Me too, this will be my first non-Canon lens... I ordered the lens on the 4th of July so they won't ship it til tomorrow I guess. I'm hoping that on a 1.6 crop it will perform slightly better than the Canon 85 f/1.8 does on full frame, while knowing it is not the exact same focal length. This one should be great for both full frame and crop cameras and here's to Sigma for filling the void.

Having a fascinating time comparing the Minolta 58/1.2 with the Pentax 50/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4 and the two fast Canon 50's . . . in truth, the lenses I have on loan from Canon (which I assume are therefore in tip-top condition) are superb. In fact, resolution-wise, there's little to separate any of these at any aperture. The Sigma resolves better in Zone C than any of them, but the 50L is absolutely fantastic in every way, and outperforms the Sigma everywhere apart from the corners at f1.4-f2.8 at distance.

The Sigma works better at distance than close up, whereas the 50L is perfect (optically) whatever you ask it to do.

These tests have been a good way of getting to grips with the bokeh question . . . I'm coming to the conclusion that 'good' or 'bad' bokeh is surprisingly elusive to define, and highly subjective. What remains as mysterious as the Mona Lisa's smile is the uncannily beautiful shapes drawn by the Minolta 58mm – a lens that 'technically' doesn't have textbook perfect bokeh, if we assume the benchmark to be 'buttery-ness'. And yet . . .

Both the Sigma and the Canon L have clearly been designed to give a specific rounded-aperture blade look to the defocused areas, so both are very smooth, but the Sigma is smooth to the point of being complete featureless. Is this a good thing? Well, if your intention is to isolate the subject from the background, then the Sigma will do the job better than anything else at this focal length . . . . but what if the background to the subject adds relevance or value to it? Surely then, a more detailed presentation is advantageous. It's hard to see how it can be quantified.

If we assume a completely 'blended' background to be the benchmark, the Sigma is 'better' than the Canon L or any other 50mm for bokeh. But in some circumstances the Canon L, or the Zeiss 50 will make a better picture. If you have both in your kit bag, you'd need a pretty intimate knowledge of how they both draw to deploy them to best effect. Detailed review coming . . .

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


Marmite is widely advertised as the 'love it or loathe it' spread . . .

biotar wrote:
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.

I'm very glad to see that this Sigma has exemplary colour – vivid but dead neutral – and the coatings are exceptional, too. Contrast is unusually high even at f1.4 and flare is handled in a way that the old T* Zeiss can only dream of.

hubsand wrote:
Detailed review coming . . .

hubsand,

Thanks for your already quite detailed review. I look forward to more.

Question: what about focus performance? Does your 50/1.2 have the focus issue that has been reported by so many? How does the Sigma's AF perform?

Thanks,
Chris

I am completely baffled by the people claiming the Sigma has too smooth a bokeh... worried that somehow a background is going to magically be smeared completely away with a 50mm lens. Stop down to f2 or f2.8 if you think you are getting too much blur. Much easier to deal with smooth than a harsh and busy bokeh.

I think there is an anti-Sigma anti-nonalternative lens bias going on here (honestly, I probably suffer that a little myself... nothing sexy or cool about a Sigma 50/1.4, right?)

I like the Sigma.

Not enough to buy it. I don't need it. But I do like the bokeh.

I have added shots from the Sigma 50/1.4 to my comparison page
of 50mm lenses.

Apologies for the landscape shots. They were taken at different seasons,
so the angle of the sun is not uniform in all.

As always with pbase, view the original size. The other sizes are hopelessly
soft. When will they improve their downsizing algorithm? Sigh.....
http://www.pbase.com/tswen/50compare/

A downsized, processed Sigma shot at f/2.8:

hubsand wrote:
biotar wrote:
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.

I'm very glad to see that this Sigma has exemplary colour – vivid but dead neutral – and the coatings are exceptional, too. Contrast is unusually high even at f1.4 and flare is handled in a way that the old T* Zeiss can only dream of.

Yeah, the contrast is definitely greater at f/1.4 than any 50mm lens I've
seen images from. In that, it is similar to the Sigma 30/1.4, but of course
the bokeh is way different than the 30/1.4 offers.

I think the problem in the 100% crops is the Sigma bokeh lacks character, it's super smooth but bland. Yet in looking at the full image the bokeh comes across as very nice. Still doubt I'll sell my Zeiss C/Y 50 f/1.4 though. My Zeiss showed slightly better sharpness and much better contrast wide open that the Canon 50 f/1.4, but by f/4 they were pretty similar, although the Zeiss has slightly better contrast and colour.

I might save my pennies for the Zeiss ZF 18 f/3.5

I've tested one at my local dealer and it is absolutely frustrating.
On my 40D ist focuses perfectly at all apertures from 1m to approx. 8m.
BUT at close distances the focus is off and worst of all at greater distances it's horribly off.
I don't kow how this is possible but I really hope it's just that sample. Focused manually via LiveView (or at a "matching" distance) it gives incredible results.

simon_k wrote:
I've tested one at my local dealer and it is absolutely frustrating.
On my 40D ist focuses perfectly at all apertures from 1m to approx. 8m.
BUT at close distances the focus is off and worst of all at greater distances it's horribly off.
I don't kow how this is possible but I really hope it's just that sample. Focused manually via LiveView (or at a "matching" distance) it gives incredible results.

Yuck, how many lense now has Sigma released recently with all sorts of AF issues? The 120-400 and 150-500 have had many bad user reports and returns. Also they quickly had to release mk II versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 and 50-150 f/2.8 with many users again reporting all sorts of focus issues. I'm glad my Sigma 150 macro is spot on.

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


Marmite is widely advertised as the 'love it or loathe it' spread . . .

Got it. We get Marmite here, but it is not advertised.

Robert

Marmite is a shite version of vegemite and some people already think vegemite tastes like shite.

mh2000 wrote:
I am completely baffled by the people claiming the Sigma has too smooth a bokeh... worried that somehow a background is going to magically be smeared completely away with a 50mm lens. Stop down to f2 or f2.8 if you think you are getting too much blur. Much easier to deal with smooth than a harsh and busy bokeh.

I think there is an anti-Sigma anti-nonalternative lens bias going on here (honestly, I probably suffer that a little myself... nothing sexy or cool about a Sigma 50/1.4, right?)

Wow, that's exactly what I was going to say. From what you hear here, I would expect if you shot a Canon 50/1.4 next to a Sigma 50/1.4 at f/11, the Sigma's background would like Monet threw up on the background, while the Canon would be razor sharp. Clearly this Sigma has some sort of dark magical power!


Some people here have spent the last few years (and untold thousands of dollars) buying and testing all varieties of exotic lenses to find The Perfect Bokeh. When they find a particularly good lens, they post images with some noisy background thrown out of focus, and other members coo "Look at the bokeh! It's so creamy! Better than that Canon crap the peasants use!"

Fast forward to today, as Sigma releases a 50 with perhaps the creamiest bokeh of all. Sigma!? Perhaps predictably, the nobility staggers for a moment, but quickly regains its composure and comes up with a plan of attack: "The bokeh is too smooth!"

TOO SMOOTH!?

I expected the exotic lens evangelists to find something on the Sigma to attack. Perhaps the "Sigma yellow"? Or Sigma's typical hyper-sensitive AF? Perhaps a build quality] criticism ("eek, I saw plastic!")? Or if all else fails, the old Sigma chipping horrors? But too smooth?

I understand that image quality is completely subjective, but I never expected the faithful to rally around the very quality that they praise in their own lenses. This is a baffling new height of snobbery. It's also a great litmus test to see who here is truly looking for high performance lenses, versus who is just looking for the most exclusive lenses to bring to show & tell.

Sigma should call up Zeiss and ask them if they would like to produce a rebranded version of this lens. They could sell it for $1000 to some folks here.

I am very excited about the IQ of the Sigma. I WANT the creamy bokeh - as a portrait shooter that is highly desirable.

However, the one thing that concerns me are the multiple reports of AF issues. I doubt that many copies of the Sigma have been sold yet, and I have already read at least four accounts of AF problems (there may be more). It would be a shame if the wonderful IQ of the Sigma were obscured by persistent focus issues.

Once I receive mine I plan to do a focus test, and if there are any problems I may just return it for another one, or I may send it back to Sigma for calibration. I guess I want to know that they can be successfully calibrated before I decide to keep it and lose the chance for a return/exchange.

I am selling my Canon to get the Sigma as we speak I need one AF 50, and the Sigma is just what I was hoping for, reading this thread.

Good job, Sigma!




(PS Hope there is no real AF problem)

With my copy, on the Mark III, AF doesn't do the nasty swtich from front- to back-focus at short/long distance, but even with a lens calibration setting of +20 it still front focuses, so I won't be able to keep this one.

Could someone please describe the "switch from front-to-back focus at short/long distance" issue in more detail so I know what to look out for when I receive my copy on Tuesday?

Well the sample I tested twice focused totally wrong at distance, probably far behind the subject.
I first thought I did something wrong but it apperared again when testing the lens again.

It's something that can happen... simply miscalibrated or broken but it doesn't give me enough confidence to buy one without testing.

Mine seems to autofocus as well as most Canon lenses, but I admit that
I don't trust the AF on my XT and 30D bodies, so I'm perpetually using the
"pump the * button then adjust manually" trick.

This is the main reason I'm so tempted to get a 5D. I want a larger viewfinder.
Manual focus is fine for 90% of what I shoot, but I want a viewfinder that
allows accurate manual focus.

Those worried about the Sigma should just consider getting it from Amazon
and then promptly sending back (or sending it to Sigma) if it doesn't meet
expectations. Amazon has the simplest return procedure in cyberspace.
I got mine from Canoga Camera and it has worked out fine.

trumpet_guy wrote:
Mine seems to autofocus as well as most Canon lenses, but I admit that
I don't trust the AF on my XT and 30D bodies, so I'm perpetually using the
"pump the * button then adjust manually" trick.

This is the main reason I'm so tempted to get a 5D. I want a larger viewfinder.
Manual focus is fine for 90% of what I shoot, but I want a viewfinder that
allows accurate manual focus.

Those worried about the Sigma should just consider getting it from Amazon
and then promptly sending back (or sending it to Sigma) if it doesn't meet
expectations. Amazon has the simplest return procedure in cyberspace.
I got mine from Canoga Camera and it has worked out fine.


What what might be the "pump the * button" trick? havent heard this one.

CKrueger wrote:
mh2000 wrote:
I am completely baffled by the people claiming the Sigma has too smooth a bokeh... worried that somehow a background is going to magically be smeared completely away with a 50mm lens. Stop down to f2 or f2.8 if you think you are getting too much blur. Much easier to deal with smooth than a harsh and busy bokeh.

I think there is an anti-Sigma anti-nonalternative lens bias going on here (honestly, I probably suffer that a little myself... nothing sexy or cool about a Sigma 50/1.4, right?)

Wow, that's exactly what I was going to say. From what you hear here, I would expect if you shot a Canon 50/1.4 next to a Sigma 50/1.4 at f/11, the Sigma's background would like Monet threw up on the background, while the Canon would be razor sharp. Clearly this Sigma has some sort of dark magical power!


Some people here have spent the last few years (and untold thousands of dollars) buying and testing all varieties of exotic lenses to find The Perfect Bokeh. When they find a particularly good lens, they post images with some noisy background thrown out of focus, and other members coo "Look at the bokeh! It's so creamy! Better than that Canon crap the peasants use!"

Fast forward to today, as Sigma releases a 50 with perhaps the creamiest bokeh of all. Sigma!? Perhaps predictably, the nobility staggers for a moment, but quickly regains its composure and comes up with a plan of attack: "The bokeh is too smooth!"

TOO SMOOTH!?

I expected the exotic lens evangelists to find something on the Sigma to attack. Perhaps the "Sigma yellow"? Or Sigma's typical hyper-sensitive AF? Perhaps a build quality] criticism ("eek, I saw plastic!")? Or if all else fails, the old Sigma chipping horrors? But too smooth?

I understand that image quality is completely subjective, but I never expected the faithful to rally around the very quality that they praise in their own lenses. This is a baffling new height of snobbery. It's also a great litmus test to see who here is truly looking for high performance lenses, versus who is just looking for the most exclusive lenses to bring to show & tell.

Sigma should call up Zeiss and ask them if they would like to produce a rebranded version of this lens. They could sell it for $1000 to some folks here.


Fantastic!

rattymouse wrote:
What what might be the "pump the * button" trick? havent heard this one.


I have custom function 4 set to value 3.
This moves the autofocus from the shutter button to the * button.
I am in one-shot AF mode. Push the * button and it focuses.
Push it again to have it re-lock focus. It is often in better focus
after the second acquistion.

I like having the focus separated from the act of taking the picture.

badlydrawnboy wrote:
However, the one thing that concerns me are the multiple reports of AF issues. I doubt that many copies of the Sigma have been sold yet, and I have already read at least four accounts of AF problems (there may be more). It would be a shame if the wonderful IQ of the Sigma were obscured by persistent focus issues.

I got the 50/1.4 shipped on Day #1 June 14th, yet my serial number was *still* 2905... (my 30/1.4 is 1861, and that was ordered almost two weeks after release). There are clearly thousands of copies out there already - and sold (reports that stores were sold out of the initial batch). I hadn't read about "fear of" and then discovering "focus issues" on the Japanese boards - but it was common on the English forums.

All too predictably, some people have problems getting their Sigma's to focus right...