New Sigma 35mm f/1.4 HSM DG

You guys (or gals??) are stoked! Keep posting up the images.

I`m quite disappointed to hear about these issues, really. At first nobody complained about any AF problems.
I need my lens to be spot on with the AF for wedding photography and I need a lens I can rely on. I was happy Sigma came with this lens, but idk why I have the feeling I`ll buy the 35L...
This thing seemed too good to be true.

LV Moose wrote in post #15497396
Cory and Steve... you guys are making me paranoid. Now I feel like I better shoot all weekend with this thing until I'm convinced it's fine.

edit. Oh, and now Ed. Damn.

Oh no. I felt the same now. I need to take some shots @ >10 ft now. Hopefully, my lens doesn't have this issue, but I think it might because a few shots came out way of focus when I shot this past Weekend, and I thought it might be a user error.

Yes. I'll post some pictures when I get home. I'm getting a good hit rate. Some sharper the others sounds like business as usual to me.

Revolverz wrote in post #15497904
I`m quite disappointed to hear about these issues, really. At first nobody complained about any AF problems.
I need my lens to be spot on with the AF for wedding photography and I need a lens I can rely on. I was happy Sigma came with this lens, but idk why I have the feeling I`ll buy the 35L...
This thing seemed too good to be true.

It took a while for me to really feel as if I was having problems as I don't shoot a lot of things far off with the 35. I did question it initially when I shot a landscape. I wasn't totally stoked on the sharpness, but I am not a LS shooter either and thought maybe I just had too high of expectations. But the occasional shot here and there that I was not able to get at longer distances were starting to add up. Like I said, it took nearly two months for me to come to this realization.

The reality though is that (I can't speak for Steve) but I am no pro by any stretch of the imagination. The reviews from all the major big players all give it big thumbs up. Roger (I think) from lensrental has made some bold statements. I think they have a lot of copies of the lens. Thus one could assume that they have tested them all extensively. This is WAY more objective than anything I have done.

Well from what I read, Lensrentals tested all their lenses at the same distance, lighting, etc... Not exactly "field" testing by any means if I read correctly... The lens does AF very accurately, no doubt... If my lens was set at the proper MA though required for the distance being shot.

If Lens Rentals tested each lens in a mixture of conditions (inside vs. out, MFD to infinity, etc...) we could have a more accurate judgement.

Again, the lens is incredible. But I am really hoping there are only a few issues out there. Sigma seems really determined to bring up the quality control, especially teaming with Adorama now to find out why there are so many returns. If I have an issue with my next copy, it is going to Sigma for calibration vs. exchange... I am sure they can take care of the issue if there is one. I figure try an exchange first, though!

You have to remember each company has it's own coding and operation... Sigma is making lenses for multiple platforms so what works for one, may not be ideal for another. I think they are starting to try to become consistent with each company it appears. I have hope for Sigma in the future. The 35 is a beautiful lens in many ways... If they can nail down the AF performance (already MUCH improved with the Sig35 vs the other lenses they have), they will have no problem growing their Canon market.

i've just "tested" the canon 35mm f2 IS and sigma 35mm f1.4 back to back. at least half of the sigma shots are wide open. i liked the canon 35 so much that i almost passed on renting the sigma. that would have been a mistake -- the sigma is an excellent lens and is sharp wide open (really).
the sigma is also sharper than the canon at f2.

from f1.4 to f2 it owns the canon 35L, imo. unless there is some other aesthetic quality that you're looking for the sigma seems like a better deal than the 35L to me. but what i wanted to know is if the sigma is a better lens for me than the canon 35mm f2 IS.

between the canon 35 f2 IS and the sigma it really comes down to one stop of light vs 3 stops of IS for me. the sigma is a real joy to shoot and if you like shooting at f1.4 give this lens a serious look.

yesterday i was convinced that i would buy the sigma. today after thinking about which lens would benefit my style of shooting i'm leaning toward the canon, again. i'm going to sit on my hands for awhile because i am in no hurry but i'll most likely get the canon -- especially if there is a price drop .

here are a couple of wide open shots with the sigma and a link to more:

ed rader wrote in post #15498205
from f1.4 to f2 it owns the canon 35L, imo.

So you tested it against 35L. Would love to see some comparison shots.

I just came back from a camera shop tested one...

Indoor it clearly ff @ f1.4, I planted a single point at my friend's eye numerous times and the tip of his nose was in focus...and outdoor isn't any better.

After dialing in +6 (guess work) it seems better indoor, by then I am already gutted and didn't test it again outdoor...

Man i dunno....should I try a different copy?

kin2son wrote in post #15498797
I just came back from a camera shop tested one...

Indoor it clearly ff @ f1/4, I planted a single point at my friend's eye numerous times and his tip of his nose was in focus...and outdoor isn't any better.

After dialing in +6 (guess work) it seems better indoor, by then I am already gutted and didn't test it again outdoor...

Man i dunno....should I try a different copy?

Not happy with your 35L?

bobbyz wrote in post #15498841
Not happy with your 35L?

Sold it yesterday...was really looking forward buying the Sigma today...

But I left the shop empty handed...

I know this is a common issue and a bit of MA doesn't hurt. However, I am a little bit scared whether it's consistent after MAed under various distance/lighting.

And then some members reckons it's the problem with the body...

I just couldn't do extensive test at the shop. All I can say is +6 seems to make it ok with the copy I just tried.

kin2son wrote in post #15498797
I just came back from a camera shop tested one...

Indoor it clearly ff @ f1/4, I planted a single point at my friend's eye numerous times and his tip of his nose was in focus...and outdoor isn't any better.

After dialing in +6 (guess work) it seems better indoor, by then I am already gutted and didn't test it again outdoor...

Man i dunno....should I try a different copy?

hey mate I say try a different copy or spend a bit of time MA and test properly again granted I haven't tested as extensively as others but my copy seems to be focusing fairly consistently at different distances and well as lighting conditions at my set MA value

also I'm no expert but I just don't think lenses such as these were designed to focus at like f/1.4 and over 10m away so I can imagine AF starts to go off wide open at distances such as that...also the fact that when shooing wide open I think it's fair to expect it to miss now and then whether it's camera/lens/user

basketballfreak6 wrote in post #15498890
hey mate I say try a different copy or spend a bit of time MA and test properly again granted I haven't tested as extensively as others but my copy seems to be focusing fairly consistently at different distances and well as lighting conditions at my set MA value

See that's the point I wasn't sure about as I couldn't test the lens extensively. I wouldn't mind that if that turns out to be the case.

Fair comment. But I was taking head shot of my friend @ the shop and his face fills up ~50% of the frame.

I used single SPOT centre point and still miss. MA did made it better but I just don't have confident with it that it will nail focus @ various distance and lighting.

I really want to buy it as I have a bday party to attend this saturaday...

I'll wait until I test a copy myself, but this is what I mean by focus consistency. I don't expect an equal hit rate to the 35L, but it needs to be pretty dam close.

The 35L allows me to shoot and not worry about the lens doing it's part. More sharpness wide open will not be an acceptable tradeoff for that piece of mind. I'm remaining optimistic until I get a copy in my hands.....

bobbyz wrote in post #15498770
So you tested it against 35L. Would love to see some comparison shots.

No I owned the 35l a few years ago. I also rented a copy. Results at f1.4 -- f2 were soft, unusable to me unless I had no choice. I don't think anyone who has used both lenses will dispute that the sigma is better at least until f2.