p.3 #3 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
mh2000 wrote:
PS If I wasn't clear enough, I certainly wasn't criticizing the tests (thanks again!), but taking issue with someone making the blanket statement that this test *proves* that one lens in the test is "appalling." (a lens that I admittedly this is pretty good)
You are the only person I've known to wave the banner for the 50 f/1.8's bokeh. I owned the lens for 2 years and used it a lot and thought it's IQ was very good, but got sick of it's woeful AF in low light where I thought a fast lens might be of use. If you think this test is the only example of crap bokeh from this lens you're kidding yourself. The 50 f/1.4 IQ wise was not much better from f/2.8 but still appealed to me more. I use a Zeiss 50 f/1.4 these days.
p.3 #4 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
well... you seem to refuse to actually read my posts. All I'm saying is that between the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 *I* prefer the look of the 50/1.8 a little better. That is not "waving a banner."
(If I were to wave the banner for a lens it would be for my Summicron 50... but this is a Canon thread... and of all the non-L Canon 50's I found I was happier with the little 50/1.8)
Pixel Perfect wrote:
You are the only person I've known to wave the banner for the 50 f/1.8's bokeh. I owned the lens for 2 years and used it a lot and thought it's IQ was very good, but got sick of it's woeful AF in low light where I thought a fast lens might be of use. If you think this test is the only example of crap bokeh from this lens you're kidding yourself. The 50 f/1.4 IQ wise was not much better from f/2.8 but still appealed to me more. I use a Zeiss 50 f/1.4 these days.
p.3 #5 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
CKrueger wrote:
Have you noticed a difference in CA shooting, say, trees against a sky?
I have no such shots but from what I have seen in the control tests I guess that the Sigma will top the Canon again. It's actually should not come as a surprise to anyone when you think about it. There are two or three decades of lens development between them.
p.3 #9 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Yakim
Thanks for posting these since I am considering the Sigma 50/1.4.
Basically what this test is telling us is that the Sigma is equal if not better than the Canon equivalents in almost all tests.
If you need another reason to buy the Sigmalux (thanks Greg), then look no further than the abomination that is the AF on the Canon 50/1.4. That AF mechanism is NOT worthy of a product. Two have failed on me in spite of me knowing about these issues and treating these lenses with Kid gloves.
I for one, will NEVER invest, in another Canon 50/1.4 unless Canon puts a ring USM in it.
Also, for the samples I had, the sharpness was nothing to die for below f/2.8.
p.3 #11 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Have you compared it to the 85/1.2, Greg? Sigma 50/1.4 on crop versus Canon 85/1.2 on FF is one comparison I'm dying to see, despite the significant DOF difference.
p.3 #12 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
CKrueger wrote:
Have you compared it to the 85/1.2, Greg? Sigma 50/1.4 on crop versus Canon 85/1.2 on FF is one comparison I'm dying to see, despite the significant DOF difference.
I don't have the 85L but I do have the 85 f/1.8, which I like a lot. I haven't done any head-to-head comparisons, but I do have two observations: (1) the minimum focus distance on the 85 (which is very similar to that of the 85L) is a bit far and can be an issue for tight headshots. I've had to put a tube on it before. The Sigmalux has a much closer MFD. When the goal is to really blow out a background, getting close to the subject is key, of course. (2) The 85 is no slouch for good backgrounds, but the Sigma is simply in a different league. (All my recent shooting with both has been on a 1D2--not super-crop but not FF either.)
p.3 #13 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Thanks, Greg. I had an 85/1.8 with my 5D, and if you think the MFD is bad on the 1D, it's even more intrusive on the 5D! I always kept a 12mm tube handy. I never had much complaint about its background blur, either, but the 85/1.2 was a lot better from my limited experience with it. My hope is that the Sigma captures some of that magic. Unfortunately no shops around here carry it, so I'd have to buy online to even try it.
p.3 #18 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
All the pumping for Sigma - I wonder how many of you have bought one (or several)?!?
Expect to order and return at a minimum your first lens, and likely your second, unless you are extremely fortunate. If you still have an appetite you might get lucky on your third. This is my real world personal experience with several Sigma lenses - both primes and zooms - and all were returned because of blatant and undeniable focus issues. It's a crap shoot; I have one Sigma I wouldn't trade for anything, but anyone who has never ordered one should not do so with naivete. Note: Sigma's QC is appalling. Wishing you good luck!
p.3 #19 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Thanks for the tests Yakim. I used to have sigma 30mm and had similar AF experience. I am thinking to replace my 40D with 50D now because it has micro-adjustment for lenses like this - great optics but inferior AF.
p.3 #20 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Regarding AF accuracy, neither the Canon 50/1.4 nor the 50/1.8 were great performers.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I was also doing some normal shooting a bit (I mean, with all three) and my impression was that in normal shooting the Sigma has a slightly higher percentage of inconsistent AF.
