p.6 #1 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
That child in the Jean Jacket is positively adorable!
While on the topic of f/1.4's... does anyone have good samples of Sigma 30 f/1.4 layin' round? I've shot the Canon 50 mkII f/1.8 on Crop and found it somewhat tight indoors as a party/walkaboutlens...
p.6 #4 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
15Bit wrote:
Admittedly my 350D isn't what you'd call cutting edge in the AF department,
Remember that adage about upgrading the glass instead of the body? Well turns out...
I had to chuckle because when my 5D2 went error 1 on me mid-Hiroshima-vacation, it was heartbreaking. I had to go back to my 350D and suffer through AF roulette with all of my fast primes (and fallback MF? not on that viewscreen!).
p.6 #5 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Chez Wimpy wrote:
Remember that adage about upgrading the glass instead of the body? Well turns out...
Well if you fancy a laugh - i currently have the 17-40L, 70-200L 2.8, 10-22 EFS and 50mm F1.4 to go with my 350D. I'm a BIG believer in the "invest in glass" mantra. I'm saving for the body upgrade now though, as i finally feel i'm outgrowing the 350D.
p.6 #6 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
OK, I tested the Sigma against the 50L. There's only one word for the Sigma-awesome. The only issue at which the Canon beats it to my eye is maybe color rendition. Sharpness and contrast and AF are easily in the Sig category. I have a series of RAW files taken with each lens and a 5D which are really shocking, but I can't seem to upload them. If anyone wants to see them, PM me. I would never have believed it.
Now the question is whether to keep the 35L. I'll do the same tests with it. Maybe Sigma has changed their production, but the one I just got from B&H looks just as good, if not better, than any Sig 50 images I have seen on the web. Wow. What a surprise.
p.6 #9 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
I asked a few people in the office to compare them, and to a person they chose the Sigma images. I'm pretty much shocked. Of course I may have a substandard 50, and there are benefits to the L other than IQ, I suppose, but the Sigma acquits itself wonderfully.
p.6 #11 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
outlawyer wrote:
OK, I tested the Sigma against the 50L. There's only one word for the Sigma-awesome. The only issue at which the Canon beats it to my eye is maybe color rendition. Sharpness and contrast and AF are easily in the Sig category. I have a series of RAW files taken with each lens and a 5D which are really shocking, but I can't seem to upload them. If anyone wants to see them, PM me. I would never have believed it.
This is a very interesting comment and I'd like to see the pictures. I'm sure many would. Why can't you upload them? Maybe they are too big? IIRC max size is 350 Kb.
p.6 #12 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
They are too big, and in RAW. I tried converting to JPEG with DPP and I guess they are still too big. When I have time I will crop the JPGs (I guess this is how to do it) and post. Although this would seem to defeat the integrity of the comparison. (I have no idea how to "batch crop" which would seem necessary to do it correctly).
p.6 #13 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
In DPP you can 'Convert and save'. In the opened window look below and you see a size reduction option. Write 700 instead of higher value, make sure that 'Lock aspect Ratio' is checked and save.
p.6 #14 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
I'll try that. When I hit "convert and save" though, to my memory, the next window that appears is one showing the progress of the conversion...I don't recall being given the size option...but I'll try again when I get to the computer where the pictures are. I need some post-processing classes REALLY bad.
p.6 #16 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Greg Feldman wrote:
In my experience, the 35L is better at f/1.4. Of course, the Sigma is actually better than the 35L in other ways.
You are absolutely correct. The 35L is around $600 more expensive...but it's obviously better wide open than the Sig. At F4 it's hard, if even possible, to tell them apart, though.
But if the choice is between the Sig and any of the Canon 50's (including the 2.5 CM, which it outperforms in color rendition IMO) I'd go with the Sigma every time. The bokeh is truly special.
p.6 #17 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
outlawyer wrote:
You are absolutely correct. The 35L is around $600 more expensive...but it's obviously better wide open than the Sig. At F4 it's hard, if even possible, to tell them apart, though.
But if the choice is between the Sig and any of the Canon 50's (including the 2.5 CM, which it outperforms in color rendition IMO) I'd go with the Sigma every time. The bokeh is truly special.
The bokeh beats that of every other lens I have, 85L notwithstanding.
p.6 #18 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
outlawyer wrote:
You are absolutely correct. The 35L is around $600 more expensive... but it's obviously better wide open than the Sig. At F4 it's hard, if even possible, to tell them apart, though.
But if the choice is between the Sig and any of the Canon 50's (including the 2.5 CM, which it outperforms in color rendition IMO) I'd go with the Sigma every time. The bokeh is truly special.
I have not witnessed this. To me they are comparable in sharpness wide open and bokeh is much better in the Sigma.
p.6 #20 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Lance Couture wrote:
I have been going back-and-forth over this choice.
I really want the Sigma 50/1.4, but I just cant bring myself to say that it would be better than my Canon 50/1.4. I just bought a 1D2, and it seems my 50 has really gone to a new level. With my 30D, I found it decent, but with my 1D2, I can get shots like these:
AF was very accurate and quick, and the images are sharp. I just dont know if the Sigma would be that much more of an improvement...
Lance, not to rain on your parade, but the AF on that Canon 50/1.4 is too flaky for a real product. Don't be surprised if it quits on you at the worst possible time.
That said, I wish the Sigmalux was priced like the Canon 1.4. I would've bought it in a heartbeat.
