I'd like to hope it's better than ti was before, because the 35 art is unuseable and Sigma refused to do anything about it. I'm now stuck with it because I am unwilling to pass on this piece of junk to anyone else.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:That represents almost the entire non-white L prime lineup -- including fringe-ier items like 20mm and 105mm -- knocked out in less than 6 years.
jolyonralph said:I'd like to hope it's better than ti was before, because the 35 art is unuseable and Sigma refused to do anything about it. I'm now stuck with it because I am unwilling to pass on this piece of junk to anyone else.
Isaacheus said:Out of curiosity, what body are you using it on? I've always wondered if that made a difference, or if it was the lens itself
jolyonralph said:I'd like to hope it's better than ti was before, because the 35 art is unuseable and Sigma refused to do anything about it. I'm now stuck with it because I am unwilling to pass on this piece of junk to anyone else.
I'm assuming you have used the Sigma dock to fine tune autofoucs?jolyonralph said:And yes, I know what the specs say, but this is a Sigma. If my sigma art 35 lens gets focus right 50% of the time then it's a really good day. Doesn't matter how great the optics are if the autofocus is junk.
aceflibble said:[...]
You don't get to throw in IS, let alone better-corrected glass, for only a 'moderate' increase in weight over the existing 100/2. That lens is extremely small and light to begin with; anything more up-to-date will always be much bigger than it. If you want closer focus too then you're looking at basically the existing 100mm L but with a wider aperture; exactly how light do you think that could be?mb66energy said:My Opinion: I would prefer an updated EF 2.0 100 with IS, better LOCA correction, 1:4 close focus and only moderately increased size / weight. A 1.4 105 with tripod foot nearly not as flexible to use - I bet it has a mass of 1250 g.
ad said:If you look closely at the lens name in the image in the original post (http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/sigma105artnok.jpg), it says 105mm diameter.ahsanford said:Judging by the size of that front element relative of the mount, that is going to have one big filter diameter. 86mm? 95mm maybe?
IglooEater said:I wondered if some third party would release this, when Nikon released theirs a while back. It’s a way to get bokeh close to Canon’s 85mm 1.2, fits into a Nikon lens mount throat diameter. I’ve been told that their smaller mount makes some very specific lenses difficult, such as an 85mm 1.2
Edit:
I think it’s quite telling of the shift the market has taken over the last few years that nowadays when a fast prime is released that we even ask whether it has IS. Go back 10 years and there were no stabilized anythings 1.8 or faster.
aceflibble said:Nice. Just last week I was lamenting still using the 100/2 while Nikon has the 105/1.4.
I don't trust Sigma's AF, though—every single one I've owned, rented, or borrowed has had such horrifically inconsistent, vague AF that I've had to resort to just focusing manually—and they're not well-made for manual focus, either. All their lenses of this type lacking sealing, as well.
Fingers crossed they've had some kind of breakthrough in AF and they've stopped being stingey gits and have built a premium lens with an actual pro-quality focus ring and sealing. If they have, this is the most obvious, no-brainer, instant buy for me. (And hopefully they then put out a 28mm to match it.)
You don't get to throw in IS, let alone better-corrected glass, for only a 'moderate' increase in weight over the existing 100/2. That lens is extremely small and light to begin with; anything more up-to-date will always be much bigger than it. If you want closer focus too then you're looking at basically the existing 100mm L but with a wider aperture; exactly how light do you think that could be?mb66energy said:My Opinion: I would prefer an updated EF 2.0 100 with IS, better LOCA correction, 1:4 close focus and only moderately increased size / weight. A 1.4 105 with tripod foot nearly not as flexible to use - I bet it has a mass of 1250 g.
Joules said:I'm assuming you have used the Sigma dock to fine tune autofoucs?
jolyonralph said:Joules said:I'm assuming you have used the Sigma dock to fine tune autofoucs?
Yes - and buying the sigma dock was another waste of money. And a high res calibration card to use for focus testing (ok, that's not so much of a waste because that's been useful for my other lenses).
Number of my canon L lenses that have needed micro-adjustment = zero
The sigma was all over the place. I would adjust it fine, and the very next shot it'd be focusing somewhere else.
Sigma refused to look at it because I bought it online from a dealer who fulfilled from Ireland (which I had no idea of at the time). So much for a single market...
So screw Sigma, I'll never buy another of their products again.
This is a misuse of the term "bokeh"; "bokeh" is the quality of the out-of-focus rendering, not the amount of blur as you imply.IglooEater said:It’s a way to get bokeh close to Canon’s 85mm 1.2,
Nikon has 105mm f/1.4 and it's been a big seller for them. Canon's own 100mm f/2 has sold fairly well for nearly three decades, while the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro is one of the best-selling prime lenses Canon has ever had; if you ever ask a Canon rep about it, they'll gladly tell you the company puts most of the sales down to portraiture, rather than anything demanding the macro functionality.MintChocs said:I can’t believe there is a huge market for such lenses. As said above 85,135 and now this. How do they make a profit on such small production runs? I would prefer lighter f2 versions with IS.
Grip isn't the issue. The problem with Sigmas and manual focus is the rings aren't very tightly connected to the gearing at the extreme ends, causing the ring to 'slip', giving an almost by-wire feeling of lag. On top of that they have a more limited throw than first-party Canon, Nikon, and Sony lenses, as well as being far shorter-throw than Tamron lenses, resulting in far less precision.HarryFilm said:Almost NO third-party lens will work as good as an original Canon on a Canon camera...BUT...you can do what I've done. You goto your local Dollar store and buy one of those really flexible 2mm thick Silicone rubber kitchen sink mats and cut a two cm wide strip -- or whatever width you need to grab onto!) and make a rubber ring that slips onto the lens. It MUST be true silicone rubber and NOT poly-vinyl plastic! Silicone GRIPS very well. There are adhesives or sticky tapes you can use o ensure the rubber ring STAYS as a ring. When slipped onto your lens, this silicone rubber make for a VERY NICE and EASY-to-GRIP focusing ring that works almost exactly like those used on the high end Zeiss Otus series which I find a very easy-to-manual-focus series of lenses! It's a but ugly looking BUT It Works Great! AND IT'S A CHEAP SOLUTION to a big manual focus issue!