December 19, 2014, 03:06:38 AM

Author Topic: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4  (Read 22153 times)

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #45 on: June 06, 2013, 03:28:34 PM »
No agonizing this time. I'm returning the 35 L as well. I called Canon. They asked me to show them pictures that demonstrate color fringing problem. The tech called me back and agreed to accept a return. I'm really not a pixel peeper. If a problem is visible at 100% zoomed in then it's not a problem. If a problem is visible without zooming in then it's an issue. When I use LR, I rarely zoom in to 100%. But the pictures taken with the L were so flawed that I can't help zooming in to see what's going on.

I'm fairly objective when I evaluated the sigma vs. Canon. Now that I tried both I think I'm gonna choose sigma. I'm giving it a second chance and am ordering a new one. Hopefully if the AF works ok then I'm happy.

I don't regret trying the Canon. It's probably not so bad before the sigma 35 came out. Given the price and the shrinking resale market for the L, I think sigma is a better option for me personally.

Would you post samples? 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #45 on: June 06, 2013, 03:28:34 PM »

sunnyVan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
    • View Profile
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #46 on: June 06, 2013, 03:55:44 PM »
No agonizing this time. I'm returning the 35 L as well. I called Canon. They asked me to show them pictures that demonstrate color fringing problem. The tech called me back and agreed to accept a return. I'm really not a pixel peeper. If a problem is visible at 100% zoomed in then it's not a problem. If a problem is visible without zooming in then it's an issue. When I use LR, I rarely zoom in to 100%. But the pictures taken with the L were so flawed that I can't help zooming in to see what's going on.

I'm fairly objective when I evaluated the sigma vs. Canon. Now that I tried both I think I'm gonna choose sigma. I'm giving it a second chance and am ordering a new one. Hopefully if the AF works ok then I'm happy.

I don't regret trying the Canon. It's probably not so bad before the sigma 35 came out. Given the price and the shrinking resale market for the L, I think sigma is a better option for me personally.

Would you post samples?
I'll see if I could post some tonight. I'm still at work. I'm a slave.
6D, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 F4L IS, 100 2.8L, 70-200L F4 IS, 135L, 35F2 IS, 600Ex-RT, Rokinon 14mm, EOS M, Sony A7+Zeiss 55 1.8

sunnyVan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
    • View Profile
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #47 on: June 07, 2013, 06:13:21 AM »
No agonizing this time. I'm returning the 35 L as well. I called Canon. They asked me to show them pictures that demonstrate color fringing problem. The tech called me back and agreed to accept a return. I'm really not a pixel peeper. If a problem is visible at 100% zoomed in then it's not a problem. If a problem is visible without zooming in then it's an issue. When I use LR, I rarely zoom in to 100%. But the pictures taken with the L were so flawed that I can't help zooming in to see what's going on.

I'm fairly objective when I evaluated the sigma vs. Canon. Now that I tried both I think I'm gonna choose sigma. I'm giving it a second chance and am ordering a new one. Hopefully if the AF works ok then I'm happy.

I don't regret trying the Canon. It's probably not so bad before the sigma 35 came out. Given the price and the shrinking resale market for the L, I think sigma is a better option for me personally.

Would you post samples?

I shot this when I first got the lens and happily ran around my house shooting stuffs randomly. I didn't set out to challenge the lens, let alone to share it to public. So this is a bad picture I admit. If you go to my link there's two more pictures that I sent to Canon.

6D, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 F4L IS, 100 2.8L, 70-200L F4 IS, 135L, 35F2 IS, 600Ex-RT, Rokinon 14mm, EOS M, Sony A7+Zeiss 55 1.8

sunnyVan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
    • View Profile
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #48 on: June 07, 2013, 06:14:20 AM »
6D, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 F4L IS, 100 2.8L, 70-200L F4 IS, 135L, 35F2 IS, 600Ex-RT, Rokinon 14mm, EOS M, Sony A7+Zeiss 55 1.8

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 997
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #49 on: June 07, 2013, 06:40:15 AM »
Well....it does not make a lot of sense to pay $500 extra for that much green slime....now, does it? :o
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 06:52:45 AM by infared »
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma Art, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1320
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #50 on: June 07, 2013, 08:57:18 AM »
Can we shorten the Sigma 35 f/1.4 to just "35A" as in Art? Then in our signatures we can distinguish a 35L from a 35A easily!

You heard it here first!
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 08:58:50 AM by Zv »
6D | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #51 on: June 07, 2013, 10:29:14 AM »
I shot this when I first got the lens and happily ran around my house shooting stuffs randomly. I didn't set out to challenge the lens, let alone to share it to public. So this is a bad picture I admit. If you go to my link there's two more pictures that I sent to Canon.

It is a torture test for any lens. You have blown highlights. The CA in the other shot (stuff on a deck)  looks much stronger than it is because the highlights which caused it were clipped. The Sigma controls the CA much better, no doubt but I do not see similar shots with the Sigma (but I see the poor bokeh in the shot shot with the cardboards).

This CA is rarely a problem. This is probably the only shot of mine, wide open, where CA is objectionable, look for the white label on the top of the yellow package on the left.


Shot in Hangzhou, China, on Flickr

No problem here, however:


Shot in Hangzhou, China, on Flickr

or here:


Naked cowboy, on Flickr
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 10:31:03 AM by Pi »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #51 on: June 07, 2013, 10:29:14 AM »

sunnyVan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
    • View Profile
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #52 on: June 07, 2013, 06:39:25 PM »
I shot this when I first got the lens and happily ran around my house shooting stuffs randomly. I didn't set out to challenge the lens, let alone to share it to public. So this is a bad picture I admit. If you go to my link there's two more pictures that I sent to Canon.

It is a torture test for any lens. You have blown highlights. The CA in the other shot (stuff on a deck)  looks much stronger than it is because the highlights which caused it were clipped. The Sigma controls the CA much better, no doubt but I do not see similar shots with the Sigma (but I see the poor bokeh in the shot shot with the cardboards).

This CA is rarely a problem. This is probably the only shot of mine, wide open, where CA is objectionable, look for the white label on the top of the yellow package on the left.


Shot in Hangzhou, China, on Flickr

No problem here, however:


Shot in Hangzhou, China, on Flickr

or here:


Naked cowboy, on Flickr

Pi, it really wasn't meant to be a test. I was simply running around shooting stuffs randomly like a child who just got a christmas gift. Even if it was a test, it was really a test of the AF in backlit condition. And it passed easily. I was very satisfied with the 35L's AF performance. It's so instantaneous and accurate. The look and the feel of the L is also more attractive to me. The 100g less weight is a nice bonus. It feels so right until I see all this colorful stuff!!

I do feel that Sigma's optical performance seems better, or simply more modern. 10 yrs is a big deal. And I can't justify spending 40-50% more on the L. Bokeh, some say, is more creamy or prettier for the L. But you know what, I'm very distracted by the colorful CA. I'm talking about my copy specifically. Maybe I'm being harsher because when I pay more I expect more. If they're the same price, um... I may lean toward the L.

I already received return authorization from Canon. And my new Sigma is arriving tomorrow. I'll be able to compare them side by side and see which one to keep.

6D, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 F4L IS, 100 2.8L, 70-200L F4 IS, 135L, 35F2 IS, 600Ex-RT, Rokinon 14mm, EOS M, Sony A7+Zeiss 55 1.8

wayno

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
    • View Profile
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #53 on: June 07, 2013, 07:15:21 PM »
I returned my sigma yesterday and got my 35L today. I was extremely happy the first 15minutes. The handling is right; the AF is substantially faster (maybe 30%?) and incredibly consistent; and the bokeh is beautiful.

Then came slight disappointment. On computer screen even without zooming there's very visible CA and purple fringing on some images. I think I'm seeing them because I know where to find them.

Sharpness wise the 35L is sharp enough at 1.4. Maybe Sigma is sharper but the 35L is sharp enough for my purposes.

I love the AF and handling of the 35L. Every shot so far is accurate. The CA is a bit annoying. Maybe this is the biggest limitation of this old lens. There's less vignetting than Sigma but I care less about this. I think the 35L is too expensive also.  The Sigma is priced right. But its AF is a big disappointment, at least as far as my copy is concerned.

I'm leaning towards keeping the 35L. There is quite a bit of work to remove CA in LR, but maybe I'll live with that.



Maybe I'm missing the point but I just remove CA with one button in LR. Removes enough of it to be a non issue for me at least.


With pictures taken at 2.8, one click on "remove CA" in LR will take care of most unwanted colored lines. Pictures taken below 2.8 need manual defringing with the dropper. Maybe I'm not doing it correctly. Any insights would be appreciated. That's just my observation from 3 hrs of owning it. Could be wrong.

No you're probably right, I just don't find the corrected CA offensive. Just a personal thing.

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #54 on: June 07, 2013, 11:28:33 PM »
I already received return authorization from Canon. And my new Sigma is arriving tomorrow. I'll be able to compare them side by side and see which one to keep.

Did you buy it from Canon refurbished? Or from Canon new?

I do not think that your copy is bad. My 35L would do this as well in the same conditions. I would love the see a new 35LII which behaves better in that respect but I can live with the "old" one. But the Sigma bokeh is unacceptable to me. BTW, you can see some ring type of highlights in one of the shots I posted but that is passable.

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #55 on: June 07, 2013, 11:31:33 PM »
I already received return authorization from Canon. And my new Sigma is arriving tomorrow. I'll be able to compare them side by side and see which one to keep.

Did you buy it from Canon refurbished? Or from Canon new?

I do not think that your copy is bad. My 35L would do this as well in the same conditions. I would love the see a new 35LII which behaves better in that respect but I can live with the "old" one. But the Sigma bokeh is unacceptable to me. BTW, you can see some ring type of highlights in the third shot I posted (upper left) but that is passable. I do not even know if there is CA there or not because I have not studied it under 100% but I see problems in the bokeh right away.

sunnyVan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
    • View Profile
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #56 on: June 08, 2013, 10:52:00 PM »
My new Sigma seems to work better than the one I returned earlier. The AF is a bit faster and quite accurate most of the time. It's still not as fast as canon but fast enough. It hunts a lot less than the one before too. So far I'm happy but will continue to have fun with it while doing more testing. The canon L is probably going into a return box soon.
6D, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 F4L IS, 100 2.8L, 70-200L F4 IS, 135L, 35F2 IS, 600Ex-RT, Rokinon 14mm, EOS M, Sony A7+Zeiss 55 1.8

sunnyVan

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
    • View Profile
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #57 on: June 08, 2013, 10:57:41 PM »
I already received return authorization from Canon. And my new Sigma is arriving tomorrow. I'll be able to compare them side by side and see which one to keep.

Did you buy it from Canon refurbished? Or from Canon new?

I do not think that your copy is bad. My 35L would do this as well in the same conditions. I would love the see a new 35LII which behaves better in that respect but I can live with the "old" one. But the Sigma bokeh is unacceptable to me. BTW, you can see some ring type of highlights in one of the shots I posted but that is passable.


I got it refurbished. So is my 135L. My 135L works perfectly. I would buy from Canon direct again.

The Sigma did produce some pictures whose bokeh is suboptimal. But it also gave me many more shots with beautiful bokeh. I think it can be very subjective.

6D, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 F4L IS, 100 2.8L, 70-200L F4 IS, 135L, 35F2 IS, 600Ex-RT, Rokinon 14mm, EOS M, Sony A7+Zeiss 55 1.8

canon rumors FORUM

Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #57 on: June 08, 2013, 10:57:41 PM »

bleephotography

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2013, 01:27:25 AM »
After a month of intense testing, I'm returning the lens with some regret. It's actually pretty amazing and fits my budget. It's sharp. The biggest problem I have is AF. It seems to require different amount of MA under different conditions. I thought I was crazy but I found reviews that describe the same behavior. I thought about user error but I haven't experienced the same with the much cheaper canon 50 1.4. I agonized over it and kept testing. As the return window was closing I had to make a decision.

I am getting the Canon 35L. I don't know if it would serve me better. Everybody says the Sigma outperforms the old Canon so I don't keep my hopes too high.

I took quite a few pictures I love with the Sigma. I really wanted to love it but I can't deal with unreliable and slow AF.

The sigma deserves a second chance. Perhaps I'll get a better copy. But I'm gonna try the Canon first.

I can attest to the slower AF, and the copy variation with the Sigma. It took three copies to finally receive one that I'm happy with; the first was lacking in sharpness, even after AFMA. The second exhibited extreme color fringing and sluggish AF. And my current copy...well, it is PERFECT. Not only is it tack sharp at f/1.4, but it also has noticeably faster AF. Now I'm sure most people would have been satisfied with my first and second copies, but admittedly I'm a pixel-peeper and wouldn't lower my standards for a $900 lens.
70D  |  40 STM  |  60 Macro  |  17-55  |  18-135 STM  |  55-250 STM  |  320EX  |  Extender 1.4x III  |  PCB Einstein

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #59 on: June 10, 2013, 02:08:59 PM »
I was seriously considering getting the sigma 35 but at around $800 or so... I can't bring myself to pay retail.  I did have an offer on the table for $900 for a used Canon 35mmL but I read enough about the sigma that I simply had to go that route.

Then I realized that 35mm on a full frame is like a 22mm on a crop (I'm just starting to make the transition).  And I rarely ever shoot anything at 22mm on a crop... so I'm back to needing a good low light lens f/1.4 that is sharp wide open... which eliminates the 50's.  So I guess my other option is the 85mm... but I have a 70-200 mkii which seems redundant... which is also why I'm selling my 100mm L and why I have all but stopped wanting a 135mm f/2. 

So there we go... I want a 50mm that doesn't exist.

My Voigtlander 58mm Nokton SLii is sharp wide open on my 6D.  However, it is a manual lens.  There are plenty on here who will slam the lens because it is a manual, and because it's not a Canon...but I'm sorry, it is sharper than both Canon 50mm 1.4 and 1.2.  Period...it just is.  I bought it for around $450 from Adorama in 2011.  It is a Nikon mount, but I bought the Fotodiox chipped adapter for $35...works very well (after some tightening)...focus confirmation is accurate.

The color, contrast, build quality, and focus ring feel, are almost identical to Zeiss.  The sharpness is almost up to that of the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro Planar...from the tests I have seen.  The vignetting is minimal for an f/1.4 lens on my 6D, and non-existent on a crop body.  This is comparing my particular copy...I have no idea about sample variation.

I was convinced to buy the lens after looking at the test charts that photozone.de did.  You can compare the results they got with both Canon 50's.

However, if you expect razor sharp focus accuracy at f/1.4 from this Voigtlander, without magnified live view, you will probably never get it.  Also, if you shoot at slower apertures than near wide open, the light meter on your camera won't be as accurate.

These are all tradeoffs I'm happy with, considering the color, sharpness, build quality, and price. 

One final caveat...If I were an event shooter who only used the lens for that, and had to focus and re-focus hundreds of times over a short period of time...I would just pick a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom (probably the Tamron)...and run with that.

It's a shame you don't want the 135 f2L.  It has been my favorite lens for over 4 years.  But the Voigtlander's color is better, its contrast identical, its sharpness on par...while it has slightly more CA, and its bokeh is not as smooth as the 135's.  But then nothing I've tried beat the 135's overall bokeh (including the 200 f/2 and 85 f/1.2)...other than perhaps a Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro Planar.  But then it's also a mostly manual lens that costs twice what the 135L costs...and it was overall not as grand as the 135.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #59 on: June 10, 2013, 02:08:59 PM »