Sigma 50 1.4 experiences?

[Mach0]

Just an update- got off the phone with B&H and they were very nice. The gentlemen suggested that it may be an issue on my end since it was the second lens. I explained that I tested my other lenses and none have these issues and the lens displayed the same issues on two bodies so unless both my bodies are messed up, it's the lens. He was very helpful and said hopefully it will get resolved and sent me my RMA.

 

[OLaA]

Nice. Good luck!

 

[Mach0]

Nice. Good luck!

Thanks! I don't think I am exchanging it. I wish there was a place I can just try them out first. I'm thinking of another lens, or light and modifier.... Or hunting gear lol.

 

[Derrel]

I've bought two used Sigmas, the 180 EX HSM APO-Macro, and the 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM for Nikon, plus their 80-400 OS for Canon and their 18-125 for Canon. Three of the four lenses have had 'issues'. The two high-end Nikon ones have always had focus inconsistencies, the 18-125 was not very good, and was like a recalcitrant child; the 80-400 my buddy Steve has been using for years now for minor-league baseball, and it seems to work great for him. So...eh...75% substandard in my experience.

 

[Mach0]

I've bought two used Sigmas, the 180 EX HSM APO-Macro, and the 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM for Nikon, plus their 80-400 OS for Canon and their 18-125 for Canon. Three of the four lenses have had 'issues'. The two high-end Nikon ones have always had focus inconsistencies, the 18-125 was not very good, and was like a recalcitrant child; the 80-400 my buddy Steve has been using for years now for minor-league baseball, and it seems to work great for him. So...eh...75% substandard in my experience.

I won't lie, I researched this lens and mostly everyone loves it. The general consensus was that if yours worked perfect, you will be happy. I still like it but at longer distances its FUBR. I wanted a faster 50 with nicer bokeh but hey- my 1.8G will fit the bill. It's plenty sharp.

 

[Derrel]

I've bought two used Sigmas, the 180 EX HSM APO-Macro, and the 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM for Nikon, plus their 80-400 OS for Canon and their 18-125 for Canon. Three of the four lenses have had 'issues'. The two high-end Nikon ones have always had focus inconsistencies, the 18-125 was not very good, and was like a recalcitrant child; the 80-400 my buddy Steve has been using for years now for minor-league baseball, and it seems to work great for him. So...eh...75% substandard in my experience.

I won't lie, I researched this lens and mostly everyone loves it. The general consensus was that if yours worked perfect, you will be happy. I still like it but at longer distances its FUBR. I wanted a faster 50 with nicer bokeh but hey- my 1.8G will fit the bill. It's plenty sharp.

Anecdotally, I would say that Sigma has had many more problems with Nikon-mount lenses than with Canon-mount lenses. And so, on the internet, there are a lot of happy Canon shooters with good-performing Sigma lenses. I do not really believe that it is possible to make "one lens" with an internal hypersonic motor that is going to work flawlessly on both Canon and on Nikon cameras, of all generations. For example, when Nikon added the rear AF-ON control to its mid-level bodies with the D200, that action alone seemed to "ruin" a lot of the then-existing Sigma HSM lenses operation...

As for the close-focusing issues on the 50/1.4; I am wondering if it's not more a case of curvature of field inside of 10 feet that is causing the mess, and that at longer ranges, the increased depth of field masks (or nullifies, whatever) the lack of flat-field performance. I think a lot of times what is killing sharp focus in CLOSE-range shots is field curvature. If focus and recompose is used, that leads to an error. If focus and recompose is used, and then the lens has bad field curvature, man...you're screwed.

Oh I have seen examples of on-line reviews where people liked their Brand X lens; but...quality control and compatibility are the two issues that third-party lenses are (in)famous for.

 

[Mach0]

Anecdotally, I would say that Sigma has had many more problems with Nikon-mount lenses than with Canon-mount lenses. And so, on the internet, there are a lot of happy Canon shooters with good-performing Sigma lenses. I do not really believe that it is possible to make "one lens" with an internal hypersonic motor that is going to work flawlessly on both Canon and on Nikon cameras, of all generations. For example, when Nikon added the rear AF-ON control to its mid-level bodies with the D200, that action alone seemed to "ruin" a lot of the then-existing Sigma HSM lenses operation...

As for the close-focusing issues on the 50/1.4; I am wondering if it's not more a case of curvature of field inside of 10 feet that is causing the mess, and that at longer ranges, the increased depth of field masks (or nullifies, whatever) the lack of flat-field performance. I think a lot of times what is killing sharp focus in CLOSE-range shots is field curvature. If focus and recompose is used, that leads to an error. If focus and recompose is used, and then the lens has bad field curvature, man...you're screwed.

I wouldn't be able to say. In close ranges I haven't focused and recomposed. I find the multicam 3500 fx has no issues nailing focus. Butttttt I will say, I was P.O'd at the trashed shots at my nephews bday. I was excited. All of my nieces and daughter all getting along and playing. Darn thing focuses on the trampoline springs and not the kids lol.

 

[Mach0]

Gone. Sent back

Mods- feel free to close thread. Thanks!

 

[Big Mike]

No need to close it. It's always good for people to be able to read and maybe add further comments. You're not obliged to respond.

For what it's worth, I bought a Sigma 30mm F1.4 (used). It was probably the sharpest lens I've ever owned/used but it had similar focus issues, so I didn't use it much and eventually sold it.

 

[Mach0]

No need to close it. It's always good for people to be able to read and maybe add further comments. You're not obliged to respond.

For what it's worth, I bought a Sigma 30mm F1.4 (used). It was probably the sharpest lens I've ever owned/used but it had similar focus issues, so I didn't use it much and eventually sold it.

Fair enough. I returned it. I'm prob going to buy an 85 prime.

It was a nice lens but too inconsistent with me. I gave it a fair shake with two copies. The folks at B&H were very nice.