Sigma 50-150: Still problems out there?

Tony-S wrote in post #9091298
Well, since this is obviously directed at me...

Sorry Tony, wasn't trying to point it at you, just making a general observation.

gcogger wrote in post #9091414
Thanks. What distance was that, and is that the full image or a crop?

About 2 metres.. Full size image..

Just to update this post... according to Amazon it looks like the Sigma 50-150 has been discontinued at least for the canon mount. Everybody is depleting their stock.

The version 1 of this lens is discontinued. The version 2 is still in production.

Tony-S wrote in post #9241484
The version 1 of this lens is discontinued. The version 2 is still in production.

Version II:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

http://www.sigmaphoto.​com/lenses/lenses_all.​asp

http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp …sh/lens/digital​/index.htm

If you want to believe Amazon.com over Sigma USA and Sigma Japan, then that's your prerogative.

Tony-S wrote in post #9250774
http://www.sigmaphoto.​com/lenses/lenses_all.​asp

http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp …sh/lens/digital​/index.htm

If you want to believe Amazon.com over Sigma USA and Sigma Japan, then that's your prerogative.

Sigma won't "officially" discontinue a lens until all their suppliers have depleted most of their stock. That's just marketing 101 my friend.

I just received my Sigma 50-150 and am going to send it back for another copy.. The one I got had severe front focusing issues...so much that the micro-adjustment on my 50D could not correct the problem... I will give it one more try....

I've had 2 copies of version one. The first copy focused fine but had an issue with a element which caused it to appear to have front focus, but if you repeated the test to shoot something flat you would see that the center of the frame was fuzzy, then there was a sharp outline around that.

Sigma said they could fix it but it would take a while to get parts, so instead they just replaced it for me, 2nd copy was perfect in every way. I'm in the club that thinks this is one of the best lenses out there for the money.

If you insist on getting close with this your going to come up with very, very thin DOF. Breathing/pressing the shutter is enough to knock of this DOF.

KarlosDaJackal wrote in post #9423976
TBH with you most of the people with focus issues are probalby hitting up against the restrictive MFD. It is mostly user issues, accepting of course the dud copy confirmed by Sigma.

I'm sorry, but I find that rather arrogant. You're saying "I can't find a problem, so anyone who can must be incompetent". If users were hitting the MFD then they'd be reporting back focus, whereas everyone seems to be reporting front focus. The problems have been reported by a number of reputable review sites (for example, The Digital Picture gave up trying to get one that focused correctly). The example you have shown doesn't prove anything either way, as it's impossible to know exactly where the focus point is.

Here is an example that I posted a long time ago - it's an unsharpened centre crop at 150mm f/2.8, well beyond the min focus distance. I set up a vertical sheet of paper with text to focus on, and put another sheet below it at a slight angle to work out where it was actually focusing.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

gcogger wrote in post #9424241
I'm sorry, but I find that rather arrogant. You're saying "I can't find a problem, so anyone who can must be incompetent". If users were hitting the MFD then they'd be reporting back focus, whereas everyone seems to be reporting front focus. The problems have been reported by a number of reputable review sites (for example, The Digital Picture gave up trying to get one that focused correctly). The example you have shown doesn't prove anything either way, as it's impossible to know exactly where the focus point is.

Here is an example that I posted a long time ago - it's an unsharpened centre crop at 150mm f/2.8, well beyond the min focus distance. I set up a vertical sheet of paper with text to focus on, and put another sheet below it at a slight angle to work out where it was actually focusing.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

This particular one could have been the same as the problem you had with your first lens, I guess, but other shots I took at the time showed that wasn't the case. This was actually the better of the 2 copies of the lens I tried (and yes, I tried them on several different bodies). I know this is a test shot (which some people object to for some reason), but I set it up to prove what I was seeing in real world images.

Take a chill pill, i said nothing of the sort. I said I had a lens with a problem was not a focus issue but a problem none the less. I also said that it would be easy to be the case that its user error, but I said most case. Most threads here on POTN titled "focus error" seem to be user error by the end. I did not say its was definetly user error in your case, and i did not say that its impossible for the lens to be at fault. The fact I had a faultly lens and acknowledged the other faulty lens, hello!

This is also the first time you've posted a shot in this thread from your bad lens. Well done, the rest of the time are we supposed to assume you know what your doing with no proof, even if you posted it a long time ago somewhere else, I don't know you from Joe. Obviously there is something up with that shot, assuming you did it right. I did say the odds of a good one where 90% imho, i didn't say 100% did I.

I was just attempting to show the OP that yes there are good copies of this lens, some of use own them and know others happy with their lens. And also giving info so that when he looks at threads claiming focus errors, he may be able to look objectively and make up his own mind.

If you posted that image earlier and said you where 3 meters away, centre focus point on the text on the back sheet of paper, poor tungsten lighting (why is is so yellow?), tripod, mlu and all that other good info he could probably see something is up with yours, or your test as you didn't let us know all the other info and exif is striped.

Summary
Yours is probably fubarred, mine is defenitely not (but its still hard work sometimes with close-ups). I don't care if the OP gets one or not, but because you got a bad one does not mean they will all be bad, because I got a good one does not mean they will all be good.

And whats this crap about my shots tell you nothing, they are in focus and taken with this lens, what more do you need to know.

KarlosDaJackal wrote in post #9424338
Take a chill pill, i said nothing of the sort. I said I had a lens with a problem was not a focus issue but a problem none the less. I also said that it would be easy to be the case that its user error, but I said most case. Most threads here on POTN titled "focus error" seem to be user error by the end. I did not say its was definetly user error in your case, and i did not say that its impossible for the lens to be at fault. The fact I had a faultly lens and acknowledged the other faulty lens, hello!

This is also the first time you've posted a shot in this thread from your bad lens. Well done, the rest of the time are we supposed to assume you know what your doing with no proof, even if you posted it a long time ago somewhere else, I don't know you from Joe. Obviously there is something up with that shot, assuming you did it right. I did say the odds of a good one where 90% imho, i didn't say 100% did I.

I was just attempting to show the OP that yes there are good copies of this lens, some of use own them and know others happy with their lens. And also giving info so that when he looks at threads claiming focus errors, he may be able to look objectively and make up his own mind.

Sorry - not trying to start an argument It's just that comments like "It is mostly user issues" rub me up the wrong way, and I object to them unless there's some evidence. I'd rather see claims of mis-focusing lenses examined properly, rather than implying that the people that make them are not competent (which seemed to be the case in your reply to the post by BLURLT2).

"I'd say your odds are over 90% getting a good one new" seems to be a strange assertion, based on your one faulty and one OK lens

I'd agree that there are many occasions where people think they have focus problems, but simply don't understand how the focus system works. These tend to be spread across a random selection of lenses, mostly from beginners.

For this lens, however, there has always been a great deal of consistency about the problem. It's always front focus, at short distance, at 150mm and f/2.8. I've seen enough photo evidence over the years from numerous photographers that I'm practically certain that the Mk I lens had a real issue. Some people have sent the lens back to Sigma numerous times to try and fix it. I had the problem with 2 copies of the lens, and gave up because the Sigma techs, when pressed, would not confirm that they would be able to calibrate the lens to focus OK below 2-3m...

KarlosDaJackal wrote in post #9424338
If you posted that image earlier and said you where 3 meters away, centre focus point on the text on the back sheet of paper, poor tungsten lighting (why is is so yellow?), tripod, mlu and all that other good info he could probably see something is up with yours, or your test as you didn't let us know all the other info and exif is striped.

Summary
Yours is probably fubarred, mine is defenitely not (but its still hard work sometimes with close-ups). I don't care if the OP gets one or not, but because you got a bad one does not mean they will all be bad, because I got a good one does not mean they will all be good.

My shot was so long ago, I don't remember the exact details. It was on a tripod but probably no mirror lockup (irrelevant when there's such an obvious shift in focus point). I'm pretty sure it was below 2m (MFD is about 1m on that lens). The yellow cast is due to auto white balance, which is always dodgy indoors on Canon cameras! To be fair, this had mixed light sources (to get a nice bright target), so AWB would have been a challenge.

I'm actually here to try and find out if the latest lenses still have the issue. I've seen numerous people claim that they do, but not yet seen the photographic evidence that convinced me about the Mk I.

KarlosDaJackal wrote in post #9424338
And whats this crap about my shots tell you nothing, they are in focus and taken with this lens, what more do you need to know.

Since 'the problem' is a short distance one, the image of interest is the one of the toy lion. Unfortunately there are a few reasons that I said it tells us nothing:

- It's hard to tell where the exact focus point is on an image that small.

- As it's a complex 3D object, we have no way of knowing exactly where the camera tried to focus.

- You didn't mention that it was done on a tripod. You said yourself that "Breathing/pressing the shutter is enough to knock of this DOF.", so a tripod is essential.

Well, to be fair, it shows that your lens is probably not terrible - it's better than the second 50-150 I tried! But images demonstrating focus issues (good or bad) should really have an unambiguous focus point, should use a tripod to prevent movement, and include 100% crops so we can see what's happening. IMHO, of course

gcogger wrote in post #9424519
Sorry - not trying to start an argument It's just that comments like "It is mostly user issues" rub me up the wrong way

Well for most lense it is mostly user issue with most users, if that upsets you you might be on the wrong forum

gcogger wrote in post #9424519
- It's hard to tell where the exact focus point is on an image that small.
Its no more or less complex than a persons face which is what i'd use this lens for. Lets call it a realistic test.

- As it's a complex 3D object, we have no way of knowing exactly where the camera tried to focus.
Its appears to be where I asked it too, as it did in the other two shots. Look at the birds in flight you can't really say that their was a lot of distractions around them. It was either going to focus on the birds or the gray sky behind them, nothing else to see in the shot. Another good use of a telephoto

- You didn't mention that it was done on a tripod. You said yourself that "Breathing/pressing the shutter is enough to knock of this DOF.", so a tripod is essential.
This was the 2nd copy and I tested it like crazy after I got it, think i did this with my monopod actually. MFD on version one is somewhere before the 1 metre mark, probably 95cm from the sensor.

Well, to be fair, it shows that your lens is probably not terrible - it's better than the second 50-150 I tried! But images demonstrating focus issues (good or bad) should really have an unambiguous focus point, should use a tripod to prevent movement, and include 100% crops so we can see what's happening. IMHO, of course

I'll do a battery shot if you like, but I don't see the point of saying hey my lens works unless I'm selling it (never gonna happen). Anyway theses where not tests per say, these are real world shots, as are yogstee's and most of the other peoples in the sample thread.

Trust me if this lens gave me any issue in the last year it would be straight back to Sigma without hesitation. The only reason I don't use it more is my 30mm f/1.4 is so great it hardly comes of the camera (another lens with a rep that turned out not to be true in my case)

IMHO (and yours is repected too )

edit,
found a real world shot better than a battery test, focus was on camembert

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Allow me the weigh into the argument.. I own the Version I and I've said this many times before, the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 is one of the nicest lenses I've owned/used in over 30 years of photography including some topshelf Nikkors and Canons..

It's not an easy lens to use,,it has its foibles.. On my 20D I can go out and get shot after shot that are tack sharp even at f/2.8 at 150mm.. With my 50D it can be hard work and it's imperative to keep shutter speeds up.. I can get sharp images at 150th sec on my 20D but have trouble getting sharp images at times at 250th sec on my 50D at full aperture at 150mm.. To me it appears a high density sensor like the 50D's can struggle with the 50-150mm mounted.. Somehow camera movement is amplified in high density sensors.. I would go out and return with less keepers with my 50D than my 20D when shot at f/2.8..

I did a test after being pissed off one day and shot my 50-150mm at f/2.8 mounted on a tripod with shutter remote.. Sharp images everytime.. handheld even at 250th sec the images were off,,not out of focus, just off.. My problem is user error, not the lens.. This does not happen on my 20D.. BTW,,AI Servo AF helps when handholding the 50-150mm..

On my 50D my 50-150mm front focused before AF Micro adjustment,,all is good now.. On my 20D it doesn't, so it's the combination of camera/lens not the lens alone..

Now that I've mastered this lens the results are nothing short of spectacular.. It's a lens not to be taken lightly and needs a lot of input from the photographer to get it right.. Shots need to be set up quite carefully to get the best out of this lens..

Model = Canon EOS 50D
Exposure Time = 1/30"
F Number = F2.8
ISO Speed Ratings = 400
Focal Length = 150mm

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Let's look at real life photography.. Many lenses struggle with lowlight/high ISO subjects..

Model = Canon EOS 50D
Exposure Time = 1/200"
F Number = F2.8
ISO Speed Ratings = 1600
Focal Length = 150mm

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.