Sigma 35 is such an inconsistent lens!

TopGear3 wrote in post #16147995
You shoot 100 shots on the same spot, 80 of them works, 20 doesn't. It has got nothing to do with focus calibration, it's the lens itself. Call it being after market or Canon's proprietary focusing algorithms, I don't know.

lol dude you are so funny.

First of all I assume you did this so-called test under a test environment on tripod, consistent lighting, one shot mode, static target etc.

Secondly when you say you get 20 misses out of 100 I assume you mean the shot didn't come out in perfect focus, not totally oof as in it focuses at the background etc.

Provided you said yes to the above, now I challenge you to do the exact same test with the 35L, you'd be lucky to get 80-90 out of 100.

Prove me wrong!

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16148004
What are you talking about? Sigma 50 is the WORST sigma lens ever, 85 is no better. 35 is probably the best out of all 3, but it's light years behind Canon's worst L lens in terms of accuracy.

The metering is very inaccurate like the OP says, I tried 3 copies, all were the same. You put the lens on a tripod, take a picture, it over exposes by a full stop. 2 seconds later, it under exposes by 1/3 stop. It's crazy!

I wouldn't come close to any Sigma lenses - not even if they were handing them out for free. It's just not worth my time.

bberg wrote in post #16148026
Exactly the reason I passed on the Sigma and will be getting a Canon 35L instead. Wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with potential issues and huge loss of value on the original purchase price.

I guess I consider myself lucky to have good copies. I rented a 35L and it couldn't render a sharp image at 1.4 to save a life. Could've been an old worn out copy but I have no regrets on getting the sigma 35, it is by far the sharpest lens I own, even at 1.4.
I sold my original sigma 50 (bought new, super sharp) because I didn't think I needed it anymore and I ended up buying a used one less than a year later. I've never experienced any focus issues whatsoever. I only had an issue with the used 50 not being as sharp as I expected, or maybe because I was so used to how sharp my 35 was.
Sure my Sigs may need some micro adjustment, I've had to do the same with my 135 before I sold it. My Sig 35 didn't require any on my MK2 body. That is probably their best build yet and there's plenty of people that would agree with me.
I'll use Sigma lenses all day long

kin2son wrote in post #16148069
lol dude you are so funny.

First of all I assume you did this so-called test under a test environment on tripod, consistent lighting, one shot mode, static target etc.

Secondly when you say you get 20 misses out of 100 I assume you mean the shot didn't come out in perfect focus, not totally oof as in it focuses at the background etc.

Provided you said yes to the above, now I challenge you to do the exact same test with the 35L, you'd be lucky to get 80-90 out of 100.

Prove me wrong!

I already did the same and while it wasn't 100 shots, the keeper rate in this tripod/mirror lock/remote release scenario was 100%. I am so upset with the Sigma that I may just donate it and not even bother returning it! I wasted so much time at first with MFA, then waiting for the usb dock, and now it's still hit or miss. You guys need to understand that it's not just the shift of focus plane, it's the algorithm that's inside the lens that is screwed up.

smooth3000 wrote in post #16148074
I guess I consider myself lucky to have good copies. I rented a 35L and it couldn't render a sharp image at 1.4 to save a life. Could've been an old worn out copy but I have no regrets on getting the sigma 35, it is by far the sharpest lens I own, even at 1.4.
I sold my original sigma 50 (bought new, super sharp) because I didn't think I needed it anymore and I ended up buying a used one less than a year later. I've never experienced any focus issues whatsoever. I only had an issue with the used 50 not being as sharp as I expected, or maybe because I was so used to how sharp my 35 was.
I'll use Sigma lenses all day long

You are not lucky at all and I don't think these Sigma fan boys who post here are lucky either. I just think you guys are not picky enough or don't have good eyes or don't know what to look for.

bberg wrote in post #16148026
Exactly the reason I passed on the Sigma and will be getting a Canon 35L instead. Wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with potential issues and huge loss of value on the original purchase price.

That is another point worth mentioning. You can buy a 35L for $1350 now and sell it for $1250 a year later. Buy the Sigma for $899 and you'll be lucky if you can sell it for $600 6 months later.

Looks like LensGuys neighbor with faulty 200L f2 IS.

TopGear3 wrote in post #16148094
That is another point worth mentioning. You can buy a 35L for $1350 now and sell it for $1250 a year later. Buy the Sigma for $899 and you'll be lucky if you can sell it for $600 6 months later.

I am 35L owner, like it very much but look at used 35L prices here. They have gone down a lot since sigma 35mm f1.4 came. Now a days $1000-$1050 is going rate, IMHO. If I could sell 35L for $1200 or so I will sell it right now and pick sigma.

bobbyz wrote in post #16148103
I am 35L owner, like it very much but look at used 35L prices here. They have gone down a lot since sigma 35mm f1.4 came. Now a days $1000-$1050 is going rate, IMHO. If I could sell 35L for $1200 or so I will sell it right now and pick sigma.

I was negotiating with someone who wouldn't give it to me for $1000 and sold it for $1150 instead. It was mint, 2 years old. I regret not getting it now.

I've seen the Sigma 35s go for around $800 used. Some people buy with the intention to keep but if I saw one for $600 used, give me 10 of them
I think it came out in December and it goes for $800 used on amazon.
You want to compare 1350 new to 1250 used; $100 on both lenses.
BTW, I have seen many 35Ls go for $1000 on here. For $1250 you'll have a good chance of getting the 50L.
In reality, you'll be losing about $400 (35L) vs $100 (Sigma) when it comes time to sell off either lens.

TopGear3 wrote in post #16148094
That is another point worth mentioning. You can buy a 35L for $1350 now and sell it for $1250 a year later. Buy the Sigma for $899 and you'll be lucky if you can sell it for $600 6 months later.

I'm sick of these Sig 35 bash threads. I bought mine for $899 brand new in February, and guess what, 6 months later they are selling used for $825. That's a 9% loss...but I too got a great copy and won't be selling.
Check my website for Sigma 35 and 85 love.

35L is very nice but to me it is f2 lens as wide open at f1.4 it is not as sharp as I would like it to be. I am amazed at what sigma 35mm f1.4 can do at f1.4.

defiantimage wrote in post #16148120
I'm sick of these Sig 35 bash threads. I bought mine for $899 brand new in February, and guess what, 6 months later they are selling used for $825. That's a 9% loss...but I too got a great copy and won't be selling.

How come there aren't that many 35L bash threads? Any explanations?

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16148004
What are you talking about? Sigma 50 is the WORST sigma lens ever, 85 is no better. 35 is probably the best out of all 3, but it's light years behind Canon's worst L lens in terms of accuracy.

So, you've tried every Sigma lens made? Oh that's right, you have, and you've tried several copies of each.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16148126
How come there aren't that many 35L bash threads? Any explanations?

Because there wasn't really any real competition before the Sigma.

People had to accept all its pros and cons as there was no other choice that comes close.

Someone made a comment about lens profile and lightroom. Yes that does help, but last time I checked vignetting correction has a big noise cost as much as 3 stops?