Sigma 35mm f/1.4 - Fourth Times a Charm? Also Sigma Q&A

Many here are in Sad denial also. They think it wholly normal that it is Incumbent on the user to get the lens to focus well. They will point to the inclusion of focus adjustment ON Some Canon bodies as proof that it is a.problem inherent to the EOS mount. When I tell them that every single One otthe 15-odd Canon EOS lenses I have Owned have focused accurately out of-the box I am told that it must be a stroke of luck. Denial, and more denial...

I have also been amazed at how many "superior" Sigma 35 shots that have been posted seem to be unsatisfactory and out of focus.

I have lots of lenses, mostly Canon, but a few by Tokina (35 macro, 12-24F4) and Sigma (50 F2.8 macro). The only lens that I had any AF difficulty with was the Canon 85 85F1.8. It front focused, but a replacement was satisfactory.

My cameras do not have microadjustment, but that has not been a problem for my 8 other Canon lenses, or the Tokinas and Sigma macro lens. The idea for the dock is potentially a good one...if it worked.

Al Downie wrote:

Hombre de Maiz wrote:

Many here are in Sad denial also. They think it wholly normal that it is Incumbent on the user to get the lens to focus well. They will point to the inclusion of focus adjustment ON Some Canon bodies as proof that it is a.problem inherent to the EOS mount. When I tell them that every single One otthe 15-odd Canon EOS lenses I have Owned have focused accurately out of-the box I am told that it must be a stroke of luck. Denial, and more denial...

I agree, and am also a bit bewildered by the tolerance of some people who still rave about the lens, despite acknowledging its focusing 'idiosyncrasies'. It's supposed to be one of the best 35mm lenses ever made - supposed to 'blow the competition out of the water' - supposed to be a 'Canikon killer', and it costs the best part of a thousand pounds, but apparently you can only use it for EITHER landscapes OR for portrait/documentary work; not both at the same time.

Most people shoot landscapes at between F8 and F13 where critical focus on 'a subject' is not the goal, but rather as much DOF as possible. Often they (or at least I) focus about 1/3 into the scene and very often use MF/live view when doing landscapes. There is a totally different focus accuracy requirement and DOF issue when shooting at F1.4-2 at 1 to 3 meters as compared to 10 to 50 plus meters at F8-13.

In any case, I and many have not had any issues with using this lens for both close up and distant subjects using it's AF.

Others seem to be simply blinded, or hypnotised by the hype. I've seen several images which contributors have offered as demonstrations of how amazing the lens is, and most of them seem to be front-focused!

Sorry you had a bad experience with this lens, but you are way off base to draw such blanket conclusions and suggest others are simply blinded or hypnotized by the hype.

Yes there are a MINORITY of users that report issues like you are reporting, but they are far less than say the reports of focus issues the 50L has suffered over the years (a lens which I believe we both love).

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alastairdownie/

Al Downie wrote:

Hombre de Maiz wrote:

Many here are in Sad denial also. They think it wholly normal that it is Incumbent on the user to get the lens to focus well. They will point to the inclusion of focus adjustment ON Some Canon bodies as proof that it is a.problem inherent to the EOS mount. When I tell them that every single One otthe 15-odd Canon EOS lenses I have Owned have focused accurately out of-the box I am told that it must be a stroke of luck. Denial, and more denial...

I agree, and am also a bit bewildered by the tolerance of some people who still rave about the lens, despite acknowledging its focusing 'idiosyncrasies'. It's supposed to be one of the best 35mm lenses ever made - supposed to 'blow the competition out of the water' - supposed to be a 'Canikon killer', and it costs the best part of a thousand pounds, but apparently you can only use it for EITHER landscapes OR for portrait/documentary work; not both at the same time.

Most people shoot landscapes at between F8 and F13 where critical focus on 'a subject' is not the goal, but rather as much DOF as possible. Often they (or at least I) focus about 1/3 into the scene and very often use MF/live view when doing landscapes. There is a totally different focus accuracy requirement and DOF issue when shooting at F1.4-2 at 1 to 3 meters as compared to 10 to 50 plus meters at F8-13.

In any case, I and many have not had any issues with using this lens for both close up and distant subjects using it's AF.

Others seem to be simply blinded, or hypnotised by the hype. I've seen several images which contributors have offered as demonstrations of how amazing the lens is, and most of them seem to be front-focused!

Sorry you had a bad experience with this lens, but you are way off base to draw such blanket conclusions and suggest others are simply blinded or hypnotized by the hype.

Yes there are a MINORITY of users that report issues like you are reporting, but they are far less than say the reports of focus issues the 50L has suffered over the years (a lens which I believe we both love).

You see? I rest my case.

Hombre de Maiz wrote:

Al Downie wrote:

Hombre de Maiz wrote:

Many here are in Sad denial also. They think it wholly normal that it is Incumbent on the user to get the lens to focus well. They will point to the inclusion of focus adjustment ON Some Canon bodies as proof that it is a.problem inherent to the EOS mount. When I tell them that every single One otthe 15-odd Canon EOS lenses I have Owned have focused accurately out of-the box I am told that it must be a stroke of luck. Denial, and more denial...

I agree, and am also a bit bewildered by the tolerance of some people who still rave about the lens, despite acknowledging its focusing 'idiosyncrasies'. It's supposed to be one of the best 35mm lenses ever made - supposed to 'blow the competition out of the water' - supposed to be a 'Canikon killer', and it costs the best part of a thousand pounds, but apparently you can only use it for EITHER landscapes OR for portrait/documentary work; not both at the same time.

Most people shoot landscapes at between F8 and F13 where critical focus on 'a subject' is not the goal, but rather as much DOF as possible. Often they (or at least I) focus about 1/3 into the scene and very often use MF/live view when doing landscapes. There is a totally different focus accuracy requirement and DOF issue when shooting at F1.4-2 at 1 to 3 meters as compared to 10 to 50 plus meters at F8-13.

In any case, I and many have not had any issues with using this lens for both close up and distant subjects using it's AF.

Others seem to be simply blinded, or hypnotised by the hype. I've seen several images which contributors have offered as demonstrations of how amazing the lens is, and most of them seem to be front-focused!

Sorry you had a bad experience with this lens, but you are way off base to draw such blanket conclusions and suggest others are simply blinded or hypnotized by the hype.

Yes there are a MINORITY of users that report issues like you are reporting, but they are far less than say the reports of focus issues the 50L has suffered over the years (a lens which I believe we both love).

You see? I rest my case.

Rather than rest your case, perhaps you should look and see what Lens Rentals says about this lens (see http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/sigma-35mm-f1.4-dg-hsm-a1-for-canon and every other review I have seen).

You know Lens Rentals right???  After all, you indicated you rely upon them just recently right here http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53686625 Or maybe you just value their opinion only when it fits yours?

Others seem to be simply blinded, or hypnotised by the hype. I've seen several images which contributors have offered as demonstrations of how amazing the lens is, and most of them seem to be front-focused!

I am one of those blind people replaced my 35L with this horrible Sigma 35 and have been pretty happy with it. I didn't even do any micro lens adjustment/focus fine tuning on all my camera bodies because I am so blind and can't see the need for it yet, but I am not going to post anything to demonstrate how horrible that lens is since you and many knows how useless that lens is already, LOL.

I just updated my blog... I'm returning it today.

My own stupid fault.

I REALLY want to like this lens, but with such AF wonkiness it's got to go!

Sigma's technical response made perfect sense. And Canon's also require microadjustment (or adjustment of that nodal point they speak of).
For example, my 300 f/2.8 II requires +6. My 24-70 II is -2W and +1T... I have had other prime lenses require 4-6 MA in either direction. It is normal.

However, Sigma's have trouble at infinity or close to it. No matter what you do, inconsistency is poor. Closer, they seem to be fine.

I have tried (3) Sigma 35's as well, the first two had some terrible focus shift in artificial light and my most recent attempt was infinity focus issues. I am done with them as well.

This is one of reasons I didn't buy Sigma 35/1.4 A.  I have heard both claims, many love this lens and also bunch of such reports.  In comparison we never heard 35/2.0 IS focus issue, the one I picked up.  For me a 35mm lens is mainly for street and indoor photos so shallower DOF is not critical as it's not an ideal portrait lens on FF body per my perspective and I benefit more from 4-stop 'IS'.  For 50mm or 85mm or 135mm prime, option of shallower DOF is much more important for portrait.

Oh man.. I didn't know I was in denial. Just checked my Lightroom library again and my recently shot wedding. Oh my god.. So many front-focused shots wasting a lot of precious moments for my client. I feel horrible! I was blind!! Why Sigma?! WHY?!

Anyway, of course the Canon 35L can get these too but I made it with a few bucks saved. Maybe some people are just HAPPY with the lens instead of being in denial?

I was using Nikon at the start of my photographic journey up until I had a D800 and then I got this Sigma 35mm Art. Guess what? This lens caused me to switch to Canon. This Sigma was too sharp at 1.4 that it made me really really notice the left AF problem of the D800 which I didn't see using other Nikkor 1.4 (50mm, 85mm) lenses, then the subsequent horrible Nikon disservice. When I switched to Canon, the first lenses I got was this Sigma 35mm Art and a Canon 135mm f/2L (love this boner lens).

I am not denying that there might be some people having focus problems with this lens too. It's almost impossible not to happen as Sigma only reverse-engineers the AF algorithm. That's the risk for third-party gear. It's up the person to decide if the risk is worth it for him. Personally, I had to micro-adjust my lens too with the Sigma Dock. Am I unhappy it didn't work out of the box? Not really as the end result was great for me.