50mm - Sigma vs Canon

warranty issues are always a catch-22 with companies.
Either they hire a full-time staff to deal with quality control so every lens comes out perfect, which costs a LOT of money

or

they hire a part-time or smaller staff to deal with repairs/adjustments on a fraction of the lenses which costs significantly less.

It's all about cost savings vs reputation.
I'm sure Sigma knows of the quality issues. They are famous for them, but apparently the costs of having the full-time quality control staff isn't worth the value of providing perfectly focusing lenses.
I wonder how much more sales Sigma would get if they were to fix that problem though. There's people on POTN say they would love to get Sigma lenses if they weren't known for atrocious front/back focusing issues.

My Sigma doesn't have a problem, but even if it did, I still think it would be worth it to get the Sigma and send it in for two weeks to get it fixed and get a GREAT performing lens, than get the EF 50 1.4 which has consistent quality, but impossible to get near the IQ of the Sigma.

vadim_c wrote in post #7818810
So 1.2 at 1/60 is equal to 1.4 at 1/50 ? Something is wrong with your math

No, something is wrong with your math. Put on your camera, set the shutter speed to 1/50s, and then make it 1/3 stop faster...the next click is 1/60s...and then the next is 1/80s. (I was referring to the camera specific shutter speeds, not the 1/67s that an actual 1/3 stop change would do). However, in reality, it's the 1/50s that's actually off a bit...as 1/60s is considered a standard whole stop shutter speed, while 1/50s and 1/40s are the 1/3 stop intervals between 1/60s and 1/30s.

Future Blues wrote in post #7816934
Why are you shooting sports with a 50mm? Are you going to be on the court in the middle of the game?

I'd suggest a longer lens for that sort of thing, myself.

Actually, I'm pretty much right under the basket. With the 40D, there were many times when the 50 was too long! Yes, too long! I shot in one gym where I used only my 17-55 f/2.8 and was shooting at 30 to 40 mm all night long. It might be a New England thing to make gyms so small.

the problems with the sigma have got me on the fence about picking it up.....how do you properly test to see if you have a bad copy or not?

you can use a focus chart, but honestly, if you can't tell if anything is wrong with it shooting normal/regular pictures, you should be happy.
Unless shooting focus charts is your kind of thing.

Also, even if it doesn't focus properly, the Sigma is WORTH waiting to get it calibrated.

haha...yeah, I figure if it focuses on what I'm trying to focus in on, then I'm good...now it's time to figure out what lens in my bag gets put on the chopping block - so hard to do as I love and use them all : (

I know its not a 50L thread, but since the some 50L bashing has crept in allow me to pipe up for this lens again.

A good copy is peerless.

Thats all it boils down to really.

Its pointless to bash this lens until you have had meaningful time with a good copy of the 50L.

I do agree though that the siggy is much closer to 50L's fine qualities than the woeful canon 1.4

The Sigma is very good, nothing lacking, and yes it is a bargain price in comparison.

Ob Com wrote in post #7820513
I know its not a 50L thread, but since the some 50L bashing has crept in allow me to pipe up for this lens again.

A good copy is peerless.

I clearly have nothing against L primes, but nobody has shown what makes it "better" than the Sigma 50. Peerless should be easily backed up. 1/3 stop isn't worth the $1000 bump to me, but if anyone is willing to demonstrate where the L is better - with samples (and I don't care what my primes do at f8 either) - I would certainly "upgrade". I just haven't seen anything except flowery words.

From what I understand, the Sigma 50 does come close to the 50L. I don't think the Sigma, as much as I love mine, is going to quite equal or surpass a good copy of the 50L. Is it worth the price difference? To some people, yes. To me, it was not. Both are excellent and you are not going wrong either way. I am pretty sure the only way I will get rid of my sigma is to move to the 85L. Some day...

Chez Wimpy wrote in post #7823251
The Sigma is very good, nothing lacking, and yes it is a bargain price in comparison.


I clearly have nothing against L primes, but nobody has shown what makes it "better" than the Sigma 50. Peerless should be easily backed up. 1/3 stop isn't worth the $1000 bump to me, but if anyone is willing to demonstrate where the L is better - with samples (and I don't care what my primes do at f8 either) - I would certainly "upgrade". I just haven't seen anything except flowery words.

paging Perry Ge

Does anyone knows, if this new Sigma 50mm is Made in Japan?

Chez Wimpy wrote in post #7823251
The Sigma is very good, nothing lacking, and yes it is a bargain price in comparison.


I clearly have nothing against L primes, but nobody has shown what makes it "better" than the Sigma 50. Peerless should be easily backed up. 1/3 stop isn't worth the $1000 bump to me, but if anyone is willing to demonstrate where the L is better - with samples (and I don't care what my primes do at f8 either) - I would certainly "upgrade". I just haven't seen anything except flowery words.

Hi CW.

There's no point in posting samples. Aesthetics/tastes vary, and I am certainly not going to start shooting test shots just to convince people to buy a lens

Nor am I going to rehearse all the relative merits of the 50L or the short comings of the Sigma 1.4 and the canon 1.4- its all documented ad nauseum right here on POTN.

My point was that I am just so weary of people bashing this lens when they havent owned and/or used a good copy of this lens extensively. Its a lens that requires getting used to, in order to get it to give up its secrets.

And btw amoung AF 50mm canon mount lenses currently in production the 50L is uniquely fast at 1.2.

In other words, peerless.

Chez Wimpy wrote in post #7823251
The Sigma is very good, nothing lacking, and yes it is a bargain price in comparison.


I clearly have nothing against L primes, but nobody has shown what makes it "better" than the Sigma 50. Peerless should be easily backed up. 1/3 stop isn't worth the $1000 bump to me, but if anyone is willing to demonstrate where the L is better - with samples (and I don't care what my primes do at f8 either) - I would certainly "upgrade". I just haven't seen anything except flowery words.

1/3 stop isn't worth the $1000 bump to me either, but then that wouldn't be my reason anyways.

d.

Well, until I found this post I was fully committed to purchases Canon's 50mm f/1.4, but now I'm going to see if my supplier can cancel the order and get the siggy instead. Sounds like for another $100 its a far superior lens.

It seems that the perfect 50mm is still alluding the Canon mount. The old 50mm f1.4 USM has it's well known issues, the 50mm f1.2L is also well know for it's faults and this new Sigma isn't vice free either.
But consider this, either one of these 3 lenses will out perform most of their owners.
I have a 50L and my dissapointment with it are two fold, it's not particularly sharp wide open but gets sharp by f1.8. Where as all my other Canon primes are tack sharp wide open. It's easily the weakest lens in my bag. I don't think that I have a good or bad copy, just a typical copy. But it's still the best 50mm available of a faulted bunch. My second gripe with it is it's focus speed an accuracy...it's just not that thrilling. Compare it to a 35L or 24-70L and there is little to compare.
I passed on the Sigma just because I am done with the brand. Their paint finish is fragile and their QC out of the box is tedious. I still use a 180 macro and a 12-24, but I would change to Canon in an instant if I had the spare cash and a Canon 12-24 was available. i would drop Sigma from my line completely.