So, I love my Rokkor 58/1.2. You all know how much I love it.
The thing is, my wife doesn't use it all that much. She has had great success with it in the past, but when it comes to using flash/umbrellas/triggers with it, she's just not quite willing to deal with FEC and such and she opts for something more "automatic" (although she most often uses manual focus anyway). I understand the appeal of this, of course. When I am around, I can set things up for her and let her roll, but when she's out on an assignment, she can't be trying to remember "all that stuff" when she's trying to shoot a magazine cover.
So, it seems to me that a Sigmalux might make a lot of sense. It seems to draw very much like the Rokinon 85/1.4 and we both love that lens. We could still use manual focus, but we'd have the benefits of auto aperture and "easier" metering.
We've decided to keep the EF 85/1.8 for situation like this when she wants an easier option over the Rokinon. We already have the EF 50/1.8, which is not really sufficient as an auto-alternative to the Rokkor. My wife basically refuses to use "the plastic piece of crap."
So, anyone can vote, of course, but I am interested in hearing from those of you who know both of these lenses well, and who know me (for better or worse). When I think of some of my favourite Rokkor 58/1.2 shots, I have to wonder if I would like them just as much with the Sigma 50/1.4...
I say try and swing both. I sold my 58mm during tough times, sure wish I had not done that. I can understand your wifes situation though, with lighting it sure helps if the camera and flash knows what the lens is going to be doing.
You have the 85/1.8? And a 50/1.8 and a 58/1.2? Well, if it were me I know that a cheap 50mm (even if it is very plastically) is still very good optically and will ultimately last a very long time even if it isn't cast in gold... so i'd just stick with that. If your wife isn't comfortable with it I'd just moan at her a bit and try and convince her :P.
tootalew wrote:
I say try and swing both. I sold my 58mm during tough times, sure wish I had not done that. I can understand your wifes situation though, with lighting it sure helps if the camera and flash knows what the lens is going to be doing.
Yes. I suspect I would miss the Rokkor. But, then again, Reinhard (rsrsrs) seems happy...
The Rokkor, as much as i hate it, is a great lens. Don't ditch it.
The Sigma.... well it's a Sigma- so you can count on unreliability, the finish peeling off, and it having yellow glass :P
The Canon 1.4 is a horrible lens, not even an option.
The Canon 1.2 is expensive and a lot of people hate it, although my experiences with it were very nice.
ricardovaste wrote:
You have the 85/1.8? And a 50/1.8 and a 58/1.2?
Yes, and a Rokinon 85/1.4, and an EF 50/2.5 CM, and Macro-Takumar 50/4 1:1....
I'm thinking, for 50mm, get the Sigma and keep only it and the Macro-Tak. Trim things down a bit.
Well, if it were me I know that a cheap 50mm (even if it is very plastically) is still very good optically and will ultimately last a very long time even if it isn't cast in gold... so i'd just stick with that. If your wife isn't comfortable with it I'd just moan at her a bit and try and convince her :P.
It's just that the focus rings on the EF 50/1.8 and EF 50/2.5CM are really, really bad. Especially the 1.8.
ISO1600 wrote:
i really dont see any option but to keep the 1.8.
The Rokkor, as much as i hate it, is a great lens. Don't ditch it.
True.
The Sigma.... well it's a Sigma- so you can count on unreliability, the finish peeling off, and it having yellow glass :P
I sense some bias here Anyway, I'd be buying it brand new, so warranty would cover any issues. Yellow glass? My Rokkor has that (partially cured, but still there) and emits radiation as well
The Canon 1.4 is a horrible lens, not even an option.
The Canon 1.2 is expensive and a lot of people hate it, although my experiences with it were very nice.
Then again you know whats best in your household, if you do decide to sell you should put it on auction and make sure you are the seller, you'd probably get a premium for it.
Best of luck with your decision. I didn't vote only you can decide what's best.
Paul....you can't sell your Rokkor 58/1.2.......
You're the one who is RESPONSIBLE for many of us having that lens, and now you're trying to get rid of it.....
Burningheart, yes, I think I must be off my Rokkor (The truth is, I would keep them all if I could afford it. This begs the question: "If she's shooting magazine covers, can't you just buy whatever you want?" No. Unfortunately it is a small, local magazine and she is terribly underpaid).
Paul, not trying to get rid of it. Just considering it. Wondering if it makes more sense in the long run, considering not just my needs but my wife's as well.
If I can figure out a way to keep it and get the Sigma, I'll likely do that... but that means I have to give up something else. My monthly debt load is astronomical, so there will be no more spending on gear. Not for a long, long time.
I've both and love them for different reasons. If I want to shoot moving persons, I use the Sigma because its AF is fast and precise. If I can take my time to manual focus and need even more shallow DoF, I use the Rokkor.
Sigma:
+ AF
+ smoothest bokeh
- f/1.4 (most of the time it doesn't really matter)
Rokkor
+ better colours (less time needed in PP)
+ better aperture and focus control while filming (5D-II)
+ f/1.2
- needs live-view from 5m -> infinity (the mirror is still intact)
- MF only
Another + for the Rokkor (and all MF-lenses in common): I take more time to compose, so more keepers (I could also use MF on my Sigma....).
So for me, they have both their goods and bads, but ymmv.
Yes, it draws like the Rokinon/Samyang. But you should be aware that the drawing doesn't "fit" the 50 mm view in the same way. Try it before you buy it. We seem to share the same taste...
(The truth is, I would keep them all if I could afford it. This begs the question: "If she's shooting magazine covers, can't you just buy whatever you want?" No. Unfortunately it is a small, local magazine and she is terribly underpaid).
)