Quite disappointed with my 30mm f1.4 Sigma

scottthehat said:
maybe it was a returned one as it did have wrong hood.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking the same, unless things have changed, when I bought my 10-20 it came boxed with the case and hood all inside - why would Sigma package a wrong lens hood ??????

Sounds very much like this has been opened up previously ....

Skyline On Fire said:
That would be awfully cheeky, sending out an already returned lens without being sorted, I doubt they would of done that. I think the hood issue was something else, and the lens I got was absolutely mint condition, wrapped up etc... They said pop the one I've got in the post and they will send the correct one back.

I'll shoot tomorrow, and if it's no good, exchange it for another. I've seen some absolutely magnificent shots with this lens, and I'm determined to get a good copy!
Click to expand...

I agree, but it does happen, and also to be fair to WE, if it was a returned item, did they know there was an issue with it, or was it just returned as NLR ??

Hope you get it sorted out, I would be swopping it today and telling them of the issues and as it has the wrong hood, I'd have so many doubts ...

From some of the photos posted though, it looks like it will be a belter of a lens :clap:
 
Last edited:
Vertigo1 said:
Welcome to the world of Sigma - some great lenses but their quality control is a farce and it's a total lottery whether you get a decent one or not.
Click to expand...

Is it a genuine “quality” issue though? It seems odd that some people have no problem at all and yet others have problems with multiple copies.

I previously mentioned a review I read on line in which the reviewers reported a much lower focus miss rate with the Canon 20D than with other bodies, I'll see if I can find the review, but if it is a body AND lens tolerance thing then that might explain why some people (like me) can seemingly buy any make of lens and end up with a sharp copy and yet others have multiple problems.

Apart from my Canon lenses I have Siggy 20mm f1.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 150mm f2.8 and 12-24mm and a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and all are absolutely great and sharp. Is this just luck or is it more than just Siggy iffy quality control. Maybe it's a mix of a few genuine issues, some people not having a clue what the hell they are doing, the same story being retold multiple times on the net by people who've never even tried a Siggy lens (and we know that happens...) and body related issues.

It might be worth having a little poll and seeing what bodies people have and how this relates to third party lens performance.
 
Last edited:
These were taken with Sigma 30mm. What do you think?

IMG_4276-1.jpg


Auto focus without looking at the screen/viewfinder.
IMG_0313.jpg
 
Last edited:
Another update

Had a play with the micro adjust today, it was a little out, back focusing. It focuses accurately now, but the sharpness is still questionable. I've got a while to make a choice though as to wether to keep or not.
 
TJ80 said:
These were taken with Sigma 30mm. What do you think?

IMG_4276-1.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the composition; not particularly clear what you wanted to capture in the shot. I'd have included the rest of the bike's handlebar in the frame.

Auto focus without looking at the screen/viewfinder.
IMG_0313.jpg
Click to expand...
Can I ask you why you did that?? In this orientation I think I'd have stopped it down a bit to get the whole centre flower in focus. What's going on with the black and white smudge on the right side of the photo? Lovely colours though :)
 
Just a few quickies to show what a good one produces, straight out of camera JPEGS. Cano 7D, All AV mode @ f1.4, ISO 200.


IMG_00093.JPG


Cropped: AF point middle of the word National.


IMG_0009-1.JPG



IMG_0005_2_.JPG



Cropped: AF point, letters RID of the word PRIDE

IMG_00052.JPG



IMG_000119.JPG



Cropped: AF point the right eye, this shows the occasional slight backfocus


IMG_0001_2_.JPG
 
RedTele said:
I'm not sure of the composition; not particularly clear what you wanted to capture in the shot. I'd have included the rest of the bike's handlebar in the frame.

Can I ask you why you did that?? In this orientation I think I'd have stopped it down a bit to get the whole centre flower in focus. What's going on with the black and white smudge on the right side of the photo? Lovely colours though :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for commenting.
1st photo - The photo was taken by the other half. I would have included the rest of the handle in too. LOL... :lol:

2nd photo - It was a very low angle. I was lazy:bonk: I didn't notice the smudge. Good question, I have no idea too, many the glare from the sun?
 
Skyline On Fire said:
Sharpness at 1.4 is pretty poor too, in fact I wouldn't call it acceptable until around 2.0, even then, my old 50mm 1.8 Canon is far sharper. The .
Click to expand...

if that is the case send it back and get a replacement - the sigma should be sharper than the canon
 
Buggerlugs said:
Cropped: AF point the right eye, this shows the occasional slight backfocus

[/img]
Click to expand...

It depends how big the target is and what the focus point covers (and that eye does look quite big) but quite obviously any focus system could have a problem locking on to a uniform and featureless black eye.

Taking a shot like that if there was any doubt at all I personally would have taken more than one shot (all focus systems vary from shot to shot) and probably have aimed at the black / blue join to give the focus system a chance of finding something to focus on.

At smaller apertures the DoF might be deep enough to cover any errors but at f1.4 you really do need to be careful and make sure that you aim at something that the camera can see well enough to achieve the focus accuracy required.
 
Last edited:
I have this lens and I do love it as my main walk about lens. I've had probably 10% of my shots back focus, but I take shots in burst's so I cant really complain as I always get a shot with good sharp focus, even on 1.4
 
Just thought of something else...

When using a wide aperture it's sometimes interesting to check what's under the focus point post capture. I've found that sometimes what I think I've focused on isn't what's under the focus point when I look at the shot and that says to me that I've moved slightly or the subject has moved slightly as I've taken the shot. This could especially be an issue as shutter speeds drop. It's important to remember that at these apertures DoF is very small and it's all too easy to blame a lens when we miss the shot.
 
I both love and hate the sigma 30mm F1.4

I bought one a while ago and it server me well, was a stunning optic and I should have kept it. However hard times hit and I had to sell.

The replacement about a year later had focus issues, went back. I purchased a used one which was again a superb optic. Sadly it had an accident - and the replacement had focus issues.

I want another of these lenses - they are very good when the work. But they don't always work expecially well.

If i helps both the copies I had with focus issues were consistant issues.
 
It always amazes me the number of people that complain about not being able to get pin-sharp shots with a 1.4 lens wide open. The DoF at f/1.4 is tiny, any slight movement and you'll miss focus entirely and it's that, rather than any qc issues, that probably accounts for 99% of people returning these lenses.

That issue aside, very few lenses are at their sharpest wide open, stop down a bit and things will improve dramatically, just because it's an f/1.4 lens it doesn't mean that you have to shoot at that aperture all the time.....
 
Just bought mine today, from Jacobs Digital of all places. Guys were very nice and did me a good deal so I was happy.

Will update with results from a 20D.
 
Mine is great at 2.8 and I use it a lot with macro filters with good results. I think my initial problems were user error - it put me off using it for a long time but now it's on my camera all the time.
 
Decided to swap it out for another, and lo and behold, infinitely better.

Very happy with the lens now, 1.4 is perfectly usable, focusing is very fast, brilliant lens, I just wish the Sigma quality control was as great as their products can be.
 
woof woof said:
It depends how big the target is and what the focus point covers (and that eye does look quite big) but quite obviously any focus system could have a problem locking on to a uniform and featureless black eye.

Taking a shot like that if there was any doubt at all I personally would have taken more than one shot (all focus systems vary from shot to shot) and probably have aimed at the black / blue join to give the focus system a chance of finding something to focus on.

At smaller apertures the DoF might be deep enough to cover any errors but at f1.4 you really do need to be careful and make sure that you aim at something that the camera can see well enough to achieve the focus accuracy required.
Click to expand...

Yep, I reckon if I analyse my shooting technique that prolly accounts for most (if not all) of my slight backfocussing "problem" with my Sigma. There's no doubt that practice makes better but rarely perfect.
 
Just had my first play with it last night...

Initial thoughts:
  • Focus does seem somewhat variable in terms of nailing the target and just a tad off. This was in pretty low light, however, and the 20D's AF hasn't been immense at hitting said targets in such light, anyway. However, this was a quick, non-tripod test which I'm perfectly willing to accept as user-generated errors in focussing.
  • When it does hit, it does seem very sharp. However, this is based on my looking at the images on the 20D's screen or an LCD TV (so not the best for pixel peeping).

Will hopefully get some outdoor images today, and upload for inspection...
 
The example you posted from deviantart was very poor - I'm not surprised you're unhappy. I think part of the problem is that the sensor is outresolving the lens though (if that's the right term) so even at f/5.6 it isn't that sharp at 100%.

Send it back and get another, doesn't look right at all.
 
trencheel303 said:
The example you posted from deviantart was very poor - I'm not surprised you're unhappy. I think part of the problem is that the sensor is outresolving the lens though (if that's the right term) so even at f/5.6 it isn't that sharp at 100%.

Send it back and get another, doesn't look right at all.
Click to expand...

Already have, much better copy in return, very pleased now.
 
Right..., been out at lunch and just after work today with the 30mm.

Light was great as I'm sure you all know, but the one problem being lack of a tripod to keep a constant distance between camera and subject.

IMG_7857crop.jpg


This a 100% crop from my 20D. A feather was sitting on a cropped lawn and blowing in the breeze.

- Distance was around 1.5m
- Wide open (f1.4)
- ISO400
- 1/1600sec

I don't think it's bad at all.

Whilst the feather was twitching around, it wasn't moving much. Here are a couple of other shots from today where the DOF caused the moving subject (a flower in a bush) to move out of focus and generally look rubbish.

Wide open (F1.4):

IMG_7858crop.jpg


By F4, however...

IMG_7860crop.jpg


Basically, I'm operating on the principle that I drink too much coffee and sway about too much, which is why my copy of the lens appeared to be hit and miss last night.

These ones just seem to show that I've been quite lucky with the lens. So far, so good.

Will try to get photos of my kids and see what happens... it could go back yet if I can't cope with the f1.4 DOF...
 
Eurgh - must have been a duff copy... the last picture makes that bass guitar look like a Rickenbacker! :gag: ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top