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?