p.5 #1 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
back when I shot a Canon crop body I had the Sigma 17-70, 30 f1.4 and 10-20 lenses and they were all great. I never really had an issue with any of them. Recently I've been thinking of springing for a Sigma 50 f1.4 for my ff Canon to compliment my 20 year old 50 1.8, which is still a great lens.
p.5 #2 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
I've had a chance to work a bit more with both the Sigma and the Canon 50s. Bottom line - Sigma has IQ (to my eyes) and build advantages, but the Canon AF is much faster and more decisive.
p.5 #3 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
miccullen wrote:
I've got/had six Sigma lenses (EOS mount) and have never had to return any of them. Which simply makes the point that anecdotal experiences aren't worth very much at all.
Actually, it proves that a single measurement is statistically irrelevent; it takes a large samlpe size to get an accurate picture.
p.5 #5 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
mh2000 wrote: Six samples is statistically significant... not conclusive, but significant none the less...
No, 6 lenses is personally significant but not "statistically significant". With that sample size sigma could still have a failure rate of 50%, despite the apparent perfection.
p.5 #6 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Wow the sig bok is great I am very impressed
i wonder if the great sigma bokeh compared to the canon and yet the superior sharpness of the canon compared to the sigma are not related by not exactly equal focus placement. It really is incredibly hard to get it exactly matched and if it is not it can easily totally alter results.
p.5 #7 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
well. it is "statistically significant," but not conclusive... think of it this way: if you take six samples from a lot of new lenses and all test good then you have more confidence in the lot than if say 3 were good and 3 were bad, right? For test purposes, 6 is a rather low sample size, but not unreasonable. (Many aircraft are built around tests with sample sizes of less than 6)
Now, the one Sigma lens (28/1.8) I purchased seemed pretty soft... don't know if I could call it defective or not... so that is an insignificant sample... except for my own personal aggrevation...
timbop wrote:
No, 6 lenses is personally significant but not "statistically significant". With that sample size sigma could still have a failure rate of 50%, despite the apparent perfection.
p.5 #8 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
skibum5 wrote:
i wonder if the great sigma bokeh compared to the canon and yet the superior sharpness of the canon compared to the sigma are not related by not exactly equal focus placement. It really is incredibly hard to get it exactly matched and if it is not it can easily totally alter results.
p.5 #9 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Yakim Peled wrote:
That's exactly why I used MF.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
i found that even using 10x liveview focusing it can still be tricky to really get it exactly matched, the slightest trace of a difference can alter results (also interesting article on this on slrgear). anyway, not saying you had the focus off, just brought up the possibility.
p.5 #11 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
mh2000,
Doesn't the law of large numbers state that samples of thirty or larger are deemed to be statistically significant?
mh2000 wrote:
well. it is "statistically significant," but not conclusive... think of it this way: if you take six samples from a lot of new lenses and all test good then you have more confidence in the lot than if say 3 were good and 3 were bad, right? For test purposes, 6 is a rather low sample size, but not unreasonable. (Many aircraft are built around tests with sample sizes of less than 6)
Now, the one Sigma lens (28/1.8) I purchased seemed pretty soft... don't know if I could call it defective or not... so that is an insignificant sample... except for my own personal aggrevation...
p.5 #12 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
It is not as simple as take 30 samples from a lot and you are golden.
From wikipedia:
"Typically, all else being equal, a larger sample size leads to increased precision in estimates of various properties of the population."
A sample size of 6 is certainly more *significant* than a sample size of 1 and a sample size of 30 is more significant than of 6... but if you took a random sample of 30 US citizens, you would probably end up with a rather poor representation of the USA... heck, there might not even be a single photographer in the group!
p.5 #14 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
outlawyer wrote:
The Sig 50 is $439 w/free shipping at B&H now.
Really? Is there a special code/link? When I search for it it still says $499 with free shipping. Would be great if they dropped the price on this great lens!
p.5 #15 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Nice test. Looks like a very nice lens. The Canon 1.4 looks a hair sharper to me wide open, but its interesting to note that your focus was not in the center. The Canon might do a bit better out there, but the Sigma might do better in the center (and probably does). But, the differences in sharpness are not enough to really bother anyone.
Also, while the Sigma does have much smoother bokeh, what is it's bokeh like before the plane in focus? Lenses often have different OOF rendering in front of the plane of focus as they do behind... Would be interesting to see that comparison as well. Though background blur is much more common...
p.5 #16 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Well, following this thread i just went and tried to buy the Sigma in a local shop. Sadly both copies i tried showed exactly the same backfocus problem at distances above about 10 ft. No problems at short range though, just longer distances. Admittedly my 350D isn't what you'd call cutting edge in the AF department, but the Canon 1.4 didn't show any problems (and so i came home with one). I'm disappointed as the Sigma otherwise seemed like a quality product, and i really wanted to buy one.
p.5 #17 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Beethoven wrote:
Really? Is there a special code/link? When I search for it it still says $499 with free shipping. Would be great if they dropped the price on this great lens!
No, last night it was 439 at B$H and Adorama. Adorama showed this the price after a $50 instant rebate, B&H it was just 439 flat out. I'm sure of this, cause I ordered one.
If it focuses close to right, I'll be happy.
PS: I checked and sure enough it's back up to 499.
PPS: It's 453 now at Amazon
p.5 #18 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
kidtexas wrote:
Nice test. Looks like a very nice lens. The Canon 1.4 looks a hair sharper to me wide open, but its interesting to note that your focus was not in the center. The Canon might do a bit better out there, but the Sigma might do better in the center (and probably does). But, the differences in sharpness are not enough to really bother anyone.
Also, while the Sigma does have much smoother bokeh, what is it's bokeh like before the plane in focus? Lenses often have different OOF rendering in front of the plane of focus as they do behind... Would be interesting to see that comparison as well. Though background blur is much more common......Show more →
1. I used the rightmost edge to make this test more difficult.
2. Frontal bokeh is just as beautiful as rear one.
3. No more tests with this lens for me. I no longer have it.
Six samples is statistically significant... not conclusive, but significant none the less...
