I've used the 50 1.4 (Canon) and the 50 1.4 (Sigma) - and all both left me frustrated with their focus issues and CA, so it looks like the L is logical alternative.
However.
I use a 5d, which most of you know has very weak outer focus points. The majority of what I do is focus/recompose. I'm fine with that. But I've heard the plane on the 50L will not tolerate such habits. True?
I really, really wanted the Sigma 50 to be as great as everyone said, but the two copies I've purchased have been terrible. Really.
The 50L is less tollerent to recompose at 1.2 because of course the DOF at 1.2 is narrower. If you move 1cm futher forward or backward as you recompose depending on your subject distance you may miss the focus. That being said it doesn't have a particularly curved plane of focus so at the same apertures it will be the same as the other two in terms of focusing.
The sigma is great you just have to try multiple copies in store before you put money down on one. Also the canon 1.4 is great you just have to pretend it's at f/2.8 lens and above that it beats the L all over the place.
I've owned multiple copies of both those lenses, and both make me want to burn things. I sent my Canon 1.4 in three times for calibration/repair.
I realize that it's difficult to recompose at the shallow depth of field 1.2, but I thought that this lens in particular has a strange focus curve that made it near impossible. Just a rumour?
50L is terrible at controlling CA at wide open or close to it, but is slightly better than Canon 1.4. I don't have Sigma, so can't comment on it.
I use center focus 99% of the time, on 5D and 5DII. Focus and recompose can be done, but it's a bit tricky. I have to say that it took me awhile to learn 50L and accept its shortcomings, but once you get a hang of it, it's one heck of a lens! No regret!
I found the 50L to have real problems with focus shift at near minimum focus ranges. I found the Sigma to be equally as awesome optically with a bit of better sharpness. Both have noticeable CA wide open.
I do know that 5Dc users have more focus problems with Sigma lenses because of the lack of micro-adjust.
^ I would really like to have the micro-adjust capacity to test this Sigma out properly. But alas...it's heading back to B&H on Monday. Horrible focus issues - both back and front.
GraemePitman wrote:
I guess what I'm asking is if anyone has used the 5d+50L combo and found it worked well.
I have both and like the results. I shoot from 1.2 to 2.2 on average with the lens. the 50L gets a little less use now that I have the 35L but I have no plans to sell it.
GraemePitman wrote:
^ I would really like to have the micro-adjust capacity to test this Sigma out properly. But alas...it's heading back to B&H on Monday. Horrible focus issues - both back and front.
It took 3 copies of my sig50 and two trips to sigma for the last one. It STILL has a very minor front focus (within acceptability on a 1ds mkII),
I've had the 50 1.8, 50 1.4 and 50 1.2L... Love the L. I haven't really experienced any issues.. at least none that are directly attributable to the lens.... Focus and recompose can be tough... but that is going to be the case for any lens that is 1.2 @ 1.2.
I do calibrations on the side and have encountered issues with numerous 50L lenses. It is beautiful when it nails the focus but that's a big "when". The Sigma 50 is beautifully sharp, but almost always requires calibration ( seems worse on canon for some reason ) however I must say it has some of the worst CA I've seen in any lens when shooting at f/1.4
Currently I use the Canon 1.4 and am generally quite happy with it, as I don't think half a stop and some weather sealing merits the $1000 price bump. I'd be eager to see a new edition of the canon 1.4
I think I'm going to go with the a new Canon 1.4 for now, until I get my 5d MK this summer. Then I'll head into Chicago or Madison to test out a few 50L's to see how they react.
Not having a camera store in 100 mile radius makes things a bit frustrating.
GraemePitman wrote:
I've owned multiple copies of both those lenses, and both make me want to burn things. I sent my Canon 1.4 in three times for calibration/repair.
I realize that it's difficult to recompose at the shallow depth of field 1.2, but I thought that this lens in particular has a strange focus curve that made it near impossible. Just a rumour?
I now want to take a lens outside on the next sunny day and try to set dried leaves on fire with it.
jasonhupe wrote:
I originally went back and forth but after two years of using the L I have come to love it.
... It is busy but I do like it.
I have used the 50L on the 5Dc with good results as to focusing.
I must say that the one thing that put me off to it a bit was the, to my surprise, "busy" bouquet in many situations. I'll have to give the Sigma a try someday in hopes it would be less busy.
I had the Sigma 50 f/1.4 and the focus consistency (or lack thereof) on mine was very frustrating. When it was good it was great, but when it's off it is just unusable. Worthless. It gives me no pleasure to report this. About a year ago I bought a recently made 50L and I really like it. A lot. I use it the same way I used the Sigma: center point AF, bullseye the target and crop for composition later. Unfortunately, that's how I have to roll with my Canon. Here's hoping for better AF from the 5D MkII replacement. Happy with the 50L: yes. Very (!).
