Can anyone tell me why the Sigma 50mm f1.4 costs significantly more than the Canon 50mm f1.4? It doesn't make much sense to me why the third party lens of the same speed is more expensive. Is it higher quality optics? Are they really selling many of these?
Better build quality and HSM (their equivalent of USM) motor. Canon's f/1.4 has a reputation of not being the sharpest or contrast-y enough wide open. The Sigma from most accounts beats it in those aspects and tacks on a creamy smooth bokeh to boot. And the Sigma does appear to contain much more physical glass than Canon's. But the Sigma did seem to suffer from AF issues and with the new Nikon 50mm f/1.4G lens coming in at $50 less, I expect the Sigma price to drop soon.
- more elements, likely higher quality elements/coatings, aspherical elements
- better/more solid build
- ring type usm
- 2008 engineered/released
- sharp wide open
canon
- less elements, likely lower quality elements/coatings, no aspherical elements.
- cheap, light plastic build
- micro type usm
- 1993 engineered/released
- questionable image quality, especially wide open
Canon: NO COMPATIBILITY ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE! that says it all...buy a Sigma and soon as you'd try it on a new body coming up next year you'd be in trouble..Err messagge and all. This assuming it doesn't Front/Back focus (highly problable). Went down the Sigma road myself...and i've cried everytime I did. I still have the Sigma 50mm EX DG macro (which is a great lens in its own way) (managed to sell the other lenses) but when I tried Canon's 60mm macro the AF speed compared to Sigma's was DECADES ahead.
I would stay away from Sigma's 50mm 1.4...it might have some advantages in IQ but the risk is too big IMO.
Just a thought
Jess Edward wrote:
Yea a friend of mine has the Sigma Fisheye lens and he cant use it on his 5D because he gets an error message every time. Contrary on what people think Canon is not dumb Sigma reverse engineer Canon's AF algorithm...but when Canon releases a new body they re-reverse sort of speak Sigma's
Guess they don't like people stepping on their turf
I know there're many happy Sigma owners and I wish them great shooting!
Actually I do believe that Canon needs some competition kick in the a$$ (who doesn't). I just wish Sigma's lenses were future-bodies proof...that's all.
Nello Milanese wrote: Contrary on what people think Canon is not dumb Sigma reverse engineer Canon's AF algorithm...but when Canon releases a new body they re-reverse sort of speak Sigma's
Guess they don't like people stepping on their turf .
Is this actual fact, some kind of wild conjecture, or just a joke?
I would assume that if Canon actually did something like this, it would also affect their old lenses. That would be marketing suicide, so I 'aint buyin' it. Not with proof.
Until then, It's just a fun theory.
Also- I assume this IF this is true, it would only affect AF, seiing as there is no problem with any vintage manual-focus lenses.
Does anyone really believe Canon changes things in their new bodies just to screw with Sigma lens owners? Be serious. I don't believe there have been any issues with Sigma lenses manufactured in the last 4-5 years, but I'd be curious to hear of any first-hand experiences to the contrary. I currently own the Sigma 15/2.8 fisheye, the 30/1.4, and 12-24/4.5-5.6. They all work well on my 10D, 40D, and 5D, with the exception of the 30, which obvious vignettes on the 5D due to its crop-sensor design.
I've held off on their 50/1.4 (I already own the EF 50/1.4) only because reports have not been great regarding its use on the 5D, although it seems to work well on the xxD bodies. FWIW, Canon hasn't had great success with their 50/1.2L, either.
anthonygh wrote:
If how a lens looks compared to how it performs is important.......who was it that described camera gear as male jewellery?
A UK mag tested both lenses and concluded the Sigma was bigger and more expensive but the Canon was the better buy...
I believe he meant the sigma's resultant image has a certain look to it, not the lens body itself (but maybe they are fundamentally on the same level?)
I agree about the bokeh. I do not like the looks of this on any of the wide open shots at Photozone. Very distracting and not smooth at all. He used a 350D. I would expect this to be even worse on full frame.
If I'm reading all this correctly the Sigma is sharper overall than the Canon has less vignetting, and superior build quality . So how does the Sigma 50mm f1.4 compare to the Canon 50mm f1.2. I guess I feel like the Canon 50mm f1.4 lens is a good high speed optic at a reasonable price so I won't expect miracles, but it seems to me that the Sigma has build quality and optical capability that rivals Canons 50mm F1.2. Am I wrong.
This 20-page thread in the Alternative forum has lots and lots
of information on the Sigma 50/1.4 and plenty of sample images.
It's a good place to start in any investigation of this lens.
gene A. wrote:
If I'm reading all this correctly the Sigma is sharper overall than the Canon has less vignetting, and superior build quality . So how does the Sigma 50mm f1.4 compare to the Canon 50mm f1.2. I guess I feel like the Canon 50mm f1.4 lens is a good high speed optic at a reasonable price so I won't expect miracles, but it seems to me that the Sigma has build quality and optical capability that rivals Canons 50mm F1.2. Am I wrong.
No, you are not wrong. Optically, it is very, very fine.
The biggest flaw with the Sigma is a tendency to
backfocus at longer focus distances (15 feet and beyond). I still find the lens
very nice to use, but wish Sigma had spent the effort to make this one
"foolproof".
Cableaddict wrote:
Is this actual fact, some kind of wild conjecture, or just a joke?
It's the internet - people can say anything they like. Truth and reality doesn't have anything to do with it. I haven't heard of any issues for years. I think Canon are smart enough to realise that the more EOS-mount lenses people have, the less likely they are to move to Nikon, Pentax, etc. (All my Sigmas from my 10D work fine on my 40D.)
Contrary on what people think Canon is not dumb 
Sigma reverse engineer Canon's AF algorithm...but when Canon releases a new body they re-reverse sort of speak Sigma's 