Mine (S/N 103xxxx) is soft at f1.4, noticeably softer than my EF50 1.4 even if the test shot of EF50mm is just AF on tripod, remote, mirror lockup. The test shots of Sigma50mm are taken on tripod, live view x10, manual focus, remote control.
I wonder if any of you claiming the results to be "soft" have ever used a 50/1.4 lens at all? Of course it is somewhat soft at f/1.4. But the Sigma is less soft than any other 50 mm lens @ f/1.4 that I've tried (which includes all fast Nikkors later than 1970:s or so).
Resolution-wise, it might be considered "softer". But the local contrast is high and spherical aberration is low, so the percieved sharpness is higher.
Is this "soft" to you? I hope not. Any softness is due to the downscaling.
Edit: On FF, of course.
Last of a long, long series of Iain M. Banks-books on my side.. :/ Kind of sad that I have read them all now. I'm going to miss his writing, hope he comes out with something new soon!
Makten wrote:
I wonder if any of you claiming the results to be "soft" have ever used a 50/1.4 lens at all? Of course it is somewhat soft at f/1.4. But the Sigma is less soft than any other 50 mm lens @ f/1.4 that I've tried (which includes all fast Nikkors later than 1970:s or so).
Resolution-wise, it might be considered "softer". But the local contrast is high and spherical aberration is low, so the percieved sharpness is higher.
Is this "soft" to you? I hope not. Any softness is due to the downscaling.
Edit: On FF, of course.
You are missing the point. Your images show what the lens is capable of, as do a couple of the others. Several of the ones posted in this thread do not match this level of sharpness, and are, relatively speaking, soft.
bpark42 wrote:
You are missing the point. Your images show what the lens is capable of, as do a couple of the others. Several of the ones posted in this thread do not match this level of sharpness, and are, relatively speaking, soft.
Perhaps you're right about that, but I believe that it is due to inferior sharpening before and after size reduction.
Makten wrote:
Perhaps you're right about that, but I believe that it is due to inferior sharpening before and after size reduction.
I believe it also may be due to missed focus. For example, the shot of the girl seems to be slightly front focused. However, this is not a strike against the lens in general, assuming those are not the best focused samples the posters could find.
ok I just picked up a copy of this lens yesterday and it's really nice. The first few images in this thread are not indicative of the great images this lens is capable of.
ulrikft cat shot is one of the nicest I've seen from this lens, but yeah, IMO all these shots on this page exhibit that tell-tale Sigma not soft, but not sharp look. I had the same look with my 24/1.8. It seems that Nikon's focusing system is enough better that it doesn't have anywhere as many focusing problems with this lens. I'm not saying it's bad or that it's incapable of sharp shots, but I wouldn't buy this lens.
My only focusing issues are right near MFD wide open...it'll sway to the front JUST a smidge. It usually still catches the focus point in the DOF, but barely. By f/1.8, the small focus shift in the lens will correct that very small front focus, and the same happens when shooting even a couple feet from MFD. As I almost NEVER shoot at f/1.4 and MFD, it's never really been an issue for me, as I required more DOF when shooting that close 99% of the time.
This pretty closely describes how my copy behaves. I have no focus issues at all with shots wide open beyond say 10 feet. From MFD to maybe 6-8 feet I have problems. Most of mine are front focused at close distances. This is after I sent the lens and my 5D in to Sigma to get the lens calibrated to the body. I'm still debating with whether I should send it back in again or not.
I want to try using the ee-s focus screen and manually tweaking the focus for wide open close shots before I go through the hassle of sending the lens in again. No one that I have found has those focus screens in stock right now though.
Makten wrote:
I wonder if any of you claiming the results to be "soft" have ever used a 50/1.4 lens at all? Of course it is somewhat soft at f/1.4. But the Sigma is less soft than any other 50 mm lens @ f/1.4 that I've tried (which includes all fast Nikkors later than 1970:s or so).
Resolution-wise, it might be considered "softer". But the local contrast is high and spherical aberration is low, so the percieved sharpness is higher.
I have a copy of the Canon 50 f/1.4, and in my experience comparing the Canon with the Sigma the Canon has been consistently sharper wide open using auto focus(at close distances). I have tried 3 copies of the Sigma. The one I have now is the best of the lot, and is not as sharp as my Canon due to it misfocusing at close distances. With correct focus it is sharper though.
TWoK wrote:
IMO all these shots on this page exhibit that tell-tale Sigma not soft, but not sharp look.
I'm not saying it's bad or that it's incapable of sharp shots, but I wouldn't buy this lens.
TWoK, you canīt judge a specialty lens like this on some random samples in a thread. This is not a lens for random users, it is a highly specialized lens which requires quite a bit of photographic patience. This lens is super sharp if focused properly. Granted it is not 100% sharp in the corners wide open, because it is optimized for the center. Also it seems to get softer in the corners the closer you focus.
I think every person who have ever laid their pawns on this lens are in love with it. I have/have had something like 15 different 50ish primes for my 5D/2s and it measures up against any one of the, including Zeiss, Noct-NIkkor, Rokkor etcetcetc. This lens is the only AF lens I would keep if selling everything else, including a big pile of L primes.
ovredal73 wrote:
I think every person who have ever laid their pawns on this lens are in love with it.
At least for a while. I sold mine because it was so awfully big, and sometimes I actually wanted the more busy bokeh. So I traded it for a Nikkor 50/1.2 plus some money, and I like the Nikkor more.
Edit: But yes, I really loved it and still do. It just don't fit my style though.
We went to a carnival nearby on the 4th of July and I decided to bring my 5D and Sigma 50 to snap a few shots. Despite my nit picking on the focus issues of the lens it really does very well in low light situations. These are just snaps, but all are taken with less than desirable light, using auto focus with no tweaking. I didn't even try to do anything with the color balance on these because the lighting was all over the place (color wise). All have some sharpening applied and NR using Neat Image.
ovredal73 wrote:
TWoK, you canīt judge a specialty lens like this on some random samples in a thread. This is not a lens for random users, it is a highly specialized lens which requires quite a bit of photographic patience. This lens is super sharp if focused properly. Granted it is not 100% sharp in the corners wide open, because it is optimized for the center. Also it seems to get softer in the corners the closer you focus.
I think every person who have ever laid their pawns on this lens are in love with it. I have/have had something like 15 different 50ish primes for my 5D/2s and it measures up against any one of the, including Zeiss, Noct-NIkkor, Rokkor etcetcetc. This lens is the only AF lens I would keep if selling everything else, including a big pile of L primes.
hyperion wrote:
Nice photo. Great example of the warm colors produced by this lens.
OT: Great book. Don't leave that gem behind at the park. Player of games and Against a Dark Background my favs.
Can we see more outdoor sunny day shots like this one, as I have heard this lens has a problem with OOF bright areas blooming badly. I don't like the color of the grass which is OOF in this shot.
Just want to see some other shots. TIA.
Sensor bloom is not really the issue, so much as a very diffuse bokeh that
some people find too lacking in character, but there can be some blooming. Really,
I like the bokeh, but could understand if some object. The contrast and lack of purple fringing wide open
is remarkable, though.
Hard to tell from web-sized images though
