Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Coming in October

[Viggo]

I'll just wait until my copy arrives, and test myself. But I'll try it in store and if my results matches those Bryan had, I'm not buying it... Plain and simple. There are endless discussions over the Sigma AF, and when people refuses to realize there is an issue it's no point. If there are great or horrible results, I'll be sure to post my findings and dilbert won't believe them.

I forget where I heard it (other than everywhere)... but once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a trend. It all boils down to sample size. Maybe Bryan did everything perfectly a just got a bad copy. Maybe the UPS guy played soccer with the box before it got to his front door. But if you and 14 others come to the same conclusion... then what we have here is a cheaper otus with AF usable only at f/4 or f/5.6... which REALLY makes the lens less desirable.

And there is nothing wrong with questioning scientific fact (which this test would not be considered).

Just to make it clear, I don't just guess on this, I simply added Bryan's test as a highly regarded datapoint in the long curve that is others experience with the 35 Art, including mine, and now the tests and reviews and previews I've seen regarding the 50 art, and it shows the same thing. Then there's the theory behind with Canon clearly not sharing anything with Sigma and it seems like it's not possible to make it work in the same way Canon lenses works with AF. That's the point.

I want Sigma to have a winner here, and I wanted to own the 35 art and have the cheaper lens with better IQ, in the same way I think with the 50 art now. But the 35 I had followed every prediction that it couldn't work. And I suspect the same for the 50, but given how much I want a great 50 with AF , I'm giving the new one a chance.

If the deal seems to good to be true, it probably is...

 

[Viggo]

I'll just wait until my copy arrives, and test myself. But I'll try it in store and if my results matches those Bryan had, I'm not buying it... Plain and simple. There are endless discussions over the Sigma AF, and when people refuses to realize there is an issue it's no point. If there are great or horrible results, I'll be sure to post my findings and dilbert won't believe them.

Just tell me in advance, how do you propose to do determine the correct AFMA setting for the lens whilst you're in the store?

Want me to write you a tutorial?

It's not very hard, I have the Spyder lens cal and a tripod, but I don't need the perfect value to determine if the lens gives me the same result for every shot, didn't you read Neuro's word in the same exact issue?

I used to work for the same shop I'm buying it in also, so I'm sure they have no problem with me taking it home and run through FoCal and test for a day. The 35 art showed it's flaws from the start, so I don't need a high end lab to see If it works.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi JD.
I bet that's it, some fool in dispatch put a FRAGILE label on the box, couriers seem to put all the fragile items in a special location just handy for the office vs drivers kick about! :

All this about AFMA, this is a global adjustment for the lens, so if you move the AFMA point 2 units to the front, you move ALL the future focus hits 2 points to the front, not just the misses. I guess it is possible that AFMA could improve the ability of the camera to resolve the focus points and reduce the miss rate, but it is most unlikely.
The most important thing here is the lens sample pool of 1, impossible to have a representative test on 1 item, hand picked or otherwise.
With respect to the idea of a hand picked lens, from reading Roger Cicala's blog at Lens Rentals I doubt most lens manufacturers could pick a best of the best given that they can't fix the lenses he sends back as poor quality!

Cheers Graham.

Maybe the UPS guy played soccer with the box before it got to his front door.

 

[eml58]

I think you guys are missing the big "A" on the side of these lenses... for ART! Perhaps the focus issues are for artistic effect!

Brilliant! Many believe that some Canon lenses are soft for artistic effect. I am so confused these days that I am adding Coke to my scotch. Milk into green tea.

Yes, well, your right, that's a situation that requires some redress, the Coke in the scotch I have no idea on, but I imagine it's similar to adding water to an excellent Red Wine, basically you need retraining, and lots of it would be my recommendation.

But the Milk in the Green Tea ?? Perhaps your too far gone Sanj, you may as well wallow happily in your confusion, especially when it comes to making sense out of some of these Posts, including I might add, this one.

 

[tron]

Now, for this lens o be useful even without being AF perfect it will have to be a superset of Samyang 24 1.4

1. NO Coma
2. No decentering issues.
3. Very good center wide open with good corners.

Judging from the image quality tool at TDP, the Samyang 35/1.4 seems optically quite the match to the Sigma 35/1.4A, with both better than the EF 35/1.4L. The Samyang 24/1.4 though looks quite a bit worse than the EF 24/1.4L II wide open (though COMA is hard to infer since not explicitly tested). This hopefully means that there is room for improvement for a future Sigma 24/1.4A over the corresponding Samyang. (and yes, the EF 24/1.4L II unfortunately has terrible coma as I know from first-hand experience)

Coma is tested for the mentioned 24mm lenses. Some useful links:

http://www.extremeinstability.com/lens24mm.html

http://www.lenstip.com/245.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html

http://www.lenstip.com/330.7-Lens_review-Samyang_24_mm_f_1.4_ED_AS_UMC_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I'll just wait until my copy arrives, and test myself. But I'll try it in store and if my results matches those Bryan had, I'm not buying it... Plain and simple. There are endless discussions over the Sigma AF, and when people refuses to realize there is an issue it's no point. If there are great or horrible results, I'll be sure to post my findings and dilbert won't believe them.

I forget where I heard it (other than everywhere)... but once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a trend. It all boils down to sample size. Maybe Bryan did everything perfectly a just got a bad copy. Maybe the UPS guy played soccer with the box before it got to his front door. But if you and 14 others come to the same conclusion... then what we have here is a cheaper otus with AF usable only at f/4 or f/5.6... which REALLY makes the lens less desirable.

And there is nothing wrong with questioning scientific fact (which this test would not be considered).

Just to make it clear, I don't just guess on this, I simply added Bryan's test as a highly regarded datapoint in the long curve that is others experience with the 35 Art, including mine, and now the tests and reviews and previews I've seen regarding the 50 art, and it shows the same thing. Then there's the theory behind with Canon clearly not sharing anything with Sigma and it seems like it's not possible to make it work in the same way Canon lenses works with AF. That's the point.

I want Sigma to have a winner here, and I wanted to own the 35 art and have the cheaper lens with better IQ, in the same way I think with the 50 art now. But the 35 I had followed every prediction that it couldn't work. And I suspect the same for the 50, but given how much I want a great 50 with AF , I'm giving the new one a chance.

If the deal seems to good to be true, it probably is...

Go for it Viggo and I hope your new 50' works out for you. I really wanted the 120-300 f2.8 OS to work out for me...and I was so bitterly disappointing by it. It was the last in a long line of failures from Sigma for me and at that point I said to myself "enough is enough and I have had it with this particular brand". I personally feel that Sigma need to employ less spin/promises and actually deliver what they promise.

 

[Viggo]

I'll just wait until my copy arrives, and test myself. But I'll try it in store and if my results matches those Bryan had, I'm not buying it... Plain and simple. There are endless discussions over the Sigma AF, and when people refuses to realize there is an issue it's no point. If there are great or horrible results, I'll be sure to post my findings and dilbert won't believe them.

I forget where I heard it (other than everywhere)... but once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a trend. It all boils down to sample size. Maybe Bryan did everything perfectly a just got a bad copy. Maybe the UPS guy played soccer with the box before it got to his front door. But if you and 14 others come to the same conclusion... then what we have here is a cheaper otus with AF usable only at f/4 or f/5.6... which REALLY makes the lens less desirable.

And there is nothing wrong with questioning scientific fact (which this test would not be considered).

Just to make it clear, I don't just guess on this, I simply added Bryan's test as a highly regarded datapoint in the long curve that is others experience with the 35 Art, including mine, and now the tests and reviews and previews I've seen regarding the 50 art, and it shows the same thing. Then there's the theory behind with Canon clearly not sharing anything with Sigma and it seems like it's not possible to make it work in the same way Canon lenses works with AF. That's the point.

I want Sigma to have a winner here, and I wanted to own the 35 art and have the cheaper lens with better IQ, in the same way I think with the 50 art now. But the 35 I had followed every prediction that it couldn't work. And I suspect the same for the 50, but given how much I want a great 50 with AF , I'm giving the new one a chance.

If the deal seems to good to be true, it probably is...

Go for it Viggo and I hope your new 50' works out for you. I really wanted the 120-300 f2.8 OS to work out for me...and I was so bitterly disappointing by it. It was the last in a long line of failures from Sigma for me and at that point I said to myself "enough is enough and I have had it with this particular brand". I personally feel that Sigma need to employ less spin/promises and actually deliver what they promise.

Spot on. The 50 Art is the last straw.

 

[CarlTN]

There sure are a lot of people on here who dislike the Sigma brand. There are a few who like it. Being a third party, it should be obvious that issues such as autofocus consistency, can only be so...consistent. Regarding the 50mm Art, I agree with others in this thread who want to see a larger test sample size, before conclusions can be drawn. I already know what the conclusion will be, though. The only conclusion that matters..."it's not a Canon."

I have a feeling when the 24mm Art comes out, there will be a few who will despise it, no matter how good it is. For no other reason than it's a third party lens. Is that objective? I say, to each their own. Some use third party lenses, some don't. If you can make a third party lens work for you, so be it. If you can't, or don't wish to try, fine. Wide angle fast primes have more of a niche use than 50 and 85mm fast primes. I doubt it would be a big seller relative to the longer focal length fast primes.

 

[Zv]

I'll just wait until my copy arrives, and test myself. But I'll try it in store and if my results matches those Bryan had, I'm not buying it... Plain and simple. There are endless discussions over the Sigma AF, and when people refuses to realize there is an issue it's no point. If there are great or horrible results, I'll be sure to post my findings and dilbert won't believe them.

Just tell me in advance, how do you propose to do determine the correct AFMA setting for the lens whilst you're in the store?

I think he'll be looking for inconsistency in AF altogether rather than consistently missing by the same margin every time.

AFMA can't solve your AF issues if the thing is all over the place.

 

[KarstenReis]

How quickly "new" Sigma's reputation went downhill. The 35A was hailed a great lens and now a lot of forum members seem to be bashing the 50A before they get their hands on a copy. And now some are already saying that this will have poor autofocus performance. I am quite excited for this lens for night and astro as the Canon 24L has more coma than I would like for star shots.

The key words there are "forum members", and those vocal few who think their complaints change the state of the game represent a very small portion of the market. The gap between what people want and what people get creates suffering for them, and people express pain as anger... I supposed its best to cut the complainers some slack though, since they have it hard enough already... poke poke lol ;-)

As to the lens, this is the Sigma I've been waiting to hear about. I passed on the 35A and bought the 35 IS, and will also be passing on the 50A in order to wait for the 50 IS. If the sharpness wide open and coma are good on the 24A I might actually get it like you say for star shots...

Haha. I agree 100%.

I bought the 35A and absolutely love it. It worked pretty well for some star shots but I would like a little wider FOV. I was considering selling it when the 24A comes out but I think I may just keep it and purchase the 24A when it comes out if it is sharp wide open and the coma is good.

 

[Radiating]

I've mentioned this a few times and I'll mention this again:

- I've purchased 12 copies of modern Sigma lenses (revised 85mm design, 35mm 1.4 & 18-35mm 1.8 ), and I have not had one single focusing issue with them ever. I've done the same thing for Canon's primes, and purchased multiple copies of each and kept the best one and have had several Canon lenses with focusing issues.

- Statistically Canon non-supertelephoto primes lenses have to be sent out for repair more often on average for focusing problems by Lens Rentals than any of Sigma's new lenses. Sigma without question has more reliable focusing systems than Canon.

There are tons of threads everywhere about people with Canon lenses that won't focus properly, have developed erratic focusing, or have developed huge micro adjustments that cannot be corrected. Ignoring these issues while making negative comments about Sigma lenses that you have never owned is very backwards. Focusing is not a problem that only affects Sigma. It is annoying to constantly hear these arguments where people come up with reasons not to buy Sigma lenses that are even more severe in the lens they are buying as an alternative.

That's like someone thinking: "Man I sure hate car fires in Tesla's I'm going to make sure to buy that car marked "defective exploding pinto" at my local dealer"

The fact of the matter is that all manufacturers that make autofocusing lenses are releasing bad batches of lenses. Every time you buy a lens you are playing the lottery. I got 3 bad copies of the Canon 16-85mm in a row, that doesn't mean that there has never been a 16-85mm that was a good copy. Plenty of people have the 35mm Sigma, and plenty of people have reviewed the 50mm Sigma, yet only a small handful of people have problems with them. If these lenses really did have constant problems every review would say so. But no, top pros like the guys from f-stoppers have actually had better results from Sigma's new primes with focusing than Canon's primes. And they said that in their review.

If the majority of people are capable of getting Sigma lenses that have no issues whatsoever, then I bet that you can too.

 

[Viggo]

I'll just wait until my copy arrives, and test myself. But I'll try it in store and if my results matches those Bryan had, I'm not buying it... Plain and simple. There are endless discussions over the Sigma AF, and when people refuses to realize there is an issue it's no point. If there are great or horrible results, I'll be sure to post my findings and dilbert won't believe them.

I forget where I heard it (other than everywhere)... but once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is a trend. It all boils down to sample size. Maybe Bryan did everything perfectly a just got a bad copy. Maybe the UPS guy played soccer with the box before it got to his front door. But if you and 14 others come to the same conclusion... then what we have here is a cheaper otus with AF usable only at f/4 or f/5.6... which REALLY makes the lens less desirable.

And there is nothing wrong with questioning scientific fact (which this test would not be considered).

Just to make it clear, I don't just guess on this, I simply added Bryan's test as a highly regarded datapoint in the long curve that is others experience with the 35 Art, including mine, and now the tests and reviews and previews I've seen regarding the 50 art, and it shows the same thing. Then there's the theory behind with Canon clearly not sharing anything with Sigma and it seems like it's not possible to make it work in the same way Canon lenses works with AF. That's the point.

I want Sigma to have a winner here, and I wanted to own the 35 art and have the cheaper lens with better IQ, in the same way I think with the 50 art now. But the 35 I had followed every prediction that it couldn't work. And I suspect the same for the 50, but given how much I want a great 50 with AF , I'm giving the new one a chance.

If the deal seems to good to be true, it probably is...

Go for it Viggo and I hope your new 50' works out for you. I really wanted the 120-300 f2.8 OS to work out for me...and I was so bitterly disappointing by it. It was the last in a long line of failures from Sigma for me and at that point I said to myself "enough is enough and I have had it with this particular brand". I personally feel that Sigma need to employ less spin/promises and actually deliver what they promise.

Spot on. The 50 Art is the last straw.

Why don't you be honest and say that you never really intended to buy the Sigma and are just using this to make yourself feel good about that decision?

First of, what's it to you what I do? Second, why don't you stop assuming something and trolling?

I bought the 35 Art and I have had 3 copies of the 50 L, 4 copies of the ef 50 f1.4 because I love the 50mm. I was
Going to buy the Otus, but ended up taking them too long and I bought the 200 f2 instead. I also had the Zeiss 50 f2 mp and sold it because the MF isn't for me. And so the 50 Art is THE lens I have been wanting and looking for, so I'm one of it's biggest fans, I simply express my frustration over it being awesome and useless at the same time , like every other Sigma, even my 15mm fisheye from Sigma had AF issues. And I have already stated I will try the 50 and perhaps live with a lower hitrate because it's otherwise awesome, BUT to think it's remarkably better and a AF revolution over the 35 Art isn't likely. And initial testing seem to confirm my worries. Only one way to find out.

 

[Loswr]

How do you think that looks when viewed without your rose coloured glasses?

Better than looking through glasses smeared with feces. Just sayin'...

 

[Loswr]

How do you think that looks when viewed without your rose coloured glasses?

Better than looking through glasses smeared with feces. Just sayin'...

Well then I'm glad I don't go shopping for glasses at the same places you do!

I don't think yours were that way when you bought them.

Personally, mine are neutral density with polarization - I like my light the same way I like my information: unbiased and orderly.

 

[jdramirez]

As much as I would like to see a pay per view fight between photogs, maybe we should step back and take a breath.

 

[Loswr]

But CR is free!

 

[Viggo]

I hold a bucket of popcorn with one hand and throw the other one around. Like the old saying "you don't get to have more fun than the fun you create yourself"

 

[sdsr]

As much as I would like to see a pay per view fight between photogs, maybe we should step back and take a breath.

Perhaps I'm missing something (I wouldn't be shocked if I were, as I'm not remotely as technologically savvy as many contributors here), but wouldn't this focusing inconsistency problem vanish if Canon and Nikon took mirrorless technology seriously and released some competitive mirrorless bodies? In the world of M43 and Sony e-mount (and presumably Fuji too), Sigma's remarkably inexpensive primes consistently receive very high praise (aside from some wishing they were faster than f/2.8) from reviewers and users and in the - hardly comprehensive, admittedly - reading I've done I've not encountered any complaints about focusing. (That's not to say mirrorless cameras never have focusing problems, but they seem to have nothing to do with the inconsistency problem being discussed here.)

Has anyone reading this attached a Canon-mount Sigma lens (preferably one which focused inconsistently on a Canon dslr) to an EOS M and experienced focusing inconsistency? I would expect the answer to be "no." Presumably someone will correct me if my expectation is false.

 

[Loswr]

I see. I don't wear anything so that I see everything equally, just the way it is, without any filtering.

So, you see everything just the way it is? Apparently that doesn't include seeing the DIGISUPER 75 as a lens. Or maybe you see things clearly, but just don't understand what you're seeing... :

 

[Loswr]

Perhaps I'm missing something (I wouldn't be shocked if I were, as I'm not remotely as technologically savvy as many contributors here), but wouldn't this focusing inconsistency problem vanish if Canon and Nikon took mirrorless technology seriously and released some competitive mirrorless bodies?

The need for AFMA would vanish. Contast detect AF has certainly been shown to have some inconsistencies, particularly the Canon 5DII and 7D.