Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked

[Radiating]

I do think that using the Sigma 35mm as a reference is a little bit risky. I mean, if you have a great copy never sell it, but it doesn't talk google long to find lots and lots of people have inconsistent AF, and I was one of them. It's no point for a lens to have that fantastic IQ, which it really does have, when it can't deliver that IQ when you need it to. Not even certain if you take 8-10 shots. It should be possible to buy ten 35 lenses and have them perform VERY similar, that is not the case now.

The worst part is that it might be hard to tell the difference of a poor copy or if the Sigma just works like that. If you buy one and it doesn't seem right and you exchange for three-four others and they are the same with a bit too many missed shots, is it a design flaw or all poor copies, how can you tell? All the happy AF owner I read about can use one shot or Live view for all I know..

I go out of my way to purchase a large number copies for each lens I get and keep the best one and I have not had a single problem with Sigma's autofocus in their newer lenses. Not a single problem out of 12 copies (4 each) purchased of the 18-35mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4. I've also purchased a used Sigma 85mm f/1.4 to test it out before buying new and it had focusing issues, but only because it had the older version of the autofocus chip. When I had the newer autofocus chip installed after talking to Sigma's representatives as part of reselling the lens, all the autofocus issues went away. Sigma does not have any unusual autofocus issues in their newer lenses, period. Out of 13 copies tested with the newer autofocus chips, none had the slightest issues, and each focused with pinpoint accuracy every single time.

Canon has focusing issues too, in fact, out of all the lenses I've purchased, Sigma has had a track record of 1 in 11 having focusing issues, and Canon has a track record of 1 in 8.

The problem is with perception - whenever a Canon lens has a focusing issue it's always an isolated outlier that represents a small minority of unlucky users that will be quickly and conveniently resolved under warranty. Whenever a Sigma lens has the EXACT same issue, it's seen as a systematic problem that's common to the majority of users that is a huge hassle to fix.

Maybe in reality both currently have an occasional minority of problems now and then and you're no better off choosing either one with newer lens designs.

 

[jdramirez]

I have said this before in a different capacity... but if you give me closer to the performance of a lens that doesn't have auto focus... and a third of the price with auto focus... I really don't care if the auto focus works perfectly or not... because it feels like it was thrown in for free.

I don't mind the size of the lens... or the weight... but I am concerned about the focal length. I used to love the 50mm range... then I got other lenses with prettier bokehs... and now I'm concerned that I won't be able to fall in love again.

$1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!? Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery. I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....

You do realize that both Canon and Nikon's top pro 50mm lenses run $1700 right? This lens blows these competitors out of the water in every conceivable dimension and costs less. It is such an improvement over the top alternatives that is the single greatest generational improvement in image quality in the history of pro Canon or Nikon autofocus lenses. That's not an exaggeration. We are literally talking around double the performance of the nearest competitor, which again run $1700 if you forgot.

Read this part of this thread if you want to know what makes this lens so special:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16643037&postcount=377

You are getting performance that compares to a $4,000 Zeiss lens for 3/4 the the price of the nearest competitor.

I welcome the $1300 price tag, this lens deserves it.

Now lets not but the body ahead of the lens now. They are saying they're gunning for the otus, but, that may be more PR buzz.

Did you read the link at all? The performance of this lens is not in question. The data has shown that they the performance will be as extreme as they claim.

will it meet and exceed the current canon 50's?

If by "meet or exceed" you mean 182% the average spacial resolution of the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and 178% of the Canon 50mm f/1.4, then yes. Basically at a given aperture you can expect slightly better performance in the extreme corners with this new Sigma than you will see in the center of Canon's other 50mm lenses.

We already have the data, and we already know how the performance will stack up.

And, how will it stack against the new canon 50 Is when it comes out? Now those are things I wonder.

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART is an incredibly complex and incredibly huge 50mm lens that uses a radical retrofocal optical formula pioneered by Zeiss with the Otus. It's fundamental design shift that is nothing like any other 50mm lens and requires a huge lens with tons of expensive glass.

There is basically zero chance of a small cheap consumer 50mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 receiving the radical design responsible for the doubling of performance relative to the competition.

 

[rs]

Just to re-iterate my point, that price is just a guess to allow for pre orders. Much like this other Australian retailers guess:

http://www.dirtcheapcameras.com.au/digital-camera-lenses/slr-lenses-by-brand/sigma-lenses/sigma-50mm-f-1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-for-canon-mount.html

$899

899 is good price. However, I feel that 35mm is more useful for me.

Except 899 is just another wild guess made by a retailer to allow for pre-orders to be taken. Unless one of the retailers is incredibly good at guessing, neither price is representative of the RRP. Wait until Sigma announce the price before making any judgement.

 

[Viggo]

I do think that using the Sigma 35mm as a reference is a little bit risky. I mean, if you have a great copy never sell it, but it doesn't talk google long to find lots and lots of people have inconsistent AF, and I was one of them. It's no point for a lens to have that fantastic IQ, which it really does have, when it can't deliver that IQ when you need it to. Not even certain if you take 8-10 shots. It should be possible to buy ten 35 lenses and have them perform VERY similar, that is not the case now.

The worst part is that it might be hard to tell the difference of a poor copy or if the Sigma just works like that. If you buy one and it doesn't seem right and you exchange for three-four others and they are the same with a bit too many missed shots, is it a design flaw or all poor copies, how can you tell? All the happy AF owner I read about can use one shot or Live view for all I know..

I go out of my way to purchase a large number copies for each lens I get and keep the best one and I have not had a single problem with Sigma's autofocus in their newer lenses. Not a single problem out of 12 copies (4 each) purchased of the 18-35mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4. I've also purchased a used Sigma 85mm f/1.4 to test it out before buying new and it had focusing issues, but only because it had the older version of the autofocus chip. When I had the newer autofocus chip installed after talking to Sigma's representatives as part of reselling the lens, all the autofocus issues went away. Sigma does not have any unusual autofocus issues in their newer lenses, period. Out of 13 copies tested with the newer autofocus chips, none had the slightest issues, and each focused with pinpoint accuracy every single time.

Canon has focusing issues too, in fact, out of all the lenses I've purchased, Sigma has had a track record of 1 in 11 having focusing issues, and Canon has a track record of 1 in 8.

The problem is with perception - whenever a Canon lens has a focusing issue it's always an isolated outlier that represents a small minority of unlucky users that will be quickly and conveniently resolved under warranty. Whenever a Sigma lens has the EXACT same issue, it's seen as a systematic problem that's common to the majority of users that is a huge hassle to fix.

Maybe in reality both currently have an occasional minority of problems now and then and you're no better off choosing either one with newer lens designs.

I suggest googling to see I am not the only one. I have had at least 30-35 lenses made by Canon and the two I have had a problem with was a miscalibration fixed under warranty and only because of massive front focus, after I got them back they were perfect. So again, just because one person says something doesn't make it true all over. One of the known problem lenses is the 24 L II, I'll give you that one, it's one lens with a huge problem with AF. Other than that copy variation from Canon is not about AF. But I'm done trying to argue with people over the 35, I sold mine because it was rubbish and 10 shots of the same thing gave 10 different levels of sharpness.

I'll try the 50 art and keep my fingers crossed that it can focus and get sharp images every time, if not, well it's gone and I'll be yet another 50 L which is lovely but way to soft.

 

[Radiating]

I suggest googling to see I am not the only one. I have had at least 30-35 lenses made by Canon and the two I have had a problem with was a miscalibration fixed under warranty and only because of massive front focus, after I got them back they were perfect. So again, just because one person says something doesn't make it true all over. One of the known problem lenses is the 24 L II, I'll give you that one, it's one lens with a huge problem with AF. Other than that copy variation from Canon is not about AF. But I'm done trying to argue with people over the 35, I sold mine because it was rubbish and 10 shots of the same thing gave 10 different levels of sharpness.

I'll try the 50 art and keep my fingers crossed that it can focus and get sharp images every time, if not, well it's gone and I'll be yet another 50 L which is lovely but way to soft.

Why don't you want to give the 35mm f/1.4 ART another chance? It's an amazing lens. Tons of reviewers have loved it and I had several copies that gave me nothing but good performance. The optics are simply stunning.

 

[flowers]

I suggest googling to see I am not the only one. I have had at least 30-35 lenses made by Canon and the two I have had a problem with was a miscalibration fixed under warranty and only because of massive front focus, after I got them back they were perfect. So again, just because one person says something doesn't make it true all over. One of the known problem lenses is the 24 L II, I'll give you that one, it's one lens with a huge problem with AF. Other than that copy variation from Canon is not about AF. But I'm done trying to argue with people over the 35, I sold mine because it was rubbish and 10 shots of the same thing gave 10 different levels of sharpness.

I'll try the 50 art and keep my fingers crossed that it can focus and get sharp images every time, if not, well it's gone and I'll be yet another 50 L which is lovely but way to soft.

Why don't you want to give the 35mm f/1.4 ART another chance? It's an amazing lens. Tons of reviewers have loved it and I had several copies that gave me nothing but good performance. The optics are simply stunning.

Exactly I really recommend giving it another try, you're missing out... It's the favorite lens of most of its owners for a reason!

 

[jdramirez]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Viggo]

I suggest googling to see I am not the only one. I have had at least 30-35 lenses made by Canon and the two I have had a problem with was a miscalibration fixed under warranty and only because of massive front focus, after I got them back they were perfect. So again, just because one person says something doesn't make it true all over. One of the known problem lenses is the 24 L II, I'll give you that one, it's one lens with a huge problem with AF. Other than that copy variation from Canon is not about AF. But I'm done trying to argue with people over the 35, I sold mine because it was rubbish and 10 shots of the same thing gave 10 different levels of sharpness.

I'll try the 50 art and keep my fingers crossed that it can focus and get sharp images every time, if not, well it's gone and I'll be yet another 50 L which is lovely but way to soft.

Why don't you want to give the 35mm f/1.4 ART another chance? It's an amazing lens. Tons of reviewers have loved it and I had several copies that gave me nothing but good performance. The optics are simply stunning.

Exactly I really recommend giving it another try, you're missing out... It's the favorite lens of most of its owners for a reason!

Thanks, for the suggestion, but I already had two 35 L's and bought just to see if it could replace my beloved L. I already knew about the focusing issues from reading about the lens before I bought it. I bought it from a good friend for a very nice price, and he said it was excellent and loved it, but needed the cash. I run it through FoCal and it all looks VERY promising, very sharp super consistent AF and it doesn't look good for my L. All set and done, I try it around the house and it just can't get a sharp shot, but the thing that worried me was the complete variation of sharpness, so I kept trying, and when it hit it looked VERY sharp, so I ran it through FoCal again, tuned my setup, and got the same exact results. Then took it outside, same deal, no matter the distance and or light, completely impossible to get two images in a row sharp. So I decided I'm keeping the 35 L, which afma'd at 0 within 1,5 minutes of calibration and works 100% of the time. And then trade that for the 35 L II which I have been waiting for since forever. The Sigma is 20-25% cheaper used than new here, so buying new ones and trying and trying to get lucky with one is something I don't see being worth it.

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....

 

[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.

 

[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 :

 

[Albi86]

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.

+1

I don't quite understand how we got to the belief that the sig 35 is a lottery. It works perfectly well for the vast majority of people. Sure, there are some problematic copies, as there are a lot of problems with 24-70 II. People are too quick on blaming it on Sigma for anything they don't like.

 

[Jibz]

+1



Three of my friends and I got the sigma 35 ART and all of us are extremly happy with it... The AF is perfect on 5D II and 5D III and it is so sharp...

I think that many people are happy with it and don't need to write here to complain...
Sorry for the ones who got a bad copy... It happens... even with Canon.
In the past I got a really bad copy of a 70-300 L. I returned it thinking I'll never buy it again because of its bad image quality. Later I tested an other one... and wow ! It was nothing like the first one. Now this is one of my 2 prefered lenses !

 

[Viggo]

Again, my friend said the same thing about the one I bought, "it's excellent" well it wasn't, and if it's just an occasional thing, I would find my lucky extremely poor to have 100% of Sigma lenses perform inconsistent with the AF. And I have tested others, not only the 35.

And to get yet another 35 Art when I have the already awesome L makes no sense. It's a lot of hassle to buy and sell just to not get anywhere near what I already own...

So for the Sigma fanboys that must defend their purchase, leave me out of it, you're not changing my mind at all.

That being said, if the 50 art I buy delivers what it said to do, I'll wave the Sigma flag myself...


**EDIT** Just today, spoke to another friend who asked about buying my 35 L, and I asked him why, because he does have the Siggy, he didn't say much so I asked him if he focused a shot, took the picture, pull it out of focus and tried the same thing for 10 pictures, were they all sharp? And his exact words were "Neh, hehe, it's mostly a lottery indoors with the Sigma"

 

[Rienzphotoz]

If it's true then they got too greedy too early.

Agree x 1000 :-[

+1 ... I would not spend over $1000 for a third party prime lens (if it has 100 mm or below focal length).

 

[Radiating]

I suggest googling to see I am not the only one. I have had at least 30-35 lenses made by Canon and the two I have had a problem with was a miscalibration fixed under warranty and only because of massive front focus, after I got them back they were perfect. So again, just because one person says something doesn't make it true all over. One of the known problem lenses is the 24 L II, I'll give you that one, it's one lens with a huge problem with AF. Other than that copy variation from Canon is not about AF. But I'm done trying to argue with people over the 35, I sold mine because it was rubbish and 10 shots of the same thing gave 10 different levels of sharpness.

I'll try the 50 art and keep my fingers crossed that it can focus and get sharp images every time, if not, well it's gone and I'll be yet another 50 L which is lovely but way to soft.

Why don't you want to give the 35mm f/1.4 ART another chance? It's an amazing lens. Tons of reviewers have loved it and I had several copies that gave me nothing but good performance. The optics are simply stunning.

Exactly I really recommend giving it another try, you're missing out... It's the favorite lens of most of its owners for a reason!

Thanks, for the suggestion, but I already had two 35 L's and bought just to see if it could replace my beloved L. I already knew about the focusing issues from reading about the lens before I bought it. I bought it from a good friend for a very nice price, and he said it was excellent and loved it, but needed the cash. I run it through FoCal and it all looks VERY promising, very sharp super consistent AF and it doesn't look good for my L. All set and done, I try it around the house and it just can't get a sharp shot, but the thing that worried me was the complete variation of sharpness, so I kept trying, and when it hit it looked VERY sharp, so I ran it through FoCal again, tuned my setup, and got the same exact results. Then took it outside, same deal, no matter the distance and or light, completely impossible to get two images in a row sharp. So I decided I'm keeping the 35 L, which afma'd at 0 within 1,5 minutes of calibration and works 100% of the time. And then trade that for the 35 L II which I have been waiting for since forever. The Sigma is 20-25% cheaper used than new here, so buying new ones and trying and trying to get lucky with one is something I don't see being worth it.

I don't see the 35mm f/1.4 II coming any time soon.

Canon seems to have abandoned core DSLR pro lenses. The rate at which they are releasing meaningful core upgrades to their pro lines is so low that Nikon and Sigma accounted for 10 times more core lens products combined than Canon in 2013. Canon seems to have been focusing all their efforts into weird niches to try to expand their market because DSLR sales have leveled out, and they have been failing to expand anything (Video, small dslr's like the SL1, IS in primes, touchscreens etc).

The only traditional lenses Canon has released in 2013 were in the pipeline way before 2013, and according to Canon reps I've talked to have only been released so that the research on them wasn't wasted.

Anyways your experiences with the 35mm ART are rare and isolated, the odds of repeating the same results are very low.

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....

I have had no such issues. I bought three Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses right when they came out and had zero issues from then until now with 4 5D Mark III bodies, and 3 crop bodies. The thing about reading information about lenses like this online is that people only post when they have a crazy problem. Nobody posts when everything is A OK. The majority of lenses are A OK.

 

[Viggo]

Isn't my microphone on here? *taptap* hello?

AF Inconsistency is not rare not isolated.

Read the comment section here for example:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/sigma-35mm-f1-4-arrives-announces-new-world-order

 

[jdramirez]

I have had no such issues. I bought three Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses right when they came out and had zero issues from then until now with 4 5D Mark III bodies, and 3 crop bodies. The thing about reading information about lenses like this online is that people only post when they have a crazy problem. Nobody posts when everything is A OK. The majority of lenses are A OK.

That's the way it is with most complaints. Hotels, stores, restaurants... that's why word of mouth is so important... because you better do a GREAT job otherwise people will hear it.

I do find it disconcerting about the AF being inconsistent... but again... if the lens approaches the Otus... (which doesn't have auto focus)... then I'm not sure I mind. My left hand still works and I manually focus when I want... so does my daughter... So the AF is a bonus when performance is this outstanding.

I can understand the 35 argument... where the sigma is a little better than the L, but no light years beyond. I feel that this 50 is going to be light years beyond the Canon offerings.

When I had my canon 50mm f/1.8, I loved it and I was so ignorant I shot at f/1.8 all the time and I wondered why my shots were soft... then I learned that it sharpens up around f/2.8 or so... as does its bigger brother, the f/1.4. I upgraded to the f/1.4 because I had some extra cash, but I never loved it. Why do we buy a sports car? The bitches... yes... but to drive fast. Why do we get primes... to shoot wide open. Without that possibility... We might as well just get a miata... a car that kinda looks like a sports car.

 

[Rudeofus]

I have had no such issues. I bought three Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses right when they came out and had zero issues from then until now with 4 5D Mark III bodies, and 3 crop bodies. The thing about reading information about lenses like this online is that people only post when they have a crazy problem. Nobody posts when everything is A OK. The majority of lenses are A OK.

Sigma had two issues in the past: manufacturing consistency and poor/incomplete reverse engineering of the lens protocol. They seem to have more or less resolved the first issue with their art line, but they may still be lacking in the latter department. It comes as no surprise, that your good experiences come with Canon's popular camera models, whereas Viggo seems to have never ending issues with Sigma lenses and his 1Dx.

To give you one example: I have a Sigma 28-70 F/2.8 that works like a charm on 5D II and random crop cameras, but with the center AF point of my EOS 3 it has extreme front focus. All other 44 AF points are good, but center AF point is so far off that it is blatantly obvious even in the view finder.

Result: you have 99% happy customers who won't understand the 1% who bitch and moan, and you have 1% unhappy customers who won't understand how anyone can accept such a faulty product.

 

[Viggo]

Jdramirez: I agree with you on the 50. If it is in fact the best 50 ever with AF, and I'm pretty sure it is, then I can accept a slower AF, but I can't live with an inconsistent AF. If it's to dark to work or to low contrast, that is also acceptable. But a black and white checker board in 10 ev light and 1 in 10 images sharp, that is in no way okay. And since it seems that there are perfectly AF'ing 35's also, there should not be an inconsistent issue at all.