p.2 #2 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
David:
I got a Sigma 50 f1.4 a couple weeks ago, and it back focuses (on my 40D) very significantly at the only longer distance I've tried so far, about 50-60 feet. The plane at which the focus point is placed isn't within the DOF until about f5.6 or so. I'm hoping Sigma can adjust it if I send both the camera and lens to them.
p.2 #6 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
There is no doubt that the sigma is an excellent lens optically. The question concern is how is it it the real world. I have read that the sigma also suffers from focus shift as the 50L does but to a lesser degree. My concern is the achilles for all sigmas when on a Canon AF. I do not like to use MF the color contrast of the Sigma appeals to me but my 50 1.4 works too well for me FF and the 35L gives me that FL on my cropped bodies. I had a survey about these lenses @ 2-3 wks ago. Welcome thread. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/712976/0#6435921
p.2 #8 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
crazeazn wrote:
i think the 17-55 is the sleeper here. but all seem to be very good. great job yakim!
A sleeper? I traded 24-105 for it and am selling 35/1.4 because it was made redundant. It (alongside the 10-22) are the lenses which made me decide that no matter what my other body will be, it will accompany an EF-S body, not replace it.
p.2 #9 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Thanks for this thread. I'm looking at replacing some stolen gear, and Im thinking really hard about the sigma 50 and a 5d. Sigmas 30 served me very well as a constant companion on my 30d, I'm hoping (with a trip or 3 to sigma if need be) that I will like the 50 as much.
p.2 #10 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
AF update: I calibrated the lens today. It had serious FF. Now it is spot on, but alas, only when using the central AF sensor. When using the peripheral AF sensors at close range (under 3m) at f/1.4 or f/2.0 you still see a slight FF, though much less than before. According to the technician, Sigma's orders are to calibrate any lens only with the central AF sensor. When he looked at the peripheral AF sensors it was only at my specific request (I use them a lot). He suggested I contact Sigma Japan and that's what I'll do but so far, things look much better than before. I'll be doing some normal shooting (I don't really like testing) with it and see how it goes.
P.S. He insisted that calibrating a Sigma lens is only to a specific body. When I asked what happens if I have 2 or more bodies he said that it's impossible to make a perfect calibration for more than one body. When I asked what about Canon lenses he replied that it's a very different issue altogether as Sigma, by reverse engineering, is never able to achieve the same precision as Canon or Nikon. Depressing.
p.2 #11 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Anyone still want to claim the 50 f/1.8 has better bokeh than the 50 f/1.4? The bokeh of the 50 f/1.4 is poor, but the 50 f/1.8 is appalling. Some on the alternate gear forum were complaining the Sigma bokeh was too smooth and lack character!
p.2 #13 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Wonderful tests, Yakim. Thanks a lot for posting these, along with your finding on AF.
I'm particularly impressed by its flare handling. I like shooting with the sun in/near the frame as an effect, and the Sigma blows the Canon out of the water, not just in flare spots, but overall when the sun is wreaking havoc inside the lens. (BTW, I like the flare photo as a photo... nice warm colors.)
Have you noticed a difference in CA shooting, say, trees against a sky?
Before I sold my 5D I was very tempted to buy an 85/1.2. Only the price stopped me. Now with my 40D I can't think of a good excuse not to buy this Sigma. Perhaps I can convince myself it's too heavy.
p.2 #15 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
For someone who states they are not a lens tester you have done a great job here Yakim. Thanks much. I agree with others that the Sigma has very nice bokeh and it is tempting to get one. After your positive testing on the lens I suspect there will be a run on the Sigmas at B&H and other places
p.2 #16 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
a test is a test and nothing more, period. In my *actual* photos my 50/1.8 has produced more images that are more pleasing to my eye than my 50/1.4. Granted I am only looking at actual photos and not extreme crops from closeups of soda cans... if that is what you shoot, great, I guess you can "call it" based on this test, otherwise you have to use both lenses extensively before you can say anything... and even then it only comes down to your own photos. Neither lens is a "bokeh star," and both can be used to make excellent photos.
I just posted this in another thread, but I don't think it looks "appalling." (50/1.8 II, f1.8, handheld @ 1/30th, film):
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Anyone still want to claim the 50 f/1.8 has better bokeh than the 50 f/1.4? The bokeh of the 50 f/1.4 is poor, but the 50 f/1.8 is appalling. Some on the alternate gear forum were complaining the Sigma bokeh was too smooth and lack character!
p.2 #17 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Yakim Peled wrote:
AF update: I calibrated the lens today. It had serious FF. Now it is spot on, but alas, only when using the central AF sensor. According to the technician, Sigma's orders are to calibrate any lens only with the central AF sensor. When he looked at the peripheral AF sensors it was only at my specific request (I use them a lot). He suggested I contact Sigma Japan and that's what I'll do ....
P.S. He insisted that calibrating a Sigma lens is only to a specific body. When I asked what happens if I have 2 or more bodies he said that it's impossible to make a perfect calibration for more than one body. When I asked what about Canon lenses he replied that it's a very different issue altogether as Sigma, by reverse engineering, is never able to achieve the same precision as Canon or Nikon. Depressing. ...Show more →
I too thank you for running these tests. No, I don't shoot soda cans or test charts, but I also know it's a lot easier to criticize lens tests than to carry them out and whether one shoots real-world objects or test charts one is going to get hammered by critics.
That said, I think the Sigma's now-notorious AF problems cannot be overlooked. I never rely on only one source for information before buying, but I do trust the tests at the-digital-picture.com, and his assessment of the focusing issues of the Sigma caused me to say "No thanks," at least for now:
If the vast majority of buyers eventually come to the conclusion that the Sigma focuses well out of the box - i.e., without sending their lens and/or camera across the country to be calibrated - I'll certainly be glad to give it a second look.
p.2 #18 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
PS If I wasn't clear enough, I certainly wasn't criticizing the tests (thanks again!), but taking issue with someone making the blanket statement that this test *proves* that one lens in the test is "appalling." (a lens that I admittedly this is pretty good)
p.2 #19 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
It's interesting to see that with the same tests we might not get the same conclusions. the only thing I really see is that the Sigma's bokeh is better wide open than the 50/1.4 (I'm not even considering the 50/1.8 or the zoom). From f/2 onwards the bokeh seems slightly better for the Sigma but the Sigma image has a warmer tone too, and I feel this affects the picture more than pure bokeh. Re: sharpness I don't see where the Sigma is sharper, wide open just check the bubbles on the right side of the can and tell me that the 50/1.4 isn't sharper? At other apertures the bubbles are sharper for the Canon (right side of the can) whereas the green/yellow text is sharper for the Sigma (left side of the can), it looks like the 2 lenses are not focusing on the same spot.
I'm always surprised by the negativity expressed very often here towards the 50/1.4 since it's one of my favourite lenses.
In that comparison the 50/1.8 looks way nicer than the 50L to my eyes, and from experience, I believe the 1.8 would look better in this circumstance than the 1.4 as well (the 1.4 renders with the same, but worse liney stuff that the L is showing here).
