The Canon Thread - Page 156

You know, I just have this "thing" about 3rd party lenses.  I know it's silly but I just can't get over it enough to buy one.  But, on the other hand, I started shooting the EOS system ~15 years ago and I still use some of my original lenses no problem at all and they all still focus as quickly and as accurately as they did back then.

 

However, now that SIGMA has introduced a USB dock so that the user can upgrade firmware and adjust focus, I might be able to get over myself.  Or if I shot APS-C, the Tokina 11-16/2.8 II would be pretty interesting.  But I'm also pretty well set on lenses.  

 

I don't see anyone who owns a 35L jumping ship to the new SIGMA but, seeing how they cost more or less the same, I would be curious to see the break down on SIGMA 35/1.4 vs. Canon 35/2 IS sales.

 

 

Is the 85L overrated?  Well, it's a niche lens.  It's probably the best 35mm portrait lens on the market.  Nikon doesn't even have anything that's close.  Now, is it worth the money?  Not to me.  I bought the 85/1.8.  I didn't want something so unwieldy and heavy as the 85L and I wanted faster AF.  And, if you stop down to f/2.8, the IQ is pretty darn close.  In fact, other than purple fringing (but nothing that Lightroom can't fix), the 85/1.8 is pretty darn good even wide open.  But nothing can match the bokeh and feel of the 85L wide open.  If you shoot portraits, you'll want one.

I like how you guys act like I havent spent a decent amount of time with the 85L.  If I wanted one, I'd buy one.  

 

I expect it to be as crisp as that lens should be, given its cost.  Not every L lens is the best thing since sliced bread.  IMO this is one of them not worth the money.

 

 

 

Yep.  Less problems on Nikons platform too.

the 85/1.2  is heavy, autofocus is slow. full open, purple fringing can get to the point where you go look for those old colored 3D googles to see if the tree will jump out of the pic. borders are blurry, at least compared to center. so it s easy to wonder why buy that heavy expensive **** when you go out for days in the mountains or if you shoot sport.

on the other hand, if you do portraits, you will adore it.

so yes it is a niche lens. if you don't need it , you just don't.

 

 

i ve owned a few EX sigma lenses when i was so poor a lens really meant eating less for some times. and have always been very satisfied with IQ. sometimes the noise of the autofocus would be a bother, or it would look fragile. on a 24-70 going from 24 to 70mm the ring was smooth, a little hard, then smooth again. those are details, but brought some concern to me about the long run. i ve sold them all now.

  so to save money and still get image quality, it s a smart move. but going to sigma when it s the same price as canon? not then and not now.

 

Question, just for arguments sake... when is the Sigma EX priced the same as the L lens it competes with?  I cant think of a single case.

The Sigma 85/1.4 EX is priced at twice the cost of the regular Canon 85/1.8 - and the Canon outperforms it by every measure except that half stop. If the Sigma EX were the same price or less than the Canon regular (non L) equivalent even it would be a hard value proposition since they seem only barely able to match optics, nevermind build quality. 

 

In the interest of full disclosure I've owned a good bit of Sigma EX glass over the years, and with only one exception, every one of the 5 different EX lens I owned had to be sent in for manufacturer warrantee repair at least twice. And in a few occasions, I ended up buying them again, only to have them fail on my again (zooms in particular, but some primes too - only the 20mm never broke on me). 

 

I'll never buy Sigma glass again, frankly. False economy. Other third party glass maybe (I'll buy Zeiss, Schneider, Tokina), but I'm done with Tamron and Sigma for good.

 

I own a 85 1.8, as I think its a hell of a lens, but in my opinion, that BS.  I have a sharp 1.8 and the Siggy 1.4 I shot was sharper at 1.8 and certainly great at 1.4.  The damn thing just backfocused at certain distances and my body doesnt have micro adjust!  

 

I think if you get a decent copy and your body microadjusts, the Siggy is certainly a better lens than the 1.8.   The 1.8 is just awesome for the money.  A pure value play that unless you are a pro, theres no need to spend more for.  And I'd like to think I have some ok glass.  

 

 

This is why I won't buy Sigma. Having to return a lens three times to get one that doesn't have autofocus issues, or major backfocus, or crappy collimation, etc. Is unnacceptable at that price point. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am a pro... for my uses at least, there was no reason to spend more. *maybe* if I shot events/weddings, but I'd rather be happy than live that life. :)

Edited by liamstrain - 11/9/12 at 9:02pm

You get what you pay for applies very much to photo gear. Sigma Optics are great the question is alway for how long. Although I still have faith in Tamron I know what you mean.
Edited by musubi1000 - 11/10/12 at 1:10am

Dang, Rokinon 35mm f/1.4 for $399 and 14mm f/2.8 $299 at Groupon.

 

http://www.groupon.com/deals/gg-rokinon-wide-angle-lenses?utm_campaign=UserReferral_rp&utm_medium=raf-121015-10r1act-lk&utm_source=uu5948210

I gave up on Sigma lenses a couple of years ago, got fed up returning inferior glass and I'm sure the shop I bought from also was happy with my decision ...

The manager said that quite a few folk buying the Sigma lenses didn't or couldn't tell their lenses were crap and usually didn't know the glass was crap.

 

Liam, I've only owned two Sigma lenses--both were the 30mm f/1.4 (first for Canon, and then for Nikon after I switched). I still have that lens to use with my Nikon D300, and it has been a great deal of fun. (The idea in picking that lens up was to approximate 50mm f1/.4 on the crop sensors.) Now that I've gone full frame (Nikon), I use the Nikon 50mm f/1.4, but the ol' Sigma is still attached to my D300.

 

Perhaps I got lucky, as the one I had for Canon served me well until I sold it to a fellow Head-Fi'er (and I think he's still using it, too); and the Nikon mount Sigma 30mm f/1.4 has been just as reliable.

 

That said, you're a pro shooter--which is definitely not true of me--so you and I almost certainly have different needs and standards.

 

With the full frame camera, however, I do not have any third party lenses.

Seriously, the third-party lenses aren't as bad as they might seem, and they've been steadily getting better --- these days, they're giving Canon a serious run for their money. Only people who need razor fast AF need to remain loyal to Canon lenses.

Sigma recently revised their QC standards for the better, and their lens line is getting refreshed. Their new "Art Lens", the 35/1.4 look really great; I expect it to be quite a hit.

Also, Tamron's 24-70/2.8 VC has been really popular; it performs extremely well, losing out only to the new (and exorbitantly expensive) 24-70L II, and is also full-weather sealed, with 4-5 stops of image stabilization, which basically makes the new (IMO useless) 24-70/4 L kind of an afterthought.

Case in Point: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/sigma-35mm-f1-4-arrives-announces-new-world-order

I think most people's issue is not with the poor quality, but with the sample variation. If you get a good unit, it's awesome and excellent and kittens and ponies and rainbows. If you get a lemon, and continuously get one after another one or two lemons, then (insert-your-favourite-3rd-party-lens-manufacturer) sucks and is terrible and should rot and die and stuff.

 

 

My personal experience with Sigma and Tamron has been mostly up, some down..

 

When Sigma came out with the first DC lens, the 18-50 3.5/5.6, I gave it a try. It was small and cheap. It also did not focus well on my 10D. When it focused it was fine and relatively sharp for its time, but more often than not it would backfocus and we didn't have AF microadjustments back then.

 

I had the early Tamon SP AF90mm macro lens (before the Di model came out). It was excellent. I only got rid of it because I had a focal length clash with the EF 85/1.8, and so upgraded to the Sigma 150/2.8 macro when it first came out. That was also an excellent lens.

 

Also had a Sigma 15-30 before finally upgrading to the 17-40L (also back during 10D days). It was also a pretty good lens except for slight decentering, causing the lower right corner to be softer.

 

When I was considering a 24mm prime for my 5DII I looked at the Sigma 24/1.8 first. The copy I tested in the shop was very obviously front-focusing -- I could even see it in the viewfinder. I decided to give it a pass, and then got the 24L II a few weeks later.

 

I tested the new Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC at the store a few weeks ago. My initial impressions were very positive -- sharp, and the VC works. However I already have the first gen 24-70/2.8L and am not planning on changing it anytime soon, so I gave it a pass.

 

 

I understand that Sigma has said that they're cleaning up their act, but I also understand that a lot of people have been burnt in the past and are understandably cautious even though the new lineup (especially the 35/1.4) look very attractive. Time will tell if they have successfully improved on their quality, so let's see how this 35/1.4 turns out after Lens Rental gets more units in for testing.

Edited by MadCow - 11/22/12 at 7:08pm