Sigma 50mm macro lens

Has anyone tried the latest (DG) version of this lens? I'm particularly interested in finding out how good it is a focusing - in terms of speed and accuracy - and how well it performs.

from a lot of reviews the non DG is already slightly better wide open (corner quality) than the Canon. But as all those macro lenses (telecentric optical design) perform very good on DSLRs in general - the differences are very very small.

Being a non ultrasonic lens with huge focus range (in comparison to non macros), the lens behaves slow as the Canon 50mm does. DG and non DG version have the same AF motor.

regards,

Julian

Has anyone tried the latest (DG) version of this lens? I'm particularly interested in finding out how good it is a focusing - in terms of speed and accuracy - and how well it performs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've been using the Canon 50mm macro (which I really like, except it isn't 1:1). I recently got the new Sigma DG 50mm, and have shot a few hundred pictures with it thus far. I don't notice any significant difference in focusing speed or accuracy. Like the Canon lens, it is quite quick and seems to be very accurate. Nothing scientific about that - just my early sense of the lens. I doubt I'll ever use the Canon 50mm again; will probably give it to my bro-in-law!

I'll attach some things just shot with the Sigma a few days ago. The reef shark with mating marks was shot at 1/125, f6.3. The tiger was at 1/100, f16. The turtle 1/100, f5. Hope that helps!

Thanks. I have now 'borrowed' a non-DG 50mm macro from my local (very helpful and understanding) dealer to try out. I'll see how this operates before commiting myself to purchase this or the later lens.

I switched permanently to a Sigma 50mm some time ago. 1:1, and sharp.

What does the DG lens have over the non-DG lens? Is it just f45 aperture and magic digital coating?

What does the DG lens have over the non-DG lens?  Is it just f45 aperture and magic digital coating?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I couldn't identify much difference, either. But as I recall, it was only a few $$ more money (B&H has the DG listed at $269 and the older version for $239, but when I put it in my basket to checkout, they drop the price on the DG lens to $249, which is only a $10 difference from the old lens). When prices are that close, I'll always opt for newer technology, if only under the assumption that any little thing that popped up repeatedly as a warranty item on older versions was probably fixed/changed on later generations (even though never made public).

Oh, and don't discount the magic coating; I take any help I can get, real OR imagined! ;-)

Well that was a waste of time - the Sigma I borrowed was faulty - manual focusing is fine but switching to AF merely got it to make some unpleasant whirring noises and clunks. Hmmmm...not convinced that the build quality is what I would prefer. I'll see if they have another.

I've been using a Sigma 50 for a little over a year without problems. No complaints about the image quality. Auto focus can be a little slow. I now use it with the limit switch on, so that it'll only focus to 1:2. That improved the focus speed and also the lens will fit in the Aquatica port without an extension because it does not extend as much. It was really not possible to light the subject at 1:1 with the port so I'm not losing much by doing that.

I switched permanently to a Sigma 50mm some time ago.  1:1, and sharp.

 

What does the DG lens have over the non-DG lens?  Is it just f45 aperture and magic digital coating?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

50mm non DG features f45 as well. Special digital coating and those mysterious 100% parallel light beams seem to be the only difference.

Julian