit more vignetting. The Sigma vignetting is virtually gone at f/2.8
The bokeh of the Sigma lens is more pleasing (to my eye) and less "nervous".
I think the Sigma would make a better portrait lens and the Canon a better landscape lens (IMO).
I will be keeping one of the Sigmas and selling my Canon on B&S.
I'm pretty sure one of the lenses I received was returned because the packaging was different. Are you sure all returned lenses get refurbed? That doesn't make sense if the lens looks and is packaged like new.
davenfl wrote:
An you are thrilled that you took 3 perfectly good lens and made them refurbs costing the retailer and Sigma money and lost profit. Wow, nice story.
Richard Nye wrote:
I'm pretty sure one of the lenses I received was returned because the packaging was different. Are you sure all returned lenses get refurbed? That doesn't make sense if the lens looks and is packaged like new.
Open goods are not supposed to be sold as new, rules of the road for good retailers. I don't want stuff used by other people when I pay full price for new.
davenfl wrote:
An you are thrilled that you took 3 perfectly good lens and made them refurbs costing the retailer and Sigma money and lost profit. Wow, nice story.
Dave
To be completely fair, Dave, when a product like the Sigma 50/1.4 has the reputation it does you can expect to have a high return/exchange rate. That said, ordering several copies in order to cherry pick the better of the bunch is, IMO, completely acceptable in this case. I actually hope Sigma is forced to deal with high return rates--its a good way to remind them of their QC. As for what retailers do with returned equipment, I wouldn't be to sure that all of it gets sent back to the manufacturer. I have received several questionable "new" items in the past which showed signs of handling.
BenV wrote:
the difference is in the bokeh, the sigma is much better than the canon
While that is one noticeable difference, its most certainly not the only difference. In my experience the Sigma [marginally] edges out the Canon in a lot of respects except for consistency and AF, where neither lens performs great. The largest difference between the two lenses is build, IMO.
M Vers wrote:
To be completely fair, Dave, when a product like the Sigma 50/1.4 has the reputation it does you can expect to have a high return/exchange rate. That said, ordering several copies in order to cherry pick the better of the bunch is, IMO, completely acceptable in this case. I actually hope Sigma is forced to deal with high return rates--its a good way to remind them of their QC. As for what retailers do with returned equipment, I wouldn't be to sure that all of it gets sent back to the manufacturer. I have received several questionable "new" items in the past which showed signs of handling....Show more →
+1, can't blame buyer in this case. Most order one then exchange if the lens does not meet its spec, the process goes on until he found a good copy anyway.
davenfl wrote:
An you are thrilled that you took 3 perfectly good lens and made them refurbs costing the retailer and Sigma money and lost profit. Wow, nice story.
The alternative of course would have been the OP buying one, returning it repeatedly (maybe getting new ones along the way) and both sides getting pissed off over the course of several weeks. I doubt this would cost less for either the retailer or Sigma, and it would certainly leave the customer feeling much more disenfranchised.
I must admit I also tried to buy a Sigma 50mm, but i tried 3 of them out in the shop rather than buying with return option. I agree with everything the OP says about build quality etc. But of the 3 i tried none of them autofocused even close to the target and I left the shop with a Canon lens.
Buying 3 items knowing in advance that you will only keep one is abusing the system. Might as well be buying lenses to use for a trip and then returning them afterwards.
Wow...and the apologists come flocking in. People seem to forget Sigma is a multi-billion dollar company with well known QC issues. If they continue to produce subpar products they will need to deal with the consequences. And if you think returned lenses is hurting their business I think you'd be fooling yourselves. The very same goes for those who think that every returned/exchanged item is sent back to the manufacturer instead of being placed right back on the shelf. If you want to feel bad for someone feel bad for those who have gone through buying several bad copies be it in bulk or individually loosing money/time in the process, those who have sent their copy in for calibration to no avail and those who are currently shooting with a bum copy and don't know enough to know it is, blaming themselves for missed shots instead of the lens.
Bottom line: Put out a quality product and you won't have any issues. Cut corners and be prepared to pay the piper.
My experiences with the S were useful in reminding me what a nice lens the EF 1.4 is, once a copy with decent WO performance is acquired. Nice bokeh isn't much good if the subject is OOF.
Why even consider the product in the first place if you know they have QC issues, or if you have animosity towards the brand/vendor for making millions, or for whatever reason? Just because a company makes millions, it doesn't mean people should take advantage of the system. In the end we, the consumers, are the ones that pay the consequences for those who buy it, try it, and return if they don't like it buying method. Does Sigma have it advertised somewhere a satisfaction money back guaruntee?
M Vers wrote:
Wow...and the apologists come flocking in. People seem to forget Sigma is a multi-billion dollar company with well known QC issues. If they continue to produce subpar products they will need to deal with the consequences. And if you think returned lenses is hurting their business I think you'd be fooling yourselves. The very same goes for those who think that every returned/exchanged item is sent back to the manufacturer instead of being placed right back on the shelf. If you want to feel bad for someone feel bad for those who have gone through buying several bad copies be it in bulk or individually loosing money/time in the process, those who have sent their copy in for calibration to no avail and those who are currently shooting with a bum copy and don't know enough to know it is, blaming themselves for missed shots instead of the lens.
Bottom line: Put out a quality product and you won't have any issues. Cut corners and be prepared to pay the piper....Show more →
Well Matt you and I generally don't have anything but a friendly relationship but here we agree to disagree. I know you seemed to have some issues with the Sigma 50. My experience is quite to the contrary, bought 2 over a 15 month timeframe, 1 for Canon and 1 for Nikon, both perfect. The issue here is your thinking it is alright to buy 3 copies of something knowing you only intend to keep one. That is right in your book because, your words, they are crap. Interesting that all three of the OP's copies were acceptable and operated with specs. He didn't like them compared to the Canon 1.4 but they were,per his analysis, OK, he just like the Canon better. I don't think what he did was honest or fair. I don't care that Sigma is a big company, Canon is a bigger company and they F--Ked me over with the damn 1D3 big time. Bought 4 copies at once for my business and they were all shit. That doesn't mean that I am trying to find a way to kill Canon. Being honest and fair is how I deal with people including companies. If you have an issue with a company don't buy their products, plain and simple. It is not in the interest of anyone to do what was done here. As to the issue of "open box" products it is the right and fair thing to do for retailer not to sell "open box" products as new. I don't want them and you cannot tell me you want them, they are used goods and should be treated as such. So we disagree here strongly my friend, what was done here is not right in my opinion. We will not always agree but as long as the discussion is keep at a civil and professional level I am a happy man.
BenV wrote:
the difference is in the bokeh, the sigma is much better than the canon
If my Sigma were worse in the centre, corner and edges than the Canon, especially wide open, even if the bokeh was better looking than Anjelina Jolie, they'd be returned so fast Simga CEO's head would be spinning.
They must have been absolute rubbish lenses for this to be true. A normal Sigma is sharp wide open, and tack sharp at f/1.6.
People's moral here is a bit weird... I got told off for suggesting to someone that he should have a look at camera bags at a brick & mortar store before ordering online. The fact that those stores usually have the bags out in the open where you can have look without bothering the staff means nothing, it's still the wrong thing to do.
... But I guess it's ok to order 3 lenses at the same time with the intention to buy only one. I'd be pissed if I was the shop owner.
It's called a free market, folks. It's not illegal to do these kinds of things. You think the corporations really suffer from the puny efforts of individual consumers? They have a lot of power and control, and to suggest that we have to play by some kind of unspoken moral code when it comes to economic decisions is hogwash.
In fact, buying more than one copy of a product with the intent to return all but the best is a completely rational thing to do. That's why some retailers have a restocking fee. Those who do not, in turn make a rational business decision to waive it because having one causes more consumer dissatisfaction and lost business than what would be saved in costs.
And yes, those costs do get passed on at some point. It all gets back to the end consumers eventually, and this is the real reason why some of you are upset. You're not upset because you feel like retailers or corporations are being harmed by the calculated decisions of a select few who can afford to buy multiple copies. You're upset because you're not exploiting the system in the same way, thereby placing you at a slight disadvantage--one that is budget-dependent, because not everyone has the ability to fund multiple purchases of certain items, even if only on a temporary basis.
Few are those who can afford to buy 3 copies of, say, the EF 800/5.6L IS. But you know what? Nobody would pull a stunt like that because at that price point, Canon has their s*** together and you would be insane to expect a sub-par copy.
And consider what's happening on the manufacturer's end. There are costs associated with increasing QC. The manufacturer makes a rational economic decision where they maximize profit at a certain QC level--too lax, and the cost of excessive returns and repairs outweighs any savings; too high, and your stuff doesn't get returned but you are paying out the nose to maintain that quality. When consumers increase the return rate, they are indirectly pressuring the manufacturer to improve QC. This may end up decreasing profit margins or increasing pricing, each with its own consequences.
Same thing happens with brick-and-mortar shops. If you cannot compete with online stores because you have to price your items higher due to greater overhead, that's too bad. The consumer is making a purely rational choice to investigate the item in person and then buy online. It is not their responsibility to play nice in what is fundamentally a competition between retailers. The brick-and-mortar shop has to demonstrate value in a way that extends beyond price alone.
It is incredibly arrogant to attempt to guilt people into doing things according to some personally held, unwritten moral economic code. Companies have absolutely NO problem shafting YOU and they do it every single day. They serve their best interests and that is exactly how the game works. They know some of you are clever enough to exploit loopholes in the system to maximize their leverage. That behavior is already factored into their bottom line. If they really cared about closing those loopholes, then they could do so quite trivially. Sigma obviously finds their present return rates acceptable because if they didn't, they would have done something about it by now. It is an automatically equilibrium-seeking process.
). I've read too much about the variation from lens to lens on this model, so I wanted to be sure I had a good one. After all, I'm planning on keeping this a while.