Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 … 7 8 end

Archive 2008 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

RalphJ
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Yakim Peled wrote:
AF update: I calibrated the lens today. It had serious FF. Now it is spot on, but alas, only when using the central AF sensor. According to the technician, Sigma's orders are to calibrate any lens only with the central AF sensor. When he looked at the peripheral AF sensors it was only at my specific request (I use them a lot). He suggested I contact Sigma Japan and that's what I'll do ....

P.S. He insisted that calibrating a Sigma lens is only to a specific body. When I asked what happens if I have 2 or more bodies he said that it's impossible to make a perfect calibration for more than one body. When I asked what about Canon lenses he replied that it's a very different issue altogether as Sigma, by reverse engineering, is never able to achieve the same precision as Canon or Nikon. Depressing.

I too thank you for running these tests. No, I don't shoot soda cans or test charts, but I also know it's a lot easier to criticize lens tests than to carry them out and whether one shoots real-world objects or test charts one is going to get hammered by critics.

That said, I think the Sigma's now-notorious AF problems cannot be overlooked. I never rely on only one source for information before buying, but I do trust the tests at the-digital-picture.com, and his assessment of the focusing issues of the Sigma caused me to say "No thanks," at least for now:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

If the vast majority of buyers eventually come to the conclusion that the Sigma focuses well out of the box - i.e., without sending their lens and/or camera across the country to be calibrated - I'll certainly be glad to give it a second look.

Dec 15, 2008 at 08:20 PM

mh2000
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

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)

Dec 15, 2008 at 08:34 PM

will_fm
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

It's interesting to see that with the same tests we might not get the same conclusions. the only thing I really see is that the Sigma's bokeh is better wide open than the 50/1.4 (I'm not even considering the 50/1.8 or the zoom). From f/2 onwards the bokeh seems slightly better for the Sigma but the Sigma image has a warmer tone too, and I feel this affects the picture more than pure bokeh. Re: sharpness I don't see where the Sigma is sharper, wide open just check the bubbles on the right side of the can and tell me that the 50/1.4 isn't sharper? At other apertures the bubbles are sharper for the Canon (right side of the can) whereas the green/yellow text is sharper for the Sigma (left side of the can), it looks like the 2 lenses are not focusing on the same spot.

I'm always surprised by the negativity expressed very often here towards the 50/1.4 since it's one of my favourite lenses.

(all examples straight from the camera)

Example at f/2.0 (1/40s, ISO 200)

This image is copyrighted by the owner

100% crop

Example wide open while goofing around (f/1.4, 1/3200s, ISO 100)

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Dec 15, 2008 at 10:06 PM

mh2000
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

as to single tests showing anything, check out the EF 50/1.8 vs. 50L comparison in this current thread (PAGE 2):

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/717497/999999#lastmessage

In that comparison the 50/1.8 looks way nicer than the 50L to my eyes, and from experience, I believe the 1.8 would look better in this circumstance than the 1.4 as well (the 1.4 renders with the same, but worse liney stuff that the L is showing here).

Dec 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM

Saad Syed
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #5 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

The sigma has, by far, the best bokeh. Sharpness is something trivial as they all perform alike.

Dec 15, 2008 at 11:44 PM

Gordon walker
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

I'd be interested in knowing how to calibrate the Lens. Any instructions?

Dec 15, 2008 at 11:49 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #7 · 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.

Dec 16, 2008 at 01:04 AM

mh2000
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · 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:
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.

Dec 16, 2008 at 03:17 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #9 · 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.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Dec 16, 2008 at 12:43 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #10 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Gordon walker wrote:
I'd be interested in knowing how to calibrate the Lens. Any instructions?

You go to a Sigma lab. Only they have the equipment (both software and hardware) to carry this out.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Dec 16, 2008 at 12:47 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #11 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

pawlowski6132 wrote:
deeprblue wrote:
Your 50 f1.8 seems misfocused on the last shot. It shouldn't be that soft at f2.8.

I thought the same thing. My 50 1.8 seems to be able to produce VERY sharp images at that aperture.

It may be a user error, it may be a sample issue and it may be something else. I have no idea.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Dec 16, 2008 at 12:49 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #12 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

will_fm wrote:
Re: sharpness I don't see where the Sigma is sharper

Me neither. Look at what I wrote.

Yakim Peled wrote:
My conclusions:
Sharpness: All are sharp enough for me and I see no significant difference.

Personally, I think it's a tribute to the 50/1.8 and reinforces it's position as the best bang-for-the-buck lens.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Dec 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Vivek
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #13 · 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.

-- V

Dec 16, 2008 at 02:01 PM

Greg Feldman
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #14 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Vivek wrote:
If you need another reason to buy the Sigmalux (thanks Greg) ...

Anytime.

A few more samples for those on the fence:

f/2:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

f/2:

f/1.4:

I've used glass ranging from $50 to $6000, and the best way I can describe the background blur of the Sigmalux is simply "unfair to other lenses."

Dec 16, 2008 at 04:12 PM

CKrueger
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · 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.

Dec 16, 2008 at 05:18 PM

Greg Feldman
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #16 · 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.)

Sample from 85 f/1.8 at f/2:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Greg

Dec 16, 2008 at 05:27 PM

CKrueger
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · 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.

Dec 17, 2008 at 05:43 AM

turbodude
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #18 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

hmmmm i love my canon 50 1.4 but this makes me want the siggy bad...

Dec 17, 2008 at 05:57 AM

rancho_relaxo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

UCSB wrote:It is a shame that Sigma just doesn't license the AF algorithms from Canon.

pretty sure the only thing canon would trade their technology for would be 100% of sigma company stock!

Dec 17, 2008 at 06:46 AM

PetKal
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #20 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Yakim, thank you for posting this comparison.
That Sigma 50 f/1.4 bokeh does look awful nice.

Dec 17, 2008 at 10:30 AM

Dawei Ye
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #21 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Hi Yakim thanks for the test

I think your 50 f/1.8 II is a dud, but a very good test anyway!

Maybe I have a good 50 f/1.8 II, I never use it but it is as sharp wide open as my 85LII and 35L (ok maybe a tad worse)

Dec 17, 2008 at 11:04 AM

tinke
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #22 · 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!

Dec 17, 2008 at 11:47 AM

Suparman Widja
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #23 · 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.

Dec 17, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #24 · 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.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Dec 17, 2008 at 12:24 PM

willis
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #25 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

I returned two of the sigma 50mm 1.4s because despite the great bokeh you get more OOF areas than you bargain for. I've now settled for the Canon 50 1.4 which although not quite as good in this respect focuses much more reliably. IMO you really need accurate AF with fast lenses. I'd like to try the 50L but can't justify the cost, particularly for a lens with it's own focus issues and often poor reviews. Seems the perfect 50 doen't exist. I'm not generally anti Sigma and am very pleased with my 120-300 and 12-24 lenses but this one was 'nearly' a great lens.

Dec 17, 2008 at 12:30 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 … 7 8 end