And I was thinking Leica lenses are expensive...

[jszokoli]

I'm still in the opposite opinion. Sigma has to come with focus calibration dock station to deal with its crappy AF.

I have a Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art in Nikon mount and with the docking station a could never get the focus 100% calibrated. Out of the box it focused incorrectly at infinity, and even after adjustment not perfectly.

Joe

 

[Huss]

I'm still in the opposite opinion. Sigma has to come with focus calibration dock station to deal with its crappy AF. L series AF just works out of the box and L are unbeatable on rendering.
As for Otus, I can't take those ugly heavy ducklings for serious.

The focus calibration dock is something that other mfgs should provide for lenses used on DSLRs. It's a fine adjustment tool because there is sample variation in the camera bodies themselves as well as the lenses.
The clue that this is needed is that the higher spec DSLRs provide focus tuning in body. I had it on my D850.
Of course switching to a mirrorless camera like a Sony A7 series, Nikon Z etc removes any need to do that due to the way they focus on sensor.

Interestingly being able to fine tune focus would be great for manual focus rangefinder cameras like Leica Ms, for the same reason. The only mfg that provides that is 7Artisans...

As for the Zeiss Otus line, while optically they are great, they are not well built at all, being very fragile to shock/bumps/drops. Apparently Zeiss has not 'anchored' their heavy glass elements in the lens case sufficiently, so a strong bump or drop can actually knock them out of alignment. This is a very expensive fix that needs to be done at the Zeiss factory - I've seen many users complain about several thousand dollar repair bills - as they essentially need to rebuild the lens. Some of them were dropped just a couple of feet while in their 'protective' Zeiss padded cases!
It's why I would never buy a used Otus lens unless I could thoroughly test it out first. Actually I'd never buy one as they are too big..

 

[Huss]

I have a Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art in Nikon mount and with the docking station a could never get the focus 100% calibrated. Out of the box it focused incorrectly at infinity, and even after adjustment not perfectly.

Joe

Every mfg makes defective lenses. On Fredmiranda.com you should see how many users send back lenses from Sony, Nikon, Canon etc because they are decentered.
Even Leica (!) is prone to this.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have a Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art in Nikon mount and with the docking station a could never get the focus 100% calibrated. Out of the box it focused incorrectly at infinity, and even after adjustment not perfectly.

Joe

This is what I read a lot about Sigma lenses.

The focus calibration dock is something that other mfgs should provide for lenses used on DSLRs. It's a fine adjustment tool because there is sample variation in the camera bodies themselves as well as the lenses.
The clue that this is needed is that the higher spec DSLRs provide focus tuning in body. I had it on my D850.
Of course switching to a mirrorless camera like a Sony A7 series, Nikon Z etc removes any need to do that due to the way they focus on sensor.

Interestingly being able to fine tune focus would be great for manual focus rangefinder cameras like Leica Ms, for the same reason. The only mfg that provides that is 7Artisans...

As for the Zeiss Otus line, while optically they are great, they are not well built at all, being very fragile to shock/bumps/drops. Apparently Zeiss has not 'anchored' their heavy glass elements in the lens case sufficiently, so a strong bump or drop can actually knock them out of alignment. This is a very expensive fix that needs to be done at the Zeiss factory - I've seen many users complain about several thousand dollar repair bills - as they essentially need to rebuild the lens. Some of them were dropped just a couple of feet while in their 'protective' Zeiss padded cases!
It's why I would never buy a used Otus lens unless I could thoroughly test it out first. Actually I'd never buy one as they are too big..

Didn't know Otus is this bad.

As for docking stations, Canon don't need it for sure. Their AF lenses from nineties focus accurately on RF mount bodies. Many Canon cameras have lens calibration build in camera fw just as Nikon. But I never needed it with my L lenses.

 

[Huss]

As for docking stations, Canon don't need it for sure. Their AF lenses from nineties focus accurately on RF mount bodies. Many Canon cameras have lens calibration build in camera fw just as Nikon. But I never needed it with my L lenses.

Is the RF mount their DSLRs or their new mirrorless bodies?

 

[hap]

I'm thankful for Cosina to make good and compact M mount lenses which are not jaw dropping in price. I was thinking about Leica been out of wack until I have seen this:

Zeiss and Sigma for 4K per lens.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=canon%20ef%2028mm&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps

Zeiss has appealing shapes of night floor pee vase and sure shot weight for it of 1390g. For 28mm lens.

But at least you get the drift of where Leica and Zeiss etc are going. Follow the $$$ Who else can claim to meet the optical standards of future video....8K and to the moon! or perhaps more like Mars.

 

[jszokoli]

I have a Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art in Nikon mount and with the docking station a could never get the focus 100% calibrated. Out of the box it focused incorrectly at infinity, and even after adjustment not perfectly.

Joe

And to drift farther off topic, why would the lens need to be calibrated? With the oldest style Nikon AF lens the body drove a 'screw' that focused the lens, the body decided if the lens was in focus and drove the 'screw' and stopped when in focus. So the feed back for the 'screw' was the focus as determined by the body.



So in the current Sigma model somehow the lens gets in the middle of this feedback loop to mess up focus? I ask because this does not make sense to me, and leads me to think that I don't really understand what is going on in modern lenses like this.


Joe

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Is the RF mount their DSLRs or their new mirrorless bodies?

Mirrorless FF.

But at least you get the drift of where Leica and Zeiss etc are going. Follow the $$$ Who else can claim to meet the optical standards of future video....8K and to the moon! or perhaps more like Mars.

As I mentioned before, I'm in the broadcast since 1991. I remember how HD came to USA market. USA vs Japan war for the standard. USA President commenting about it on CNN, saving local jobs and so on.
The whole 4K and 8K is not realistic for broadcasters. Too much of the cost involved. Only some sports could do it. Some companies are still using SD and up-converting to HD. And some large USA broadcasters are switching from 1080 to 720 resolution to reduce cost.

Movies and streaming is different thing, but those have dedicated cine lenses and cameras. Totally different from photo gear I was commenting (trying ) in OP.

 

[Huss]

Mirrorless FF.

That's my point then. There is no issue with AF DSLR lenses on mirrorless bodies because their AF focus mechanism is different. It reads from the image. sensor itself as opposed to from sensors in the mirror box.

It's why I had to fine tune some lenses for my D850, but did not have to do any of that for my Z7.

Same thing for Canon etc. Canon DSLRs may need fine tuning for AF, Canon mirrorless does not.

 

[Orthogonal]

As for docking stations, Canon don't need it for sure. Their AF lenses from nineties focus accurately on RF mount bodies. Many Canon cameras have lens calibration build in camera fw just as Nikon. But I never needed it with my L lenses.

I have never had a Canon EF lens (new or used) that didn't require at least some microadjustment. It's not just a matter of the lens being "wrong", it's also that the focusing sensors aren't in 100% the same position between camera bodies either - often lenses will be fine on one body and not on another.