Waiting for a Sigma 50 "A" like their 35 to appear?

[skitron]

If/when Sigma updates their 50 1.4 into the Art line, they should make it a f/1.2 just to annoy Canon. Would be awesome!

Well, maybe not to annoy them, but do the new one as f/1.2 and then keep the current 50 to fill the current price point.

LOL, they just need to make sure they do to the current ones whatever they they did to mine when I sent it to them *before* they all hit the store shelves instead of *after*. Mine was a problem child as delivered, but very well behaved after a trip in for service.

 

[risc32]

before i got my sigma 35mm i would have loved something just like it at 50mm, but now that i have the 35mm i'll just crop to 50mm. i like this better anyway, as cropping a 50mm to 35mm is a pain.

 

[pj1974]

The only lens that I'm really waiting for to complete my lens collection (aka 'lens arsenal') is a 50mm prime. 8)

My essential criteria:
1) wide open aperture of f/2 or faster
2) IQ wide open - sharpness, contrast, vignetting & CA very decent
3) IQ stopped down by 1 stop and more - awesome in every regard
4) bokeh wide open - great smooth, creamy at foreground, background and transition zones
5) bokeh stopped down - no ugly bokeh / circular aperture blades please!
6) AF - accurate, fast (full USM/HSM preferred, will consider STM if well implemented)

My non-essential (ie 'extra bonus' points) criteria:
7. build quality - solid, metal mount, usable focus ring with FTM focus
8. weight / size: not too heavy / big (less than 500gr is possible)
9. IS - image stabilisation of 4 stops would be sweet (if not to the detriment of the above points)
10. filter size of filters that I have several of (ie 58mm, 67mm or 72mm preferable).
11. close MFD (so I can get nearby items in focus - for that 'effect')
12. price less than $800 if it ticks the above boxes (even if initial RRP is a bit higher, I'm interested in the online / street price after some time).

Now, if Sigma produce a great prime, and there are 95% of people / reviewers happy with it - no QC / AF issues - then I'll happily buy Sigma. I currently already have 1 Sigma lens (UWA) which I'm very happy with.

So... the same is on: Canon, Sigma (& others?) Who's gonna produce such a lens (first)?

Regards

Paul

 

[Nishi Drew]

If they make the rumored 135 f/1.8, a 50mm 1.2, and a 24 1.4, with the quality of the 35mm 1.4. Bam, I'm dumping all my canon primes and switching to sigma. 8)

Yep, the only thing Canon I'll be running are the flashes, there isn't much to justify me using their cameras, just that, well, all my Siggy glass is in EOS mount ~

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Have to respectfully disagree. An inferior lens manufacturer would make lenses other than what Canon offers so as to offer no apples to apples comparisons. Sigma is making (so far in their art line) superior lenses in critical flavors that go head to head with the best that Canon has...

There's only one superior lens in their art range at the moment, the 35mm f1.4. But like many Sigma lenses before, how well does it focus? The rest of Sigma's range are sub par with Canon counter parts. With Sigma, you get what you pay for.

 

[Albi86]

Have to respectfully disagree. An inferior lens manufacturer would make lenses other than what Canon offers so as to offer no apples to apples comparisons. Sigma is making (so far in their art line) superior lenses in critical flavors that go head to head with the best that Canon has...

There's only one superior lens in their art range at the moment, the 35mm f1.4. But like many Sigma lenses before, how well does it focus? The rest of Sigma's range are sub par with Canon counter parts. With Sigma, you get what you pay for.

You are terribly misinformed. The new 35mm focuses like a dream. And the USB dock has been designed to counter possible tricks by Canon in the future.

And the statement in red is plainly false.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Have to respectfully disagree. An inferior lens manufacturer would make lenses other than what Canon offers so as to offer no apples to apples comparisons. Sigma is making (so far in their art line) superior lenses in critical flavors that go head to head with the best that Canon has...

There's only one superior lens in their art range at the moment, the 35mm f1.4. But like many Sigma lenses before, how well does it focus? The rest of Sigma's range are sub par with Canon counter parts. With Sigma, you get what you pay for.

You are terribly misinformed. The new 35mm focuses like a dream. And the USB dock has been designed to counter possible tricks by Canon in the future.

And the statement in red is plainly false.

Ok, lets qualify this a bit more. I've owned a Sigma 180 macro and used several, the AF ring was so gritty it was difficult to fine tune the focus. When compared with a Canon 180 L, there was amassive focal length difference between these two lenses. The Canon has a much longer focal length at close distances and I'm pretty sure the Sigma lost focal length as I focssed closer....not what I wanted in a Macro lens. I had a 100-300 f4 EX DG...it was pretty unspectacular in sharpness, but more seriously it's AF was pretty inaccurate, often mis focussing. It had the most stupidly huge hood...because it flared so badly in bright light. I had a 70-200 ED DG mkI, it had dreadful back focussing issues at Min Focus distance. It had AF inconsistencies, sometime accurate and sometime way off. I have a 12-24mm EX DG. A nice lens, but it's been back to Sigma twice. Once for Aperture motor burnout and a whole lens group coming loose. I had a Sigma 120-300 OS DG and to be frank it was terrible. It was sharp enough, but it was so huge. It's AF was erratic and imprecise. It was way short of the 300mm stated, closer to 280mm at infinity but down to a dissapointing 240mm at Min focus distance. When compared to my Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, the small increase in Focal length wasn't worth the poor AF and massive extra bulk. None of these AF issues were related to Microfocus, the Sigma HSM motor system just isn't in the same league as the Canon USM system. I had a Sigma 24-70 (non HSM), it was a noisy AF system, but very good. The big issue was the rubbish hood and awful flare on sunny days. When I replaced it with the Canon 24-70L (mk I) it blew it away in every regard. Generally I find that Sigma lenses have a warm cast, but this varies between lens designs.
I hear from several friends who have the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4, they too get focus inconsitencies.
I don't get these issues with Canon L lenses. After the 120-300 OS DG dissapointment, I bought a 400mm f2.8 L IS which really put the Siggi in it's place. It's not just the sharpness, it's the AF's amazing accuracy.
So I'm sure you see that I have a long history with Sigma lenses in a professional basis. Most of my lenses went back to sigma and couldn't be fixed.

I'm all ears for Sigma releasing newer better lenses, but I've heared this story SO many times. I trust in Canon because they make reassuringly good kit and their prices reflect this. As I said before, and i'll restate again....the only superior lens (to Canon) in their catalogue at the moment is the 35mm f1.4. Every other lens is in some way deficient compared to it's Canon counter part.

 

[sleepnever]

I'd be all over a 50 A series to upgrade my canon 50 1.8 II. I can't justify the jump to the 1.4 because it really isn't that much better optically for the money and I don't have $1600 for the L version. I'd love a 50 A that is the same quality in every way as their 35 A. I want that 35 A too =)

 

[Albi86]

Have to respectfully disagree. An inferior lens manufacturer would make lenses other than what Canon offers so as to offer no apples to apples comparisons. Sigma is making (so far in their art line) superior lenses in critical flavors that go head to head with the best that Canon has...

There's only one superior lens in their art range at the moment, the 35mm f1.4. But like many Sigma lenses before, how well does it focus? The rest of Sigma's range are sub par with Canon counter parts. With Sigma, you get what you pay for.

You are terribly misinformed. The new 35mm focuses like a dream. And the USB dock has been designed to counter possible tricks by Canon in the future.

And the statement in red is plainly false.

Ok, lets qualify this a bit more. I've owned a Sigma 180 macro and used several, the AF ring was so gritty it was difficult to fine tune the focus. When compared with a Canon 180 L, there was amassive focal length difference between these two lenses. The Canon has a much longer focal length at close distances and I'm pretty sure the Sigma lost focal length as I focssed closer....not what I wanted in a Macro lens. I had a 100-300 f4 EX DG...it was pretty unspectacular in sharpness, but more seriously it's AF was pretty inaccurate, often mis focussing. It had the most stupidly huge hood...because it flared so badly in bright light. I had a 70-200 ED DG mkI, it had dreadful back focussing issues at Min Focus distance. It had AF inconsistencies, sometime accurate and sometime way off. I have a 12-24mm EX DG. A nice lens, but it's been back to Sigma twice. Once for Aperture motor burnout and a whole lens group coming loose. I had a Sigma 120-300 OS DG and to be frank it was terrible. It was sharp enough, but it was so huge. It's AF was erratic and imprecise. It was way short of the 300mm stated, closer to 280mm at infinity but down to a dissapointing 240mm at Min focus distance. When compared to my Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, the small increase in Focal length wasn't worth the poor AF and massive extra bulk. None of these AF issues were related to Microfocus, the Sigma HSM motor system just isn't in the same league as the Canon USM system. I had a Sigma 24-70 (non HSM), it was a noisy AF system, but very good. The big issue was the rubbish hood and awful flare on sunny days. When I replaced it with the Canon 24-70L (mk I) it blew it away in every regard. Generally I find that Sigma lenses have a warm cast, but this varies between lens designs.
I hear from several friends who have the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4, they too get focus inconsitencies.
I don't get these issues with Canon L lenses. After the 120-300 OS DG dissapointment, I bought a 400mm f2.8 L IS which really put the Siggi in it's place. It's not just the sharpness, it's the AF's amazing accuracy.
So I'm sure you see that I have a long history with Sigma lenses in a professional basis. Most of my lenses went back to sigma and couldn't be fixed.

I'm all ears for Sigma releasing newer better lenses, but I've heared this story SO many times. I trust in Canon because they make reassuringly good kit and their prices reflect this. As I said before, and i'll restate again....the only superior lens (to Canon) in their catalogue at the moment is the 35mm f1.4. Every other lens is in some way deficient compared to it's Canon counter part.

I'm sorry about your personal misadventures, but your opinions are very much in disagreement with the majority of what I've read/experienced myself - especially for some of the lenses you mentioned.

If you're happier with Canon lenses good for you, but I still think your generalizations are far from reality.

 

[Axilrod]

I'm sorry about your personal misadventures, but your opinions are very much in disagreement with the majority of what I've read/experienced myself - especially for some of the lenses you mentioned.

If you're happier with Canon lenses good for you, but I still think your generalizations are far from reality.

He said the 70-200 and 400 f/2.8 IS are better than the 120-300 and 100-300, which is absolutely true. Canon's telephotos and super telephotos are some of the best in the world. He said the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and Sigma 85mm f/1.4 focus inconsistently, which is a common complaint (although both are pretty good optically). And he finished it off saying that the 35mm f/1.4 is the only lens superior to it's Canon counterpart (which most people agree on).

It seems like you're reading what he said very selectively since most of what he did say tends to mirror what I've read/experienced. And he's not really making "generalizations" he was very specific about the lenses and the problems that they had. You're pretty much trying to get him to say that 3rd party lenses are better on a Canon body than a Canon lens, and that just isn't true.

But let's be realistic, prior to the Art 35 Sigma didn't get near as much praise, but it's still just one lens in a giant lineup. I do have high hopes for the future art series lenses though.

 

[Shane1.4]

I would buy a new 50 in a heartbeat. Canon or sigma.

 

[Albi86]

I'm sorry about your personal misadventures, but your opinions are very much in disagreement with the majority of what I've read/experienced myself - especially for some of the lenses you mentioned.

If you're happier with Canon lenses good for you, but I still think your generalizations are far from reality.

He said the 70-200 and 400 f/2.8 IS are better than the 120-300 and 100-300, which is absolutely true. Canon's telephotos and super telephotos are some of the best in the world. He said the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and Sigma 85mm f/1.4 focus inconsistently, which is something I've heard plenty of times (with any 3rd party lens really). And he finished it off saying that the 35mm f/1.4 is the only lens superior to it's Canon counterpart (which most people agree on).

It seems like you're reading what he said very selectively since most of what he did say tends to mirror what I've read/experienced. And he's not really making "generalizations" he was very specific about the lenses and the problems that they had.

He said that all of Sigma lenses, except the new 35mm, are worse than their Canon counterpart.

Now, it doesn't seem to me that Canon has anything similar to a 120-300/2.8 or a 100-300/4, right? What's the point of comparing a 120-300 zoom with a 400mm prime (that costs 5 times as much)? And by the way, every comment I've read on both lenses was ecstatic.

Let's compare apples to apples at least. Many people prefer their Sigma 50mm (in spite of focus quirks) and 85mm to their Canikon and even Zeiss equivalent because of the razor-like center sharpness wide-open and nice bokeh. Many people preferred the 50-500's smoother bokeh to the 100-400L. 17-70mm VS Canon 17-85mm. And so on.

Beware that I'm not stating the opposite: I'm not saying every Sigma lens is great or better than its Canon equivalent. I'm going so far as disagreeing with the opposite assertion.

Some people have a very different mind attitude towards Canon and other brands. When Canon products have problems, well, it just happens, sample variation is a hard reality and so on. When other products, most of the time much cheaper, have similar/other problems then it's all about terrible QC.

 

[rpiotr01]

My current Sigma 50 sits largely unused because of inconsistent focus. It's just never quite on. Beautiful lens optically but man, I can't trust the focus. Based on what I've read about the 35 1.4, I'm considering selling the Sigma 50 and my Canon 28 1.8 and replacing with the Sigma 35 1.4. I like the wider FOV and I think it can replace most of what I wanted to do with the 50 anyway.

I think if they re-did their 50 1.4 with the "A" treatment it would be a HUGE hit among Canon shooters. But it damn well better focus better than the current version, because what's out there now just isn't acceptable.

 

[Canon-F1]

all i can say is i too wait for a new 50mm f1.4 to replace my old EF 50mm f1.4.

if it´s a sigma ART lens and it´s in the same league as the sigma 35mm f1.4 i would buy it without a second thought.

 

[brad-man]

all i can say is i too wait for a new 50mm f1.4 to replace my old EF 50mm f1.4.

if it´s a sigma ART lens and it´s in the same league as the sigma 35mm f1.4 i would buy it without a second thought.

Buy the 35 & put it on your 7D

 

[CarlTN]

It seems like you're reading what he said very selectively...

Not trying to get in the middle of this argument specifically, but it does seem like over half the contributors in this forum, find sport in reading things (and quoting them) selectively, and sometimes out of context (happens to me a lot)...So I guess I feel justified in doing it here. I see something I want to talk about it, so I quote it alone, by itself...then I expound my own sentiment.

The more egregious culprits seem to be absent in the above exchange, so that's a good thing. It gets extra annoying when their posts appear to exceed 8000 words. At about the 3000 word mark, there are self indulgent, narcissistic diva issues going on...Again I'm not directing this part at any of you in this thread.

However, this type of thing, happens in literally every forum, not just here...as most of you know I'm sure.

Some of you need to chillax a bit. So what if one person has had bad experiences with specific Sigma lenses, and the other not so much? I recently bought a much maligned Sigma telephoto zoom lens, and am glad I did. I had an open mind, and wanted to try something for myself. I found most of the naysaying, nitpicking negative reviews, to be just that. It cost half what the similar Canon model cost (and that Canon design is nearly a decade older). The Canon replacement or "update", if it ever comes, will cost 3x to 4x what the current Sigma lens sells for. Will it be 4x better? Certainly not. Will it be 2x better? No. Is the current one 2x better? No, optically I say it's not any better.

What's important is, can you get a specific lens to work the way you want it to, at the price you are willing to pay, making compromises if necessary (however small) you are willing to live with? I've been able to do that.

With the money I saved, I put towards buying a 6D. Talk about a radically good camera for the money, and money far better spent than on an old white Canon lens...just so I could say I have one like all the millions of other blowhards who have one.

So, what's less important, is buying a name brand for the snob appeal. I'm not saying that's the only reason to buy Canon glass. Most Canon glass is fine and dandy (I have a couple of L lenses), but some of it is highly overvalued for what it is. The Canon 35mm f/1.4L is a stark example, given the new Sigma offering.

Will Canon's update to their 35mm be worth the extra money, over the Sigma? I say no, no matter how sharp it is. More sharpness over the Sigma lens, clearly is not called for...unless you are a pixel peeper with a future 60 MP full frame body, and you never print smaller than 40 x 60 inches at 240 or 300 dpi. In other words, you probably aren't that person, nor is anyone...especially if you have to wait till 2017 for that camera that you want so much, to finally come down the pike...You're pining away for a pipe dream that is not even necessary to perform mind-blowingly terrific photography...today, in the here and now!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I am a professional wedding photographer and I also do a fair amount of landscape and bit of wildlife work. I've tried long and hard with Sigma and Tamron lenses. In a professional context, I have found their AF systems lacking. I have found their quality control extreamly poor and their durability certainly isn't in the pro league.
Flaking off paintwork, lenses which a massively out of spec when new, elements which become loose easily, aperture motors which burn out. As I said before, as a pro, I am done with Sigma. It's a brand I've lost faith in. I buy Canon because the little bit more money gives me a far more reliable and durable product.
Let me give another example, I used to use a Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 Dii lens. Optically it was very nice, although it had very strong curvature and distortion at 17mm. It had nice colours, but the AF was loud and rough. After 5 professional weddings, it literally fell apart on me. I know use it as paperweight and a pen holder. This lens lasted me less than a year. I replaced it with a 16-35 f2.8 II L, which cost an awfull lot more money...but it's never missed a beat. It's silent to use and very well built. I've been using it now for my 6th season...
My current 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II is now 2 years old and it looks immaculate even though it's had a hard life. It's still optically amazing. My Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG looked rough as hell after a year when all the paint started to flake off and it had to be sent to Sigma three times that year for calibration issues, one of which was never resolved.
If you want to buy off brand, go for it and enjoy. It's your hard earned money and your photography requirements....but for this photographer...I'm done with Simga and Tamron.

As to Sigma lenses which are better than Canon, I'd like to add one more to the list, the Siggi 15mm f2.8 fisheye. I think it's a little sweet heart of a lens and better than the Canon variant...but watch that paint flake finish!

The 120-300 OS was heralded by Sigma as Prime sharp....so comparing it to a 70-200 f2.8 II L or a 300mm f2.8 L should be fairly reasonable? I still stand by my statement that the 70-200 f2.8 II L is a better and cheaper option, the 300L is an even better option and the Siggi can't really compete on any level with either.

 

[wickidwombat]

valid points GMC

I think sigma zooms to date have definatley not been nearly as good as some of their primes

I only have the sigma 85 the 50 and the 35 primes

the new 35 is in another league to the other 2 and quite fankly one of the best lenses i've ever used

the 85 is very very good i use it alot (I use this lens more now than the 70-200 II and that is at weddings)
its sharper at f2 than the 70-200 is at f2.8 its lighter and less obtrusive it is my goto portrait lens.

the 50 well its ok but not great like the other 2 lenses its not really much better than the canon 50 f1.4 and its bigger and heavier

 

[CarlTN]

GMC, I have no experience with the Sigma zoom lenses you mention. I only know the one I have, is not painted, and is not a 70-200, and is not an f/2.8. The white Canon lens I was referring to, is also neither of those focal lengths or apertures. I don't doubt the version 1 300 f/2.8 Canon prime, is a better lens at 300mm, than the Sigma 120-300 (whether original, 2011, or the yet released version). But 300mm is not the Sigma's only focal length. It's a zoom, and the only f/2.8 zoom that covers 120-300mm. I admit I'm disappointed in the delay of the latest version of that lens, and also that the optical formula appears to be the same. But as for large superteles, I personally would rather have the 200 f/2L, than the 300 f/2.8 version 1. It's not something I have to have right now, and that's a good thing, because I need to buy a "used" Porsche 911, before I go spending $4k to $5k on a lens.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The last time I was at Focus on Imaging in Birmingham, I visited the Sigma stall. They had a new 70-200 2.8 there for playing with. It was very nice but the one on the stand had some pretty awful front focus (not a little) and the big 300-800 f5.6 was a lot of fun....but it was soft wide open over 500mm. Pretty sharp under that focal length....but what's the point in having an 800mm f5.6 if you can't use it wide open? My 400mm f2.8 L IS is sharper with a 2x TC and costs less. I had a go on their 500mmm f4.5, which was nice but again didn't compare to the Canon version. At that point I figured I was done there.
I still own and use a Siggi 12-24mm mkI, which is still a pretty unique lens in the market place. Quality control was awful with this particular lens, but a good one is a good find. I think it's amusing that Sigma have bought out this dock thang....getting us to pay for a device to correct their awful QC and on our time too....come on Sigma. I suspect that Sigma's QC is going to drop even further now...and they will blame their userbase for not stumping up the cash for the USB dock.