fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3

5 … 9 10 end

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

willis
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #1 · 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 07:30 AM

tinke
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #2 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

willis wrote:
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...Show more →

Alas, though a nice lens in concept I have the exact same experience as you had with this lens. I see a QC overhaul on this lens as very warranted; who knows how many months or years out before I will step back into the arena and give this teaser another shot. There are some real bugs on this lens to work out, though perhaps they can. Seems after several disastrous first years with the 30/1.4 they may have gotten a fix; I am hearing much less complaints. But maybe most who wanted one either did the dice roll, or just decided to not get one after all. Dunno

Dec 17, 2008 at 07:46 AM

hhski
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Yakim I hate you! I cannot bear it anymore.I like Vivek have concerns of durability of the af. I hate to manually focus this. I was going to buy the f 1.2 but just couldn't justify it so my siggy in on it's way for a test. Yes I am doing what I said I wouldn't do again. The optics were too compelling. I hope I won't be kicking myself the guy who's friends and family warned him about his girlfriend.

Dec 19, 2008 at 12:13 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Join the club. My wife hates me too, and from the exact same reason.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Dec 21, 2008 at 02:55 AM

CKrueger
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #5 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

hhski wrote:
Yakim I hate you! I cannot bear it anymore.I like Vivek have concerns of durability of the af. I hate to manually focus this. I was going to buy the f 1.2 but just couldn't justify it so my siggy in on it's way for a test. Yes I am doing what I said I wouldn't do again. The optics were too compelling. I hope I won't be kicking myself the guy who's friends and family warned him about his girlfriend.

Mine, too, is on the way. It will be here tomorrow too. Yakim's post pushed me over the edge; since switching to APS-C from my 5D I've been missing the smooth backgrounds I could get at f/2.8 with my 28-75. This 50/1.4 should do the trick nicely.

The very first thing I will do is take my still-cold 50/1.4 out to the back yard and shoot my fence at 25ft. I need to make sure this thing focuses properly before I subject it to a chaotic family Christmas party. I think I'll be using my E-410 as a backup this year, just in case.

Dec 22, 2008 at 12:50 PM

Greg Feldman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #6 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Since this thread still lives, here are a couple more with my Sigmalux.

http://photo.gregafeldman.com/riley2/JP7K2145_pod_luna.jpg
(My daughter now insists on wearing hats indoors.)

http://photo.gregafeldman.com/riley2/JP7K1835_pod_close.jpg

Greg

Dec 22, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #7 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Why nick it Sigmalux? It's only f/1.4, not f/1.0.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Dec 22, 2008 at 04:05 PM

Greg Feldman
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #8 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Yakim Peled wrote:
Why nick it Sigmalux? It's only f/1.4, not f/1.0.

Leicas that are f/1.4 are named Summilux. So it's a play on that name.

Dec 22, 2008 at 04:15 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #9 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Didn't know that. I thought about the Noctilux.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Dec 22, 2008 at 04:41 PM

robsuh
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #10 · 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. When using the peripheral AF sensors at close range (under 3m) at f/1.4 or f/2.0 you still see a slight FF, though much less than before. 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).
Happy shooting,
Yakim.

That seems right. I notice that on my 50D/85L, the center focus is very accurate but the peripheral AF points front focus at f/1.2.

Rob

Dec 22, 2008 at 04:48 PM

mh2000
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #11 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Darling shots Greg!

Dec 22, 2008 at 05:47 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #12 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

robsuh wrote:
That seems right. I notice that on my 50D/85L, the center focus is very accurate but the peripheral AF points front focus at f/1.2.

Rob

Probably field curvature.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Dec 23, 2008 at 03:06 AM

Nello Milanese
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #13 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

I'm not goin' that path again

Yes the Sigma is a great lens BUT i'm so done and tired of buying Sigma's lenses only to end up using MF, re-calibrate when I'm using it on a new Canon body

My Sigma EX macro is great for sharpness,contrast etc but maaaan the AF sucks big time. Sold all my Sigma's...macro is the only left and problably i'll sell that 1 too for the Canon.

Dec 23, 2008 at 03:34 AM

Sayeret18
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #14 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Following up on this thread, last night, I had a chance to "test drive" both 50s at a holiday party, shooting in RAW between 1.4 - 2.8, 800 or 1600 ISO, on a 40D. My impressions are as follows:

* Both lenses were quite sharp, even at 1.4, and focused accurately. The Sigma might have been just a touch sharper, but the differences were not terribly significant. In both cases, though, I found the level of detail in the some of the captures to be simply astonishing.

* Color (after correcting for white balance) and clarity of both lenses were outstanding. I did not notice the Sigma "yellow" cast others have reported.

* The Canon seemed to focus somewhat faster than the Sigma. The Canon seemed to snap into focus, while the Sigma sort of glided. The Sigma was certainly serviceable, though, and my expectations/impressions may have been biased by the reviews/threads reporting Sigma focusing problems.

* The Sigma's build quality is outstanding. The Canon's build quality is less robust, but the lens is correspondingly lighter and smaller.

* The Sigma's bokeh is far superior to the bokeh from the Canon. The Sigma bokeh reminded me of my 135L, the Canon bokeh of my Tamron 28-75 zoom. Bokeh is the one area where I observed a truly significant difference between the lenses.

So what to do? Heck if I know. The Canon with an aftermarket rubber hood seems to be about $100 cheaper than the Sigma - this is, IMO, a significant difference. Also, the Canon nailed focus very quickly and consistently. The Sigma, while focusing very well, seemed a bit more tentative. But still, although the Canon captures were excellent, the Sigma captures were truly gorgeous. Beautiful colors and clarity, tremendous detail, and really outstanding bokeh.

I'm probably going to opt for the Sigma, but the truth is, either way, you can't lose. To me, the most significant thing I learned (or relearned, more accurately) is that for sheer optical quality and speed, primes rule.

Dec 24, 2008 at 11:30 AM

Jonathan Knight
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #15 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

You're making me hungry! Good to see someone else knows of the beauty that is Nutella. I love that stuff! =)

Dec 24, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Maggot
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #16 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

I think the Sigma is a very good lens if you can get a good copy. I had never bought a Sigma before and was concerned about the well known bad Sigma QC. I dove in and bought one only to get a bad copy. On my new 5Dmk2, the focus was completely unreliable. On the order of 1 out of 5 shots were ok. It would constantly front focus some 5-6 inches. I tried different distances and different AF points, but still very troublesome AF and MF. I evenually got the Canon 50L, which of course has it's well known focus problems, but at least with those there are easy workarounds. I find the L sharper with more color and contrast than the Sigma. Is it worth the extra price, I guess that's up to each individual. That's not to say the Sigma wasn't good. In fact, focus issues withstanding, I found the Sigma to be a very good lens with excellent color and contrast. A very good build quality. The bokeh is the best. Creamy smooth like I've never seen before. I know some don't like the extra creamy bokeh, but I personally like it. The focus ring was a little tighter than what I'm used to with Canon, but not a big deal. Never the less, I'm glad there are good copies about. I just didn't want to go through the hastle of hoping I'd get a good copy on the next run, so I just took mine back and coughed up for the 50L.

Dec 24, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Sayeret18
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

There is a great deal out there with respect to the Sigma focusing issues. Apparently I was lucky - my copy of the Sigma 50 focuses very well.

Dec 24, 2008 at 01:00 PM

hhski
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #18 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Nello Milanese wrote:
I'm not goin' that path again

Yes the Sigma is a great lens BUT i'm so done and tired of buying Sigma's lenses only to end up using MF, re-calibrate when I'm using it on a new Canon body

My Sigma EX macro is great for sharpness,contrast etc but maaaan the AF sucks big time. Sold all my Sigma's...macro is the only left and problably i'll sell that 1 too for the Canon.
Nello what you wrote is what the voice in my head is saying. The problem is the Sigma works great feels better on the camera than the L. I thus far with the Sigma have had very accurate and consistent focus. What I dont like is the noise as it focuses and the focus ring feels stiff. If I hadnt used the L all last weekend Id probably keep the Sigma. Ill use the thing some more right now I think Im going to go for the L but its not easy to decide. The Sigma produces great images and thats what its about for me hopefully it will continue to work well. I could think of alot of things to spend that extra 850 on.

Dec 24, 2008 at 04:08 PM

hhski
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #19 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Used it today xmas and all and there must be an element decentered. Everything on the right is backfocused. Its the L for me.

Dec 25, 2008 at 05:00 PM

miccullen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #20 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

tinke wrote:
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.

I've got/had six Sigma lenses (EOS mount) and have never had to return any of them. Which simply makes the point that anecdotal experiences aren't worth very much at all.

Dec 25, 2008 at 05:23 PM

1 2 3 4 5 … 9 10 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 10 end