Pavel wrote:


But I've been a bit leary of Sigma's since despite my logical side.
I was going to buy the Zeiss soon .... but after seeing this I'm going with the sigma.




The little CZ 50 1.7 is about $100 and is extremely sharp stopped down. For most uses the Sigma stopped down is just fine. But for critical work at 50mm stopped down there are many inexpensive lenses that are good choices, including Canon.

The nice thing about the Sigma besides the open performance is the AF. 50mm and above I think it's nice to have AF.

Pavel wrote:
I happen to like my bokeh to disappear. Fashion and portraits simply have more impact where you want it with unobtrusive details. But also there is the simple fact that my Nikon 50 is decent, but also it is very similar to all the others. Only a photographer gets excited about the differences so subtle among each of these lenses. There simply are no visible difference until one makes a career of looking for them instead of shooting photographs. Only the sigma stands out. Only the Sigma stand out to the degree that "normal" people see it, plain as day. Only the sigma has a completely different signature.
That makes it worth it's weight in gold.

What about the EF 1.2L? What do you think about its signature?

Just to add more data, I bought a new Sigma 50 from B&H last week, serial number 1008xxx. I shot about 500 frames with it (and my 28-75, Canon 50/1.4, and Canon 35/2 for comparison) over Christmas. My copy has no focus problems on my 40D; it's at least as consistent as any of the other lenses I tested it against, and doesn't seem to have any problems at any focus distance.

The only strange behavior I noticed is that when I shot a Christmas tree with the focus thrown way out (near side), the enormous circles of light had concentric rings inside them... they looked like the diffractive front glass of a lighthouse. Has anyone else seen this behavior? It didn't show up in any other photos, just this one.

CKrueger wrote
The only strange behavior I noticed is that when I shot a Christmas tree with the focus thrown way out (near side), the enormous circles of light had concentric rings inside them... they looked like the diffractive front glass of a lighthouse. Has anyone else seen this behavior?

That's pretty common. Somebody being sure about the reason may explain, I guess it has something to do with molded elements. I have seen it with the Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4, several other lenses including the Leica 90Cron AA.

Thanks, Jonas. My results look exactly like yours.

I have never seen this effect in a lens before, and I had never heard anyone mention it, so I was curious if my lens was abnormal in some way. I'm glad it's not, cause I don't want anyone working on it now that I know I got a "good one"!

Look at that superb f2 circular shape from the Sigma. Perfectly round That lens is a beautiful, unique design. Havent seen a single lens doing that out of the 70 or so lenses I have had in my possession. Sigma owners, press the DOF preview button and have a look in at great industrial design...

I've had a chance now to work with this lens a bit, probably about 300 pics, all below 5.6. In summary, it is an outstanding lens, and really shines from 1.4 - 2.8. My copy focuses well - it is not terribly fast, but it is quite accurate. Colors seem to be well-balanced, and contrast/detail are first rate. Build quality is excellent, it is a joy to use. IMO, this lens compliments my 135L very nicely.

Off topic;

The image showing the OOF street lamps I posted above is ugly.
Here is a link to the same image. See the difference.

Is that happening to al images embedded in messages here?

Jonas,
I don't see the difference. What are you noticing?

I had a chance to try out my Sigma 50 1.4 over the holidays. If you'd like to pixelpeep, larger and full size versions are available on my blog...

latenightcoffeeshops.blogspot.com





...and the ever popular pet picture with razor thin focus plane...

trumpet_guy wrote:
Jonas,
I don't see the difference. What are you noticing?

(I'm using a Windows machine with Firefox)

I noticed the text in the embedded image was blurred. As that is a pixel font at 100% size in the image I tried to open the direct link in another tab (or window). Then the text was sharp again, as it looked when I uploaded the image to my host.

I'll try with other browsers at work later.

I'm running Firefox 3.0.5 on my Windows XP (SP3) machine.
The text looks the same on both to me.

Happy New Year,
Tim

I have put some images taken with 400D & Sigma 50mm f/1.4 in my gallery:

http://photo.moltipop.nl

trumpet_guy wrote:
I'm running Firefox 3.0.5 on my Windows XP (SP3) machine.
The text looks the same on both to me.

Happy New Year,
Tim


Thank you for checking.
I updated some stuff and now it looks OK...

all the best,

--
Jonas

frcsyk wrote:
I went to one of the large retailers here in Tokyo the other day and spoke with their rep and asked him about the problems of the lens and he did indeed confirm that quite a few people have returned the lens. He also told me that Sigma requested them to ship back all lenses with serial numbers starting with 1008 and below. They are now selling the 1009 series and he said that the back focus is has been addressed. He also said that the firmware for the lens has also been updated.

I am going to purchase this lens sometime during this coming week and give it a go. I feel pretty confident about the camera shops here in Tokyo since they have yet to steer me wrong.


Did anyone manage to get hold of a 1009 series lens by now?

I tried two different copies, serial numbers 1004XXX and 1007XXX, on my Canon EOS 40D. Unfortunately both had AF problems. Mostly back focus at large distances, but this was not consistent, sometimes also front focus.

Andi Dietrich wrote:
I agree with Pavel, the Sigma has a different signature. It s well worth the price, on the other side its not really as sharp as other lenses stopped down and it may have a little less DOF than a good prime. The Sigma does not stand a chance at f5.6 against my fast ZF 50. Just an observation

What do you mean by "other lenses"? Are you talking others that are world-class sharp, or do you mean that the canon 50/1.4 and the like?

As some lenses (noct-nikkor comes to mind) the Sigma is probably designed to shine at 1.4-2.0, so it could very well be that it is not any particularly sharp below the wides apertures. But wide open it is as sharp as any lens I have, or ever have had. On 5d2 it is particularly noticable, as the live view focusing leaves little room for human error.

Yes, I do believe the Sigma is optimized for wide aperture shooting.
If you need to shoot landscapes, there are other fifties that will give
sharper results, but the Sigma is still quite respectable.

It is marvelous when wide open.

05xrunner wrote:
I like mine alot. I am glad I waited for it

^^Are those sharpened at all? I just got one, that does not look like that. Is that something calibration can fix? Because even manually focusing, mine is not that sharp.

OTOH, after taking just a couple hundred shots with this lens, I'm finding that to me, the bokeh is very similar to my beloved zuiko 50. The OOF areas just kind of melt away. I'm really liking this lens so far. Just wish I could be more certain of the AF at distance.

Joe,

Are you getting shots at all as sharp as this wide open? If you are not, then
consider getting another copy or get it calibrated. The sharpness should be
entirely satisfactory or something is wrong with the lens.

Stefan M wrote:


Did anyone manage to get hold of a 1009 series lens by now?



This friday, I managed to get my hands on the 2nd copy of the lens. The first copy had to go back as it was not as nice at f1.4 - good by f2.0. This time I picked up the Sigma 50mm f1.4 for Nikon mount for use on the D700. Serial number 1012xxx.

If they did have any AF issues, I could not replicate them with the new lens.

The store had 3 copies - new arrivals.The one lens I tried on was not as good (slightly softer) at f1.4 - good by f2.0. The other one was close, but I felt my copy was better and decided to go with this one. So I am guessing there is some sampe variation with Sigma lenses.
Of course, given the very shallow DOF, if you don't nail the shot just right, you may not get what you want. So I am not sure if the issue really is with sample variation or with real AF problems or with shallow DOF as reported in some cases.

This lens simply shines at f1.4 - f2.0 on full frame. It rivals the Canon 50mm f1.2, Olympus OM 50mm f1.2, OM 55mm f1.2, and maybe even the Rokkor 58mm f1.2. I am truly impressed with Sigma on this one.

I did not buy the lens to shoot at f5.6 or f8.0 and the primary need was for low light and nice background blur - and this lens does a good job on both.
The store also had the Nikon 50mm and as with the older f1.4 lens, the AF-S was a bit lacking wide open - which was a bit dissapointing. Maybe Nikon has similar QC issues as Canon or Sigma, but for me the choice was clear. I will post some shots taken with this lens soon.

Thanks to this thread for an excellent review (ongoing) of this lens.

@Trumpet_guy: Thanks for posting that. I'm not sure if it is as sharp, I just can't tell. I had decided the other night I was happy with it, but now, I'm back to thinking for the $20, it would be worth it to have it checked. Only problem is, they quote up to 4wks service time, which is a hassle, for a new lens.

Here is a sample that looks comparable to yours in terms of subject distance - this is straight out of camera. The 100% crop is 1700 X 1700, so this is downsized by flickr a little:

One more, wide open, with the Sigma on a 5D.
Boring test shot, but illustrative of sharpness.

Joe,

Your lens looks pretty good to me. Experiment some more with it.
Sending it in probably won't hurt, but there's always a small chance that it could
come back worse. So evaluate whether it's worth that small risk. This is a great
piece of glass. I hope you end up happy with it.

Tim




wide open