Well, the focus is different. The Canon is more to the back. As I've said that was a really quick test. Those shots were handheld at a bit over 1m distance. The Canon doesn't really look that bad at 100% for pure resolving power actually. It just seems to have a lot lower contrast.
asabet wrote:
For a full resized image, I don't see how the Canon could have done that badly without a misfocus. Center sharpness isn't terrible on the Canon 50/1.4 wide open.
Andi Dietrich wrote:
that sure looks like an impressing lens, thanks for the best info on the lens yet
Thanks for your comment Andi. The Canon 50/1.4 can get hazy at f/1.4, but it is sharper at that aperture than many folks say it is. All indications are that this new Sigma easily outperforms the Canon at f/1.4. However, based on Mark's report, I won't be looking to the Sigma to replace my Canon as a general purpose 50.
The bokeh samples and discussion in this thread have been very interesting.
I just ordered a copy from B&H for my 5D. I've been wanting a really high quality 50mm prime and I just haven't been inspired by the Canon 50/1.4 (although it is surely a fine lens), and the 50/1.2 is more than I want to spend. I'm not interested in stop-down metering and adapters, so that eliminates all third-party offerings except for the Sigma. I imagine I'll be using this lens between f/1.4 and f/4 95% of the time, so I'm glad to see that it seems to have its greatest advantages at those apertures.
Seems like this might fill a niche between the Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.2.
I took some landscape shots at f/8 using the Sigma and find that
they look fine, but no better than a generic Double Gaussian 50 like
the Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 II. In fact, I'll have to pixel peep some
more, but it looks like the cheaper lenses may be a little bit higher resolving
at f/8 infinity focus. So, the Sigma finds it's value in wide aperture work.
A landscape shooter may want to keep a Nifty Fifty for their work.
A portrait shooter will love the value in the Sigma, though.
trumpet_guy wrote:
In fact, I'll have to pixel peep some
more, but it looks like the cheaper lenses may be a little bit higher resolving
at f/8 infinity focus. So, the Sigma finds it's value in wide aperture work..
I've seen this reported elsewhere also.
A landscape shooter may want to keep a Nifty Fifty for their work.
A portrait shooter will love the value in the Sigma, though
Yep, that's why I'm so excited about it. (I shoot primarily portraits)
I just ordered the Sigma today too. It'll be the first Sigma lens I've owned. I was scared off the 50 f/1.2 and I have not liked any of the 50 f/1.4 copies I've had. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the Sigma will make me a happy guy.
Me too, this will be my first non-Canon lens... I ordered the lens on the 4th of July so they won't ship it til tomorrow I guess. I'm hoping that on a 1.6 crop it will perform slightly better than the Canon 85 f/1.8 does on full frame, while knowing it is not the exact same focal length. This one should be great for both full frame and crop cameras and here's to Sigma for filling the void.
Having a fascinating time comparing the Minolta 58/1.2 with the Pentax 50/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4 and the two fast Canon 50's . . . in truth, the lenses I have on loan from Canon (which I assume are therefore in tip-top condition) are superb. In fact, resolution-wise, there's little to separate any of these at any aperture. The Sigma resolves better in Zone C than any of them, but the 50L is absolutely fantastic in every way, and outperforms the Sigma everywhere apart from the corners at f1.4-f2.8 at distance.
The Sigma works better at distance than close up, whereas the 50L is perfect (optically) whatever you ask it to do.
These tests have been a good way of getting to grips with the bokeh question . . . I'm coming to the conclusion that 'good' or 'bad' bokeh is surprisingly elusive to define, and highly subjective. What remains as mysterious as the Mona Lisa's smile is the uncannily beautiful shapes drawn by the Minolta 58mm – a lens that 'technically' doesn't have textbook perfect bokeh, if we assume the benchmark to be 'buttery-ness'. And yet . . .
Both the Sigma and the Canon L have clearly been designed to give a specific rounded-aperture blade look to the defocused areas, so both are very smooth, but the Sigma is smooth to the point of being complete featureless. Is this a good thing? Well, if your intention is to isolate the subject from the background, then the Sigma will do the job better than anything else at this focal length . . . . but what if the background to the subject adds relevance or value to it? Surely then, a more detailed presentation is advantageous. It's hard to see how it can be quantified.
If we assume a completely 'blended' background to be the benchmark, the Sigma is 'better' than the Canon L or any other 50mm for bokeh. But in some circumstances the Canon L, or the Zeiss 50 will make a better picture. If you have both in your kit bag, you'd need a pretty intimate knowledge of how they both draw to deploy them to best effect. Detailed review coming . . .
biotar wrote:
So the sigma seems great for assignment. The bokeh is pleasing for the general public, the sharpness is great, the colours do seem good from these pictures. Maybe i will add this lens to my professional kit.
I'm very glad to see that this Sigma has exemplary colour – vivid but dead neutral – and the coatings are exceptional, too. Contrast is unusually high even at f1.4 and flare is handled in a way that the old T* Zeiss can only dream of.
I am completely baffled by the people claiming the Sigma has too smooth a bokeh... worried that somehow a background is going to magically be smeared completely away with a 50mm lens. Stop down to f2 or f2.8 if you think you are getting too much blur. Much easier to deal with smooth than a harsh and busy bokeh.
I think there is an anti-Sigma anti-nonalternative lens bias going on here (honestly, I probably suffer that a little myself... nothing sexy or cool about a Sigma 50/1.4, right?)
I have added shots from the Sigma 50/1.4 to my comparison page
of 50mm lenses.
Apologies for the landscape shots. They were taken at different seasons,
so the angle of the sun is not uniform in all.
As always with pbase, view the original size. The other sizes are hopelessly
soft. When will they improve their downsizing algorithm? Sigh..... http://www.pbase.com/tswen/50compare/
hubsand wrote:
I'm very glad to see that this Sigma has exemplary colour – vivid but dead neutral – and the coatings are exceptional, too. Contrast is unusually high even at f1.4 and flare is handled in a way that the old T* Zeiss can only dream of.
Yeah, the contrast is definitely greater at f/1.4 than any 50mm lens I've
seen images from. In that, it is similar to the Sigma 30/1.4, but of course
the bokeh is way different than the 30/1.4 offers.
I think the problem in the 100% crops is the Sigma bokeh lacks character, it's super smooth but bland. Yet in looking at the full image the bokeh comes across as very nice. Still doubt I'll sell my Zeiss C/Y 50 f/1.4 though. My Zeiss showed slightly better sharpness and much better contrast wide open that the Canon 50 f/1.4, but by f/4 they were pretty similar, although the Zeiss has slightly better contrast and colour.
I've tested one at my local dealer and it is absolutely frustrating.
On my 40D ist focuses perfectly at all apertures from 1m to approx. 8m.
BUT at close distances the focus is off and worst of all at greater distances it's horribly off.
I don't kow how this is possible but I really hope it's just that sample. Focused manually via LiveView (or at a "matching" distance) it gives incredible results.
simon_k wrote:
I've tested one at my local dealer and it is absolutely frustrating.
On my 40D ist focuses perfectly at all apertures from 1m to approx. 8m.
BUT at close distances the focus is off and worst of all at greater distances it's horribly off.
I don't kow how this is possible but I really hope it's just that sample. Focused manually via LiveView (or at a "matching" distance) it gives incredible results.
Yuck, how many lense now has Sigma released recently with all sorts of AF issues? The 120-400 and 150-500 have had many bad user reports and returns. Also they quickly had to release mk II versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 and 50-150 f/2.8 with many users again reporting all sorts of focus issues. I'm glad my Sigma 150 macro is spot on.
