Would you say there's a problem with this lens ? Sigma 2.8 (Canon EF)

gothgirl

gothgirl

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,589
Edit My Images
Yes
More details in this thread, https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...nce-with-customer-service-faulty-lens.625132/

But Basically I have a Sigma 2.8 , which I'm debating sending back to the dealer as it's been less than reliable.

It's very slow to focus , especialy in low light and resulting images can be very soft.
it sometimes takes a few times to focus , it's not fast at all , or good in low light (which was the whole point of getting the 2.8)
It misses focus sometimes too.


Here's an example , This was just a quick shot, took with flash.
It's Better than it is without flash , but I don't know , to me this still looks soft , and the focus was bang on the snake where it should be.
To me , this quality of lens should be better , my kit lens can do a better image with these settings.
Done at

1/250 , ISO 400, F3.5
On a Canon 60D


Harrisons have said I can send it back for them to look at as it's still under (used) warranty


untitled-44.jpg
 
If its focus performance in low light is worse than normal light the issue is the camera, not the lens.
 
odd jim said:
If its focus performance in low light is worse than normal light the issue is the camera, not the lens.
Click to expand...

I have three other lenses , none have this problem on the same body.

This lens went out to the zoo on a sunny day and still performed poorly, my 18-55 performs better
 
Last edited:
gothgirl said:
I have three other lenses , none have this problem on the same body.

This lens went out to the zoo on a sunny day and still performed poorly, my 18-55 performs better
Click to expand...

TBH this isn't one of Sigmas best lenses in terms of AF, it doesn't have the quick HSM motor most Sigma EX lenses have (the 18-50 is an old design, released in 2004, this lens was replaced by the 17-50 f/2.8 EX HSM) It should still be noticeably better than the kit lens though, so it possibly needs looking at?

That said, some reviews are critical of its AF speed and accuracy, especially in low light. Maybe invest in a used 17-50 EX HSM if they have one?
 
Last edited:
Well, there's always oddities/tolerances. The lens could be fine at one end of spec, and your 60d could be fine at the other end of spec... when combined they're not good. If the lens is covered under warranty, then I'd say get it looked at (preferably with the camera together).
 
I was not happy using Sigma lenses on my Nikon cameras so now only use Nikon except for one Tamron 90mm macro lens. I get the feeling that the best lens is the one made by the camera manufacturer, ie Canon lens for Canon camera etc
 
Looks to me like the eye is sharp, and everything else on the same plane of focus is also sharp.

The foreground and background are not sharp, which is what I would expect if shooting at F2.8.

I think to help you assess if everything is OK with your lens then we need more samples and some 100% crops. What shots at the zoo on a sunny day were poor and why did your 18-55m perform better?
 
RichardtheSane said:
Looks to me like the eye is sharp, and everything else on the same plane of focus is also sharp.

The foreground and background are not sharp, which is what I would expect if shooting at F2.8.

I think to help you assess if everything is OK with your lens then we need more samples and some 100% crops. What shots at the zoo on a sunny day were poor and why did your 18-55m perform better?
Click to expand...

Except this is shot at 3.5
 
RichardtheSane said:
I think to help you assess if everything is OK with your lens then we need more samples and some 100% crops. What shots at the zoo on a sunny day were poor and why did your 18-55m perform better?
Click to expand...
What he said. Plus, you've got two lenses that cover the same range of focal lengths, so let's see some comparisons between the two of them.
 
realspeed said:
I was not happy using Sigma lenses on my Nikon cameras so now only use Nikon except for one Tamron 90mm macro lens. I get the feeling that the best lens is the one made by the camera manufacturer, ie Canon lens for Canon camera etc
Click to expand...

Not anymore, as per our last conversation on this subject, Sigma make some of the best lenses out there now. The OPs lens is 13 years old, and when it was first released it wasn't the best lens. Every manufacturer makes lenses within their range that don't quite cut the mustard, Canon and Nikon among them.
 
Last edited:
Just a thought, your 18-55 has is, makes a difference even in reasonably good light. Probably as good as it gets with this lens and shame the 60d doesn't have the micro adjust facility
 
tijuana taxi said:
Just a thought, your 18-55 has is, makes a difference even in reasonably good light. Probably as good as it gets with this lens and shame the 60d doesn't have the micro adjust facility
Click to expand...

I don't think the Sigma 18-50 has OS, it's successor does though (or did you mean her Canon kit lens?). At the moment we can't say it needs MA as the sample image doesn't tell us much?
 
Last edited:
Sorry I meant the Canon lens, agree about the MA, but I know some people have found it helps, moot point here anyway
 
It's important to be specific about lenses, especially zooms. Of two similar zooms one can be better at the wider end, the other at the longer end, one can resolve more detail, whereas the other has better microcontrast and looks sharper. Applying extra sharpening in post processing to the first however shows it to have more ultimate resolved detail. The zoom with the widest aperture can be distinctly softer at its wider apertures than the "kit" zoom at its widest aperture, but at the same aperture slightly sharper in the centre but not as sharp at the edges. Which is the better lens?

By the way, I put "kit" lens in dog-ears there because "everybody knows" the kit lens is an inferior lens. Yet the last two cameras I bought came with kit lenses that were very good indeed. One was said by one reviewer to be so much better than competing lenses of the same kind that it seemed the manufacturer must somehow have broken the laws of physics. The other was said by another reviewer to be so good that it really ought to have been given the G label which distinguished that maker's best quality lenses.

So it's quite easy to do a few quick tests one day and find one lens clearly better, and a few more another day and find the other to be clearly superior. Then there's the question of AF. The lens with better AF out of the box will seem better, until you try manual focus tests and discover the other lens is better. Some camera bodies will let you rectify that AF problem with AF micro-adjustment, others not.

I don't think you can draw any conclusions about your two lenses until you do careful comparative tests of the same shot with both lenses at exactly the same lens and camera settings and the camera on a tripod with timed or remote release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top