ulrikft wrote:
The sigma 50 1.4 is everything but soft Hard to tell from web-sized images though

Last of a long, long series of Iain M. Banks-books on my side.. :/ Kind of sad that I have read them all now. I'm going to miss his writing, hope he comes out with something new soon!

Makten wrote:
I wonder if any of you claiming the results to be "soft" have ever used a 50/1.4 lens at all? Of course it is somewhat soft at f/1.4. But the Sigma is less soft than any other 50 mm lens @ f/1.4 that I've tried (which includes all fast Nikkors later than 1970:s or so).
Resolution-wise, it might be considered "softer". But the local contrast is high and spherical aberration is low, so the percieved sharpness is higher.

Is this "soft" to you? I hope not. Any softness is due to the downscaling.
Edit: On FF, of course.

You are missing the point. Your images show what the lens is capable of, as do a couple of the others. Several of the ones posted in this thread do not match this level of sharpness, and are, relatively speaking, soft.

bpark42 wrote:
You are missing the point. Your images show what the lens is capable of, as do a couple of the others. Several of the ones posted in this thread do not match this level of sharpness, and are, relatively speaking, soft.


Perhaps you're right about that, but I believe that it is due to inferior sharpening before and after size reduction.

Makten wrote:
bpark42 wrote:
You are missing the point. Your images show what the lens is capable of, as do a couple of the others. Several of the ones posted in this thread do not match this level of sharpness, and are, relatively speaking, soft.


Perhaps you're right about that, but I believe that it is due to inferior sharpening before and after size reduction.

I believe it also may be due to missed focus. For example, the shot of the girl seems to be slightly front focused. However, this is not a strike against the lens in general, assuming those are not the best focused samples the posters could find.

ok I just picked up a copy of this lens yesterday and it's really nice. The first few images in this thread are not indicative of the great images this lens is capable of.

ulrikft cat shot is one of the nicest I've seen from this lens, but yeah, IMO all these shots on this page exhibit that tell-tale Sigma not soft, but not sharp look. I had the same look with my 24/1.8. It seems that Nikon's focusing system is enough better that it doesn't have anywhere as many focusing problems with this lens. I'm not saying it's bad or that it's incapable of sharp shots, but I wouldn't buy this lens.

Jman13 wrote:
Beni wrote:
Is it OK when focusing past 10ft?

Mine's fine at long distances.

My only focusing issues are right near MFD wide open...it'll sway to the front JUST a smidge. It usually still catches the focus point in the DOF, but barely. By f/1.8, the small focus shift in the lens will correct that very small front focus, and the same happens when shooting even a couple feet from MFD. As I almost NEVER shoot at f/1.4 and MFD, it's never really been an issue for me, as I required more DOF when shooting that close 99% of the time.

This pretty closely describes how my copy behaves. I have no focus issues at all with shots wide open beyond say 10 feet. From MFD to maybe 6-8 feet I have problems. Most of mine are front focused at close distances. This is after I sent the lens and my 5D in to Sigma to get the lens calibrated to the body. I'm still debating with whether I should send it back in again or not.

I want to try using the ee-s focus screen and manually tweaking the focus for wide open close shots before I go through the hassle of sending the lens in again. No one that I have found has those focus screens in stock right now though.

Mark

Makten wrote:
I wonder if any of you claiming the results to be "soft" have ever used a 50/1.4 lens at all? Of course it is somewhat soft at f/1.4. But the Sigma is less soft than any other 50 mm lens @ f/1.4 that I've tried (which includes all fast Nikkors later than 1970:s or so).
Resolution-wise, it might be considered "softer". But the local contrast is high and spherical aberration is low, so the percieved sharpness is higher.

I have a copy of the Canon 50 f/1.4, and in my experience comparing the Canon with the Sigma the Canon has been consistently sharper wide open using auto focus(at close distances). I have tried 3 copies of the Sigma. The one I have now is the best of the lot, and is not as sharp as my Canon due to it misfocusing at close distances. With correct focus it is sharper though.

Mark

I just ordered mine!

Ill be back!

TWoK wrote:
IMO all these shots on this page exhibit that tell-tale Sigma not soft, but not sharp look.

I'm not saying it's bad or that it's incapable of sharp shots, but I wouldn't buy this lens.

TWoK, you canīt judge a specialty lens like this on some random samples in a thread. This is not a lens for random users, it is a highly specialized lens which requires quite a bit of photographic patience. This lens is super sharp if focused properly. Granted it is not 100% sharp in the corners wide open, because it is optimized for the center. Also it seems to get softer in the corners the closer you focus.
I think every person who have ever laid their pawns on this lens are in love with it. I have/have had something like 15 different 50ish primes for my 5D/2s and it measures up against any one of the, including Zeiss, Noct-NIkkor, Rokkor etcetcetc. This lens is the only AF lens I would keep if selling everything else, including a big pile of L primes.

Wide open:

ovredal73 wrote:
I think every person who have ever laid their pawns on this lens are in love with it.

At least for a while. I sold mine because it was so awfully big, and sometimes I actually wanted the more busy bokeh. So I traded it for a Nikkor 50/1.2 plus some money, and I like the Nikkor more.

Edit: But yes, I really loved it and still do. It just don't fit my style though.

I may get this lens. I ended up mangling my Canon 50/1.4 and stripping the mount ribbon off the mount itself . I'm an idiot.

The wide open performance of this lens looks fantastic and the bokeh is nice and soft.

We went to a carnival nearby on the 4th of July and I decided to bring my 5D and Sigma 50 to snap a few shots. Despite my nit picking on the focus issues of the lens it really does very well in low light situations. These are just snaps, but all are taken with less than desirable light, using auto focus with no tweaking. I didn't even try to do anything with the color balance on these because the lighting was all over the place (color wise). All have some sharpening applied and NR using Neat Image.

ISO 3200, f1/.4, 1/15 shutter speed


ISO 1600, f/1.4, 1/100 shutter speed


ISO 1600, f1.4, 1/250 shutter speed


Mark

ovredal73 wrote:
TWoK wrote:
IMO all these shots on this page exhibit that tell-tale Sigma not soft, but not sharp look.

I'm not saying it's bad or that it's incapable of sharp shots, but I wouldn't buy this lens.

TWoK, you canīt judge a specialty lens like this on some random samples in a thread. This is not a lens for random users, it is a highly specialized lens which requires quite a bit of photographic patience. This lens is super sharp if focused properly. Granted it is not 100% sharp in the corners wide open, because it is optimized for the center. Also it seems to get softer in the corners the closer you focus.
I think every person who have ever laid their pawns on this lens are in love with it. I have/have had something like 15 different 50ish primes for my 5D/2s and it measures up against any one of the, including Zeiss, Noct-NIkkor, Rokkor etcetcetc. This lens is the only AF lens I would keep if selling everything else, including a big pile of L primes.

Wide open:

hyperion wrote:
ulrikft wrote:
The sigma 50 1.4 is everything but soft Hard to tell from web-sized images though

Wide Open, distant focus [5D]:

Bokeh in front of the plane of focus is not the best with this lens when wide open, so shots having
busy foliage both in front of and behind the subject will show that characteristic readily. Here's an example,
wide open on a 5D:

[Note the foliage at the top left.]

Thanks Tim for the examples. The blooming problem someone mentioned to me is not sensor blooming or purple fringing but I think is how the bright OOF areas get rendered color wise, especially green foliage which seems to turn fluorescent light yellow-green. I don't see this problem in the shots you justed posted but the Banks book picture has funny looking grass color in the OOF areas and I have seen it sometimes in outdoor portrait pictures where the OOF background tree foliage which is lit by the sun becomes an unatural bright yellow green. Maybe this is not a reall problem, don't know since I don't have the lens.

Wayne, I have never seen grass that color when I have the proper white balance set.
I normally just use the preset WB settings, such as Daylight, Shade, Cloudy, etc.
Colors are very good, but there is a slight color shift in the out of focus areas.
I think it's mild, though. Nothing I'd worry about.

Greg Feldman wrote:
I still kick myself for selling mine.

I don't. While IQ was great and bokeh simply stunning, AF was problematic even after calibration. I suspect it had field curvature.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

It's a great lens, but if you're on the EF mount, the Canon 1.2L is better. I briefly held the 50/1.8II, 50/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4 and 1.2L. Based on some very extensive testing, the Canon 1.2L was the sharpest at any given aperture, and had the least CA. The Sigma came in second, followed by the 50/1.4 and then the 1.8. Interestingly, it was a clear case of more money=better quality; however, the price of the Sigma 50/1.4 and Canon 50/1.4 made them the best values.

Damn you sigma!! I looked at the first shot today and immediately saw that it frontfocuses badly! I has to be dead on if autofocus is ever going to be used. I ordered this lens mainly because its awesome, and then because it autofocuses for stuff like people ..

Heres is one manually focused..

Mine will be arriving tomorrow. I am crossing my fingers; the Sigma focusing gods have been kind to me in the past. Bought from Amazon ($19 overnight shipping!) since they have an excellent return policy just in case though!

PS: It's all ovredal73's fault for posting that incredible b/w shot showing what this thing can do.

bpark42 wrote:
packrobottom wrote:
is it me or all all these images soft? besides the baby ones.

I agree. The first dog shot looks like it might be back-focused, but it is hard to tell. The second dog shot is soft. And the shot after the baby ones is (mildly) soft as well. I can't see any in-focus plane, so camera shake/low shutter speed maybe?

I just ordered mine and it will be coming next Monday. Finger crossed 'cause the mixed comments on this lens does scare me a bit.

I agree a few shots from philbinley do look soft. If a resized web version still looks this soft, the original ones much be way worse based on my experience (some of my slightly blurred images look pretty sharp after resizing). If this softness is consistent, philbinley, you may want to check your lens carefully.