Clearly the Sigma 50/1.4 - I had both, and the Sigma has the better AF and better/sharper image quality at f/1.4. The Canon 50/1.2 L EF lens only has the advantage of unique bokeh wide open - only reason why I keep this lens. Center sharpness wide open is simply not available with this Canon lens.
retrofocus wrote:
Clearly the Sigma 50/1.4 - I had both, and the Sigma has the better AF and better/sharper image quality at f/1.4. The Canon 50/1.2 L EF lens only has the advantage of unique bokeh wide open - only reason why I keep this lens. Center sharpness wide open is simply not available with this Canon lens.
I had both as well and can't add anything to this comment. The Sigma 50 was excellent.
I owned the EF 50/1.2L for 13 years... and took literally a hundred thousand of images with it. It was my most used prime by far and I'm very familiar with it.
The lens has warts, no question. AF isn't wonderful, neither is sharpness, nor CA resistance. But bokeh, color, and rendering are all beautiful - and THAT is why you buy it. It is a lens with a unique character and image signature. The Sigma, was (IMO), sterile looking in comparison. Technically, the Sigma is better, no question about that. However the 50L had that little bit of magic missing in the Sigma.
FWIW, I could have afforded any 50mm lens I wanted, and I never once considered selling my 50L for the Sigma.
Your needs and preferences might be the same... or different.
I also own both the EF 50/1.2L and the Sigma 50/1.4 Art. As deepbluejh said, the 50L is a character lens with special qualities that add much to softer and more "romantic" rendering. The Sigma is much more clinical and sharper wide open -- not as well suited to "atmospheric" or storytelling in such domains as weddings or portraits. I vastly prefer the Sigma when photographing subjects like buildings or products. The 50L is great for softer landscapes, the 50 Art is better for highly detailed edge-to-edge landscapes. The 50 Art also has a higher "hit rate" when shot near wide open, due to lower SA, but that same SA adds greatly to the softening effect of the 50L at near wide open apertures.
The same holds true to almost the exact same level when comparing the EF 35/1.4L and the Sigma 35/1.4 Art, but this is less commented on, since the longer focal length 50L exaggerates the effects of SA, CA, and gradual softening from plane of focus.
In my experience, both brands lenses work as comparatively on Sony bodies, via the MC-11 adapter.
BTW -- The 50L becomes very sharp at smaller apertures, typically around f/4.0-5.6.
If you’re more drawn to the optical performance of the RF50L, consider also Sigma’s 40mm ART which is a different focal length but a stellar optical performer with (based on the 50mm ART samples I’ve seen) nicer color output than the older Art lenses.
I want as small and light as possible. The RF is too expensive and the 40mm art is too big. I narrow it down to the EF 50mm L or Sigma. Tough choice for me.
esanchez wrote:
I want as small and light as possible. The RF is too expensive and the 40mm art is too big. I narrow it down to the EF 50mm L or Sigma. Tough choice for me.
What else do you have in your kit, and what do you shoot?
I’ve used the EF 50L at different times, and I second the above. The color output is fantastic, the size is comfortable, and the bokeh is generally smooth. Occasionally can be a little funky, but with good/golden light I’ve seen phenomenal output from it. Sharpness wide open should be decent enough on the R6 pixel density, but for pixel peeping you’d probably need f/2.8 on the 1.2 lens to match 1.4 on the Sigma. That wouldn’t matter to me for portraits as much, but it may matter a lot for some subjects. The CA on the 50L can be intense, you’d probably need to be okay with that to love the lens.
The ART is 800g and the 1.2 is 600g and shorter (so it should balance better adapted to mirrorless). 50 ART by all accounts is a very competent lens, but the 50L is probably more “special,” with some drawbacks coming along too.
The 50L is the worst lens I ever owned but that was with DSLRs. The misfocusing at MFD is absurd. Maybe mirrorless fixes that? Still wouldn’t fix its softness nor it’s abundant CA.
robsuh wrote:
The 50L is the worst lens I ever owned but that was with DSLRs. The misfocusing at MFD is absurd. Maybe mirrorless fixes that? Still wouldn’t fix its softness nor it’s abundant CA.
Save for the RF.
To add, focus shift (while stopped- down) would still be an issue, even with the mirrorless.
Gunzorro wrote:
BTW -- The 50L becomes very sharp at smaller apertures, typically around f/4.0-5.6.
True - but for this you don't need a $$$$ f/1.2 lens! The nifty-fifty 50/1.8 EF lens performs very similar at smaller apertures. You buy a fast lens to be shot wide open - otherwise you are much better off with a cheaper and slower lens.
This said, it is tough to manufacture a great wide open bokeh lens with good center sharpness. Leica for example does it, but is comes with a huge price tag. Sigma did a good job here compromising between speed (f/1.4) and maintaining sharpness wide open with the 50/1.4 - in my earlier post I didn't even refer to the ART lens but instead to its EX DG HSM lens version which was already excellent (I never used the ART lens version).
esanchez wrote:
I want as small and light as possible. The RF is too expensive and the 40mm art is too big. I narrow it down to the EF 50mm L or Sigma. Tough choice for me.
I'll try to go out this morning to take some comparison shots from the 50L and Sigma Art.
I went out this morning to accumulate some image pair from 50L and 50 Art. The weather was dry, but cloudy/hazy overcast. Not the best bright sunny conditions to show CA at its worst, but certainly there was some visible in the 50L images on bright edges against darker backgrounds -- but nothing disastrous. My conclusion remains as from before the test: Sigma is a better corrected lens in pretty much all regards, except for the hard to define "look" of the Canon, especially at wide apertures. I shot at f/1.4 for both lenses, and also at f/5.6, but they were quite close at the smaller aperture, the edge going to Sigma, but not by enough to make that a overwhelming factor. I'm not posting the f/5.6, as there isn't much to see, but if someone wants, I'll post some after going through several posts of the f/1.4 comparisons.
No PP other than LR defaults, except a few for correcting exposure somewhat. No lens profile or CA correction used.
In no particular order in the two shot sets -- check the image data to see which lens was used. Just posting in the order they were shot.
In my opinion, the Sigma Art is the better of the two lenses, and the more "clinical" and sharp of the two. That said, the Canon L has a softer and more artistic look. Still, if I had to chose one, I would take the Sigma for its overall crisper rendering and equally good color.
Also, keep in mind that the Canon 50L still has another 1/2 stop it can open up for slightly more defocused blur over the Sigma. I think that is a bonus, especially in dim light such as wedding receptions, etc. I used the lens wide open for my daughter's wedding last October, posed shots in very dim hotel areas with available light.
Jim, thanks for the effort making the comparisons! At web resolution, I'd be hard-pressed to guess which was which. I think that would probably hold for regular viewing distances at larger sizes too.
I've never used the ART but have owned the 50/1.2L since it was first released. Yeah, on DSLRs it can be a very frustrating lens due to all that spherical aberration at wider apertures and the corresponding focus shift when stopped down a bit. My preference has been to use it around f/2 for a touch more central sharpness/contrast and slightly more defined background structure, yet still quite smooth rendering.
Are you finding it focuses more consistently/accurately on mirrorless?
esanchez wrote:
I want as small and light as possible. The RF is too expensive and the 40mm art is too big. I narrow it down to the EF 50mm L or Sigma. Tough choice for me.
RF50/1.8? Small, light, inexpensive and by all accounts I've seen so far, considerably better than its EF predecessor. But I guess it's not a bokeh machine like the faster lenses...
Don't know if my copy was a dud but I did try the RF 50mm 1.8 and it was really soft even at F2.2. So I returned it.
rscheffler wrote:
RF50/1.8? Small, light, inexpensive and by all accounts I've seen so far, considerably better than its EF predecessor. But I guess it's not a bokeh machine like the faster lenses...
rscheffler wrote:
RF50/1.8? Small, light, inexpensive and by all accounts I've seen so far, considerably better than its EF predecessor. But I guess it's not a bokeh machine like the faster lenses...
esanchez wrote:
Don't know if my copy was a dud but I did try the RF 50mm 1.8 and it was really soft even at F2.2. So I returned it.
Oh, bummer. My impression was based on various samples of people photos by reviewers back when it was released. I just had a look at the-digital-picture's fairly in-depth review and my enthusiasm for it has been somewhat tempered. It seems like an alright lens, but nothing special either. Based on his f/2 samples, the lens seems usable, at least on-axis (centrally), so perhaps you did have a dud.
rscheffler wrote:
Jim, thanks for the effort making the comparisons! At web resolution, I'd be hard-pressed to guess which was which. I think that would probably hold for regular viewing distances at larger sizes too.
I've never used the ART but have owned the 50/1.2L since it was first released. Yeah, on DSLRs it can be a very frustrating lens due to all that spherical aberration at wider apertures and the corresponding focus shift when stopped down a bit. My preference has been to use it around f/2 for a touch more central sharpness/contrast and slightly more defined background structure, yet still quite smooth rendering.
Are you finding it focuses more consistently/accurately on mirrorless?
RF50/1.8? Small, light, inexpensive and by all accounts I've seen so far, considerably better than its EF predecessor. But I guess it's not a bokeh machine like the faster lenses......Show more →
Thanks for your experience with the 50L!
I pixel-peeped these pretty well at 100% and they hold up well, whether Sigma Art or Canon L.
My 50L has never had any serious focus shift. I prefer to shoot at f/1.6 as compared to f/1.2, to get better contrast and color, reducing the SA somewhat. But I've also shot plenty at f/1.2 with fine results. I noticed in my peeping today that this 50L has a pretty strong coma in the corners -- not an awful amount, but triangular highlights of sun between leaves. Not too crazy, just a bit of hard white triangles between leaves and branches in a few.
I haven’t tried the sigma, but the 50l is acceptably sharp for portraits at 1.2, gathering a lot more light in a more compact package. I’m scared of buying the sigma, liking it too much and being forced to bring it every time (right now the 50L is my smallest lens and I use it quite often)
In your samples at 1.4, in some of them you can see an extra contrast/pop in the area in focus, in some others it’s difficult to see anything (but I’m just checking from the phone).
