Should I be worry about my new Sigmalux?

robonrome wrote in post #11055673
Around a third of Sigma 50's require some form of calibration (see the poll results below), but focus shift (focus shifts as you stop-down from 1.4 to 2.5) seems to be a design feature of this lens type as it is with the 50L.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=928936

Its threads like this that blow the 50s focus issue out of proportion. That poll reports on about 120 lenses. If sigma made 150 of these total or even 200 it may show some actual truth. Im sure they have made thousands.

I would be interested to see the total number produced by Sigma to date. Then the number sent for service. Then that number broken down by the number that actually have a focus issue vs. the number that didn't.

silvrr wrote in post #11055705
Its threads like this that blow the 50s focus issue out of proportion. That poll reports on about 120 lenses. If sigma made 150 of these total or even 200 it may show some actual truth. Im sure they have made thousands.

I would be interested to see the total number produced by Sigma to date. Then the number sent for service. Then that number broken down by the number that actually have a focus issue vs. the number that didn't.

diasgree, it's still a sample of real experiences...and I've owned and exhaustively tested 5 (yes FIVE) of these lenses AND had the issues (slightly different with every one) confirmed by Sigma... 5 for 5.... number 5 in with Siggy right now.

What blows more is the view espoused even more here that "I haven't had a problem, therefore the problem doesn't exist". The issue is more about shooting style and perceptibility. If people generally use this lens at F2 or above or for distances of 2m or more they're unlikley to enounter a problem.

o.o;;

Focus point was on the word "Germ-x"

f1.4

I forgot to mention this was bout like a foot and a half away..

robonrome wrote in post #11055716
diasgree, it's still a sample of real experiences...and I've owned and exhaustively tested 5 (yes FIVE) of these lenses AND had the issues (slightly different with every one) confirmed by Sigma... 5 for 5.... number 5 in with Siggy right now.

What blows more is the view espoused even more here that "I haven't had a problem, therefore the problem doesn't exist". The issue is more about shooting style and perceptibility. If people generally use this lens at F2 or above or for distances of 2m or more they're unlikley to enounter a problem.

I don't disagree that there is an issue, more of how extensive the issue really is. What I think blows is someone sending a lens in that they haven't actually seen an issue with or is sent in because of the stigma with these lenses and they don't know how to shoot at 1.4. There have been a few threads that show those cases and all that does is clog Sigma service for no reason. People have read to much internet lore and assume there copy is bad when there might not be an issue or they are the issue.

To me the sample size just seems to small and to selective to one group (this board). People are always more likely to give negative feedback its a fact of any retail or service industry. How many times have you told someone about the good lens you got vs. the bad lens? As I said before the real % 'bad' would be best shown from sigmas total sales versus serviced 50 1.4s that were actually bad. Im sure they have the data but would never share unless that % was VERY low. And if they don't have that data, there is a bigger issue with sigma as a whole.

silvrr wrote in post #11055858
I don't disagree that there is an issue, more of how extensive the issue really is. What I think blows is someone sending a lens in that they haven't actually seen an issue with or is sent in because of the stigma with these lenses and they don't know how to shoot at 1.4. There have been a few threads that show those cases and all that does is clog Sigma service for no reason. People have read to much internet lore and assume there copy is bad when there might not be an issue or they are the issue.

To me the sample size just seems to small and to selective to one group (this board). People are always more likely to give negative feedback its a fact of any retail or service industry. How many times have you told someone about the good lens you got vs. the bad lens? As I said before the real % 'bad' would be best shown from sigmas total sales versus serviced 50 1.4s that were actually bad. Im sure they have the data but would never share unless that % was VERY low. And if they don't have that data, there is a bigger issue with sigma as a whole.

Your point is valid - esp. re not sending something in till you know it's wrong - but that is also the very reason I setup that poll to give those who didn't have a problem the chance to speak up and be heard rather than get drowned out in the sea of complaints that granted are always more common than compliments. Around 2/3rds of forum members here are happy with their Sigmaluxes out of the box and that in itself overturns the view that a problem is inevitable.

The other point I tried to make is what may be a problem for one persons shooting style with this lens may not be with another.

I also heard that there was a newer finish on the Sigmalux..is this what I have or an older model? <<;

meh, I answered my own question, I think mines is the newer finish as the older ones have that fuzzy stuff going on.

hard to tell in your shots due to the multiple angles and the resulting focal plane.

Try setting up some batteries on a table space about a 1/2 inch apart. Set your camera so the shutter is parallel to the vertical plane of the battery. Pick a center battery an take a shot. (remember which one you chose, lol) You should easily be able to see if the focus is on your battery or drifting to another either in front or behind.

Somehow I know I'm gonna mess this up because I don't understand it but it's worth a shot! lol

This is what I'm thinking of what you're saying..

|||| <--that's me shooting

_____ <--batteries lay here

Like this then? Center point on the right battery.

f1.4

Vixen89 wrote in post #11055991
Somehow I know I'm gonna mess this up because I don't understand it but it's worth a shot! lol

This is what I'm thinking of what you're saying..

|||| <--that's me shooting

_____ <--batteries lay here

See the batteries in this post for an idea

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=10763674&po​stcount=13

You want to be at the same height as the batteries no tilt up or down of your camera. You want to set up the batteries at a bit of an angle so you can see all of them in the shot.

silvrr wrote in post #11056027
See the batteries in this post for an idea

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=10763674&po​stcount=13

You want to be at the same height as the batteries no tilt up or down of your camera. You want to set up the batteries at a bit of an angle so you can see all of them in the shot.

Just checked out his pictures; how come in f2.8 those energizer batteries at the end become super sharp; is that normal? I thought his focus was on GOLD/battery.

Focus point is the "ENERGIZER" word..

f1.4

Vixen89 wrote in post #11056039
Just checked out his pictures; how come in f2.8 those energizer batteries at the end become super sharp; is that normal? I thought his focus was on GOLD/battery.

Yeah that is showing the front/back (I can never remember which) focus issue. Its focused on the gold battery and the batteries in focus should be split front to back. However, there is a focus issue in that one so the batteries to the back are more in focus.