 |
|
|
asamimasa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 196
|
|
Review Date: Jan 23, 2013
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Quick AF, center sharpness, heftier than first party options, good OOF rendition
|
|
Cons:
|
Pricey, lots of LoCA, variance in quality control (esp. earlier Canon versions), focus shift
|
|
|
|
|
 Jan 23, 2013
|
|
MashuriBC
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 26
|
|
Review Date: Jun 13, 2012
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Sturdy build, beautiful background bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
Quality control
|
|
|
After my well-taken-care of Canon 50/1.4's focus motor took a dump, I decided to look for alternatives and found this Sigma to be a very attractive option. What's interesting is I didn't have problems with accurate focus on my 5d MkIII (after a little micro-adjustment tuning, of course) but, alas, my copy likely had an element or two askew. It was noticeably softer on one side and the focal plane was uneven. Compared to my Canon, it had a nicer bokeh but couldn't touch it as far as sharpness was concerned. I reluctantly sent back the Sigma and am now getting my Canon repaired. I'm bummed because I really had high hopes for this lens.
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2012
|
|
haringo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Apr 24, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Awesome bookeh!
|
|
Cons:
|
not as fast AF as my Nikon 50mm 1.4
|
|
I ended up selling it on ebay a year ago after testing my friends Nikon 50mm 1.4 on my D3. The Nikon AF is just much faster! Sigma's colors and contrast is a little bit better than the Nikon 50mm 1.4 G and the Canon 50mm 1.4 and I even dare to say that similar Canon 50mm 1.2 ($1500!). They at the same level of quality. I wish Sigma would improve the AF! Go back a year in my blog and you will see plenty of examples of it: http://www.haringphotography.com/
The bottmo line: get the Nikon 50mm if you need fast AF. Get this if you need a little bit different look and feel to your pictures!
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2012
|
|
Jeroenro
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 11, 2011
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Feb 22, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very light strong, excellent built quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Little soft wide open but stopped down very sharp. Bit more expensive than the Canon EF 50mm F1.8
|
|
|
This a great light strong portrait lens. I use this lens on my Canon 5d mkII. It's a little soft used wide open but its super sharp from F1.8.
The build quality is exellent and got a nice EX coating.
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2012
|
|
eeassa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 3, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 3, 2012
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $379.00
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
Schizophrenic autofocus
|
|
I purchased this lens new 7 months ago and I have sent it back to Sigma twice for autofocus issues. The lens alternated between front and back focus. Sigma claims to have 'different firmware' that they install but thus far the lens is quite useless. I did a comparison / video review between the Sigma and the Canon 50mm f/1.4's here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNdNV0JfswY&context=C3472056ADOEgsToPDskLtnwbT8WYATmyyMrQGMA7u
Clearly the winner is the Canon 50mm f/1.4 for over $100 less than the price of the Sigma.
|
|
|
Jan 3, 2012
|
|
NCB7
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 16, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 17, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $375.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Looks, Build quality, Price, Bokeh, Focus
|
|
Cons:
|
I guess image softness at 1.4 around edges...
|
|
|
I shot these primes to compare: Canon 1.8,1.4,and 1.2
The canon 1.8 feels like a cheap toy but took a good shot after f4
The canon 1.4 was decent but also felt cheap compared to the sigma
The L is the L and was way too much for not that geat of improvement. I spent my money on the 85 1.2 instead!
I love this lens. I get great shots from it and am very impressed by it. It holds its own against my other primes.
85l and 135l Every now and then I check my metadata to see what lens takes the best shot and this one comes up with some winners!
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2011
|
|
--Lucio--
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 22, 2008
Location: France
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
reasonably sharp in the center when used wide open, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
needed calibration, not tack sharp when stopped down, some CA, heavy and bulky, diffraction from f/8 on on APS-C, expensive
|
|
Canon EF mount, APS-C (40D). Here is a test I did, showing both the diffraction beyond f/7.1 and the now-corrected autofocus issue: http://skidemontagne.free.fr/tests/sigma50f14_on_40d.jpg
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2011
|
|
SilkyStrings
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 1, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 11, 2011
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Finish, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus problems, poor performance
|
|
|
I REALLY wanted to like this lens. It looks gorgeous, it's weighty, looks the business but unfortunately (for me) it isn't. Not useable at f1.4 because what you focus on won't end up being in focus. I'm sure the bokeh has the potential to be absolutely gorgeous but for that to work your intended part of the frame has to be in sharp focus. It's been back to Sigma once. I've tried MA on my 5D2 but it's not consistent and drifts over time. I know mastering shooting wide open is a bit of an art but I've had plenty of practice with my EF 85mm mk II f1.2! The real shocker came recently when I was using it and thought I'd double up the shots using the plastic fantastic (Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II). In terms of sharpness & accurate focus the Canon floored it, even at smaller apertures. Like I said, I REALLY wanted to like this lens but simply can't rely on it to ever deliver the goods!
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2011
|
|
pingflood
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 3, 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1547
|
|
Review Date: Aug 15, 2011
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Great optics
|
|
Cons:
|
Results are like a box of chocolates depending on where it opted to focus
|
|
|
Superb optics, and I wish Sigma had put a proper focusing ring on it and made it a manual focus lens competing with the Zeiss 50s. The autofocus was a disaster where at first it would completely misfocus on closer subjects and after a "repair" and "calibration" by Sigma completely misfocus on anything past 8-10 feet.
Stupid me bought another Sigma product later (since I did like the 15-30 and 50-500 I owned), a DP2, which now has dust on the sensor (cannot be cleaned) after a month.
Never again, Sigma.
|
|
|
Aug 15, 2011
|
|
trillium
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 1, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 818
|
|
Review Date: Aug 8, 2011
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $500.00
|
|
Pros:
|
The lens is wonderful IF your image is in focus (which is unlikely).
|
|
Cons:
|
FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS.
|
|
|
I thought I had a good copy since it was relatively new. Sometimes photos would be in focus and the clarity and Bokeh were amazing. In fact I was so happy I rated this a 10 a while back. That was before I lived with the lens for a year.
You just can't trust the lens. It's actually very difficult to determine when the lens is going to mis-focus.
Sigma will recalibrate it, but that is a hit and miss prospect too.
I'll never buy Sigma again just because of this POS lens.
I'll quote the Wesley from the Princess Bride.
If you buy this lens, "BE PREPARED FOR DISSAPOINTMENT".
I'd rate the lens a 2 now. Just because it looks good on the camera.
|
|
|
Aug 8, 2011
|
|
banpreso
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 18, 2011
Location: N/A
Posts: 89
|
|
Review Date: Apr 18, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp wide open, great bokeh, fast HSM focus, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
compared to the canon 50L this lens is such a good buy! bokeh is great and focus is accurate and fast for me. the canon 50 1.4 isn't really a 1.4 because it doesn't get sharp until f2, and the bokeh sucks imo. the 50L is about 3 times more expensive. i'm so glad i got this sigma. it's a solid performer.
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2011
|
|
helimat
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Apr 6, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3513
|
|
Review Date: Mar 28, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Dreamy bokeh, sharp right from wide open
|
|
Cons:
|
AF issues
|
|
Well, it took two tries to get a properly operating one. The first had serious issues; If I micro adjusted for shooting in the portrait range, it was way out at about 30 feet. If I micro adjusted for 30 feet, it was way out in portrait range. Unfortunately I had to send it back, but fortunately after hearing what a properly operating one was capable of, I didn't give up on it. The second one I bought has spot-on AF, and it is a true performer, in a variety of shooting styles including both large-aperture portraits, and stopped-down landscapes. I would recommend this lens, but only if purchasing from an outlet that has a proper return policy. I would go even further and suggest trying to find a used one from a reputable seller instead, that way the performance can be verified before receiving it, rather than getting a sealed 'Sigma Lottery Box'. 
|
|
|
Mar 28, 2011
|
|
tororo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 26, 2010
Location: Japan
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Mar 3, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness from wide open, build quality, contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
AF inaccuracy, very nervous foreground bokeh at wide apertures
|
|
This was the only Sigma lens that I thought I would keep for a long while.
After having tested many 50's on 5D Mark II, I was pretty amazed with the center sharpness from wide open with this lens (there seems to some copy variations though). I also liked the build quality and contrast that this lens produced.
However, as many people noted, the AF accuracy of this lens is totally unreliable, especially between 1.4 and 2.8.
Another major issue for me was the very nervous foreground bokeh, which is also mentioned on photozone.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff
After a little while, I sold this lens and got Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 50/2 which is going to stay with me for a long time.
Here are some images taken with Sigma 50/1.4.
You can see the nervous foreground bokeh at wide apertures:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/4413962586/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/4413194207/
Sharp throughout the entire frame when stopped down to f8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/4413966790/
Great center sharpness even at very wide apertures:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/4413195811/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ippei-janine/4413966218/
|
|
|
Mar 3, 2011
|
|
Photonic
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 602
|
|
Review Date: Feb 20, 2011
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $499.00
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, bokeh, build quality, and focus speed for the price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Inconsistent Sigma quality control. 46mm focal length.
|
|
|
This is my second review of this lens (not allowed to change my initial rating) and third copy. I tested on a 5DM2.
First copy was not as sharp as I was expecting.
Second copy had serious focus motor issues.
Third copy is a definite keeper and I would rate a 9.5
Sigma has made a change to the finish on this lens. It is now smooth and uniformly black with no texture or white flecks. I strongly suspect they have also made some refinements to the design or manufacturing process since their initial production because this version is clearly superior to my first two copies.
I recently compared the following three lenses side by side:
Sigma 50/1.4
Canon 50/1.4
Canon 50/1.2L
I have never had a QC problem with Canon and both my copies were excellent.
The 1.2L is a sweet lens. I loved everthing about it except the price tag. I found the IQ at f/1.4 to be a toss up with the Sigma (if anything a slight edge to the Sigma). Bokeh is beautiful on both lenses. Smoother but slower focusing on the Canon. The Sigma is faster and more abrupt, although every bit as accurate. If the Canon were more reasonably priced I would probably have hung on to it but there is no way it is worth more than twice the Sigma and I am anticipating there will be a version II out in the "near" future.
The Canon 1.4 is perhaps one of the best IQ values in the entire Canon line. It is not as sharp as the Sigma wideo open but in my tests surpasses the Sigma and Canon 1.2 as you stop down (which seems crazy). I am not fond of the focus motor on this lens nor do I feel it is a very robust design (my first copy sustained damage to the focus mechanism and never gave satisfactory results after the repair). For me the price premium for the Sigma was definately worth the improved wide open IQ and build quality.
Although I am keeping the Sigma and have sold the Canons I do have some observations about Sigma that are less than flattering.
(1) Quality control remains an issue for Sigma. Will someone over there please WAKE UP.
(2) My tests at normal shooting distances have the Sigma as a 46mm lens.
(3) My tests showed that the Sigma produced darker images than the Canon 1.2 with the same lighting and manual camera settings (about 1/3 of a stop).
The last two items are not a real problem for me but I can't help resenting Sigma for their specmanship.
Although I am sure it is not going to happen I would love to see Canon update their f/1.4. Until then I think the Sigma is the current value leader for IQ and build quality at 50mm provided you can find a good copy.
If the system permitted I would raise my initial rating of 7 to 9.5
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2011
|
|
asamimasa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 196
|
|
Review Date: Feb 7, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Big and solid feeling (unless weight is an issue to you), sharper than the Canon equivalent wide open, silent focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy, big risk of misfocusing
|
|
|
My copy wasn't as good as it could have been. I'm sure with a god copy it's a pleasurable lens to use, but mine focused very slowly, and on the 1D2 that I had at the time, produced an unpleasant focal length.
|
|
|
Feb 7, 2011
|
|
beeber00
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 741
|
|
Review Date: Dec 30, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, F 1.4, contrast, *background blur*, focusing speed.
|
|
Cons:
|
The what seems to be focusing issues people have had.
|
|
|
First off, I'd like to say something about Sigma.
Ive owned 5 Sigma lenses. Every one of them has been good to me and I've never had any focusing issues, mechanical errors, or other problems. I'm sorry to read that other people have had these issues.
I'm not denying their existence. As you can see, its happened to a lot of people. Consider this, though: are you more likely to leave a review for a lens if it works perfectly, or if it had a problem? I think that most people who have a good-working lens won't care to leave a review.
Most people. As you can see, I'm leaving a good review. Summation: some people have problems, I never have.
Now, to the lens:
Ive owned the Canon 50 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2. Though all lenses I would buy again, theres a reason why I sold them all: because I have this one now. Do all the lenses do the same thing? Essentially - separate the background from the subject and perform well when there isn't much light. All the lenses did this.
The Sigma, however, did it the best.
First off, the focusing is quick, easy, and silent. Someone next to you couldn't tell you you even focused it (its that quiet). If you've used USM, its sort of like that. A little quieter? I think so.
The build of this lens gives you some confidence. You can toss it in the bag and not worry about it (though I don't). You could brush up against something and not worry about it falling apart. It's tough.
Most people love this lens for the bokeh, or background blur. As silly as it sounds, its nice to have a lens that does good in rendering things that ARENT in focus. If you see a picture taken with this lens, you'll notice how smooth the backgrounds (or foregrounds) look. It certainly will complement a sharp subject. The background blur is apparent at all F stops, but the best ones to use are 1.4-2.2 in my opinion. The way I see it, if you buy a lens that specializes in big f stops, use them!
I was not bothered by the price (ball park of 410-450). Once you start using it, it pays for itself, even if you don't sell your pictures.
If you are looking for one, check this websites BUY AND SELL board. If you haven't made an account, make one and then subscribe so you can get a lens from a member of the Fred Miranda community. Subscribing to the BUY AND SELL board will let you exchange lenses, cameras, and other equipment. It beats the hellacious fees ebay throws at us, and it keeps Fred Miranda from getting a real job!
10/10. (for me). Do poor copies exist? According to other users, sadly, they do. Get your hands on a good one and don't let it go.
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
103
|
132550
|
Jan 23, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
80% of reviewers
|
$468.74
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.02
|
8.33
|
8.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
