Sigma Lens Serial Number Check
Viktoria Klett
Hi all, I just received my E Mount Sigma 24-70 f2,8 Art lens and very lovely it is. I like to keep track of the serial numbers of all my lenses but this one just says '019' on the underside. Can this possibly be the 19th lens they have made? It seems unlikely that it would be such a low number but I can't find any numbers anywhere else.
As of May 6th, 2021 I'm seeing 1 or 2 small specks inside the lens but I'd say that's normal for any zoom lens. Otherwise it's very clean and I've used it on windy beaches. It sounds like Sigma upgraded the seals per u/Flo-con 's comments below and I think I got one of the new copies. So if you buy new from Sigma, I'd say you're good. u/Glum_Award9379 also commented that apparently any serial number higher than 5504xxxx should have the upgraded seals.
An aberration is simply an imperfection in the way a lens focuses light. There are a number of different classifications of aberrations, and they affect things like the sharpness, color, focus, magnification, and distortion in your photographs.
A lens with a prominent aberration will drastically distort the shape of the stars, especially towards the outer edges of the frame. One of the first lenses that I used for making astrophotos, the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM (Amazon / B&H), has especially bad aberrations when used at its lowest f/number, and the problem is very apparent in its photos of the stars. In the sample photo of the Milky Way below, you can see how the stars in the corners of the image are stretched and distorted, the result of the lens aberrations present in the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM.
Coma occurs when light from a single source entering at the edge of the lens is not projected at the same size as light entering the center of the lens. For this reason it becomes more apparent on point sources of light at the edge of the frame and at low f/numbers. Coma is common on fast (large aperture or low f/number) lenses but can also be reduced by stopping the lens to a higher f/number. A lot of lens aberrations that distort the shape of light sources like stars are often assumed to be coma, but sometimes the explanation is more complex. The easiest way to recognize pure coma is by its comet-like shape.
Consistent with my examples so far, most lenses that have aberration problems tend to show great improvements when the lens aperture is closed one or two stops from wide-open. For example, if your lens shows bad aberration at f/1.4, try stopping down to f/2.0 or f/2.8 to try to reduce the effect. Stopping the lens to a higher f/number will reduce the total light collected by the camera, but will also improve sharpness and hide aberrations.
We will suspend all shipments of the applicable product until the cause of this matter has been identified. Once we know the cause, we will be in touch with the small number of affected customers to advise on whether we will repair their lens or replace it, and how this process will work.
I'm trying to track down MPN numbers for the wide variety of Sigma 400mm, f5.6 primes so I can file a claim with Ebay that the seller made a mistake. Otherwise the seller refuses to let me return the lens.
I'm sorry, but this sounds like your mistake. The seller isn't accountable for the accuracy/innacuracy of your research, or even of Sigma's. That's why there is an item 'description' and item pictures you can look at. If the pictures and description are accurate, then you have no complaint. - regardless of an apparent MPN discrepancy (the seller had the number off the lens right I assume). As the others alluded to, even had you received an EOS mount, it'd be largely unusable unless chipped.
The seller did not have good pictures of the lens, and none of the mount, or I would have caught it. Nor was the number taken off the lens, or from any documentation which has come with it. (All in my possession now.) In the rush of bidding I relied on the "Item specifics" listed for it, matching that MPN number with previous lenses which are EOS film mounts. Ebay says such specific listings are the seller's full responsibility, so we shall see how far I can get with that.
I think it's the seller's error in giving the wrong part number. Of course you'd have though he'd either have listed it as an FD or an EF lens or at least manual or autofocus, and the buyer really should have asked about that or asked for better pictures. So there's some shared responsibility. Caveat Emptor etc.
thank you for this tutorial. I had my sigma art 35mm calibrated by a professional about 4 months ago and it was working great. Now I am starting to have issues again where there are times it wont let me release the shutter as I focus. Do you think i need to have it recalibrated again? The guy at the camera shop told me as long as I use this lens with the same camera I should not have to have it recalibrated but I am thinking that is not true?
There are a couple things to check with an issue like this. The first is to check if the camera and lens can take manual focus photos without the EOS Utility. That way we can rule out if it is an issue with the equipment or the software.
One thing to note is that the EOS Utility is designed to work with Canon lenses and cameras, so it might not be able to read your Sigma lens. If the issue continues the next step would be to attach a Canon lens on the camera and check if the same thing is happening.
Hi Wadizzle. Buried deep in the menu is the option to switch between af/mf. It is a Sigma lens created specifically for the ef-m mount. It does seem to work on it's own without the tether set-up. I do have the stock ef-m mount lens that came with it. I am going back out tomorrow night and Saturday to do some more astrophotography and will give all your ideas a try and report back! Thanks Wadizzle, I'll also check your back button focus recommendation.
For parties I can't check all my photos because I like to get people in action. I do check them all for a shoot. I have not shot anything paid in a while and don't use the same camera lens combo anymore but it is rare that I have that problem because I learn from my mistakes but I have taken many pics in the past that look sharp that were not.I need to see if my A7 has that feature sounds very helpful
Now that we have our 10-copy testing done we can generate consistency numbers and variation graphs for the Sigma lens. These are really quite good, comparing very favorably to what we saw from Canon and Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 zooms.
I am curious if the loaner was an early production unit (low serial number). If you happen to have pics of the lens from when you had the loaner, check the serial number and check it against your batch of 10.
If you want to see how the lens compares to its competitors, check out the lens comparisons section of the review, where I compare it to the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G, Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and the Samyang 35mm f/1.4 lenses.
I have a number of sample images shot at f/1.4 that I provided in this review. I would recommend to check out those samples and decide if bokeh looks acceptable to you or not. In my opinion, unless you look at images at 100%, the onion-shaped bokeh is not very noticeable or distracting on images. Plus, if an out of focus area does not contain specular highlights, the background will generally look very smooth and creamy.
Almost correct but not quite there. See how the lens is first recognized as f/4.5-5.6 but then maximum aperture is a hard fact transferred from lens to camera as f/4.0 (which is true). The lens is actually a Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 DG so even the focal range was wrong in EXIF. What happened here is that the ID-code sent by the lens falls into slot 25611 of the lookup table. That number is reserved for "Minolta AF 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 or Sigma Lens". An EXIF reader that I use then shows this as simply "75-300mm F4.5-5.6" in Lens Model field.
Updating your camera's firmware may increase the number of lenses your camera can recognize, but it is up to the EXIF reader software to show the lens description instead of just a code in MakerNotes.
According to the DxOMark review this lens achieves a resolution of 36Mpx, which is the same as the Tamron 85mm. So why is this lens "the sharpest", when another lens has the same numbers.
Cheerleading for Sigma is what this looks like, not objective and numbers based at all.
Both are amazing lenses.
Looking at the real world tests:
I think at f/1.4 they are equally bad.
At f/4 and f/8 they are equally amazing with a very slight advantages over sigma which doesn't necessarily excite me.
Somewhere earlier was stated the adapter caused an off center focus for the sigma lens and people asked again why they bothered to posted the adapted photos still and not redo this with native equipment but no response.
Both lenses are very good, I have the Sigma 85 Art so my opinion might be biased slightly, The Sony does better than the sigma in regards LoCa but I do feel the sigma is sharper and I do prefer the bokeh from the Sigma, The colour fringing in the Sonys bokeh balls are distracting in the sample images, I feel as both lenses had been adapted to the sony body it is very hard to draw conclusions on which lens is better. I believe the adapter is having a slight detremental effect on both lenses. For a better comparison, it would be good to see how these lenses compare when mounted natively
dd2b598166