Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
p.1 #1Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
Hi,
After owning the Sigma 50mm for several years I recently picked up the Canon RF 50 1.4. Whilst the Canon is technically superior in size, weight, sharpness they give very different renderings and overall look and i'm debating on which one to keep.
As much as I want to love the Canon, there's something about the rendering on the Sigma that looks a bit more natural.
For portraits only (especially studio based) which one would you pick? (ignoring technical aspects and going by the look of final image only.
Please also feel free to post sample portraits of either.
Thanks
After owning the Sigma 50mm for several years I recently picked up the Canon RF 50 1.4. Whilst the Canon is technically superior in size, weight, sharpness they give very different renderings and overall look and i'm debating on which one to keep.
As much as I want to love the Canon, there's something about the rendering on the Sigma that looks a bit more natural.
For portraits only (especially studio based) which one would you pick? (ignoring technical aspects and going by the look of final image only.
Please also feel free to post sample portraits of either.
Thanks
Sep 05, 2026 at 04:38 AM
p.1 #2Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
Following this post; I'm tempted by the 50 VCM for its lightning AF and state of the art sharpness but I just love the 50 Art's rendering.
Sep 05, 2026 at 07:05 AM
p.1 #3Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
I can't really add any comparative data as I don't (and probably never will) own the 50 VCM. I have had the Sigma 50 Art for years and love the results I get from it. It's all I need in a 50mm, especially in the mirrorless era with no worries about focus calibration :-)
Sep 05, 2026 at 12:22 PM
p.1 #4Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
There's no such thing as owning too many 50mm lenses, therefore keep both and use each in situations where they are the best choices. 
Sep 05, 2026 at 05:32 PM
p.1 #5Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
Used to have the Art, now have the VCM. Never shot them against each other, had (still have) the RF-1.2L in between. The Art "looks nicer" to me which is one of these squishy terms. The VCM is absolutely amazing for the size and weight. Given that in my VCM wins against the 1.2L 99% of the time ("the lens that's with you is better than the better lens in the drawer"), the Art never had a chance.
Sep 06, 2026 at 12:50 AM
p.1 #6Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
kirbic wrote:
I can't really add any comparative data as I don't (and probably never will) own the 50 VCM. I have had the Sigma 50 Art for years and love the results I get from it. It's all I need in a 50mm, especially in the mirrorless era with no worries about focus calibration :-)
All EF lenses have a new life under mirrorless. I've recently picked up a couple of lenses known for focus issues and the eye AF technology make things so easy now
I can't really add any comparative data as I don't (and probably never will) own the 50 VCM. I have had the Sigma 50 Art for years and love the results I get from it. It's all I need in a 50mm, especially in the mirrorless era with no worries about focus calibration :-)
All EF lenses have a new life under mirrorless. I've recently picked up a couple of lenses known for focus issues and the eye AF technology make things so easy now
Sep 07, 2026 at 11:36 AM
p.1 #7Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
rscheffler wrote:
There's no such thing as owning too many 50mm lenses, therefore keep both and use each in situations where they are the best choices.
50mm is one of my favourite focal lengths, the problem is I don't know when i'd pick one over the other. I think for anything video or non portraits then the RF would be the 1st choice, but for portraits they render differently but I don't know which is better. Keeping both would just cause me a dilemma with which one to go for every time I pick up a 50mm
There's no such thing as owning too many 50mm lenses, therefore keep both and use each in situations where they are the best choices.
50mm is one of my favourite focal lengths, the problem is I don't know when i'd pick one over the other. I think for anything video or non portraits then the RF would be the 1st choice, but for portraits they render differently but I don't know which is better. Keeping both would just cause me a dilemma with which one to go for every time I pick up a 50mm
Sep 07, 2026 at 11:39 AM
p.1 #8Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
stanj wrote:
Used to have the Art, now have the VCM. Never shot them against each other, had (still have) the RF-1.2L in between. The Art "looks nicer" to me which is one of these squishy terms. The VCM is absolutely amazing for the size and weight. Given that in my VCM wins against the 1.2L 99% of the time ("the lens that's with you is better than the better lens in the drawer"), the Art never had a chance.
I've seen a lot of people have made the move from the RF 50 1.2 to the 1.4. How do you find they compare? Other than the 50 1.2 being able to shoot at 1.2, is there a noticeable difference at 1.4 between the 2?
What made you disregard the Sigma? Is it purely on technical aspects, such as size, weight, sharpness, mount or do you also prefer the rendering on the RF's? Although the Canon is noticeably lighter I wouldn’t class the Sigma as a heavy lens.
Used to have the Art, now have the VCM. Never shot them against each other, had (still have) the RF-1.2L in between. The Art "looks nicer" to me which is one of these squishy terms. The VCM is absolutely amazing for the size and weight. Given that in my VCM wins against the 1.2L 99% of the time ("the lens that's with you is better than the better lens in the drawer"), the Art never had a chance.
I've seen a lot of people have made the move from the RF 50 1.2 to the 1.4. How do you find they compare? Other than the 50 1.2 being able to shoot at 1.2, is there a noticeable difference at 1.4 between the 2?
What made you disregard the Sigma? Is it purely on technical aspects, such as size, weight, sharpness, mount or do you also prefer the rendering on the RF's? Although the Canon is noticeably lighter I wouldn’t class the Sigma as a heavy lens.
Sep 07, 2026 at 11:46 AM
p.1 #9Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
Let's for a moment assume money is not an issue. I know that's a big one but everything has to be seen in that context.
I have been looking for a decent 50 for decades; my opinion about the EF50L is well documented on this board. Again, just a personal opinion, but a strongly held one. So when the Art came, it was a lens that finally delivered on the promise of a good 50, and I never looked back.
When I got into the RF system (relatively late for me, almost two years after its introduction), the RF50 was an option. I prefer native lenses whenever possible (I still have the Sigma 180 EX macro because there's no substitute), and by then the RF50 had made a reputation for itself for not sucking unlike the EF50L. I was blown away - the rendering of the RF1.2L is just amazing. I don't want to post photos of my family here, but it's everything I had hoped for, and then some, and it was about the same weight & size as the Sigma, so out goes the Sigma. The fact that I could attach the RF only to the R and not the 5DsR was immaterial, and soon the R5 came and with that the switch to RF was complete.
Around that time, a few things were happening in my life, other than lockdowns: My job required me to travel a lot. Over the past 5 years I would get 150k butt-in-seat miles every year. To illustrate, that's fourteen 24h days on the plane. Gone about half the time. If you're like me and take a proper camera and lens(es) on every business trip, whether I'm planning on using them or not, _plus_ I'm getting older, have two bad knees and a bad shoulder, kids are grown and less of a photo subject, size and weight become more relevant. Yes, there are trips when the 24-105Z and 70-200Z are my two primaries, but those are few and far between. (currently I'm madly in love with the RF20-50L). I can literally take the 20VCM and 50VCM with me on the plane in the same volume and weight as the 50/1.2, so you do the math.
No other lens looks like the RF50/1.2. The Sigma sure doesn't. The VCM sure doesn't. But you have to look for it, you have to shoot for it. If you are mainly shooting street at night or aurora from the plane, two VCMs are better than one 1.2L. The 1.2L is still in the drawer because I have a collection habit, but I can't tell you what was the last time I used it (Lightroom says April 2025). It's an amazing lens, with about the same relevance as my 200/2 (Lightroom says July 2021).
I have been looking for a decent 50 for decades; my opinion about the EF50L is well documented on this board. Again, just a personal opinion, but a strongly held one. So when the Art came, it was a lens that finally delivered on the promise of a good 50, and I never looked back.
When I got into the RF system (relatively late for me, almost two years after its introduction), the RF50 was an option. I prefer native lenses whenever possible (I still have the Sigma 180 EX macro because there's no substitute), and by then the RF50 had made a reputation for itself for not sucking unlike the EF50L. I was blown away - the rendering of the RF1.2L is just amazing. I don't want to post photos of my family here, but it's everything I had hoped for, and then some, and it was about the same weight & size as the Sigma, so out goes the Sigma. The fact that I could attach the RF only to the R and not the 5DsR was immaterial, and soon the R5 came and with that the switch to RF was complete.
Around that time, a few things were happening in my life, other than lockdowns: My job required me to travel a lot. Over the past 5 years I would get 150k butt-in-seat miles every year. To illustrate, that's fourteen 24h days on the plane. Gone about half the time. If you're like me and take a proper camera and lens(es) on every business trip, whether I'm planning on using them or not, _plus_ I'm getting older, have two bad knees and a bad shoulder, kids are grown and less of a photo subject, size and weight become more relevant. Yes, there are trips when the 24-105Z and 70-200Z are my two primaries, but those are few and far between. (currently I'm madly in love with the RF20-50L). I can literally take the 20VCM and 50VCM with me on the plane in the same volume and weight as the 50/1.2, so you do the math.
No other lens looks like the RF50/1.2. The Sigma sure doesn't. The VCM sure doesn't. But you have to look for it, you have to shoot for it. If you are mainly shooting street at night or aurora from the plane, two VCMs are better than one 1.2L. The 1.2L is still in the drawer because I have a collection habit, but I can't tell you what was the last time I used it (Lightroom says April 2025). It's an amazing lens, with about the same relevance as my 200/2 (Lightroom says July 2021).
Sep 07, 2026 at 04:48 PM
p.1 #10Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
stanj wrote:
Let's for a moment assume money is not an issue. I know that's a big one but everything has to be seen in that context.
I have been looking for a decent 50 for decades; my opinion about the EF50L is well documented on this board. Again, just a personal opinion, but a strongly held one. So when the Art came, it was a lens that finally delivered on the promise of a good 50, and I never looked back.
When I got into the RF system (relatively late for me, almost two years after its introduction), the RF50 was an option....Show more →
Thanks for the detailed response. I've never used the EF 50 1.2L, going straight from the nifty fifty to the Sigma but it seems to have mixed reviews. Some love its character, others complain about the CA and sharpness. The images i've seen always look great from the EF but of course you don't see all the bad images posted online.
That's a lot of mileage! and can completely understand wanting something smaller and lighter in that scenario. As a hobbyist my use is a bit different, when I travel in my own country i'll take the R5, 16-35 and 70-200 mainly for landscape photos but they also serve fine for environmental family shots. My primes tend to be used for portraits but I don't travel with them so size and weight is less of an issue. Travelling abroad is usually for family holidays so I take a compact camera (ZV1 which works well, it doesn't have the image quality of Canon mirrorless but I can throw it in the bag easy enough and not worry on days out).
Let's for a moment assume money is not an issue. I know that's a big one but everything has to be seen in that context.
I have been looking for a decent 50 for decades; my opinion about the EF50L is well documented on this board. Again, just a personal opinion, but a strongly held one. So when the Art came, it was a lens that finally delivered on the promise of a good 50, and I never looked back.
When I got into the RF system (relatively late for me, almost two years after its introduction), the RF50 was an option....Show more →
Thanks for the detailed response. I've never used the EF 50 1.2L, going straight from the nifty fifty to the Sigma but it seems to have mixed reviews. Some love its character, others complain about the CA and sharpness. The images i've seen always look great from the EF but of course you don't see all the bad images posted online.
That's a lot of mileage! and can completely understand wanting something smaller and lighter in that scenario. As a hobbyist my use is a bit different, when I travel in my own country i'll take the R5, 16-35 and 70-200 mainly for landscape photos but they also serve fine for environmental family shots. My primes tend to be used for portraits but I don't travel with them so size and weight is less of an issue. Travelling abroad is usually for family holidays so I take a compact camera (ZV1 which works well, it doesn't have the image quality of Canon mirrorless but I can throw it in the bag easy enough and not worry on days out).
Sep 10, 2026 at 02:27 PM
|
p.1 #11Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
The EF 50/1.2L is not an easy lens to get consistent results with on DSLRs. I used this lens pretty extensively when it was released, all the way through to near the end of my DSLR time and I found I had to shoot a lot of extra photos to be sure I got what I wanted, in respect to focus placement.
While Stan is absolutely not a fan of this lens, I liked the look from it, particularly in the f/2 range. I thought it looked 'luscious' with respect to residual spherical aberration, out of focus blur character, etc. But it also was not an overly sharp lens, even stopped down. During the 2010s I went pretty deep down the Leica M system rabbit hole with a range of 50mm lenses, and that revealed to me that it was certainly possible to produce 50mm 'character' lenses that were also technically strong, at least stopped down. IMO images from the EF were best viewed in final use at normal viewing distance and not at the pixel level. Biggest challenge with it on DSLRs would be focus shift at nearer distances as you stop down but before depth of field covers the shift. Basically for my uses, I micro focus calibrated it for nearer distance use around f/2 to compensate for the focus shift. To successfully use this lens now on mirrorless, you'd want a newer camera like R6II (I think), R5II and later that have the viewfinder exposure simulation option with DOF preview, basically forcing the lens to operate stopped down while it's focusing - something that was never possible with DSLRs.
RF lenses like the 50/1.2 and 50/1.4 VCM are totally different, very modern designs that vastly outperform the EF on technical grounds. The EF is really just a variation of ancient 50mm double-gauss designs that have been stagnant for ages. I think it might have been the Sigma Art and/or Zeiss Otus that finally brought modern, much more complex optical formulas to 50mm and finally delivered the wide open performance those who liked the EF 85/1.2L had hoped the EF 50/1.2L would have been but clearly never was. In RF mount, the 45/1.2 is the spiritual successor to the EF 50/1.2L and based on what I've seen from it, probably outperforms it enough while still being a character lens to not make it as divisive as the EF was. However, the RF 45 suffers from focus shift and if you're not going to use it wide open all the time, you will want one of the newer bodies with stopped down exposure simulation..
While Stan is absolutely not a fan of this lens, I liked the look from it, particularly in the f/2 range. I thought it looked 'luscious' with respect to residual spherical aberration, out of focus blur character, etc. But it also was not an overly sharp lens, even stopped down. During the 2010s I went pretty deep down the Leica M system rabbit hole with a range of 50mm lenses, and that revealed to me that it was certainly possible to produce 50mm 'character' lenses that were also technically strong, at least stopped down. IMO images from the EF were best viewed in final use at normal viewing distance and not at the pixel level. Biggest challenge with it on DSLRs would be focus shift at nearer distances as you stop down but before depth of field covers the shift. Basically for my uses, I micro focus calibrated it for nearer distance use around f/2 to compensate for the focus shift. To successfully use this lens now on mirrorless, you'd want a newer camera like R6II (I think), R5II and later that have the viewfinder exposure simulation option with DOF preview, basically forcing the lens to operate stopped down while it's focusing - something that was never possible with DSLRs.
RF lenses like the 50/1.2 and 50/1.4 VCM are totally different, very modern designs that vastly outperform the EF on technical grounds. The EF is really just a variation of ancient 50mm double-gauss designs that have been stagnant for ages. I think it might have been the Sigma Art and/or Zeiss Otus that finally brought modern, much more complex optical formulas to 50mm and finally delivered the wide open performance those who liked the EF 85/1.2L had hoped the EF 50/1.2L would have been but clearly never was. In RF mount, the 45/1.2 is the spiritual successor to the EF 50/1.2L and based on what I've seen from it, probably outperforms it enough while still being a character lens to not make it as divisive as the EF was. However, the RF 45 suffers from focus shift and if you're not going to use it wide open all the time, you will want one of the newer bodies with stopped down exposure simulation..
Sep 10, 2026 at 06:35 PM
p.1 #12Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
Recommend the EF 50/ 1.2L. I love its rendering. It works well on my DSLR and mirrorless bodies. True, it's not an easy lens on DSLRs, but my copy is flawless. I tried two copies. Both were different on focusing.
Not sure if the Sigma focuses efficiently on mirrorless bodies or not.
Not sure if the Sigma focuses efficiently on mirrorless bodies or not.
Sep 11, 2026 at 03:21 PM
p.1 #13Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
Max10 wrote:
Not sure if the Sigma focuses efficiently on mirrorless bodies or not.
My 50Art needed -6 units on MFA on DSLRs to focus correctly, on RF it focuses accurately.
Not sure if the Sigma focuses efficiently on mirrorless bodies or not.
My 50Art needed -6 units on MFA on DSLRs to focus correctly, on RF it focuses accurately.
Sep 18, 2026 at 07:37 AM
p.1 #15Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
Photo2000 wrote:
kirbic wrote
I can't really add any comparative data as I don't (and probably never will) own the 50 VCM. I have had the Sigma 50 Art for years and love the results I get from it. It's all I need in a 50mm, especially in the mirrorless era with no worries about focus calibration :-)The EF 85/1.2L is so good on mirrorless. Yes, it’s still has CA, but it nails focus, and when focus is perfect that lens is still surprisingly sharp and still has that gorgeous rendering. Put it on my 5D II and 5DsR and it isn’t as sharp and there’s more fringing at the focus point in many cases because it will rarely truly have absolutely perfect focus. On my R6 II it’s perfect focus nearly every time.
Sep 18, 2026 at 08:04 AM
p.1 #16Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
Max10 wrote:
Recommend the EF 50/ 1.2L. I love its rendering. It works well on my DSLR and mirrorless bodies. True, it's not an easy lens on DSLRs, but my copy is flawless. I tried two copies. Both were different on focusing.
Not sure if the Sigma focuses efficiently on mirrorless bodies or not.
The EF 50 1.2 does render really nice, but probably a lens i'll never try now. With the RF 50's and also still currently holding the Sigma 50 1.4 art i'm not sure the EF 50 offers anything better?
The Sigma's focus on mirrorless is excellent. I've heard a few issues on DSLR camera's, but i'd say its AF speed and accuracy is 95% of what the 50 VCM is.
Recommend the EF 50/ 1.2L. I love its rendering. It works well on my DSLR and mirrorless bodies. True, it's not an easy lens on DSLRs, but my copy is flawless. I tried two copies. Both were different on focusing.
Not sure if the Sigma focuses efficiently on mirrorless bodies or not.
The EF 50 1.2 does render really nice, but probably a lens i'll never try now. With the RF 50's and also still currently holding the Sigma 50 1.4 art i'm not sure the EF 50 offers anything better?
The Sigma's focus on mirrorless is excellent. I've heard a few issues on DSLR camera's, but i'd say its AF speed and accuracy is 95% of what the 50 VCM is.
Sep 18, 2026 at 01:30 PM
p.1 #17Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
Jman13 wrote:
All EF lenses have a new life under mirrorless. I've recently picked up a couple of lenses known for focus issues and the eye AF technology make things so easy now The EF 85/1.2L is so good on mirrorless. Yes, it’s still has CA, but it nails focus, and when focus is perfect that lens is still surprisingly sharp and still has that gorgeous rendering. Put it on my 5D II and 5DsR and it isn’t as sharp and there’s more fringing at the focus point in many cases because it will rarely truly have absolutely perfect focus. On my R6 II it’s perfect focus nearly every time.
I actually also picked up a used Canon EF 85 1.2 ii not long ago. In the past i've always leant more towards a 50mm or 135mm for portraits so never really owned a good 85mm but you can pick up good copies really cheap now so thought I would try it out after hearing its reputation over the years.
I haven't used it a lot yet but the tests I have done produce beautiful rendering, I can tell I'm going to enjoy it a lot. It has a lot of CA, but I can work around that. The lens is MUCH faster to autofocus than I was expecting after reading so many reviews... it may not keep up at sports, but for portraits its more than fast enough. Focus is also accurate at 1.2 and its plenty sharp for portraits. After watching loads of comparison videos of 85mm lenses I think the image quality is almost as good as the RF 85 1.2. Maybe not technically, but in the overall look it gives.
Photo2000 wrote
kirbic wrote
I can't really add any comparative data as I don't (and probably never will) own the 50 VCM. I have had the Sigma 50 Art for years and love the results I get from it. It's all I need in a 50mm, especially in the mirrorless era with no worries about focus calibration :-)I actually also picked up a used Canon EF 85 1.2 ii not long ago. In the past i've always leant more towards a 50mm or 135mm for portraits so never really owned a good 85mm but you can pick up good copies really cheap now so thought I would try it out after hearing its reputation over the years.
I haven't used it a lot yet but the tests I have done produce beautiful rendering, I can tell I'm going to enjoy it a lot. It has a lot of CA, but I can work around that. The lens is MUCH faster to autofocus than I was expecting after reading so many reviews... it may not keep up at sports, but for portraits its more than fast enough. Focus is also accurate at 1.2 and its plenty sharp for portraits. After watching loads of comparison videos of 85mm lenses I think the image quality is almost as good as the RF 85 1.2. Maybe not technically, but in the overall look it gives.
Sep 18, 2026 at 01:46 PM
p.1 #18Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
Yeh, the EF 85/1.2 can certainly be had for very reasonable bucks these days. As far as the aesthetic qualities of the images, it's gonna be good. The RF will blow it away technically (think astro) but it's close to three times the investment. For portraiture, the EF 85/1.2 II is fantastic. My go-to portraiture lens in that range right now is... wait for it... a 68-year-old Zeiss 75/1.5 Biotar with AF enabled through the Megadap adapter.
Sep 23, 2026 at 06:49 AM
p.1 #19Sigma 50 1.4 Art vs Canon RF50 1.4 VCM
About the EF 50/1.2 L....I am an early adopter and I used it primarily for portraits. I am also a dual system user with Sony. After seeing a couple of reviews that the 50L is showing its age against the modern competition like the much-heralded Sony 50/1.2 GM I decided maybe I should add another 50/1.2 for my Sony system. Having said that with today's Photoshop, DXO PL 10 Elite and Topaz AI plus the AF performance with the R6MKII (vs. 5Ds)----the old 50/1.2 L has gotten even better! Thus, I am better of staying the course with what I have and save my money. Here are some shots from the other day. R6MKII + EF 50/1.2 L
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/800s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso100
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/320s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso100
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/800s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso100
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/400s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso100
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/2500s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso100
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/8000s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso125
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/800s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso100
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/320s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso100
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/800s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso100
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/400s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso100
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/2500s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso100
Canon EOS R6 Mark II
1/8000s f/1.2 at 50.0mm iso125
Sep 23, 2026 at 07:53 AM