Hey everyone,

Straight to the point, I'm buying a Sigma 50/1.4 and was sent this sample from the lens.

Is this top notch quality from a Sigma 50/1.4 or is this a soft copy? Looks a little soft to me compared the same sample at f8, have heard of many getting razor sharp results at 1.4, but not sure what in reality that means compared to the sample I have below.

Your input greatly appreciated, and thanks sincerely for your help.

Jay

Here's the f8 sample, both images 100% crop, unsharpened.

Thanks again,

Jay

I see some hands motion but its sharpness look good on both samples

looks good to me, it's probably the slow shutter speed

Now I'm not saying that there is or isn't any camera shake in the sample images, but it doesn't seem to make much sense to say that a shot at 50/1.4 @ 1/80s would be blurrier primarily due to camera shake compared to a shot at 50/8 @ 1/30s. To me, the most reasonable conclusion to draw between the sample images at the given exposure settings is that most of the difference in sharpness is due to the relative performance of the lens between f/1.4 and f/1.8.

Slap some more light on the subject, and get something different than a printed box. Those don't make for the best "is my lens sharp" test subjects.

Go get a fuzzy toy or something.

Looks good to me, although maybe a tad misfocused or blurred from the shutter speed. You probably want to spend more time testing focus accuracy (so you can MA) rather than sharpness.

Seems odd that wide open the lens is softer than stopped down

</sarcasm>

timbop wrote:
Seems odd that wide open the lens is softer than stopped down

</sarcasm>





My copy is great at 10-15 feet @ f/1.4. It is not as great outside of those ranges.

It is what it is.

Not sure there is much to complain about. The lens looks good at 1.4. No lens will be as good at f1.4 as it will be at f8 so it's not a valid comparison. If you haven't sharpened the photos any add a little and it will be even better.

The sigma is good at f/1.4, but nowhere as good as a 35L or 85L for instance. It gets much better by f/2 and outstanding from f/2.8. It is better than the Canon f/1.4 (including contrast at f/1.4-2), but again not by a huge margin (except bokeh, but this is not what you asked). Anyway, as said before, you need to get better sample pictures than these to conclude something.

Thanks everyone, was hoping to check my post and find some help, grateful to each of you, the sarcastic included.

I was looking at them late at night, pretty tired, and just couldn't come to a hard conclusion on them, thinking the 1.4 definitely looks good compared to an average 1.4 lens, or older 1.4 lenses, but I want very close to the best copy of the Sigma as I can get, so I thought I'd reach out for help.

I've asked for another set of pics shot at 125th/sec or higher, and of subject matter that is 3D, like a cat or a floral arrangement. Hopefully they look really good.

I'll post the new set when they arrive for everyone's review, and thanks again sincerely.

Jay

I assume these are center crops. My Sigma 50 1.4 looked nearly identical to yours around the letters "Graphics".

Was it manually focused or autofocus? What was the distance?

These things will affect the sharpness.

Yes, they're center crops, and camera was on a tripod when these were taken I just learned.

Ok to pull the trigger I think?

Anybody have a Sigma 50/1.4 that is just noticeably sharper? Hoping to hear from someone that has a copy that is toward the top end of what this lens can offer.

Thanks again everyone, very much wanting to get a good copy of this lens, and then an 85L to complement it.

Jay

I have the Sigmalux 50 f/1.4 also, and have always been pleased with it. I did MA on it the other night for my 7D after having it for about a year, and WOW...

Full size: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Church-and-Family/The-Kids/9350014_5BW4gD#1452550786_MLRTrxN-O-LB



Full size: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Church-and-Family/The-Kids/9350014_5BW4gD#808059409_i5wdw-O-LB



Full size: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Church-and-Family/The-Kids/9350014_5BW4gD#812716853_SULVB-O-LB

Thank you TeamSpeed!

I'm not on a computer that has any way of looking at the EXIF, any chance you could update me on the basic specs?

I'm guessing a crop camera, but want to be sure they were shot at 1.4? Depth of field sure says so, but I'm new to a lens like this so I don't want to trust my judgement on this one.

You're Blessed if those are your kids.

Thanks sincerely for those samples, makes the samples I provided look soft to me, but hopefully the next set of samples I'm being sent will be of subject matter that has eyelashes so I can compare like for like. Don't see how the next set could look as good as these you provided though...

Thanks again, TeamSpeed, truly appreciate taking the time,

Jay

I think the f/1.4 shot is a little misfocused.

I'd suggest doing some searches in the Alternative forum two to three years back.
There were many, many posts back then about bokeh, sharpness, and
autofocus accuracy. This thread is particularly noteworthy:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/661966

My obsolete site on pbase has lots of photos at f/1.4
http://www.pbase.com/tswen/sig50af

Regards,
Tim

I enjoy using mine. I wouldn't say it was razor sharp wide open, but then I have come to realise that "razor sharp" varies considerably from person to person!

Jennie by jj_glos, on Flickr

Jennie by jj_glos, on Flickr