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

macanonline wrote in post #10198608
Sigma's got some finely designed lenses. The really big problem with that brand is, though, that they seem like they never heard the concept of Quality Control. One copy of any Sigma lens may be fine and another one of the same lens - total crap.

Most often, their lenses show excessive off-center misalignment, which causes decreased sharpness and/or increased chromatic aberration in parts of an image. Unfortunately, those faults usually surface after testing a lens at camera store and after a purchase. So, there's always a risk.

Not really true , I have 4 Sigma lens. All bought new and where fine right out of the box.

So I think your statement is total crap, as you put it.

CountryBoy wrote in post #10200608
Not really true , I have 4 Sigma lens. All bought new and where fine right out of the box.

So I think your statement is total crap, as you put it.

+1.

CountryBoy wrote in post #10200608
Not really true , I have 4 Sigma lens. All bought new and where fine right out of the box.

So I think your statement is total crap, as you put it.

You didn't really disprove any theories, there, though. You could also flip a coin and get 4 heads in row, but the odds would still be 50-50.

tkbslc wrote in post #10200618
You didn't really disprove any theories, there, though. You could also flip a coin and get 4 heads in row, but the odds would still be 50-50.

And that's the point - neither side has any evidence at all (ie figures/percentages) but the bashing continues ad nauseum.

And using figures like 50-50 in this context appears to be significantly misleading.

tkbslc wrote in post #10200618
You didn't really disprove any theories, there, though. You could also flip a coin and get 4 heads in row, but the odds would still be 50-50.

There where no theories to disprove , just some ol' anti Sigma BS.

CountryBoy wrote in post #10200722
There where no theories to disprove , just some ol' anti Sigma BS.

You know as well as the next guy that there are a lot of forum members who have purchased miscalibrated Sigma lenses. Especially certain other f1.4 primes from Sigma. I don't think the "ol' anti Sigma BS" is completely unfounded.

tkbslc wrote in post #10200762
You know as well as the next guy that there are a lot of forum members who have purchased miscalibrated Sigma lenses. Especially certain other f1.4 primes from Sigma. I don't think the "ol' anti Sigma BS" is completely unfounded.

There are certainly instances of Sigma lenses having issues, just as there are of Canon lenses. But there's no figures to show it's "widespread" or whatever terms the knockers love to use. (Ignoring that idiot "survey" that was run earlier this year.)

I had a very nice copy of the 70-200/2.8 EX DG. It back focussed like a **** out of the box, so i sent it into Sigma under warrently and it cam back working like a treat. Spot on AF and very reliable.
My 12-24mm lens has proved less reliable, it's been into sigma 3 times in 6 years. Each time, they repaired it, even when it was out of warrenty. My Sigma 24-70/2.8 macro has worked flawlessly since I bought it.

CountryBoy wrote in post #9647852
It must be. But why the 50-500mm with OS. They already have the 150-500mm lens.

Perhaps you can use the 50mm for portraitures? Don't ask me, lol

tkbslc wrote in post #10200762
You know as well as the next guy that there are a lot of forum members who have purchased miscalibrated Sigma lenses. Especially certain other f1.4 primes from Sigma. I don't think the "ol' anti Sigma BS" is completely unfounded.

While there are people that have had issues with Sigma lenses, there are MANY more that have NOT has issues, you just don't hear about them. I have owned 4 Sigma lenses, one of them was bad (70-200 macro first version, very soft probably needing something more then just calibration). I've also had 2 bad Canon 50 f1.8's

mickeyjuice wrote in post #10200615
+1.

+1 here too.

The best thing I read I seem to not be able to find again to post. But it said in a nut shell: Pretty much engineering 101.

Your camera body is built to a tolerance of say + or - 2
Your Lens are built to that same tolerance + or -2 (Canon, Sigma, Tam, Nik, etc)

So you get your new camera and its on the - side of the tolerance say -1.5, but within tolerance. Your new lens is on the + side, say +1.

So you end up with a difference of 0.5, but both are built to specs.

But the next person happens to get a +1 body and a -1 lens, and its dead on but also in spec.

Then the next guy gets a body at -2 and his lens at -2 thus a -4 BUT within tolerance.

If you think that the manf should and can always produce products at dead on your living in a dream world.

Its why they have micro adjustment.

FWIW my Sig and Tam lens are dead on with my 7d but my 24-70L is 2.5 adjusted.

mickeyjuice wrote in post #10200848
(Ignoring that idiot "survey" that was run earlier this year.)

Ah, you're just upset that you didn't think of it first.

mickeyjuice wrote in post #10200848
There are certainly instances of Sigma lenses having issues, just as there are of Canon lenses. But there's no figures to show it's "widespread" or whatever terms the knockers love to use. (Ignoring that idiot "survey" that was run earlier this year.)

I had a sigma lens that was missing a screw that was crucial to where the camera mounts. Hows that for QC.

AzzKicker wrote in post #10201903
I had a sigma lens that was missing a screw that was crucial to where the camera mounts. Hows that for QC.

Well then there is always this thread to compare it against. I guess you should stay completely away from Canon too.

lazer-jock wrote in post #10202239
Well then there is always this thread to compare it against. I guess you should stay completely away from Canon too.

You found his screw!! DD