October 22, 2014, 11:12:34 PM

Author Topic: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?  (Read 4575 times)

ScottyP

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
    • View Profile
What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« on: September 23, 2013, 12:55:21 AM »
I believe their family founder recently passed. Is the new impressive vitality (QUALITY) coming from the new generation, or what?
Canon 6D; Canon Lenses: EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF 85 f/1.8; EF-S 17-55 f/2.8; Canon 1.4x Mk. III T.C.; Sigma Lens: 35mm f/1.4 "Art"

canon rumors FORUM

What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« on: September 23, 2013, 12:55:21 AM »

Jim Saunders

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2013, 01:16:09 AM »
There is an article mentioned very recently on Petapixel that might be a partial answer to your question.

Jim
See what I see: 6500K, 160 cd/m^2, ICC 2, gamma 2.2.

Woody

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
    • View Profile
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2013, 03:30:52 AM »
For me, these optically fantastic Sigma lenses have zero attraction. I have far too many painful AF issues with Sigma lenses (including the latest Sigma 30 f/1.4 DC HSM Art lens).

Not touching them with a ten foot pole

Menace

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1372
  • New Zealand
    • View Profile
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2013, 05:09:05 AM »
Sigma has nothing to lose by trying a new strategy - only extra sales if the lenses are well received by the target market.
1Dx | 5D III
85 1.2L II | 100 2.8 | 400 2.8L IS II 
24-70 2.8L II | 70-200 2.8L IS II

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1606
    • View Profile
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2013, 06:30:49 AM »
There is an article mentioned very recently on Petapixel that might be a partial answer to your question.
Jim
Jim do you have a link to this piece?

-pw

bchernicoff

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • My Photos
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2013, 09:08:18 AM »
Here is the link to the article.  It's a tour of the Sigma factory with some history on the company. The person receiving the tour comments on the cleanliness, attention to detail, and optical testing of each completed lens... factors which could account for an improvement in quality.


http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/09/19/a-geeks-tour-of-sigmas-aizu-lens-factory-precision-production-from-the-insi

This is all part of the company's new Global Vision that they launched in 2012. You can read about it at the link below:
http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/
6D, Fuji X-T1, X-E1
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 400mm f/2.8L II, 100mm L IS Macro, Sigma 85mm, & 35mm f/1.4's, Rokinon 14mm f/2.8,
Fuji 23mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 56mm 1.2, 14mm 2.8, 18-55, 55-200

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2013, 09:50:37 AM »
I believe their family founder recently passed. Is the new impressive vitality (QUALITY) coming from the new generation, or what?

I am not sure that they improved the quality. They have a few new lens designs but the AF problems and the copy variations seem to persist. Their build quality has been gradually improving long before the event you mentioned.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2013, 09:50:37 AM »

bchernicoff

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • My Photos
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2013, 10:18:27 AM »
I am not sure that they improved the quality. They have a few new lens designs but the AF problems and the copy variations seem to persist. Their build quality has been gradually improving long before the event you mentioned.

I've owned the total of seven Sigma lenses and used them with 7D, 5D Mk II, and 5D Mk III and the only one that had any problem with AF was a 50 1.4 on the 5D Mk II. It was inconsistent in low light. I sold that lens (which I had bought used) and later bought a brand new copy when I heard it performed better on the Mk III. It's true.
I feel like 90% of the grief that people hear about are from older/cheaper models from Sigma. The 35mm and the 85mm are stunningly sharp. The 17-50 f/2.8 OS was my favorite crop body lens. All the Global Vision lenses offer tuning and upgradeability through the USB dock. You really cannot go wrong with the new lenses.
6D, Fuji X-T1, X-E1
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 400mm f/2.8L II, 100mm L IS Macro, Sigma 85mm, & 35mm f/1.4's, Rokinon 14mm f/2.8,
Fuji 23mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 56mm 1.2, 14mm 2.8, 18-55, 55-200

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2013, 10:27:35 AM »
I feel like 90% of the grief that people hear about are from older/cheaper models from Sigma.

I was talking about the 35, the 18-35the 50, the 85. I have never tried the first two (hence the use of the words "seems" but I have seen quite a few complaints about the AF). I have my own experience with the 50 and the 85, and the AF was below any acceptable standard, the most problematic was the AF was heavily dependent on the distance. The same complaint that I hear about the first two, it must be a Sigma thing.

I had to return the Sigma fisheye, the latest "silent upgrade" model for various problems.

bchernicoff

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
    • View Profile
    • My Photos
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2013, 10:49:29 AM »
I feel like 90% of the grief that people hear about are from older/cheaper models from Sigma.

I was talking about the 35, the 18-35the 50, the 85. I have never tried the first two (hence the use of the words "seems" but I have seen quite a few complaints about the AF). I have my own experience with the 50 and the 85, and the AF was below any acceptable standard, the most problematic was the AF was heavily dependent on the distance. The same complaint that I hear about the first two, it must be a Sigma thing.

I had to return the Sigma fisheye, the latest "silent upgrade" model for various problems.

So, you've had grief with two pre-Global Vision lenses and have seen complaints about other lenses you haven't tried...(complaints that haven't shown up in any of the reviews I've read.) Based on this you feel qualified to contradict the premise of this thread?
6D, Fuji X-T1, X-E1
Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 400mm f/2.8L II, 100mm L IS Macro, Sigma 85mm, & 35mm f/1.4's, Rokinon 14mm f/2.8,
Fuji 23mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 56mm 1.2, 14mm 2.8, 18-55, 55-200

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2013, 11:33:00 AM »
So, you've had grief with two pre-Global Vision lenses and have seen complaints about other lenses you haven't tried...(complaints that haven't shown up in any of the reviews I've read.) Based on this you feel qualified to contradict the premise of this thread?

I always thought that when it comes to copy variations and AF problems, the experience of several users trumps that of one, even if that one is myself with bad experience with three Sigma lenses.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16617.msg306961#msg306961

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2013, 12:09:24 PM »
I've had two Sigma disasters:

30mm f1.4 DC.  Fine on my 7D with +18 MFA.  Not usable for stills on my Rebel.  Lovely images for video, it really hurt to send it back.

17-35 f2.8-4 EX DG.  Just all round grimness. Ghosting, focus shift.  Returned and got a 17-40 f4L instead.

Had some joyous Sigmas too though:

My 18-50 f2.8 DC is a great alrounder on my APS-C bodies.  Delighted with it.  I bought it used and it seems it had been dropped before, but a rebuild gave me total confidence in it.

My 70mm Macro, on the rare occassions I use it, never fails to delight.

I liked my old Bigma 50-500, just need faster lenses for video and wouldn't carry both this and my 70-200, so made a call.

I loved both my 10-20 and 12-24 when I had them.  The 10-20 was a bit of a pain because square filters reflected what was behind the camera into the shot (no hood with square filters) and the 12-24 was rear filter only but no issues with focus, build, reliability, all EX, and well put together.

When I used MF gear I had an old 28mm f1.8 in MD fit, which was a treasure to use, especially with cross-processed agfa 100.

They make a lot more lenses than most companies, and the designs are largely adapted per mount than unique to a system, but they push the boundaries.

I hope the new ethos and the ability to firmware update etc makes them more consistent.  They are imaginative and plug holes in other folks ranges.  Can vouch for those who've had problems, can vouch for those who have had great experience.

In contrast, every Canon item I've had has been excellent (apart from my 7D's UDMA issue, 7D's grip issue, XL1 back focus issue, 18x dead sensors in MV600 camcorder... etc etc etc)

distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1524
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2013, 12:17:43 PM »
.
I'd love to have an answer to this question. I've read the aforementioned articles as well as other info, but they don't answer the question. I believe the answer lies simply with management decisions.

Whining about past experience doesn't address the question, and it doesn't suggest much credibility to me.

I'm hoping the Sigma trend toward L-level quality at reasonable prices continues.
Walter: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2013, 12:17:43 PM »

Woody

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
    • View Profile
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2013, 12:55:38 PM »
So, you've had grief with two pre-Global Vision lenses and have seen complaints about other lenses you haven't tried...(complaints that haven't shown up in any of the reviews I've read.) Based on this you feel qualified to contradict the premise of this thread?

Here's a review of the most recent 18-35 f/1.8 lens:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-35-1-8/5

"We shot with a range of Canon SLRs, from the entry-level EOS 100D to the top-of-the-line EOS 7D, and all had problems focusing absolutely correctly all the time. This was usually only obvious when shooting at apertures larger than F2.8...

We looked at whether the focus problems we saw from the 18-35mm could be mitigated by using autofocus microadjustments. With a Sigma USB Dock to hand, we set about determining and programming in a full set of autofocus microadjust parameters for all of Sigma's specified focal lengths and focus distances (18, 24, 28 and 35mm; infinity, 0.5m, 0.35m and 0.28m). This took several hours to set up, even with specialised focusing targets to hand...

This procedure certainly improved overall focus accuracy when shooting at the distances used for microadjustment. However these are fixed by the software, and there's no option to specifically correct any distance between infinity and 0.5m. Unfortunately though, the vast majority of subjects end up somewhere in between, and we found that the lens still had some problems with focus accuracy even when fully programmed as above..."

My experience with the updated Sigma 30 f/1.4 Art lens mirrors DPReview's article above.


Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • *********
  • Posts: 8868
    • View Profile
Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2013, 01:02:21 PM »
I think the answer is simple, but its only my opinion.
 
Sales of DSLR's and lenses have been increasing by leaps and bounds over the past several years now.  High end lenses are expensive, and sigma saw that there was a solid and increasing market for them.  Getting to the point where you can compete is not simple, they had to hire and train more designers, technicians, and upgrade every part of their operation all the while increasing production rates and improving repair facilities.  This required a fierce determination at the top management levels, so I'm impressed.
 
They will always have issues with autofocus, because each lens model has its own characteristics.  A Sigma lens sends a code to a Canon DSLR identifying it as a similar Canon lens.  That's the root of the problem, the camera then uses data in its internal data table to compensate for that referenced Canon lens, and it will not match the Sigma lens exactly, and will be different for different Canon camera models.  Its a near impossible situation for Sigma, their dock feature allows it to be fixed for one camera but use it on a 2nd camera, and it can be way off.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: What accounts for bold Sigma improvements?
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2013, 01:02:21 PM »