Sorry, yet another show-us topic. I just got my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and my initial reactions to indoor evening available light environmental portrait shots where mediocre but useable. I really haven't had time to test it much more. AF which seems to be an issue with some owners seems to be OK on mine. But what I really want to see is how my copy stack up to others (especially in indoor evening available light environmental portraits), especially at 100% crop, f/1.4-f/2.8. Oh, by the way, my Amazon shipment came in a pre-crumbled box so that also makes me want to see if my copy has been ill affected or what I got is ok. Thanks all.
Wide-open on 40D (any sensor but 50D would be less demanding), in camera JPEG, focus roughly on tip of nose, quite backlit, some movement possible (this kitten is a maniac and never stops moving).
Thanks, cdgerston and Drew, nice shots. I have NOT seen the well-documented af issues in mine either. Just needed some visual confirmation of what the normal IQ is from this lens since mine came in Amazon's standard mangled packaging and I am within the return period if mine doesn't seem normal. Comparitively, I am seeing the Sigma50 f/1.4 IQ from f/1.4 to f/2.8 in available indoor lighting to be a bit under both my 24L (expected) and 85 f/1.8 and probably on par with the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 I used to own.
Yeah, in my examples above, three are from the 5D, including the one at 100% of my daughter's eyes. The one b&w shot of the girl with the crown is from a 1DIII. The lens has performed great on both bodies, though I did need to dial in +15 focus adjustment on the 1DIII to get it just right. However, this is typical of that body for nearly all my lenses.
I've never really bought into the theory that the lens somehow works better
on crop bodies than on a 5D. That said, I have only tested my copy's
autofocus thoroughly on the 5D. I have shot quite a few snapshots
with it on both the 30D and the 5D, however.
And one more, that shows exceptional wide-open performance
at infinity focus (not a typical shooting scenario, but one that is
never flattering to a standard double-Gaussian 50mm lens). Yes,
there is some softness on the edges, but this is still very good
f/1.4 performance.
IMO b&w usually shows off bokeh harshness and in cdgerston's two b&w's the background rendering is very nice given the harsh lines. I could see myself buying this lens at some point... looks good!
wing tong wrote:
How would you guys/gals rank the sigma50's sharpness at f/1.4-2.8 to other primes you own?
One step behind the Sigma 30/1.4, but better bokeh.
The Sigma50 is excellent at f/1.4 -- easily beating the Canon 50/1.4
in everything but autofocus accuracy (my copy, at least).
For pure sharpness, the Sig 30/1.4 is sharper -- scary sharp.
The Sig 50/1.4 is a better balanced lens -- nicer combo of sharpness
with good bokeh.
wing tong wrote:
How would you guys/gals rank the sigma50's sharpness at f/1.4-2.8 to other primes you own?
Hard to answer exactly, I haven't done solid tests, and I don't really look at sharpness alone. I can say I like the overall look of the Sigma better than the look from my 35L and my Canon 85 f/1.8, both of which are fine lenses, and sharp, but I like the micro-contrast and bokeh of the Sigma better. To me, the images from the Sigma have a stronger texture...the in-focus areas feel grittier, or more real...hard to describe. The out-of-focus areas are smoother.
I would say it's not quite as sharp as the 135L, which I also have, but pretty close to the 35 and 85 (non-L). I can say, the 35L has become nearly forgotten since I got the Sigma50; that's in part because, ironically, I think the Sigma focuses more accurately (I may have to have the 35L looked at, it suffers from a touch of front-focus).
I can say, purely subjectively, that images from the Sigma compare favorably with a couple of the Leica lenses I use on the M8. No other lens I use on a Canon body gives me the same impression. Canon's lenses are nice too, but different.
All of this, of course, is my opinion, and based solely on the copies of the lenses I have.
FYI, the-digital-picture.com's review is now up. He also thinks the Sigma50 has AF issues so maybe there is a wide variation in this Sigma50 or maybe he's just pushing the Canon? My copy seems to AF really good unless I try to focus on something reallllly far away like about 50' which is not what I would normally do with this lens anyhow - and the one instance I did focus at 50+', it may have been user error anyhow.
