September 30, 2014, 04:43:05 PM

Author Topic: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked  (Read 25298 times)

flowers

  • Guest
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #90 on: February 08, 2014, 05:42:05 PM »

The 50 is different because there isn't anything that would do what the Sigma does AT ALL, IF it works, so that is a lens I would keep for years, IF it works. And so, I'm willing to buy it new, and try a few copies to really find the one that works, or so claimed by people, that there actually are copies that can work. My thought is, if it's such a large number of off lenses, how long does a good one really last? I have heard of 35's that drift in afma value over time, and that must be the worst symptom ever....

Agreed, it will be an amazing lens if it's just as promised. Now now, you're jumping on the other side of the fens and doing exactly what you took offence to in the first place: doubting the experiences of other people with their copy of the lens. I can't say how my s35 will behave in 10 years, but I can vouch for it being perfect right now. :)

Well, my friend didn't notice anything wrong with it  ::)

I don't know you and I don't know you're friend. I edit my photos at 200%-400% magnification so I know exactly how perfect the focus is. :) Seeing how defensive you are it seems like it's really just a case of user error and you want to defend your choice of Canon vs third party. Your choice is your right but don't present your prejudice as a fact. I'm happy to let anyone try the AF consistency of my 35 as long as it stays on my camera. I won't sell it and I won't lend it to anyone. I took you seriously until you started your sly underhand (and then not so underhand) suggestions of nobody else knowing how to check AF consistency than you. Somtimes everyone gets so sure that they're right about something that there's no other possibility than everyone else being wrong. Usually in those cases it turns out that the reason for the assumption wasn't based on reason but on emotions. If I can get AF consistency out of my 35 on a 5d2 and you can't get any out of several 35s on a 1DX and you claim the only possibility is that all Sigma 35s are duds, rethink your ideas of where the fault might really lie. I'm rewriting this post now as I saw your other reply where you acknowledged that perfect copies exist. I understand there might have been a lot of bad 35's out there, maybe it was when the lens first came out. Maybe Sigma upped their quality control and now make 99.9% perfect 35's. It's possible, isn't it? You might have used more than one bad copy of the sigma 35 but you can't draw the conclusion that most 35's are duds from that. I have Canon lenses and I have Sigma lenses, I don't take sides. I have spoken against Sigma lenses when it's deserved. I have also spoken against Canon lenses when it's deserved. I'm not interested in who makes the lenses, I'm interested in how well they perform. Maybe that should be your main concern too.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 05:50:31 PM by flowers »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #90 on: February 08, 2014, 05:42:05 PM »

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2065
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #91 on: February 08, 2014, 06:47:26 PM »

The 50 is different because there isn't anything that would do what the Sigma does AT ALL, IF it works, so that is a lens I would keep for years, IF it works. And so, I'm willing to buy it new, and try a few copies to really find the one that works, or so claimed by people, that there actually are copies that can work. My thought is, if it's such a large number of off lenses, how long does a good one really last? I have heard of 35's that drift in afma value over time, and that must be the worst symptom ever....

Agreed, it will be an amazing lens if it's just as promised. Now now, you're jumping on the other side of the fens and doing exactly what you took offence to in the first place: doubting the experiences of other people with their copy of the lens. I can't say how my s35 will behave in 10 years, but I can vouch for it being perfect right now. :)

Well, my friend didn't notice anything wrong with it  ::)

I don't know you and I don't know you're friend. I edit my photos at 200%-400% magnification so I know exactly how perfect the focus is. :) Seeing how defensive you are it seems like it's really just a case of user error and you want to defend your choice of Canon vs third party. Your choice is your right but don't present your prejudice as a fact. I'm happy to let anyone try the AF consistency of my 35 as long as it stays on my camera. I won't sell it and I won't lend it to anyone. I took you seriously until you started your sly underhand (and then not so underhand) suggestions of nobody else knowing how to check AF consistency than you. Somtimes everyone gets so sure that they're right about something that there's no other possibility than everyone else being wrong. Usually in those cases it turns out that the reason for the assumption wasn't based on reason but on emotions. If I can get AF consistency out of my 35 on a 5d2 and you can't get any out of several 35s on a 1DX and you claim the only possibility is that all Sigma 35s are duds, rethink your ideas of where the fault might really lie. I'm rewriting this post now as I saw your other reply where you acknowledged that perfect copies exist. I understand there might have been a lot of bad 35's out there, maybe it was when the lens first came out. Maybe Sigma upped their quality control and now make 99.9% perfect 35's. It's possible, isn't it? You might have used more than one bad copy of the sigma 35 but you can't draw the conclusion that most 35's are duds from that. I have Canon lenses and I have Sigma lenses, I don't take sides. I have spoken against Sigma lenses when it's deserved. I have also spoken against Canon lenses when it's deserved. I'm not interested in who makes the lenses, I'm interested in how well they perform. Maybe that should be your main concern too.

Some people have a hard time understanding something. I said the problem isn't a faulty lens design, since there are good copies out there, I said because of the amount of bad copies it makes buying a good one much harder than it should be. I'm not sure how many times I have to state something before people can actually read it right.

User error? Seriously??? I have owned multiple copies of 24 L II, 35 L, 50 L, 85 L, 135 L, 300 f2.8, and now the 200 f2.0L and I know how to pinpoint a bugs eye through a bush with any of those, so please, leave the "user error" out of this. It took me 10 minutes to figure out MY 35 wasn't working, and the SAME issue I can easily find others who experience, including my friend.

If you have sharp focus, looking at that at 100% or 900% doesn't make a difference, it's sharp, I get it. I saw on MY screen the shots were off, so I switched to the 35 L and tried the same, no issue, and I did try with my gf's 5d2, same thing. Are you still going to be so arrogant as to saying I know how to use a 35 f1.4 from Canon, but that the Sigma needs a whole other skill set to be able to achieve sharp focus? I hope not, therefor, a dud copy.

And it's not some weird fault I make up because I loooove Canon so much and different from anyone, it's seen in several copies. No matter how great your copy or copies are, it's not going to fix the one I had, and it's not going to fix others copies with the same issue, is that so hard to grasp?

If I was such a Canon fanboy who hates Sigma, why would I buy a Siggy 35 for money, when I already had two working 35 L's?

wow....

1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

flowers

  • Guest
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #92 on: February 08, 2014, 07:11:23 PM »


If I was such a Canon fanboy who hates Sigma, why would I buy a Siggy 35 for money, when I already had two working 35 L's?

wow....

I really didn't mean for this to turn into an argument, I'm sorry for my choice of words. Maybe I misinterpreted some of the things you said. No, of course a Sigma doesn't require different set of skills for AF than a Canon! I believe your lens is a dud, and I believe there are other duds out there but it did seem to come across like you were saying a very significant percentage of them are duds and that just isn't likely. If it was true I'd expect Sigma to be bankrupt by now. I don't doubt your honesty or ability to AF but I also ackowledge that sometimes people convince themselves of things that aren't always so out of frustration or many bad experiences. I believe this wasn't the case with you and you just had a bunch of bad luck. I said earlier that "I wish everyone's copy was perfect, Sigma needs to improve their QC so all of their customers can enjoy their products and not just some". I stand by those words. I also know that people are biased, especially people with negative reviews. http://web.mit.edu/simester/Public/Papers/Deceptive_Reviews.pdf I just came across that paper recently. It says that negative reviews of products are more often false than positive reviews. It makes sense, like many other people pointed out when people are happy they often say nothing but when they are unhappy they can get very vocal. That's why I think it makes mcuh sense to be a lot more critical of negative reviews than positive reviews. I treated your posts from that POV while also considering the possibility that your experiences are genuine.
Why your posts came across as they did is because you pegged the Sigma 35 against the Canon 35L. You made the 35L the point of comparison, no one else. Even if you had 50 35L's and 50 Sigma 35's, what would that prove? 50 out of 1 million is 0.005%. I agree that all companies should invest a lot in their quality control. I don't agree that you can draw definite conclusions of any amount of copies you can get your hands on as even as a full-time professional, not even if your only job is reviewing lenses. It's just not possible to get your hands on enough lenses to make reasonably reliable conclusions. Test 10 lenses a day for a year = 3650 lenses. If we assume Sigma made 1 million 35 Arts, that's 1000000/3650 = 0.365% of all the Art 35's tested. A little better, but you're beginning to see how it's not really reliable. Though somewhat unlikely, it's a lot more likely that you got 10 bad copies in a row than that 100% or even 99% of Sigma 35's are faulty. I don't say this as a Sigma fan but as someone who tries to have an unbiased view.

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 944
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #93 on: February 08, 2014, 07:16:07 PM »
Gentlemen, please let us return to the topic on the price of the Sigma 50mm. :-X

flowers

  • Guest
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #94 on: February 08, 2014, 07:18:47 PM »
Gentlemen, please let us return to the topic on the price of the Sigma 50mm. :-X
Yes, please let's return on topic. I apologize and withdraw any comments that might evoke a need for a further response. If you need to continue please PM me and let's keep this thread clean. I'm sorry for my part for getting off-topic.

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 906
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #95 on: February 08, 2014, 07:54:31 PM »
Gentlemen, please let us return to the topic on the price of the Sigma 50mm. :-X
Yes, please let's return on topic. I apologize and withdraw any comments that might evoke a need for a further response. If you need to continue please PM me and let's keep this thread clean. I'm sorry for my part for getting off-topic.

Huzzah.  Back to the vital, world-turning topic of new lens price speculation.

- A

Radiating

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 336
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #96 on: February 09, 2014, 12:31:52 AM »
I'm expecting this lens to be as good as, but not better than, the 35mm Art. On that basis, I'm expecting to pay similar money for this lens.

You're comparing apples to oceans.

"I'm expecting this new 180-550mm IS STM lens be as good as, but not better than, the 18-55mm IS STM. On that basis, I'm expecting to pay similar money for this lens."

Let me rephrase your statement into an apples to apples comparison.

"I'm expecting this new 50mm ART to have double the performance of any comparable 50mm lens in it's price range. On that basis I expect to pay at least 25% less money for it."

Much better.



Some people have a hard time understanding something. I said the problem isn't a faulty lens design, since there are good copies out there, I said because of the amount of bad copies it makes buying a good one much harder than it should be. I'm not sure how many times I have to state something before people can actually read it right.

You do realize that Canon's 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2 are some of most defective lenses in production from any manufacturer, with defect rates of 13.75% for the 35mm and somewhere within 2% of that for the 50's according to lens rentals, which manages over 12,000 copies of 350 lenses.

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 has a defect rate that is around half of what you get from Canon (strictly comparing to the 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.2).

Sigma used to have a defect rate around 17% for some of it's popular lenses, so they deserve the bad reputation though.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2014, 01:58:16 AM by Radiating »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #96 on: February 09, 2014, 12:31:52 AM »

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2065
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #97 on: February 09, 2014, 02:28:04 AM »
Yes, done with this. Back on topic.

If it's less than the 50 L or the same I'm getting one. Maybe Sigma will make a 350 dollar f1.8 for those who won't pay for the f1.4. And that it will be better than Canon equiv.
1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

Chapman Baxter

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #98 on: February 09, 2014, 09:47:29 AM »
I'm expecting this lens to be as good as, but not better than, the 35mm Art. On that basis, I'm expecting to pay similar money for this lens.

You're comparing apples to oceans.

"I'm expecting this new 180-550mm IS STM lens be as good as, but not better than, the 18-55mm IS STM. On that basis, I'm expecting to pay similar money for this lens."

Let me rephrase your statement into an apples to apples comparison.

"I'm expecting this new 50mm ART to have double the performance of any comparable 50mm lens in it's price range. On that basis I expect to pay at least 25% less money for it."

Much better.



Some people have a hard time understanding something. I said the problem isn't a faulty lens design, since there are good copies out there, I said because of the amount of bad copies it makes buying a good one much harder than it should be. I'm not sure how many times I have to state something before people can actually read it right.

You do realize that Canon's 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2 are some of most defective lenses in production from any manufacturer, with defect rates of 13.75% for the 35mm and somewhere within 2% of that for the 50's according to lens rentals, which manages over 12,000 copies of 350 lenses.

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 has a defect rate that is around half of what you get from Canon (strictly comparing to the 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.2).

Sigma used to have a defect rate around 17% for some of it's popular lenses, so they deserve the bad reputation though.

This lens will not compare with the Zeiss Otus. There is nobody who will pay that kind of money for a Sigma. Sigma knows where their market is. It will be a very good lens, as good as the 35mm and that, to my mind, will be good enough (a lot better than any Canon 50mm).

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #99 on: February 09, 2014, 11:02:42 AM »
This lens will not compare with the Zeiss Otus. There is nobody who will pay that kind of money for a Sigma. Sigma knows where their market is. It will be a very good lens, as good as the 35mm and that, to my mind, will be good enough (a lot better than any Canon 50mm).

Markets change.  Generally with performance.  Kia is selling a luxury car.  I think most would agree their market base is cheap value cars... but evidently they think they can expand their market.

If Sigma believes they stumbled upon greatness, and the build quality, image quality, and AF performance... then people will notice.  They can sell the lens originally at $900... and if it is truly that amazing, demand will exceed supply and the price will rise.

Thank about when the Wii first came out and there weren't any available.  Retailers would package a ton of cheap crap with the system and sell it for $500+. 

If the Sigma is in high demand, retailers will bundle the lens with filters, lens pens, lint free cloths, etc. 
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L->85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm ->100L & 85L

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2065
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #100 on: February 09, 2014, 11:59:45 AM »
I hope Sigma decides to take on everything Canon and Nikon has to offer, if it's better or cheaper of both. As long as the lens does the job, I really don't care which name is on the box, but I do care about what I saved of money to put into other purchases.
1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

spomeniks

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #101 on: February 10, 2014, 08:18:04 PM »
In support of the argument that the ~$1400 price is merely an RRP, place holder, etc, and that the final price will be something far closer to that of the 35mm 1.4, I think we can learn something from the specs.

One point made was that the 50mm might be more expensive than the 35mm due to the fact that the design requires more glass.  I don't think this is true because of one thing: the weight.  While both lenses share a very similar outward design, the 50mm is slightly bigger. BUT, while the 35mm weighs 665g, the 50mm weighs only 470g (http://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_35_1p4 and http://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_50_1p4_a respectively).  There is obviously less glass in the 50mm.

My theory is that the design is less sophisticated and so there is a very small likelihood that the price would be more than the 35mm.  I might be totally wrong but I thought I'd share this

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2386
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #102 on: February 10, 2014, 09:23:31 PM »
I hope Sigma decides to take on everything Canon and Nikon has to offer, if it's better or cheaper of both. As long as the lens does the job, I really don't care which name is on the box, but I do care about what I saved of money to put into other purchases.

I agree... I have a Rokinon fisheye that is really good... and I grew bored with the focal length, but I don't care that it isn't a Canon or what have you... though it does have a red ring around it.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L->85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm ->100L & 85L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #102 on: February 10, 2014, 09:23:31 PM »

Viggo

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2065
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #103 on: February 10, 2014, 09:28:52 PM »
In support of the argument that the ~$1400 price is merely an RRP, place holder, etc, and that the final price will be something far closer to that of the 35mm 1.4, I think we can learn something from the specs.

One point made was that the 50mm might be more expensive than the 35mm due to the fact that the design requires more glass.  I don't think this is true because of one thing: the weight.  While both lenses share a very similar outward design, the 50mm is slightly bigger. BUT, while the 35mm weighs 665g, the 50mm weighs only 470g (http://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_35_1p4 and http://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_50_1p4_a respectively).  There is obviously less glass in the 50mm.

My theory is that the design is less sophisticated and so there is a very small likelihood that the price would be more than the 35mm.  I might be totally wrong but I thought I'd share this

It seems to be 815g, not 470.
1dx, 24-70 L II, 50 Art, 200 f2.0 L

Maximilian

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
  • The dark side - I've been there
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #104 on: February 11, 2014, 06:51:35 AM »
I am looking somewhat for a decent 50 mm with an actual optical and mechanical design.
I was interested in the Sigma, as I thought the list price would be somewhere close to the 35 mm art.
Now I'm no longer interested in this.
I have no urge, so let’s see ...
sometimes you have to close your eyes to see properly.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked
« Reply #104 on: February 11, 2014, 06:51:35 AM »