p.8 #1 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
walter23 wrote:
You should probably be looking at in-focus details for CA; lenses that are well corrected for different wavelengths of light at the in-focus areas may show different behaviour in the out of focus areas, I would think.
p.8 #2 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
After reading this, I'm seriously thinking about ordering a Sigma 50/1.4 to compare to my 50/1.2L. If the Sigma's AF is as good as my 50L's (which is great, thanks), then I'll deal with the slightly slower aperture. The Sigma's bokeh looks as good or better than the 50L, and sharpness, too.
p.8 #5 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
nathanlake wrote:
I think this sort of begs the question..what is good bokeh?
Good bokeh to me is having a lens that eliminates the competitive roughness of the background, giving you a smooth and interesting result. When you're stuck with the crappiest, most annoying and visually competitive background and can't change your position between you, the subject, and the background.
I don't know if that makes any sense, but maybe someone can catch my drift. In other words, it separates the subject from the background and makes the subject stand out, without having anything competing for attention in the frame.
At least that's what I think of when I think of shooting at a low aperture. In my opinion, when you can eliminate the background factor almost completely, and most of the time turn it into something favorable that benefits the quality of the photograph, that's a great advantage to have. You get more light, too. That's the added bonus.
I have my L glass, and I have two sigma lenses that I use. I never had a problem with my sigma 15-30mm, I love that thing to death. Sharp, no CA, and pretty good with flare too. Now I'm looking at a nice prime, and for a while I couldn't decide between the Canon or the Sigma 50mm 1.4's. But this thread helped me out. I always wondered why the Sigma costs more than the Canon, but now I know. I have confidence in buying Sigma for Canon bodies, and this thread reassures me that I'm buying a solid product.
This is a great thread, I've read every post/reply and found them all to be good, constructive posts that I can learn something from. Thanks everyone!
p.8 #6 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
nathanlake wrote:
I think this sort of begs the question..what is good bokeh?
Whatever you consider it to be. I've seen people say on a picture that it has a good bokeh while I did not think so at all. Beauty is in the eyes of the beer holder.....
p.8 #7 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
to me, good bokeh is when a lens renders an out of focus background in a way that gives the illusion of "distance" in a pleasing manner. A number of Canon's lenses have a way of rendering a blurred background as a dense wall of high tension *stuff* and not distant space... of lenses I've owned, both the EF 50/1.4 and 100 macro come to mind for producing that annoying impenetrable wall.
nathanlake wrote:
I think this sort of begs the question..what is good bokeh?
p.8 #8 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Great tests. I notice that my F1.8 has that glowy, dreamy sort of look... even in the focused areas! I think your testing has convinced me to upgrade to the 1.4.
I guess the other question is what is your take on other features of the lenses: e.g. auto focus speed and accuracy in real life scenarios?
p.8 #9 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
I don't have anything objective to add, but I just got my Sigma 50 a few weeks ago and LOVE it. Though I haven't tried the 50L, the only thing that could be improved on the Sigma would be snappier AF, though it's not bad at all.
p.8 #10 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
if you 1.8 has a dreamy sort of look in the focused areas your lens has a problem.
SamuelLim wrote:
Great tests. I notice that my F1.8 has that glowy, dreamy sort of look... even in the focused areas! I think your testing has convinced me to upgrade to the 1.4.
I guess the other question is what is your take on other features of the lenses: e.g. auto focus speed and accuracy in real life scenarios?
p.8 #11 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
I just got a used 1Ds II (for an absolute STEAL), and so the 50mm requirement has come back in. My Sigma 50 f/1.4 is on its way...hopefully I get an accurately focusing one. I had to go through 3 Sigma 30 f/1.4's when I only shot with the 30D, before getting a good one...and that was a stellar lens, so I'm hoping for similar with the Sigma 50, as I was never very impressed with my Canon 50 f/1.4 when I owned it.
I too am in the dilemma: to keep the 35L or not. I really prefer the normal focal length, so I know the Sigma will get more use, but the 35L is such a special lens, I don't know if I can part with it. I guess I'll see how much use I have for a fast 35 over the next few months.
p.8 #12 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
SamuelLim wrote:
I guess the other question is what is your take on other features of the lenses: e.g. auto focus speed and accuracy in real life scenarios?
In my experience nothing matches the AF speed and accuracy of ring USM and IF design. Sadly, none of the primes here have both.
p.8 #13 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Jman13 wrote:
I too am in the dilemma: to keep the 35L or not. I really prefer the normal focal length, so I know the Sigma will get more use, but the 35L is such a special lens, I don't know if I can part with it. I guess I'll see how much use I have for a fast 35 over the next few months.
I suggest you get the Sigma, use both side by side and only then decide. The Sigma is smaller, lighter, cheaper and with better bokeh. The Canon has better BQ and AF.
p.8 #14 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
It's not a matter of keeping one or the other...it's whether or not I will keep the 35 in addition to the 50. I really love a normal prime, which the 35L was serving as on my 1D II, but now that I've gone full frame, the 50 will stay for sure...and I just need to see how useful I find the 35L on full frame. So far, I like it, but I'm not sure yet whether or not I like it enough to have that much $$ tied up in it.
p.8 #17 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
If you can live with manual focus, get a Zeiss C/Y 50 f/1.4. Scary sharp on my 5D, better microcontrast than the Canon 50 f/1.4, sharper wide open, excellent colour, built like a tank, smooth focus and I only paid $145.
p.8 #20 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
i know its an old thread but i just went through this with the 1.4 v the 1.8....to me if you look at the photo and not just the word "fanta" the word trademark just under the word fanta is much sharper in the canon over the sigma at 4.0...can anyone see where the sigma is better...the second what is said to be the canon looks better to me...
