Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked

[Chapman Baxter]

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.

 

[BLFPhoto]

So what are the complaints here? With any wide open prime with a shallow depth of field, AF can be off. That's why there is micro adjustment. Are the complaints saying that AF was off by over the 20 +/-? Or are they saying that even after you get a micro adjust number, the AF is just random and all over the place...?

Would the dock fix the issue and people are just cutting bait before fixing the problem?

I'd rent the dock for a weekend... but I'm not quite sure I would buy it for just one lens. And obviously if the firmware changed... then I would rent it again...

Thanks for the clarification... I'm never quite sure what complaints are genuine or a factor of user error.

The problem with mine, and also with a lot of others, is that when it's perfectly adjusted it's random. I tried 1000 shots aiming locking and taking the picture, defocus my lens and then do the same again on the same exact spot, over 10 shots, there would be 10 different degrees of sharpness or rather, softness. That makes the lens miss for no appreant reason, even when the camera says it's in focus. Which again means, you can trust the image to be sharp at all, even if everything indicates it, until you review the image after it was taken.

My experience over 3 months with the lens is not equal to yours, Viggo. The lens measures more accurate, by an insignificant margin in Focal, than my 35L across four different bodies. I can also add that a friend's Sigma 35 performs nearly exactly as mine across those same four bodies. The focus consistency test, conducted indoors in both adequate and low light levels, via Focal, measures better than my 35L. In practice, during actual shoots, the Sigma 35's AF performance is indistinguishable from my 35L. I have had my 35L for more than a decade, so I'm very familiar with that lens. The sharpness of the frames is better overall on the Sigma than the 35L. I am finding that I prefer the sum-total image quality of the Sigma more for some applications, but there remain some situations for which the 35L's qualities continue or shine over the Sigma. I have been considering getting rid of one of them, but now I think I will keep both as artistic options in different applications. That will also ensure that I never have to face an event without a fast 35 which is my main lens in such situations.

I am still looking at the long term durability of the Sigma, but that is going to be years in the observing.

 

[tianxiaozhang]

Assuming solid, fast, accurate, sharp, nice bokeh, I'll take one 100% if around 800.

I welcome that price, it might be much less copy variation, higher tolerance, actual precise AF and superb optical quality. It might even be both sharp and nice bokeh.

Put me down for one

I'm just wondering how many pros who use an auto-focusing 50mm prime are still using the ancient Canon 50 F/1.4 (not-quite-modern-)USM as they just don't have a sharper / more reliable AF lens to shoot with.

Those folks will gladly pay $1300 for this lens (if that is the price). I just don't know how many are out there.

- A

I still use the 50/1.8....

During all this speculation, keep in mind that the MSRP of the 35 Art on Sigma's own website is $1400. As we all know, the actual price has always been $899. I would expect the new 50 to be similarly priced. Since I'm waiting for the 85 & the 135 Art, I really really hope so...

This gives me hope....

 

[Badger]

We sometimes forget we are on a rumor site! All we have seen for sure is a picture OF THE LENS!

 

[Viggo]

So what are the complaints here? With any wide open prime with a shallow depth of field, AF can be off. That's why there is micro adjustment. Are the complaints saying that AF was off by over the 20 +/-? Or are they saying that even after you get a micro adjust number, the AF is just random and all over the place...?

Would the dock fix the issue and people are just cutting bait before fixing the problem?

I'd rent the dock for a weekend... but I'm not quite sure I would buy it for just one lens. And obviously if the firmware changed... then I would rent it again...

Thanks for the clarification... I'm never quite sure what complaints are genuine or a factor of user error.

The problem with mine, and also with a lot of others, is that when it's perfectly adjusted it's random. I tried 1000 shots aiming locking and taking the picture, defocus my lens and then do the same again on the same exact spot, over 10 shots, there would be 10 different degrees of sharpness or rather, softness. That makes the lens miss for no appreant reason, even when the camera says it's in focus. Which again means, you can trust the image to be sharp at all, even if everything indicates it, until you review the image after it was taken.

My experience over 3 months with the lens is not equal to yours, Viggo. The lens measures more accurate, by an insignificant margin in Focal, than my 35L across four different bodies. I can also add that a friend's Sigma 35 performs nearly exactly as mine across those same four bodies. The focus consistency test, conducted indoors in both adequate and low light levels, via Focal, measures better than my 35L. In practice, during actual shoots, the Sigma 35's AF performance is indistinguishable from my 35L. I have had my 35L for more than a decade, so I'm very familiar with that lens. The sharpness of the frames is better overall on the Sigma than the 35L. I am finding that I prefer the sum-total image quality of the Sigma more for some applications, but there remain some situations for which the 35L's qualities continue or shine over the Sigma. I have been considering getting rid of one of them, but now I think I will keep both as artistic options in different applications. That will also ensure that I never have to face an event without a fast 35 which is my main lens in such situations.

I am still looking at the long term durability of the Sigma, but that is going to be years in the observing.

I accept your experience and don't think you are wrong in any way. The problem is that your experience is what it SHOULD be when you pay money, my experience is a product that you MUST buy and or try multiple copies of to get you paid for. That's a big difference IMO .. That is also no proof that my experience and others with me, are wrong either. I accept that there are working 35 art lenses, but you must accept that there are quite a few that's not working as they should, and that is an inconsistency in QC that's not acceptable. Fact.

 

[dgatwood]

I accept your experience and don't think you are wrong in any way. The problem is that your experience is what it SHOULD be when you pay money, my experience is a product that you MUST buy and or try multiple copies of to get you paid for. That's a big difference IMO .. That is also no proof that my experience and others with me, are wrong either. I accept that there are working 35 art lenses, but you must accept that there are quite a few that's not working as they should, and that is an inconsistency in QC that's not acceptable. Fact.

To be fair, Canon has inconsistency problems in some of their lenses, too. For example, I gave up trying to find a copy of the 28-135 that didn't have unacceptable levels of lens creep right out of the box. And after lenses get used for a while, some Canon zoom lenses end up with pretty significant copy variation:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

 

[Viggo]

I accept your experience and don't think you are wrong in any way. The problem is that your experience is what it SHOULD be when you pay money, my experience is a product that you MUST buy and or try multiple copies of to get you paid for. That's a big difference IMO .. That is also no proof that my experience and others with me, are wrong either. I accept that there are working 35 art lenses, but you must accept that there are quite a few that's not working as they should, and that is an inconsistency in QC that's not acceptable. Fact.

To be fair, Canon has inconsistency problems in some of their lenses, too. For example, I gave up trying to find a copy of the 28-135 that didn't have unacceptable levels of lens creep right out of the box. And after lenses get used for a while, some Canon zoom lenses end up with pretty significant copy variation:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

I'm not questioning the IQ and sharpness of the Sigma at all. People gotta read before answering... AF AF AF AF AF !

 

[jdramirez]

I accept your experience and don't think you are wrong in any way. The problem is that your experience is what it SHOULD be when you pay money, my experience is a product that you MUST buy and or try multiple copies of to get you paid for. That's a big difference IMO .. That is also no proof that my experience and others with me, are wrong either. I accept that there are working 35 art lenses, but you must accept that there are quite a few that's not working as they should, and that is an inconsistency in QC that's not acceptable. Fact.

To be fair, Canon has inconsistency problems in some of their lenses, too. For example, I gave up trying to find a copy of the 28-135 that didn't have unacceptable levels of lens creep right out of the box. And after lenses get used for a while, some Canon zoom lenses end up with pretty significant copy variation:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

I had one of those for a short period of time... lens creep was crazy. I didn't have one until I had a ton of experience with other lenses... but yeah... it was pretty bad.

 

[jdramirez]

I accept your experience and don't think you are wrong in any way. The problem is that your experience is what it SHOULD be when you pay money, my experience is a product that you MUST buy and or try multiple copies of to get you paid for. That's a big difference IMO .. That is also no proof that my experience and others with me, are wrong either. I accept that there are working 35 art lenses, but you must accept that there are quite a few that's not working as they should, and that is an inconsistency in QC that's not acceptable. Fact.

To be fair, Canon has inconsistency problems in some of their lenses, too. For example, I gave up trying to find a copy of the 28-135 that didn't have unacceptable levels of lens creep right out of the box. And after lenses get used for a while, some Canon zoom lenses end up with pretty significant copy variation:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

I'm not questioning the IQ and sharpness of the Sigma at all. People gotta read before answering... AF AF AF AF AF !

Yeah... but there is a good contingent of us... who say any auto focus on a premier lens is just gravy... and Canon has been derelict for years to provide us with a 50mm that WOWS!!! So we are willing to consider a lens that doesn't have the best AF...

I guess what I'm saying is that we are willing to settle... 50mm... can't be too sharp because the bokeh suffers (50L)... can't have a reliable auto focus motor because it will cost too much (50 f1.4)... can't have a solid build quality like the mk i because it will cost more (50 f/1.8 mkii). We've been making sacrafices... and in this instance... we we willing to gamble on the auto focus because the image quality is presumed to be so outstanding.

 

[Viggo]

I accept your experience and don't think you are wrong in any way. The problem is that your experience is what it SHOULD be when you pay money, my experience is a product that you MUST buy and or try multiple copies of to get you paid for. That's a big difference IMO .. That is also no proof that my experience and others with me, are wrong either. I accept that there are working 35 art lenses, but you must accept that there are quite a few that's not working as they should, and that is an inconsistency in QC that's not acceptable. Fact.

To be fair, Canon has inconsistency problems in some of their lenses, too. For example, I gave up trying to find a copy of the 28-135 that didn't have unacceptable levels of lens creep right out of the box. And after lenses get used for a while, some Canon zoom lenses end up with pretty significant copy variation:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

I'm not questioning the IQ and sharpness of the Sigma at all. People gotta read before answering... AF AF AF AF AF !

Yeah... but there is a good contingent of us... who say any auto focus on a premier lens is just gravy... and Canon has been derelict for years to provide us with a 50mm that WOWS!!! So we are willing to consider a lens that doesn't have the best AF...

I guess what I'm saying is that we are willing to settle... 50mm... can't be too sharp because the bokeh suffers (50L)... can't have a reliable auto focus motor because it will cost too much (50 f1.4)... can't have a solid build quality like the mk i because it will cost more (50 f/1.8 mkii). We've been making sacrafices... and in this instance... we we willing to gamble on the auto focus because the image quality is presumed to be so outstanding.

I can say as much as I'm going to get it 100% sure and I'll keep exchanging, if I need too, to get the best copy possible. I need AF for my photography and I can live with a lowish keeper rate due to slower AF for tracking. If it doesn't lock properly on still subjects, I'll move on.

 

[flowers]

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.

 

[Viggo]

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....

 

[flowers]

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]

Gentlemen, please let us return to the topic on the price of the Sigma 50mm. :-X

 

[flowers]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Viggo]

Re: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked

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.

 

[Chapman Baxter]

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]

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.