Hello all,

I'm considering a purchase of a 50mm f/1.4 for use with my Canon 5D MK2. I own a 50mm f/1.8 MK1 (metal mount), but I've not been impressed with the focus speed using this lens. I use the 50mm mostly for taking shots indoors, portraits, of my family and as a light-weight lens for walking around while traveling. I'm usually bias towards purchasing Canon lenses, but I've seen some great reviews of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 as well. Does anyone have any experience that demonstrates a significant advantage over owning / using either the Canon 50mm f/1.4 or the Sigma 50mm f/1.4?

Thanks,

D. Luber

The Sigma certainly won't win in the light-weight department, it's almost 2x the weight of the Canon 1.4, and beefy to boot.

David Luber wrote:
.... Does anyone have any experience that demonstrates a significant advantage over owning / using either the Canon 50mm f/1.4 or the Sigma 50mm f/1.4?


I own both and I plan on selling my Canon.

I've got a very good copy of the Canon and its very close to the Sigma optically. The main advantage to the Sigma is the bokeh. The Canon has a tendency for "nervous" bokeh at wide aperatures with busy backgrounds, especially folliage. The Sigma has much smoother bokeh.

The main drawback to the Sigma is QC. I had to send my copy in to Sigma due to AF issues on my 5d. It took a month to get it back, but its been perfect ever sense. Its bulkier than the Canon. I find the AF fine in almost all lighting, I would say its a little slower than the Canon, but the AF is much less "buzzy" and it feels much better built.


Here's a comparison that I did between the two on my 5d....

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=728333



And here's the Sigmalux vs the 50L....

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=729368&highlight=sigmalux

I stopped using/owning Sigma lenses after several ROM upgrades necessary with the latest the greatest Canon bodies. Even though the Sigma 50/1.4 has unarguably better Bokeh performance than my Canon 50/1.4. I was finished with the kind of compatibilty issues like the ones with my Sigma 400mm, and wide angle zoom. Probably sooner or later Canon will come with some new lens mount protocol that will make third party lenses incompatible again. To me Sigma is not EOSfun

I tried the Sigma (only had 40D at the time) and it was excellent optically; however, the AF was so far off it had to be returned, which seems to be very common. If Sigma could get the AF thing down, they would have some real competition for Canon. On the other hand, Canon's 50mm offerings don't win my over at all, so I just skipped this FL and went for the 35 L.

According to some folks on the wedding forum who use this lens, on the 5D mkII the focus problem is gone. Might be worth checking into cause that bokeh is to die for!

Thanks to all who have replied and I really appreciate the links and experience from each of you.

Thanks again,

D. Luber

I've had the Canon and the Sigma. The Sigma, if you get one that focuses right, is absolutely astounding. Sharp wide open and it seems that stopping it down to just f/1.6 it outresolves my 1Ds2. And you know the bokeh is to die for.

eosfun wrote:
I stopped using/owning Sigma lenses after several ROM upgrades necessary with the latest the greatest Canon bodies. Even though the Sigma 50/1.4 has unarguably better Bokeh performance than my Canon 50/1.4. I was finished with the kind of compatibilty issues like the ones with my Sigma 400mm, and wide angle zoom. Probably sooner or later Canon will come with some new lens mount protocol that will make third party lenses incompatible again. To me Sigma is not EOSfun

ABSOLUTELY +1000...Sigma may indeed produce 'some' very good lenses but I'm done with Sigma QC & compatibility issues!

Omar

I had both. Shapness wise Sigma and Canon were very close (slight edge on Sigma for 1.4, but Canon was better after 1.8). Bokeh: Sigma was better (obviously).
However I had a 90% keeper rate at 1.4 with Canon and 20% with Sigma due to bad/hunting AF. I gave up as for me the bokeh adavantage is worthless if the entore picture is blurry.

My choice for a 50mm f:1.4 lens is the Zeiss ZE. It doesn't offer AF, so it is not everybody's cup of tea, but those who don't mind that are rewarded by absolutely fabulous IQ in terms of colours, contrast, 3D, detail. And the price, while not cheap, is nowhere like the stratospheric one of 50L.
Just one example on 5D MkII

Zuiko!

I had both and still own the Sigma. Despite some focussing issues for longer distances and the need to micro-adjust the lens it performs optically superb. I don't hesitate to use it at f1.4, while I never liked the f1.4 performance of the Canon. The main differences are the way better bokeh and contrast of the Sigma. The Canon impressed me more for the very high sharpness from f2.8 to f8.0. If I need a more reliable lens (regarding AF) than the Sigma I use the 35L.

you'll get opinions on both sides of the issue, but my experience with the sugmalux was the same as that found at "the digital picture":

"And to cut to the chase, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens has proven very inconsistent for me in the focus accuracy department...I have thrown out as many as 70% or more images from a single shoot of over 100 non-action, wide aperture shots because they were very OOF (Out of Focus)..."

"I suggest buying the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens instead. While it may not be as nice of a lens as the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens, it will focus more accurately and therefore delivers much better image quality."

sure, there are people who have purchased functioning-as-designed samples of the sigma, but there have been enough stories of bad experiences floating around FM to warrant avoiding the lens if you have neither the time or patience to deal with exchanges.

cheers

I think I have decided on the Canon 50mm f/1.4 at this time. Perhaps as I learn more and have more time to devote to my photography, I may also consider the Zeiss manual focus lens. As for the Sigma, the images I've seen have been wonderful, but I think I will wait until some of the focus and QC issues clear up.

Thanks again for all the pointers.

D. Luber

I personally love the 1.4/50 Zeiss as well, for the aforementioned reasons. It is my only lens in this range for my mkII, not planning on getting any other.

As a past owner of 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 that if I'll have to buy one today I'll get the Sigma. None is perfect (and from what I read and see on the web, neither is the 50/1.2 or Zeiss 50/1.4) but the Sigmalux has the best combination of optics and price.

HTH.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

I tried two of the Sigmas.

Both couldn't focus bang on, so were sent back.

Wide open the images look slightly diffused, but it's because the focus isn't dead on.
If the focus is right, the images are sharp.

This lens would be OK if you use it stopped down a bit and depth of field can cover the focus errors.

You could Micro Adjust it so that it worked at distances close to where you set the Micro Adjust, but at other focusing distances it was still out.

If this lens could focus, I'd own it in a heartbeat.

I cannot believe I am the first one to point out that the Canon 1.4 has a habit of breaking if you breathe too heavily on the front element.

Have a search of these very forums for plenty of anecdotal evidence.

+1 and I didn't thing the EF 50/1.4 was an upgrade at all over the 50/1.8 MKI for IQ... USM seemed nice, but it broke for no reason so how nice was it really?

I have now been shooting a 50/1.8 MKII for longer than the 50/1.4 before it broke... so IMO the MKII is more reliable (sure others who like banging their lenses into things have broken MKII's). My 50/1.8 MKI went for like 20 years before I sold it still working (should have kept it and just had it cleaned).

Mr Flibble wrote:
I cannot believe I am the first one to point out that the Canon 1.4 has a habit of breaking if you breathe too heavily on the front element.

Have a search of these very forums for plenty of anecdotal evidence.

re front element and AF -- if you keep the hood on, then you can breath on it all you want, and whack it into things with some force...it won't break (in my experience). If you insist on using it without a hood, then yes it is fragile/has achilles heel.

+1 sigmalux 1.4. If it has focusing issues, send it to sigma for a fix. Once it comes back it will be stellar. Mine is!

The weak link in the 50/1.4 is the fragile clutch used in the FTM mechanism, so a hood won't do anything to help. The 50/1.8 MKII extends on a weak plastic mechanism and will break if you hit the front onto something hard and there is no way to attach a hood for protection (I use a rubber hood and *think* it may help absorb light bumps and bangs). The 50/1.8 MKI had no weakness and the hood would protect the extending lens block... too bad Canon stopped making the MKI... the bastards!

AlexHM wrote:
re front element and AF -- if you keep the hood on, then you can breath on it all you want, and whack it into things with some force...it won't break (in my experience). If you insist on using it without a hood, then yes it is fragile/has achilles heel.

mh2000 wrote: The weak link in the 50/1.4 is the fragile clutch used in the FTM mechanism,

I did not know that, but have no reason to doubt you. Thanks for the info. Perhaps the 1.4 has two faults then... I have directly seen (and have heard from others who have experienced) a phenomenon where the 1.4 nose has taken a relatively light impact leading to failure where you cannot turn the focus ring manually (and AF kaput). The design of the hood does generally work to stop things impacting the nose.

The FTM issue is new to me. Do you know any more about it? Specifically, does focusing manually stress the FTM clutch (should it be avoided altogether, or done delicately)? Should you switch the lens to M to focus manually? TIA

I don't really know what kills the clutch mechanism, only that a lot of people around here and elsewhere have had the problem. I tended not to use FTM for this reason (and I'm not that big of a fan of it anyway). My 50/1.4 had very light use and broke within 3 years (right after I sold it to a friend).

I felt my 50/1.4 hunted worse than my 50/1.8 MKI did in low light situations... and didn't feel my move to the 50/1.4 from it was an upgrade at all. I read too much on the internet and saw the two publicized bokeh tests and felt that with the increase in 50/1.8 MKI prices that I would sell it and "upgrade" to the 50/1.4 for almost nothing... then after going through with it sold the 1.4 and bought one of the crappy 50/1.8 MKII's... oh well... had I not been on the internet I would have just kept my 50/1.8 MKI and been happy...

If i were you I'd hold onto that 50/1.8 MKI... it's a nice lens.