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 9 10 end

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

Greg Feldman
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

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

outlawyer wrote:
Now the question is whether to keep the 35L.

In my experience, the 35L is better at f/1.4. Of course, the Sigma is actually better than the 35L in other ways.

Jan 21, 2009 at 10:12 PM

joekraft
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

Greg Feldman wrote:
outlawyer wrote:
Now the question is whether to keep the 35L.

In my experience, the 35L is better at f/1.4. Of course, the Sigma is actually better than the 35L in other ways.

From your shots, it looks like you would have to get pretty close to the screen to see the differences. But the 35L *is* amazing wide open.

Jan 21, 2009 at 10:58 PM

outlawyer
Offline
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

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.

Jan 21, 2009 at 11:04 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

Jan 22, 2009 at 05:20 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

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.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jan 22, 2009 at 05:23 AM

outlawyer
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #6 · 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).

Jan 22, 2009 at 01:54 PM

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

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.

Never heard of 'Batch Cropping'.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jan 22, 2009 at 02:01 PM

outlawyer
Offline
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'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.

Jan 22, 2009 at 02:09 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

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

Well, I can't help you with that. I am lousy at PP.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jan 22, 2009 at 02:19 PM

outlawyer
Offline
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

Greg Feldman wrote:
outlawyer wrote:
Now the question is whether to keep the 35L.

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.

Jan 22, 2009 at 04:57 PM

Greg Feldman
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #11 · 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.

Jan 22, 2009 at 06:10 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

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

outlawyer wrote:
Greg Feldman wrote:
outlawyer wrote:
Now the question is whether to keep the 35L.

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.

I have not witnessed this. To me they are comparable in sharpness wide open and bokeh is much better in the Sigma.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jan 25, 2009 at 09:11 AM

Lance Couture
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 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...

Jan 29, 2009 at 12:15 AM

Vivek
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.7 #14 · 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.

-- V

Jan 29, 2009 at 02:12 AM

Lance Couture
Offline
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

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?

Jan 29, 2009 at 02:44 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

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?

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.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jan 29, 2009 at 06:40 AM

Jim Victory
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

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.

Jim

Jan 29, 2009 at 07:00 AM

Sayeret18
Offline
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

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.

Jan 29, 2009 at 07:02 PM

george malamis
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.7 #19 · 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.

Jan 29, 2009 at 07:36 PM

Bruce Sawle
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

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.

Feb 11, 2009 at 10:12 PM

1 2 3 … 6 7 8 9 10 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 6 7 8 9 10 end