New Sigma 35mm f/1.4 HSM DG

Pepe Guitarra wrote in post #15500748
It is official, I am going to stop reading this thread. The half-empty glass people here have me worrying for the last two weeks, testing my Sigma 35/1.4 under every possible circumstance to find something wrong with it. At the end of the day, I find that the lens is even sharper than the day before. Not only that, the IQ is wonderful, so. THAT IS IT. I am not going to read your negative stuff. This lens is wonderful, perfect, I love it.

Pepe Guitarra wrote in post #15500761
Just one last comment: I also have the Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS. That lens is even better than the ART, it is great, and I chose it because it is better than the counterpart Canon. I still like the Canons I have, but these two sigmas are the best. Even better the Sigma 100-300/4 No-OS is also great!!

I stopped listening to the anti-Sigma rants many years ago , after I had bought the Sigma 100-300mm , 50-150mm and 150mm macro . Just ignore them and enjoy your lens ...

idsurfer wrote in post #15497513
BTW, I did agree with some things good ole Alan was saying, but I do think he wants to hate sigma! :rolleyes (please pick up on sarcasm, this is all in good fun for me. I do not do this for a living and do not take it that serious, it's only 900 bucks! :rolleyes

I think you should. As it was pointed out, realizing a minor problem exists may be an insidious process. But in the end it is a problem. Good luck. Man, we are really killing the chances of dispelling the sigma stigma!!

I had respect for Ed Rader but now I simply hate him I KID, I KID

I should tone down for being so vocal. idsurfer, 900 dollars is alot of money...seriously.

Hopefully this thread gives good insight on potential issues or fantastic results from good copies of this lens. I guess mileage may vary depending on the application you'll be using the lens and what body you are using.

If your a well seasoned shooter at f/1.4 I guess shooting away and analyzing keepers will determine the consistency of this lens.

If people have had no issues with canon lenses and the random oof photos with Sigma primes this indicates a lens issue. Unlikely not the body's fault of random OOF photos. This is just my personal experiences with Sigma primes I've tested and even purchased.

I'm waiting to hear more that Sigma 35mm has broken the AF issues with Canon bodies.

CountryBoy wrote in post #15501172
I stopped listening to the anti-Sigma rants many years ago , after I had bought the Sigma 100-300mm , 50-150mm and 150mm macro . Just ignore them and enjoy your lens ...

100-300mm is a nice lens. So is 150-500mm but try that 120-300mm f2.8 non OS and you will know why some folks are sigma haters. I had 30mm f1.4 and it was one of the best lenses that I owned.

The fact that the phrase "the Sigma lottery" exists gives me pause. Since my plans for a FF camera are on hold, I really need a fast, dependable prime and I was hoping this Sigma lens was it, since it would also work on FF.

I do realize we hear about negative experiences more often than positive ones but I "know" Cory and he's not a whiner so his concerns have validity to me.

I really don't know which prime would work better with my 60D so I'm holding off for the moment. I am hearing more and more positive comments about the Canon 35 f/2 IS so that is also a possibility. Not having MFA does make the selection more risky, at least, in my own mind.

bobbyz wrote in post #15501571
100-300mm is a nice lens. So is 150-500mm but try that 120-300mm f2.8 non OS and you will know why some folks are sigma haters. I had 30mm f1.4 and it was one of the best lenses that I owned.

The only problems I had with the 120-300mm was the weight and the AF seemed slower then my 100-300 or 50-150mm ..

CountryBoy wrote in post #15501697
The only problems I had with the 120-300mm was the weight and the AF seemed slower then my 100-300 or 50-150mm ..

My 120-300mm non OS was crap in AI servo compared to 300mm f2.8 IS.

bobbyz wrote in post #15500578
Old brick to me is one the worst work horse L lenses from canon. That is why I never bought it. Also hard to believe that 35mm f2 IS wide open at f2 is sharper or as sharp as 35L stopped down 1 stop.

where did you hear that? it's been awhile since i've owned the 35L but my mind tells me it is slightly sharper at f2 (than 35f2 IS) .....of course that was waaaay back in the days of the brick .

here's what digital picture says:

The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Lens vs. Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens comparison is an interesting one. The 35 L of course rules at f/1.4, and it is sharper in the center of the frame at f/2. At f/2, the mid and corner of the frame differences are harder to discern as the 35 L has more CA, but less vignetting. These two lenses are equalizing at f/2.8 and at f/4, I give the f/2 IS lens a slight advantage, but both lenses are performing impressively.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …2-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

AlanU wrote in post #15501364
idsurfer, 900 dollars is alot of money...seriously.

I know! That's what the roll eyes were for!!

Howdy Kim!! Long time! Good luck with finding a lens you like. My guess is you will go through a few!

Invertalon wrote in post #15497377
For me, no change with distance regardless of the lenses I have used on my 5D3 since I bought it.... Including the 24-70 II, 70-200 II, 35L, 135L, 8-15L, 85L, 24-105L, 85 1.8, etc... No issues what so ever. Only the Sigma.

These "distanse issues" you and Idsurfer are having with your lenses, sounds just like the issues I had with my Sigma 85 f/1.4. I had to change MFA-settings all the time, depending on distance between lens and subject.

After 2 failed calibrations from Sigma, I gave up and sold it.

I am ok with having to micro adjusting my lenses, but I do want the results to be the same on all distances.. Anything else will drive me mad.

One more thing. Does this lens come with the new USB docking station?

I read this on some website:

"Sigma's recently announced USB dock is intended to enable Sigma lens owners to adjust the accuracy of the autofocusing and upgrade the firmware of your lenses via a computer, but it could also enable you to customise the focus distance and how the optical stabiliser (OS) operates.

Speaking to TechRadar at Photokina 2012, Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki explained that the details of the USB dock have yet to be finalised, but it may enable Sigma lens users to choose whether the OS operates full-time to create a steadier view through the viewfinder, or at the point of capture to enable maximum correction."

But when I read this thread, it seems many of you sent the lens in for calibration, so I guess the USB-thing isn't available or doesn't work yet?

USB dock isn't released yet to the public.

Osiriz wrote in post #15505101
One more thing. Does this lens come with the new USB docking station?

Gotta buy it separate, when released. I believe it'll be $200.

ed rader wrote in post #15501889
here's what digital picture says:

The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Lens vs. Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens comparison is an interesting one. The 35 L of course rules at f/1.4, and it is sharper in the center of the frame at f/2. At f/2, the mid and corner of the frame differences are harder to discern as the 35 L has more CA, but less vignetting. These two lenses are equalizing at f/2.8 and at f/4, I give the f/2 IS lens a slight advantage, but both lenses are performing impressively.

Good summary.

Osiriz wrote in post #15505009
These "distanse issues" you and Idsurfer are having with your lenses, sounds just like the issues I had with my Sigma 85 f/1.4. I had to change MFA-settings all the time, depending on distance between lens and subject.

After 2 failed calibrations from Sigma, I gave up and sold it.

I am ok with having to micro adjusting my lenses, but I do want the results to be the same on all distances.. Anything else will drive me mad.

I hear ya. I initially found mine needed roughly +10. After playing with it more yesterday, got it narrowed down to +8 at close distances (MFD to about 30 feet). Problem is, shooting a mountain at near infinity, it was sharpest at +5. Not sure what I'm gonna do at this point.

LV Moose wrote in post #15505145
I hear ya. I initially found mine needed roughly +10. After playing with it more yesterday, got it narrowed down to +8 at close distances (MFD to about 30 feet). Problem is, shooting a mountain at near infinity, it was sharpest at +5. Not sure what I'm gonna do at this point.

that doesnt sound all that much different. Keep it at 8 and shoot a lot. If it's indeed a problem, then revisit. I find that even with using FoCal on my 50, it was a little off, but shooting at 0, I'm having no problems with focus, so I kind of stay away from FoCal now.