p.9 #1 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
tdr6874;
I agree that when you look at the fine detail the Canon 50 f/1.4 is sharper. I have both the Canon f/1.4 and the Sigma f/1.4 and I have made the same observation shooting newspaper clippings on my refridgerator wide open with both of them. My Canon is sharper. However, when I compare portrait images between the two the Sigma "appears" sharper. This is probably due to better contrast and less halation. I love the way the Sigma renders, and between that and the bokeh it spanks my Canon.
p.9 #3 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Since this thread has been resurrected, let me chime in with my experience after I got mine (mentioned on page 7). I also bought a 50L just to make sure I got the best 50. I send back the 50L. My 50L had focus problems (front focus), the Sigma did not. Yes, that's said correctly.
Anyway, image quality wise, I found essentially no difference between the two...both have tremendous bokeh, and both are quite sharp, though the Sigma might have been ever so slightly sharper wide open vs. wide open, but when closing the L to f/1.4, they equalized, so it's a wash.
I LOVE my Sigma 50. Such a beautiful rendering. It's got a magic that I never got with my old Canon 50/1.4.
p.9 #4 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
The biggest problem with the Canon 50/1.4 is definitely loss of contrast wide open. Images tend to look very flat. Level/Curve adjustment helps with this but it never really gets the punchiness I've seen from the Sigma (Wide Open).
p.9 #6 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Yakim Peled wrote:
I looked at the pictures again and can't say I see this.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
It is most obvious in the wide open shots, but still evident to a lesser degree in the f4 shots. If you look at the word "trademark" directly below the ta in fanta, it is sharper in the Canon shots. You can barely read it in the Sigma wide open shot.
in addition to clearly seen trademark...the little orange dots around the white area where the word fanta is...the canon is sharper...then look to the leafs with green and blue shadow under the letter t in fanta...the canon appears sharper still
p.9 #9 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
WilliamG wrote:
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?
No, I've observed the same thing. Someone on the Nikon board did a similar comparison of the Sigmalux against the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G, and reached also this conclusion. Still a great lens though.
Yakim: great test; shame you didn't have the 50L to compare as well. I think the bokeh of the 'L' is very close to the Sigma at 1.4, and it has better corners and micro-contrast until about 5.6 or so. Which is good, since it's so much more expensive. Probably not worth the difference in price from a pure IQ perspective, but if you need the extra half-stop of speed it's there I guess.
p.9 #11 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Mike Mahoney wrote:
...Having shot with both can you comment about any differences in actual focal length? .. I've read that the Sigma is closer to 45mm.
It is. My Sigma is definitely wider than my Canon 50 1.4
p.9 #12 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
Another example.
Sigma on top, Canon on bottom - both at f/1.6.
Both are very sharp, but check out the bokeh in the background vegetation; I prefer the Sigma's....(Sigma imaged cropped slightly to match the Canon as the Siggy is wider)....
p.9 #13 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
It's just over 48mm. The Canon is 51.8 if my memory serves me right. Those are figures for infinity focus, and as they are both unit focusing lenses, difference should be the same at closer focus distances.
p.9 #14 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
I'm with William on preferring the look to the Canon 1.4 after about 2.8 to f4. I've liked the look to the Sigma images, just don't want to get a lens that doesn't focus accurately or that isn't compatible with future camera bodies.
p.9 #16 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
The Sigma's design is newer and slightly more robust. It is also a heavier and bulkier lens. For a $100 less I am satisfied with the Canon 50mm F/1.4 because of it's lack of bulk, low light performance, quiet USM and nice bokeh. Comparing the two, If size is not an issue, the Sigma is definitely an excellent lens for the price range. I can't truly criticize the Sigma because I haven't used it but I've only read excellent reviews of it. However, I own the Canon 50mm 1.4 and I love it. Good report.
in addition to clearly seen trademark...the little orange dots around the white area where the word fanta is...the canon is sharper...then look to the leafs with green and blue shadow under the letter t in fanta...the canon appears sharper still
You're right. Never noticed it. But I still like the Sigma's IQ better. The bokeh is just beautiful.
p.9 #20 · Sigma 50/1.4 vs. Canon's 50/1.4. 50/1.8 and 17-55/2.8 IS
tcamper wrote:
the Sig shots, all of them, seem to be underexposed 1/3 stop in comparison to the Canon.
Quoted from the OP:
Yakim Peled wrote:
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.
can you tell me how...this is clear to me that the canon is sharper in fine detail...