p.7 #1 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
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.
p.7 #2 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Lance Couture wrote:
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?
You are speaking in a general form. If you like this FoV so much, why don't you try individual copies on the store? I must say that I liked my Sigmalux very much after calibration.
p.7 #3 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Tried two Sigmas, one when it came out and one recently, and they both had focusing problems. I used MA on my MKIII and 50D to adjust it and I could get it to work at one distance but if I shot anything at a distance shorter or longer it would front or back focus. Beautiful bokeh and sharp wide open but totally inconsistent.
I have owned (3) Canon 50 f/1.4s and they were acceptable wide open and better stopped down but each one of them eventually quit working and would only MF.
I'm hoping they will replace it with a new 50 f/1.4 at PMA with a real USM instead of the micro. Otherwise 3rd party MF 50s are the only viable option.
p.7 #4 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
FWIW, my Sigma has proven to be excellent. The AF has been a bit slow but precise. Perhaps Canon comes out with a 50 1.4 MkII that blows it away, but the Canon would have to be very, very good to do so.
p.7 #5 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
I have had my canon 50f1.4 for roughly 3 years and have never had any issue with focus or reliability. I'll give you that it does not feel like L quality, but it does not pretend to be that either and the price is reasonable and at f1.8 and above it rivals much more expensive lenses.
p.7 #6 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
I have been trying to decide between the 50 1.2 or Sigma 1.4 and after reading this forum and looking at the price dereference between the l and sigy I went with eh Sigy 1.4. $9000.00 dollar difference is just to much. Anyone have any experience with this lens on a 1ds MK III.
p.7 #7 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
I have the Sigma 50 f/1.8 (former Canon 50 f/1.8 owner), and it is so damn sexy. I love the bokeh and sharpness, never had any issues with focus. Brilliant piece of glass.
p.7 #8 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Bruce Sawle wrote:
I have been trying to decide between the 50 1.2 or Sigma 1.4 and after reading this forum and looking at the price dereference between the l and sigy I went with eh Sigy 1.4. $9000.00 dollar difference is just to much. Anyone have any experience with this lens on a 1ds MK III.
p.7 #9 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
whitetail wrote:
I have the Sigma 50 f/1.8 (former Canon 50 f/1.8 owner), and it is so damn sexy. I love the bokeh and sharpness, never had any issues with focus. Brilliant piece of glass.
p.7 #13 · 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
It's known to contain the most sugar of any soft drink - the equivalent of liquid fruit loops and singularly the most disgusting drink I've tasted (well actually sarsaparilla is worse).
p.7 #14 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Pixel Perfect wrote:
It's known to contain the most sugar of any soft drink - the equivalent of liquid fruit loops and singularly the most disgusting drink I've tasted (well actually sarsaparilla is worse).
Never tasted sarsaparilla but the Fanta is my most loved soft drink. The Sprite is a distant second and Coca Cola is something I really don't like. Maybe it tastes like sarsaparilla.
p.7 #15 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
abam wrote:
isn't fanta german?
IIRC Fanta is a German Ersatz product, either bottled during the war by the Coca Cola company in Germany or taken over by Coca Cola after the war. But the main thing, it being an Ersatz softdrink, doesn't bode well
p.7 #16 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Lance Couture wrote:
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?
Many swear by the Canon 50mm f/2.5 macro, but it is not very fast focusing and its only f/2.5.
p.7 #17 · 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.
p.7 #19 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Lance Couture wrote:
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.
