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 … 6 7 8 end

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

walter23
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #1 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Yakim Peled wrote:
CA wide open.

You should probably be looking at in-focus details for CA; lenses that are well corrected for different wavelengths of light at the in-focus areas may show different behaviour in the out of focus areas, I would think.

Mar 12, 2009 at 08:24 PM

Tom Abbott
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #2 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

50L

Mar 12, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #3 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Lance Couture wrote:
Vivek wrote:
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.

-- V

Is there such a thing then as a reliable, sharp, accurate focus 50 mm AF prime?

Seems like the 50L is out due to AF issues. Same for the 50 1.4. The 50 1.8 I can't stand the bokeh on it with a bit of a busy background, and the Sigma suffers from AF issues.

What else is there?

I've got something very close that meets all these demands. Problems: It's not fast, it's not 50mm and it's not FF compatible. If you can live with these limitations then the 60/2.8 EF-S is one hell of a lens.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Mar 12, 2009 at 11:57 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

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

Tom Abbott wrote:
50L

Never used it but from what I read it's not perfect as well and for its price I'd expect it to be.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Mar 13, 2009 at 12:00 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #5 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

walter23 wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
CA wide open.

You should probably be looking at in-focus details for CA; lenses that are well corrected for different wavelengths of light at the in-focus areas may show different behaviour in the out of focus areas, I would think.

Too late for that I'm afraid.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Mar 13, 2009 at 12:02 AM

RyanFlynn
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #6 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

After reading this, I'm seriously thinking about ordering a Sigma 50/1.4 to compare to my 50/1.2L. If the Sigma's AF is as good as my 50L's (which is great, thanks), then I'll deal with the slightly slower aperture. The Sigma's bokeh looks as good or better than the 50L, and sharpness, too.

What to do, what to do...

Mar 13, 2009 at 04:03 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

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

If you do that, I'd be most interested to hear how they compare.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Mar 13, 2009 at 09:01 PM

nathanlake
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #8 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

I think this sort of begs the question..what is good bokeh?

Mar 13, 2009 at 09:08 PM

Ivor Karabatko
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #9 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

nathanlake wrote:
I think this sort of begs the question..what is good bokeh?

Good bokeh to me is having a lens that eliminates the competitive roughness of the background, giving you a smooth and interesting result. When you're stuck with the crappiest, most annoying and visually competitive background and can't change your position between you, the subject, and the background.

I don't know if that makes any sense, but maybe someone can catch my drift. In other words, it separates the subject from the background and makes the subject stand out, without having anything competing for attention in the frame.

At least that's what I think of when I think of shooting at a low aperture. In my opinion, when you can eliminate the background factor almost completely, and most of the time turn it into something favorable that benefits the quality of the photograph, that's a great advantage to have. You get more light, too. That's the added bonus.

I have my L glass, and I have two sigma lenses that I use. I never had a problem with my sigma 15-30mm, I love that thing to death. Sharp, no CA, and pretty good with flare too. Now I'm looking at a nice prime, and for a while I couldn't decide between the Canon or the Sigma 50mm 1.4's. But this thread helped me out. I always wondered why the Sigma costs more than the Canon, but now I know. I have confidence in buying Sigma for Canon bodies, and this thread reassures me that I'm buying a solid product.

This is a great thread, I've read every post/reply and found them all to be good, constructive posts that I can learn something from. Thanks everyone!

Mar 13, 2009 at 09:58 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #10 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

nathanlake wrote:
I think this sort of begs the question..what is good bokeh?

Whatever you consider it to be. I've seen people say on a picture that it has a good bokeh while I did not think so at all. Beauty is in the eyes of the beer holder.....

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Mar 13, 2009 at 10:02 PM

mh2000
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #11 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

to me, good bokeh is when a lens renders an out of focus background in a way that gives the illusion of "distance" in a pleasing manner. A number of Canon's lenses have a way of rendering a blurred background as a dense wall of high tension *stuff* and not distant space... of lenses I've owned, both the EF 50/1.4 and 100 macro come to mind for producing that annoying impenetrable wall.

nathanlake wrote:
I think this sort of begs the question..what is good bokeh?

Mar 13, 2009 at 10:19 PM

SamuelLim
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #12 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

Great tests. I notice that my F1.8 has that glowy, dreamy sort of look... even in the focused areas! I think your testing has convinced me to upgrade to the 1.4.

I guess the other question is what is your take on other features of the lenses: e.g. auto focus speed and accuracy in real life scenarios?

Once again, thanks for posting!

Sam
Website: http://www.samandmaryphotography.com
Blog: http://www.samandmaryphotography.com/blog

Mar 14, 2009 at 03:50 AM

brett maxwell
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #13 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

I don't have anything objective to add, but I just got my Sigma 50 a few weeks ago and LOVE it. Though I haven't tried the 50L, the only thing that could be improved on the Sigma would be snappier AF, though it's not bad at all.

Mar 14, 2009 at 04:00 AM

mh2000
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #14 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

if you 1.8 has a dreamy sort of look in the focused areas your lens has a problem.

SamuelLim wrote:
Great tests. I notice that my F1.8 has that glowy, dreamy sort of look... even in the focused areas! I think your testing has convinced me to upgrade to the 1.4.

I guess the other question is what is your take on other features of the lenses: e.g. auto focus speed and accuracy in real life scenarios?

Once again, thanks for posting!

Sam
Website: http://www.samandmaryphotography.com
Blog: http://www.samandmaryphotography.com/blog

Mar 14, 2009 at 04:35 AM

Jman13
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #15 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

I just got a used 1Ds II (for an absolute STEAL), and so the 50mm requirement has come back in. My Sigma 50 f/1.4 is on its way...hopefully I get an accurately focusing one. I had to go through 3 Sigma 30 f/1.4's when I only shot with the 30D, before getting a good one...and that was a stellar lens, so I'm hoping for similar with the Sigma 50, as I was never very impressed with my Canon 50 f/1.4 when I owned it.

I too am in the dilemma: to keep the 35L or not. I really prefer the normal focal length, so I know the Sigma will get more use, but the 35L is such a special lens, I don't know if I can part with it. I guess I'll see how much use I have for a fast 35 over the next few months.

Mar 14, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #16 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

SamuelLim wrote:
I guess the other question is what is your take on other features of the lenses: e.g. auto focus speed and accuracy in real life scenarios?

In my experience nothing matches the AF speed and accuracy of ring USM and IF design. Sadly, none of the primes here have both.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Mar 15, 2009 at 08:32 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

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

Jman13 wrote:
I too am in the dilemma: to keep the 35L or not. I really prefer the normal focal length, so I know the Sigma will get more use, but the 35L is such a special lens, I don't know if I can part with it. I guess I'll see how much use I have for a fast 35 over the next few months.

I suggest you get the Sigma, use both side by side and only then decide. The Sigma is smaller, lighter, cheaper and with better bokeh. The Canon has better BQ and AF.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Mar 15, 2009 at 08:36 AM

Jman13
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #18 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

It's not a matter of keeping one or the other...it's whether or not I will keep the 35 in addition to the 50. I really love a normal prime, which the 35L was serving as on my 1D II, but now that I've gone full frame, the 50 will stay for sure...and I just need to see how useful I find the 35L on full frame. So far, I like it, but I'm not sure yet whether or not I like it enough to have that much $$ tied up in it.

Mar 15, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #19 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

If "the 50 will stay for sure" I suggest you sell the 35/1.4 and get 24/1.4 II instead. Thus you will have better spacing between them.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Mar 15, 2009 at 01:06 PM

Jman13
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #20 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

It's definitely a possibility....We'll see when it gets here.

Mar 15, 2009 at 01:36 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #21 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

If you can live with manual focus, get a Zeiss C/Y 50 f/1.4. Scary sharp on my 5D, better microcontrast than the Canon 50 f/1.4, sharper wide open, excellent colour, built like a tank, smooth focus and I only paid $145.

Mar 15, 2009 at 11:54 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #22 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

I've seen here examples of less than perfect bokeh of this Zeiss 50/1.4. How is yours?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/736120/1#6695318

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/720551/1#6622020

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Mar 16, 2009 at 08:20 AM

abam
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #23 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

kahren wrote:
fanta is made by coca cola company

that may be, but it's german in origin. (kind of like opel being owned by GM)

the first sentence of the history section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanta

=)

edit: couple words changed

Mar 16, 2009 at 11:33 AM

tdr6874
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #24 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

i know its an old thread but i just went through this with the 1.4 v the 1.8....to me if you look at the photo and not just the word "fanta" the word trademark just under the word fanta is much sharper in the canon over the sigma at 4.0...can anyone see where the sigma is better...the second what is said to be the canon looks better to me...

Sep 17, 2009 at 11:37 PM

Mark Zwiesler
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #25 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS

tdr6874;
I agree that when you look at the fine detail the Canon 50 f/1.4 is sharper. I have both the Canon f/1.4 and the Sigma f/1.4 and I have made the same observation shooting newspaper clippings on my refridgerator wide open with both of them. My Canon is sharper. However, when I compare portrait images between the two the Sigma "appears" sharper. This is probably due to better contrast and less halation. I love the way the Sigma renders, and between that and the bokeh it spanks my Canon.

Mark

Sep 18, 2009 at 01:56 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 end