Sigma announces 35mm f/1.4 DG, 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC OS, 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS lenses
- Thread starter Chrissp
- Start date
ManWearPants
Senior Member
Unfortunately, this being a Sigma lens, it would most likely suffer from front/back-focussing problems and would require one of the following to get it working perfectly:
(a) a trip to the service centre at e-Centre for calibration
(b) buy a SD1M body to go with the lens and carry out your own calibration using the camera's Micro Focus Adjustment function
Isn't the QC supposed to be improved? Do you mean your 35/1.4 has front/back focus issue?
blurboiboi
Senior Member
only nikon mount is out??
ageha
Senior Member
:mad2:
I am looking at this sigma 35mm f1.4.
From my experience with the nikon f1.4g, the most impt thing that decides your resolution is whether you nailed the AF or not.
If I get the sigma 35mm, maybe I can get a canon FF to go with it. I hear that the new gen Canon AF focusing is better than nikons... not sure if that is true or not.
Wonder how is the A99 AF for tracking moving subjects.
From my experience with the nikon f1.4g, the most impt thing that decides your resolution is whether you nailed the AF or not.
If I get the sigma 35mm, maybe I can get a canon FF to go with it. I hear that the new gen Canon AF focusing is better than nikons... not sure if that is true or not.
Wonder how is the A99 AF for tracking moving subjects.
tomcat
Senior Member
Yes, it front focuses by about 0.5cm according to my Spyder LensCal.
Kiwira
Senior Member
nikkors do a greater job in nailing the focus for wide angles, i do get a miss once in a while but not inconsistently as canon's.
however, the new af from 5d3/1dx is insanely accurate. tracking at high speed is their forte, but not practical at wide angles.
focus may vary with different bodies, i had to adjust my 24 to a positive 16 value to get it right where as my friend's 5d3 didn't require it to
focusing and sharpness are 2 different things. siggy's 35 owns all of the 35mm lens in the digital market in almost every aspect, that i assure you
ManWearPants
Senior Member
Yes, it front focuses by about 0.5cm according to my Spyder LensCal.
WTF. I thot I have seen the end of Sigma lenses focusing issues. Quite disappointed to hear that we still have to live in uncertainty.
nikkors do a greater job in nailing the focus for wide angles, i do get a miss once in a while but not inconsistently as canon's.
however, the new af from 5d3/1dx is insanely accurate. tracking at high speed is their forte, but not practical at wide angles.
focusing and sharpness are 2 different things. siggy's 35 owns all of the 35mm lens in the digital market in almost every aspect, that i assure you
So do you think a 5d3, sigma 35mm f1.4 will nail the AF more consistently than a nikon 35mm f1.4G on a D800?
I have also read reports of misfocus of the sigma 35mm f1.4 with canon bodies.
It seems that WA f1.4 lens is really hard to nail the AF. My nikon 70-200mm VR2 AF close to 100% on my D800.
Actually focusing and sharpness is quite related because to me, the sharpest lens is useless if you cannot nail the AF consistently.
Kiwira
Senior Member
different lens on different bodies vary the accuracy range, there is no definite precision.
shooting wide open with wide angles have always been a tradition to have less accuracy, especially nearer to infinity.
it is not uncommon to have misfocus in any system. telephoto lenses are on a different class.
a wide angle class may have nailed the focus, but they are generally soft wide open.
sure my 70-200 may have gotten the focus with great sharpness, but the sharpness doesn't even compare to my 200 f2 - yet both are accurate
focusing/accuracy refers to the hit rate, sharpness is dependant in the optics of the lens
from my experience, siggy's 35 outperforms its original counterparts in both departments - for the price it's already a steal
Blur Shadow
Senior Member
ManWearPants said:
Give chance lah. It is a mere 0.5cm. I think unless you shoot at f/2 or larger, you probably can't tell the difference. Minor tweaks via AF fine tune is all you need.
ManWearPants
Senior Member
I am not sure leh.
If buy f1.4 lens to shoot f2 or larger, might as well buy f2 or 2.8 lens. tomcat's copy is 0.5cm, others copy may be more or less. Furthermore, I am unsure if you need to micro-adjust at MFD, midrange and infinity. Of course can send in for calibration or use it in manual focus mode, but still the confidence level is not there.Don't get me wrong, I am not bashing Sigma. I have 4 Sigma lenses. It is just that after all the talk about improving their QC in their new product line, still unable to solve focusing issues. Seems like the USB dock is important. Shall wait and see.
Last edited:
I am not sure leh.
Don't get me wrong, I am not bashing Sigma. I have 4 Sigma lenses. It is just that after all the talk about improving their QC in their new product line, still unable to solve focusing issues. Seems like the USB dock is important. Shall wait and see.
actually it is normal for have slight front or back focus even for nikon lens.
The MAIN problem is how CONSISTENT the AF is. I don't know why but the nikon 35mm f1.4 AF is not consistent enough for me to shoot at f1.4 most of the time.
If I shoot at f1.4, I can get slight misfocus like 30% of the time which makes the pic slightly soft. It is not outright blur but bad enough that I prefer to shoot at f1.8 or f2 most of the time.
Thus for me, the consistency of the AF is the no 1 factor that I am looking at.
The number two is the amount of LoCA. Sharpness is like way down the list because most 35mm f1.4 are pretty sharp IF you nail the AF.
But the sigma 35mm is so cheap and the LoCA is very good so I will probably buy one to compare with the nikon.
Last edited:
ageha
Senior Member
Well, phase detection is simply not designed to nail the focus with high accuracy and consistency. I think people have the wrong expectation.
I was thinking about getting the sigma 35mm so I took my nikon 35mm D800 out for a spin.
One thing I noticed about using nikon lens is that viewNX is REALLY good at correcting lens CA.
Below is a shot by the 35mm at f1.4. Developed by PS CS6. Default settings with the lens auto correction enabled. Looks soft and pretty bad huh
Below is the SAME shot developed using ViewNX. Default settings except enabling the auto axial color aberration correction. Hard to believe that they are from the same raw file.
If I am to get a sigma lens, I will not be able to benefit from what ViewNX can do. Although the nikon 35mm f1.4 shows lots of LoCA, viewNX seems to be able to miraculously remove most of them, something adobe cannot do very well. At the end of the day, the output from ViewNX with a nikon 35mm might be better than the output from the sigma 35mm using PS6.
One thing I noticed about using nikon lens is that viewNX is REALLY good at correcting lens CA.
Below is a shot by the 35mm at f1.4. Developed by PS CS6. Default settings with the lens auto correction enabled. Looks soft and pretty bad huh
Below is the SAME shot developed using ViewNX. Default settings except enabling the auto axial color aberration correction. Hard to believe that they are from the same raw file.
If I am to get a sigma lens, I will not be able to benefit from what ViewNX can do. Although the nikon 35mm f1.4 shows lots of LoCA, viewNX seems to be able to miraculously remove most of them, something adobe cannot do very well. At the end of the day, the output from ViewNX with a nikon 35mm might be better than the output from the sigma 35mm using PS6.
Last edited:
ageha
Senior Member
I was thinking about getting the sigma 35mm so I took my nikon 35mm D800 out for a spin.
One thing I noticed about using nikon lens is that viewNX is REALLY good at correcting lens CA.
Below is a shot by the 35mm at f1.4. Developed by PS CS6. Default settings with the lens auto correction enabled. Looks soft and pretty bad huh
Below is the SAME shot developed using ViewNX. Default settings except enabling the auto axial color aberration correction. Hard to believe that they are from the same raw file.
If I am to get a sigma lens, I will not be able to benefit from what ViewNX can do. Although the nikon 35mm f1.4 shows lots of LoCA, viewNX seems to be able to miraculously remove most of them, something adobe cannot do very well. At the end of the day, the output from ViewNX with a nikon 35mm might be better than the output from the sigma 35mm using PS6.
Maybe the Sigma lens doesn't need that much software correction? Just guessing...
NewbietoPro
Member
Wa, the Nikon 35f1.4 is really soft from your photo. But with the program which u are using, it sure looks better.
I shld b deciding if I wanna keep the 35L or get the sigma after testing the sigma when the stock arrives
I shld b deciding if I wanna keep the 35L or get the sigma after testing the sigma when the stock arrives
Wa, the Nikon 35f1.4 is really soft from your photo. But with the program which u are using, it sure looks better.
I shld b deciding if I wanna keep the 35L or get the sigma after testing the sigma when the stock arrives
Btw, that is the raw pic without any pp. usually you have to apply some sharpening for pics shot at f1.4
Not just softness. Viewnx can remove LoCA very well. No matter how good the sigma is there is always visible LoCA.
Technically we should be using Nikon raw converter so you should not see pic 1 at all.
Fundamentally it is the pic that counts. I dun care if it is software corrected. Not just the 35mm, my 14-24 is also better using viewnx. Using Nikon lens with Nikon dslr with Nikon raw converter has some adv.
I would assume it is the case for canon as well. Don't canon raw converter has better IQ with canon dslr and canon lens
Last edited:
Cheesecake
Senior Member
It would be interesting if u can upload a RAW file n allow the CSers to edit in PS6 n u in viewnx n see how the final output is.
Of cos haf to share the process n make it into a PP sharing thread.
Similar threads
