trumpet_guy wrote:
Fast, quiet, generally accurate. (...)

Thanks a lot for elaborating Tim. All I have to do now is wait...

--
Jonas

brainiac wrote:
By chance I just came across a brilliant example by wee of what I like about the ZF 100 bokeh, which illustrates, I think, how hard edged bokeh can still be pretty:


Lol, what a shameless hi-jacking am I not witnessing in this thread.

Guys, I have started a new thread "Admirable blur" where we all can post bokeh samples from different lenses. Hard edged, shaped, disc type, nisen and creamy - all for discussion or opinions.

Here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/662530/

brainiac wrote:

wee, I hope you don't mind my posting it here for illustration.

Note the wonderfully abstract yet also informative shapes made by the second flower on the right. With this kind of bokeh the background isn't wasted, it becomes a pictorial complement to the subject. It's serendipity, sure, but it's amazing how often this lens seems to produce bokeh which doesn't distract, yet stands as a picture in its own right.


No problem in linking the pic here.
I share the same sentiment as you. While the bokeh from the Sigma lens looks nice, it has 'erased' many information and details from the out of focus area.

So the sigma seems great for assignment. The bokeh is pleasing for the general public, the sharpness is great, the colours do seem good from these pictures. Maybe i will add this lens to my professional kit.

brainiac wrote:
Hmmm. I probably won't be buying the sigma then.

edwardkaraa wrote:
I find the Sigma bokeh terrible.

Jonas B wrote:
Wow. I'm delighted. To me the Sigma crops look great. I'll buy one to compensate a little.

Hehe, if you ever needed proof that bokeh beauty is completely in the eye of the beholder
Great test BTW, and thanks everyone for the samples... I personally didn't relish the "early adopter" mantle.

I really like the Sigmas bokeh... tried one yesterday at the dealer but my results were quite unconvincing.
Especially regarding the pricetag of ~420€ vs 310 for the Canon 50/1.4.
Seeing your pictures I might give it another go and test it directly against the 50+85/1.8 and Sigma 30/1.4.
Oh and it is an extremely impressive lens... huge front element and built like a tank.

These image samples (the page 1 bokeh comparison details) are interesting. It looks like the Sigma is working with a wider aperture. As if everything else is working at f2, but the Sigma's at 1.2 or somesuch.... Were the shutter speeds (and associated exposures) equal for all lenses? Sorta looks like the Sigma is faster than its markings indicate. It's size, as well, makes it look like it was designed to be an f1.2 lens.... It's practically the same size/weight as the 50L, with a larger front lens element....

I'm shocked that anyone could say they didn't like the Sigma's bokeh.... I wonder if closing it down a bit would make it render more like the other lenses.

Jeez - if i knew now that i would be sticking with the Canon platform, I'd order the Sigma immediately. Unfortunately the recent developments from Nikon and Sony, and lack thereof from Canon have me in a waiting pattern. Not for long, though. I'm restless.

trumpet_guy wrote:
Some more from the Sigma 50/1.4, wide open:

Would love to see how the Sigma compares against the 50L in resolution and bokeh.

weekh wrote:
Would love to see how the Sigma compares against the 50L in resolution and bokeh.

Or Canon's 1.4.

For those with the Sigma lens, is it worth $150 price difference over Canon's 1.4?

Do you have a recent Leica 50 lux that you could include in the test? Really the Leica is the only place I'd go looking for high performance at high speed until this sigma showed up. Bet the bokeh's similar too.

I feel that for $150 more, or so, the build quality and HSM more than
makes up for the extra cost. The Canon 50/1.4 is really embarssingly
cheap in build quality. Very poor build, compared with the 100/2.
Canon should, at least, updated the 50/1.4 with the build quality of
the 85/1.8 and 100/2.

The Sigma has a lot of glass and significant heft. Very good value for money.

Okay, thanks for the quick response Trumpet_guy.

Just got mine today. No time to really use or test it just now. Just a VERY quick and dirty test vs. the Canon 50/1.4 on the 20D:
Image preview in C1 (full image, no crops). I guess I don't have to label which lens is which:

hubsand wrote:
First impressions of the Sigma 50/1.4 are very, very promising. Later this week, I'll be running some tests against Pentax, Zeiss and Canon 50mm lenses, but I wanted to have a good look at the Sigma bokeh out of the box. It's very different from the Pentax or Zeiss bokeh and I suspect that many will find it preferable. If you love smooth, you'll love the Sigma. It really is sharper than the Zeiss wide open, too. Samples soon . . .

Edited by hubsand on Jul 01, 2008 at 05:03 PM GMT

BTW, what is Marmite Bokeh? I think of Marmite as kind of sticky when you spread it.

did the canon 50 miss focus in the first one, or is it really that bad?

For a full resized image, I don't see how the Canon could have done that badly without a misfocus. Center sharpness isn't terrible on the Canon 50/1.4 wide open.

Full-res version

Resized:

Well, the focus is different. The Canon is more to the back. As I've said that was a really quick test. Those shots were handheld at a bit over 1m distance. The Canon doesn't really look that bad at 100% for pure resolving power actually. It just seems to have a lot lower contrast.

asabet wrote:
For a full resized image, I don't see how the Canon could have done that badly without a misfocus. Center sharpness isn't terrible on the Canon 50/1.4 wide open.

Full-res version

Resized:



that sure looks like an impressing lens, thanks for the best info on the lens yet

just found this MTF chart on the sigma site

Andi Dietrich wrote:
that sure looks like an impressing lens, thanks for the best info on the lens yet

Thanks for your comment Andi. The Canon 50/1.4 can get hazy at f/1.4, but it is sharper at that aperture than many folks say it is. All indications are that this new Sigma easily outperforms the Canon at f/1.4. However, based on Mark's report, I won't be looking to the Sigma to replace my Canon as a general purpose 50.

The bokeh samples and discussion in this thread have been very interesting.

I just ordered a copy from B&H for my 5D. I've been wanting a really high quality 50mm prime and I just haven't been inspired by the Canon 50/1.4 (although it is surely a fine lens), and the 50/1.2 is more than I want to spend. I'm not interested in stop-down metering and adapters, so that eliminates all third-party offerings except for the Sigma. I imagine I'll be using this lens between f/1.4 and f/4 95% of the time, so I'm glad to see that it seems to have its greatest advantages at those apertures.

Seems like this might fill a niche between the Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.2.

I took some landscape shots at f/8 using the Sigma and find that
they look fine, but no better than a generic Double Gaussian 50 like
the Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 II. In fact, I'll have to pixel peep some
more, but it looks like the cheaper lenses may be a little bit higher resolving
at f/8 infinity focus. So, the Sigma finds it's value in wide aperture work.

A landscape shooter may want to keep a Nifty Fifty for their work.
A portrait shooter will love the value in the Sigma, though.

trumpet_guy wrote:
In fact, I'll have to pixel peep some
more, but it looks like the cheaper lenses may be a little bit higher resolving
at f/8 infinity focus. So, the Sigma finds it's value in wide aperture work..

I've seen this reported elsewhere also.

A landscape shooter may want to keep a Nifty Fifty for their work.
A portrait shooter will love the value in the Sigma, though

Yep, that's why I'm so excited about it. (I shoot primarily portraits)

I just ordered the Sigma today too. It'll be the first Sigma lens I've owned. I was scared off the 50 f/1.2 and I have not liked any of the 50 f/1.4 copies I've had. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the Sigma will make me a happy guy.