5 New Sigma Lenses (incl 85mm f1.4)

KenjiS wrote in post #9662392
the 24-70 had a long history of severe sharpness,

My Brick has that same problem kenji...Severe sharpness.

But, really overall, I've had my ups and downs with Sigmas...At one point I decided never to buy another Sigma....EVER......Tha​t is until I grabbed my EX 50/1.4....They don't call it the Sigmalux for nothing .....it's a spectacular lens and beats all three 50L's I've owned in IQ. But....I still think Canon's QC is much better than Sigmas, if they could just get it right the first time rather than having to send them in for calibration they'd be the company to beat.
Keeping my fingers crossed that the 85mm is in fact a strong performer like the 50mm...If it is, I'd drop my 85LmkII in a New York second and pocket the extra cash.

thatkatmat wrote in post #9662692
My Brick has that same problem kenji...Severe sharpness.

Sorry i meant softness

I guess im going to be finding out about Sigma's QC with one of their most maligned lenses in maybe a week

I knew what you meant, was just jabbing your ribs....What lens are you gonna grab?

KenjiS wrote in post #9662277
Keep in mind Sigma's MSRPs are rediculously inflated..for instance the 50mm f/1.4 is listed as having a $730 MSRP when it sells for $500

and the 150-500 is listed at $1470...and it sells for $1000

So basically Sigma's MSRP is roughly 1.5x what it will sell for...

Exactly... and you can find the 150-500 for under $900 if you try hard enough. Still, the 17-50 will need to be under $650 ish to really be interesting imho, unless it's actually sharper and better than the canon one.

thatkatmat wrote in post #9662692
I still think Canon's QC is much better than Sigmas,

In my own experience, this has been a 17-40L returned to Canon Sapporo for BF adjustment, came back focusing fine, but decentered. My new 5D2 started going Error 1 in the cold (a couple months after it was released, winter 2009) which I found out on a vacation, meaning I had to use it with lenses 1/2 mounted and MF only, and taking it into Sapporo for service (got it back three weeks later) meant I missed using in on a trip to Shikoku (XT with the 17-40L... ugh). My 35L has severe focus unreliability that would turn up when I tried to focus at a distance... sold it before I bothered getting it looked at. My 24L (first one) was fine, the mark 2, a nightmare. Focus is never 2x the same... so I have taken to doubling up on exposures to keep the percentages high. I just hope Canon can fix this one because 24mm at f1.4 is essential to my photography style. 85L needs various micro-adjustment depending on distance to target (0,+2,+5), 70-200/2.8IS is also really bad at long distance (track meets, I just MF using liveview for the first shot, and let it go from there), on my 20D I would just focus about 2/3 into a group to get an average sharpness front-back. Overall, I would say my lenses have been about 60% good... but far less if you only consider my experience with their higher end gear (really, WTF?).

Sigma I have had five lenses now including the notorious 30/50 "beta testing" soon after they were released. Only the 12-24 needed service for de-centering, came back great.

So yeah, I still wonder (aloud) how warranted this Sigma reputation is... I only personally have a "right" to complain about Canon QC! How many of those dissatisfied users have equal or greater experience with the L primes?

Chez Wimpy wrote in post #9662941
In my own experience, this has been a 17-40L returned to Canon Sapporo for BF adjustment, came back focusing fine, but decentered. My new 5D2 started going Error 1 in the cold (a couple months after it was released, winter 2009) which I found out on a vacation, meaning I had to use it with lenses 1/2 mounted and MF only, and taking it into Sapporo for service (got it back three weeks later) meant I missed using in on a trip to Shikoku (XT with the 17-40L... ugh). My 35L has severe focus unreliability that would turn up when I tried to focus at a distance... sold it before I bothered getting it looked at. My 24L (first one) was fine, the mark 2, a nightmare. Focus is never 2x the same... so I have taken to doubling up on exposures to keep the percentages high. I just hope Canon can fix this one because 24mm at f1.4 is essential to my photography style. 85L needs various micro-adjustment depending on distance to target (0,+2,+5), 70-200/2.8IS is also really bad at long distance (track meets, I just MF using liveview for the first shot, and let it go from there), on my 20D I would just focus about 2/3 into a group to get an average sharpness front-back. Overall, I would say my lenses have been about 60% good... but far less if you only consider my experience with their higher end gear (really, WTF?).

Sigma I have had five lenses now including the notorious 30/50 "beta testing" soon after they were released. Only the 12-24 needed service for de-centering, came back great.

So yeah, I still wonder (aloud) how warranted this Sigma reputation is... I only personally have a "right" to complain about Canon QC! How many of those dissatisfied users have equal or greater experience with the L primes?

The only L-prime or zoom I've had problems with is the 50L and that's just the 50L shift, which some can live with, some can't...... But I have had problems with my bodies...first, two different 1Dmk3's then the 5Dmk2, they finally replaced my 5Dmk2...
With Sigma glass...I've had broken OS after 4 days on my 150-500, completely OOF and soft 120-400....My 30/1.4 needed to go back for calibration and one of my two EX 50's had to go back as well, So, with my EOS bodies I've had 4 of 5 Sigma lenses either returned or calibrated...

I see you have had problems with the Canon's and can certainly understand your position...So, I guess YMMV depending on experience....I still believe The EX 50 is the best standard lens I've owned and again, hope the 85mm will be in the same league (in one of the articles it said it's based on the EX 50...I like the sound of that)

thatkatmat wrote in post #9662777
I knew what you meant, was just jabbing your ribs....What lens are you gonna grab?

50mm f/1.4 actually..birthday present

If the AF speed on the new 85mm f/1.4 can match Canons 85mm f/1.8, then I'm defiantly going to get one. I just tried the Canon 85mm on my 1D this weekend, and the AF speed was just awesome. Having that speed + f/1.4 would be a really great thing...

Brett wrote in post #9662365
They make the only AF 50mm prime that I would own other than the 50L, and it's almost $1000 cheaper.

If the 85/1.4 competes as well with the 85L as Sigma's 50/1.4 does with the 50L, I'll be sold.

+1

d.

Lindholdt wrote in post #9664456
If the AF speed on the new 85mm f/1.4 can match Canons 85mm f/1.8, then I'm defiantly going to get one. I just tried the Canon 85mm on my 1D this weekend, and the AF speed was just awesome. Having that speed + f/1.4 would be a really great thing...

Don't hold your breath, guessing it will be much slower.

thatkatmat wrote in post #9664707
Don't hold your breath, guessing it will be much slower.

If the Sigmalux is anything to go by, it'll be competing with the 85L rather than the 85 1.8.

If it can focus accurately (or be easily adjusted to do so), it'll be at least on par, with similar IQ and speed - I can't see it focusing slower than the 85L. If it has better CA control, it'll be a winner for sure - a third the price, similar IQ, less CA.

Faster focusing would just be a bonus.

woos wrote in post #9662876
Exactly... and you can find the 150-500 for under $900 if you try hard enough. Still, the 17-50 will need to be under $650 ish to really be interesting imho, unless it's actually sharper and better than the canon one.

Yes, you can actually purchase the 150-500 OS for about $860 new, from authorized dealer Abe's of Maine now that they have 10% off on Sigmas, $15 off via a coupon and Bing cashback.
I just priced one as a test a few days ago came out to around 860.

Sometimes I flirt with the idea of replacing my Bigmos with a Canon 100-400L but then I wake up and ask myself, why? Shelling out about 400-500 extra dollars after I sell my Bigmos to get the 100-400L doesn't make much sense. It's a great lens but not worth the price difference to me.

There was one point a few months ago when Dell had 20% off through Bing and my good friend's wife is a Dell employee, which means another 10% off. I could have purchased a 100-400L for about $1150, still I decided no (but it was tempting...)

the 85 1.4 would be to die for if its at par with the sigmalux... but it should be better in melting / Creaming the BG away since the longer FL...

Go Sigma... now if only they can have their 24 - 70 DG HSM to be better than the tamron 28 - 75 in terms of IQ.. I would have a straight sigma line up!

Lindholdt wrote in post #9664456
If the AF speed on the new 85mm f/1.4 can match Canons 85mm f/1.8, then I'm defiantly going to get one. I just tried the Canon 85mm on my 1D this weekend, and the AF speed was just awesome. Having that speed + f/1.4 would be a really great thing...

The AF motor is moving a lot more glass in the Sigma. Agreed that it'll probably be faster than the 85L (because that thing's a slug), but the 85/1.8 is very fast. I very much doubt the Sigma will be even close.

Maybe so...but the Sigma utilizes a rear focus system.....so that should help minimize the amount of glass that's actually moving.