I guess it also depends a bit on your personal preference and what you're used to, to me that Zeiss flower picture isn't that pleasant to look at, a bit harsh and kind of over-sharpened. It probably works well in print though.
Having just sold my 5D, I'm becoming more interested in this lens. I'm considering the Nikon D700, but I'm not too impressed with the Nikkor 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 samples I've seen. The excellent samples in this thread are steering me towards picking up the D700 with this Sigma lens.
Yes, I think that is why Sigma has brought this lens out. The Nikon bodies without
the autofocus motor can't AF Nikon's existing glass. The very fine HSM motor in
the Sigma should work well with a D700. I have not done extensive AF testing
with my Sigma on Canon, but so far it seems pretty decent.
Hopefully someone using the Nikon version will post here soon.
Stu Warner wrote:
My only remaining concerns are size/weight and reliable AF. Basically, if the AF is not particularly reliable, then I see no value in the Sigma 1.4 over my Zu 50/1.2 (Jonas B's old copy), other than perhaps better handling of CA/fringing. The Olmpus is also much lower contrast.
I really do like the look of this Sigma.
I have sent my Sigma to joe_mama (Joseph James), one of the shooters at dpreview.
He is going to run it through a battery of tests on his 5D, with special interest in
autofocus performance at wide apertures. (Most of his shooting is low-DOF work).
I should know in a few days how it works on a 5D. (I only have 1.6 crop bodies.)
I will be receiving mine tomorrow and I shoot with a 5D. I won't, however, be doing any exhaustive tests like Joseph James will. I'll just report on my observations in my normal shooting conditions.
trumpet_guy wrote:
The manual focus action feels the same as on the 30/1.4
which is to say, firm and fairly high gear ratio. Nothing as silky
and precise as a CZ 50/1.4 Planar, but firmer and less
cheap feeling than the Canon EF 50/1.4
The manual focus on Canon L class EF lenses feels a little nicer, but as
autofocus lenses go, the Sigma is not too bad. If you are expecting
something as smooth as a CZ prime, though, you will be disappointed.
Tim
Paul,
Perhaps you missed my earlier comments on MF.
It's decent, but nothing like a CZ prime for manual focus.
Trumpet Guy.
Thanks for the heads up. Jope Mama is the one of the very few shooters I respected at DPreview. I really like his shallow DOF style and he was always polite and helpful to anyone with a question. Once he got banned I stopped looking through the fora there altogether. I used to be a quite active poster there under the handle "Rebel Without a Clue". Anyway, I look forward to his test results. Everything I have seen from this lens looks very nice so far.
Brainiac.
From your example of "perfrect bokeh", I just can't get away from the octagonal out of focus highlights and the worst rollie I have ever seen
(But yeh, the out of focus highlights are smooth in intensity and do have an additive effect when they overlap.)
It really does look like Sigma have made a very nice lens here. I have the Sigma 50 macro, and on the basis of that fine optic, would happily try other Sigma offerings
> From your example of "perfrect bokeh", I just can't get away from the octagonal out of focus highlights and the worst rollie I have ever seen
In fact, the shape of the highlights comes down to aperture blades. I would prefer a round aperture too. It's a separate issue from soft/perfect/harsh bokeh though, and as long as it's more than 5 blades, and not ninja star, it doesn't bother me as much as the soft/perfect/harsh issue.
What's a rollie? I tried to look it up but found nothing. If it's a typo, what was it meant to say?
If you like that, you'll love the Canon 50mm L, which is even sharper and better corrected for aberration. The bokeh is a little more 'interesting', too. I know it's hideously expensive, but it's probably the finest 50mm ever made. I've almost concluded my 50mm review now, and I'm seriously lusting after the L, despite the cost. Then again, it's not much more than the combined cost of my Zeiss 50mm f1.4, Sigma 50mm f1.4 and converted Minolta 58mm f1.2 – and it's about good enough to replace them all without regret.
Though I might occasionally pine for that elusive charm of the Rokkor . . .
hubsand wrote:
If you like that, you'll love the Canon 50mm L, which is even sharper and better corrected for aberration. The bokeh is a little more 'interesting', too. I know it's hideously expensive, but it's probably the finest 50mm ever made. I've almost concluded my 50mm review now, and I'm seriously lusting after the L, despite the cost. Then again, it's not much more than the combined cost of my Zeiss 50mm f1.4, Sigma 50mm f1.4 and converted Minolta 58mm f1.2 – and it's about good enough to replace them all without regret.
Though I might occasionally pine for that elusive charm of the Rokkor . . ....Show more →
Mark,
Show us the money.
Heheheh.
Actually, I'd love to see some great f/1.2 and f/1.4 shots from the L.
I have seen some good shots on the web, but not all copies seem very good at all.
The problem with the L is how the hell you're supposed to focus it. Last time I used one I resorted to Liveview, depth of focus preview, and physically moving the camera back and forth until it was just right. At least with the Rokkor you can use the viewfinder. With the 50 L it's hard to focus it manually while also holding down the d.o.f. button.
hubsand wrote:
If you like that, you'll love the Canon 50mm L, which is even sharper and better corrected for aberration. The bokeh is a little more 'interesting', too. I know it's hideously expensive, but it's probably the finest 50mm ever made. I've almost concluded my 50mm review now, and I'm seriously lusting after the L, despite the cost. Then again, it's not much more than the combined cost of my Zeiss 50mm f1.4, Sigma 50mm f1.4 and converted Minolta 58mm f1.2 – and it's about good enough to replace them all without regret.
Though I might occasionally pine for that elusive charm of the Rokkor . . ....Show more →
Mark, I'm really looking forward to your review as well as Joe Mama's thoughts on the Canon 50/1.2L versus the Sigma 50/1.4. My choice between buying the Nikon D700 and whatever Canon introduces next in that class is going to be heavily weighted by the relative performance of those two lenses since I use a 50 most of the time.
brainiac wrote:
The problem with the L is how the hell you're supposed to focus it. Last time I used one I resorted to Liveview, depth of focus preview, and physically moving the camera back and forth until it was just right. At least with the Rokkor you can use the viewfinder. With the 50 L it's hard to focus it manually while also holding down the d.o.f. button.
I second that.
I sold my 50L as it in the end was impossible to remember what f-stops and distances that throw the AF off. At the time there was no Canon dSLR with LiveView.
(My old Canon F-1 had the DOF button to the right, now when it is to the left you can check the DOF but you can't handle the focusing ring at the same time unless on tripod.)
The 50L has too little microcontrast, or my copy wasn't stellar. I don't know. I do know I have the Siggy50 on order.
