p.1 #1 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
I have the Sigma 50/1.4 and 17-55/2.8 IS. I borrowed a Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 from friends and compared corner sharpness (40D), CA and bokeh.
While I am not - by any stretch of imagination – a lens tester, I did try to eliminate as many variables as possible. I shot on tripod, used 10 sec MLU, focused via LV at 10X and used M mode. Distance was ~2m. I shot wide open, f/2, f/2.8 and f/4.
Shots were shot in RAW and converted to JPEG via DPP. Following an advice from a friend who knows a lot more than me about the digital side of life I set the sharpness to 2 in the RAW tab and 0 in the JPEG tab. That is extremely close to no sharpening at all. In my normal MO I usually set the sharpness to 5 in the RAW tab and 250 in the JPEG tab (strong AA filter in the 40D?) so you can expect to get much sharper results in "real life".
Last note: I set the FL of the 17-55 to 55mm and not 50mm as this resulted in a similar PoV. That suggests that the true FL of the 17-55 in the long end is a bit shorter than advertised. All 50mm lenses had the same PoV, at least as I could judge.
So, without further ado, here are the pictures. First, the scene of the action.
p.1 #3 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
My conclusions:
Sharpness: All are sharp enough for me and I see no significant difference.
CA: The Sigma is first with no CA. The Canon 50/1.4 is a close second with little CA. The 50/1.8 is a distant third with a lot of CA.
Bokeh: The Sigma is above and beyond all others. It simply nukes them at f/1.4 and f/2 apertures. At f/2.8 and f/4 the gap narrows but it still evident.
BQ: The Sigma again comes first. Much better than the Canon 50/1.4 and light years away from the 50/1.8.
Summary: I like this Sigma. A lot. I'm especially impressed with the bokeh which is better than any lens I own (35/1.4 included). Problem is, I got an appetite for the 85/1.2 II.
p.1 #5 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
deeprblue wrote:
Your 50 f1.8 seems misfocused on the last shot. It shouldn't be that soft at f2.8.
1. I did not change focus between shots.
2. As I said, I am not a lens tester and it is highly possible that some user errors crept in. I hope you find these this thread valuable despite its flaws.
p.1 #6 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
I heard that the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 had some front (back?) focus issues at 1st. Has this been fixed in newer copies? Would be nice to have a decently sharp 50mm f/1.4 at f/1.4
p.1 #7 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Thanks for taking the time to do this comparison. I have been considering the Sigma 50 as my next purchase. The lens seems sharp with great bokeh. I have the Sigma 30 f/1.4 which is very sharp but I actually prefer the 50mm focal length. This new Sigma is very intriguing especially at 1/3 the price of the Canon 50L f/1.2.
p.1 #8 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Thanks for the tests, very interesting. It is a shame that Sigma just doesn't license the AF algorithms from Canon. They have produced lenses over the years that I would definitely have picked up ... the 50mm looks nice.
p.1 #11 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Thanks very much for this! Gosh I miss Israeli Fanta... Haven't been to Israel in FAR too long.
While I LOVE the dreamy bokeh from the Sigma wide open, by f4 I prefer the Canon 50mm 1.4's bokeh signature since it maintains a better dream-like bokeh at that point. Interesting, though...
Am I the only one who thinks this?
In any case, the nifty fifty 1.8 clearly loses this battle, but I guess you get what you pay for.... It's still a fantastic lens for the money.
p.1 #13 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Thanks for doing this, it takes time and it's much appreciated.
Looks like your EF is a very nice and sharp copy, looks sharper than the EX wide open but I will agree the bokeh of the EX smokes em all, just super creamy. I would like to know how this lens is fairing as far as AF too, notice any FF or BF at distances @10'?
p.1 #14 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
interesting tests! thanks for taking the time to post them!
yeah, Yakim made the 50/1.8 look pretty bad here, but in *my* real life experience I prefer what I get from it more often than the 50/1.4... tests are always special cases...
The Sigma 50 definitely has my interest! (I'm just no in an excited EF mount lens buying mood... otherwise I'd already have it).
p.1 #17 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
I'm in love with the bokeh from the Sigma. The harsh bokeh from my 50 1.4 is very apparent in images and the Sigma totally blows it away. The sharpness seems to be better as well.
I've never really liked the 50 1.4. It's been ehh, okay. I very well may consider upgrading to the Sigma.
p.1 #19 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
I had my share with inconsistent AF with the Sigma (sometimes BF, sometimes FF sometimes spot on) and next week I'm going to try calibrate it but regretfully I have to say that the Canon 50/4.1 and 50/1.8 were no better in this regard.
My normal way of shooting is using AF and Av and in the initial tests I was using that but as they progressed I saw that I'm getting inconsistent AF (and inconsistent aperture) so I switched to MF and M. I was also doing some normal shooting a bit (I mean, with all three) and my impression was that in normal shooting the Sigma has a slightly higher percentage of inconsistent AF. Alas, the problem was evident in one my WA attempt as well.
p.1 #20 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
AF speed is also the fastest of the three. I did another test in very low light (ISO 3200, f/1.4, 1/45). I manually focused all to MFD, used the outer right AF point (i.e. non-high precision AF point) and didn't use AF assist. I then aimed to a sign post ~10m away and pressed the shutter button. I had no stopwatch with me but my estimation is as follows: Canon 35/1.4 – About 1 sec. Sigma 50/1.4 – About 1.2 sec. Canon 50/1.4 – About 2 sec. Canon 50/1.8 – About 3 sec. The 17-55 did not focus at all. Didn't even try…..
Summary: The Sigma is simply incredible piece of glass in all parameters of IQ where it trumps the others by either huge margin (bokeh), or big margin (flare), or small margin (CA). It also has the best BQ and best AF speed of all. No wonder that it is the most expensive.
Now, if I could just get it calibrated so AF accuracy will improve….
