Canon or Sigma 50mm 1.4

Sigmalux. Although, mine seems to have slid into front-focus oblivion. Time to send it in to Sigma...

sigma, if you get a good copy

The possibility of having to cycle through multiple copies, or having to send the lens with my body to Sigma (being without my camera for 10 days or so, I assume), plus the lower price and good quality of the Canon lens is enough to turn me away from the Siggy. I have the EF 1.4 and have been very happy with it fro the day I got it. I think it's a great lens. Maybe not the absolute best out there, but a very good lens.

The "if you get a good copy" seems to be a common condition of Sigma lenses, but not Canon's. I'm surprised that after all this time Sigma has not improved their QC.

Jim

Thorrulz wrote in post #14713309
The sigma 50 is better than the canon in every way. Factor in a trip to sigma service in new york that includes both your dslr body and lens to be sure when they both come back they will be calibrated to each other.

I would NOT let Sigma touch my camera body. If they muck about with the body, it can throw things off with other lenses. Besides, I have more than one camera. They're crazy if they think I'd let them screw with each one.

Let Sigma fix Sigma's problems and let Canon fix Canon's problems.

cdifoto wrote in post #14714987
I would NOT let Sigma touch my camera body. If they muck about with the body, it can throw things off with other lenses. Besides, I have more than one camera. They're crazy if they think I'd let them screw with each one.

Let Sigma fix Sigma's problems and let Canon fix Canon's problems.

I understand you not wanting to let Sigma "muck" up your camera. And for all the people that have sent in their dslr's with the lens to be set at the same tolerances I have yet to hear of one instance where they changed any of the camera settings and threw off the focusing of any other lens.
Now lets say your 7D is set at a +2 tolerance but is within Canons specs and the Sigma lens is set at -3 which is within Sigmas specs. Another 7D may be at -2 and work almost perfectly with that -3 lens. Unless Sigma knows what the tolerance setting is on a particular camera they are only making an educated guess at the settings.

All things being equal though, the Sigma is a better lens in both build quality and optically than the two lower end Canon 50's.

Thorrulz wrote in post #14715156
I understand you not wanting to let Sigma "muck" up your camera. And for all the people that have sent in their dslr's with the lens to be set at the same tolerances I have yet to hear of one instance where they changed any of the camera settings and threw off the focusing of any other lens.
Now lets say your 7D is set at a +2 tolerance but is within Canons specs and the Sigma lens is set at -3 which is within Sigmas specs. Another 7D may be at -2 and work almost perfectly with that -3 lens. Unless Sigma knows what the tolerance setting is on a particular camera they are only making an educated guess at the settings.

All things being equal though, the Sigma is a better lens in both build quality and optically than the two lower end Canon 50's.

You don't understand how it works.

Canon doesn't even calibrate their own lenses to their own bodies. Sigma definitely has no business doing it. All they need to do is put the lens within tolerance. They basically aim for zero...and zero is zero. It's not relative.

This nonsense of expecting people to send their bodies to them highlights how incompetent they can be and why there are so many out of box problems.

cdifoto wrote in post #14715191
You don't understand how it works.

Canon doesn't even calibrate their own lenses to their own bodies. Sigma definitely has no business doing it. All they need to do is put the lens within tolerance. They basically aim for zero...and zero is zero. It's not relative.

This nonsense of expecting people to send their bodies to them highlights how incompetent they can be and why there are so many out of box problems.

Exactly why some people have soft copies of even the more highly regarded "L" lens such as the 24-70L f/2.8 when pairing up with the newer bodies such as the 7D.

I have no problem sending in my dslr and lens to have them optimized to work together. They both are high end electronics that once perfectly matched to one another give stellar results.
Now if I had a race car and put a new transmission in wouldn't I have to tweak the engine/tranny together to get optimum performance. Of course I would so I understand full well how sometimes equipment must need more than right out of the box maintenance to perform at it's highest expectations.

ed rader wrote in post #14713367
here's a good review that reaches the same conclusion and compares the sigma to the canon 50s.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …X-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

The review actually states that AF is a real problem with this lens. According to Photozene, it has lots of spherical aberration, focus shift, and that is the difficulty. You don't see this with Sigma Zoom lenses, or other Sigmas - at least as far as I know.

I have the Canon. AF is pretty fast and accurate. That is a very important consideration for me. I want my lenses to focus properly, give good color and contrast, and I like good optics. If shots are out of focus when I want them in focus, that won't do it for me.
I have nothing against Sigma, and have a couple right now. I wish the Sigma 50f1.4 had a different design.

artyH wrote in post #14715245
The review actually states that AF is a real problem with this lens. According to Photozene, it has lots of spherical aberration, focus shift, and that is the difficulty. You don't see this with Sigma Zoom lenses, or other Sigmas - at least as far as I know.

I have the Canon. AF is pretty fast and accurate. That is a number 1 consideration for me.
I have nothing against Sigma, and have a couple right now. I wish the Sigma 50f1.4 had a different design.

I wish the Sigma 50 had the Canon name on it so we could all blame the camera.

If it had the camera name on it, Sigma, it would work properly with Sigma cameras.
Some lenses work better on some camera systems than others. You can see this in some of the LensTip reviews. You see this with the Sigma 30, where it works better on Canons and Nikons than some other brands. It is not clear why, but a lens that might work well, focus well, might have better AF on a Nikon than a Canon, and with others, perhaps vice versa.

I have no problem sending in my dslr and lens to have them optimized to work together.

that's okay, i guess, if you use one camera all the time and you never upgrade cameras. personally i wouldn't let sigma touch any of my cameras. some copies of the highly regarded 24-70L have issues probably due to the back asswards design. the design has been scrapped by canon and a successor is due to be released soon.

ed

I'll post some focusing test shots with the sigma later if you want. I just got it today.

cdifoto wrote in post #14715191
You don't understand how it works.

Canon doesn't even calibrate their own lenses to their own bodies. Sigma definitely has no business doing it. All they need to do is put the lens within tolerance. They basically aim for zero...and zero is zero. It's not relative.

This nonsense of expecting people to send their bodies to them highlights how incompetent they can be and why there are so many out of box problems.

When I bought my Canon 135L, it would not focus properly with my camera and I sent it to Canon twice to get it calibrated. It still wouldn't focus properly and Canon asked me to send in my body with it. They also asked me to check all my other lenses to make sure they were focusing properly with my body. My 85 was a little off wide open, so they asked me to send in both lenses with my body. I asked them not to make adjustments to my body since it worked fine with my other lenses.

According to the work sheet they enclosed when they returned my equipment, they did make adjustments to both lenses and the body, even though I requested that they not adjust the body. I was then worried that I'd have issues with my other lenses, but they all worked fine.

I'm not sure if this is Canon's normal method for calibrating, but they did calibrate 2 of my lenses to my camera.

The facts are:
No more than 2% of lens manufactured on any given day should leave the factory with a defect that includes the focusing mechanism, optics or cosmetic condition.

Realistically the numbers that are deemed more attainable are 5%.

Sadly, on a daily bases the numbers are closer to 8 to 9%.

Combine the numbers that are acceptable on lens that aren't perfectly in specs with a body that isn't either and you have the bad lens or body syndrome. Whichever the user chooses to believe.

That's why I have no problem whatsoever sending both in to be synced if needed.

I'm glad to say i got a sigma that focuses nicely