fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

       2       3       end
  

Archive 2009 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4

  
 
abdul10000
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


I posted this review on amazon and though of posting it here. Please help me make it better and more accurate by sharing your observations, thanks!



This review is three pages long. The first section which is 1 page in length does not cover this lens in particular but rather goes into lens basics such as primes vs. zooms and benefits of wide aperture. The second section reviews this lens in detail. Experienced photographers can skip straight to the second setion starting from BUILD QUALITY.

YES ITS BETTER THAN CANON'S 50MM F1.4 LENS!

Out the box this lens is impressive. Better yet on camera it's more impressive. The lens hosts some of the best performance features and specs any medium telephoto lens can offer including razor sharp images (at par with Canon's best lenses), fast and accurate focus, and breath taking Bokeh (blur) quality. All of this comes enclosed in a high quality all metal body bundled with essential accessories all for under half a grand. For me this is value 101. But before getting into details lets answer the question why buy a prime lens like this Sigma?

PHOTOGRAPHY BASICS

There are two main unique benefits to this lens A) it's a prime B) it offers a wide maximum aperture.

Primes come in fixed focal lengths, making it essential to physically move back and forth to reduce and enlarge the frame coverage respectively. Zoom lenses on the other hand can reduce or enlarge the frame coverage with a twist of a ring. Traditionally, the main advantage of primes is that they are lighter, smaller, sharper, control distortion better, and come in wider maximum aperture. Over the years and with the advent of better zoom lenses those advantages have eroded. New zoom lenses are as sharp and control distortion as well as primes. Size and weight, however, remain a prime advantage. That being said most photographers are more than willing to overlook this aspect for the convenience of having multiple focal lengths in one zoom lens.

The last advantage in the list, wide maximum aperture, remains prime territory and has so far remained off limits to zooms. The maximum aperture for 35mm compatible zoom lenses is f2.8. That's 2 stops narrower (slower) than Sigma's f1.4 aperture. (Side note: some zoom lenses have wider aperture including Olympus ED 35-100mm f2.0. Before you get excited, however, this lens is made for the Olympus much smaller four thirds sensor cameras. The four thirds system has its own short comings and the lenses are not compatible with 35mm cameras.)

The advantage of wide aperture is that it increases exposure speed. Hence, opening the lens wider by one stop increases shutter speed by half (up from 1/100 to 1/200 for example), which better freezes action and reduces the effects of camera shake on the final image. The second main advantage is that wider aperture reduces depth of field or focus range. In portrait photography that creates a beautiful separation in the form of blurred details between the subject and background.

There are additional minor, but still great, advantages to wider aperture. Since lenses stay open at their maximum aperture, a larger opening allows more light to reach the camera focus sensor and the view finder. The result is faster and more accurate focusing and much brighter viewfinder.

Keep in mind you are looking at a normal field of view lens made for 35mm cameras. On a 1.6 crop factor camera such as the Canon 40D, 500D, Rebel XTI, etc the field of view is like 85mm (50x1.6) on FF cameras. Standing 6-7 feet in front of a subject with this lens on a 1.6 crop factor camera held horizontally covers the top quarter of the body (chest up to head). Using this lens on a FF or 35mm sensor size camera at the same distance and orientation covers well over half the body. On a 1.6 form factor camera the field of view this lens offers is perfect for window lit portraits. On a FF camera the field of view this les offers is perfect for environmental (portraits that include the environment around the subject) and office portraits.

BUILD QUALITY

The build and size of this lens conveys quality. One thing that I didn't like was the lens surface which is covered with Sigma's mat finish. I don't like the finish but it's certainly better than plastic. I read that the finish gradually peels off and in a year's time can leave a mess behind. None of that happened to my one month old lens, but time will tell whether this is a common problem or not. I just wish they left the metal body bare, but I guess the mat finish provides a better grip surface over bare metal.

WEIGHT AND SIZE

The lens is pretty much all metal, making it far superior to the Canon's 50mm 1.4 mostly plastic body. That being said, the all metal body comes at a price; it's not cost its weight. The Sigma weights about 1LBS (500g, 16oz), where as the Canon weights (290g, 10oz). For me the weight is no issue but some might find the weight a little objectionable. Size wise the Sigma is about the size of the Canon 85mm f1.8, which is about 2.7". I find this size/weight combination perfect for balancing my camera. Especially so for countering the force required to press the shutter release button. In comparison the Canon 50mm is about 2" which I find a bit short to hold while mounted to the camera (I have long hands).

INCLUDED ACCESSORIES

The lens comes with a hood and protective pouch. Since those two items not included with the Canon you need factor their cost when comparing both lenses. My guess is that Canon's equivalent accessories cost minimum $50. Hence, you might want to factor that cost when comparing both lenses. The hood mount design is much easier to use than Canon's hood mount. Though, the locking click feels a bit too soft, I fear it might wear out over time.

PERFORMANCE

Since I do not own the Canon 50mm f1.4 I will compare this lens to Canon's 85mm f1.8 lens. I have owned and used that lens for over three years and find its performance amazing. In fact, by most accounts the 85mm lens out performs the 50mm and is also considered one of Canon's best lenses. Hence this will set the bar high for Sigma. Take note that I also have extensive experience with the 50mm through in store tests and lots of online research.

SHARPNESS AND DISTORTION

Since the Sigma features and specifications read like a dream list, I had high expectations for this lens. I can gladly confirm that the lens delivers to my expectations. Sharpness is at par with the 85mm f1.8, which is a big statement since the 85mm is one canons sharpest lenses. Chromatic and flare distortion are well controlled in the Sigma, outperforming Canon's 85mm in both areas by a good margin. Vignetting also seems very well controlled and better than Canon 85mm. I would rate the Sigma as excellent in all of the above areas.

FOCUS

From the onset focus accuracy was recognized as the weak spot of this lens. Therefore, I observed the focus performance of this lens very closely. I never encountered any of the reported focus problems. It seems the first few production batches had some issues. Judging from my lens, which is a later production model, the problem was ironed out. Testing the focus using F1.4 aperture I encountered no front or back focus problems. The lens quickly focuses on the selected focus point. The speed is impressive and it seems to be at par with my Canon 85mm. Throughout my in store tests the Canon 50mm f1.4 focused slower than the 85mm and was a little noisy. Therefore, I can confirm that the Sigma focus will be quicker and quieter than Canon 50mm f1.4.

BOKEH(BLUR)QUALITY

The final feature, and perhaps most important in this lens, is the boken (blur quality). I researched this matter extensively online and came to the conclusion that Sigma's blur pattern is superior to Canon's 50mm f1.4. My practical experience with this lens confirms this. The lens produces the most beautiful blur among all of my other Canon lenses. The bokeh seems more uniform and stronger in effect, almost a dreamy(r) effect. Perhaps this is due to the lens aperture design which includes 9 blades vs. Canon's 8 blades.

ONLY QUIBBLE

My only quibble, is that the lens aperture only goes up to f16 which is really not an issue because I didn't buy this lens for landscape, but this can be limiting when I am doing food photography. Depending on the setting f16 isn't always enough to bring the content of the dish into full focus. On the plus side the lens wide aperture (1.4) makes the viewfinder much brighter for easier manual focusing.

TAKE NOTE

For the price and performance this lens is truly a dream come true for natural portrait photographers. The lens can be opened to its widest aperture to isolate the subject with shallow depth of field. This also provides faster shutter speeds which reduces camera shake effects on the final image.

For landscape photographers keep in mind that since this lens aperture starts at f1.4, it achieves best sharpness between f2.8-f4.0 (around 2-3 f stops above maximum aperture). Below that range the lens sharpness will start to degrade. Thus, if you intend to use this lens for fine art/large print landscape photography you might want to test it against another lens with a lower maximum aperture such as f2.8. At f2.8 a typical lens will achieve best sharpness around f5.6-f8.0. That's the range most photographers start with to capture landscape scenes in full detail. This lens sharpness will start to degrade well before that.

Last but least, the minimum focus range with this lens is 45cm or 17" half the required distance by Canon 85mm lens. The Canon 50mm also offers 45cm minimum focus distance. I find this feature very useful when photographing small things like newborn kittens for example. It allows me to get much closer and fill the frame with the object/subject while still maintaining focus.

Edited on Jul 04, 2009 at 12:44 PM · View previous versions



Jul 04, 2009 at 12:39 PM
globalkiwi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


You might want to make it more clear that your review is of a Sigma 50mm f/1.4. It took me a while to work out exactly what you were comparing to the Canon ...


Jul 04, 2009 at 12:41 PM
abdul10000
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


globalkiwi wrote:
You might want to make it more clear that your review is of a Sigma 50mm f/1.4. It took me a while to work out exactly what you were comparing to the Canon ...


ok done, thanks for the tip!



Jul 04, 2009 at 12:43 PM
DIS Ottawa
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


Very good review overall. However, I strongly recommend proofreading it more carefully as there are a number of errors. Boken instead of bokeh, mat instead of matte, missing colon, missing apostrophe, etc.

I hope this helps you.

DIS



Jul 04, 2009 at 12:50 PM
thedigitalbean
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


Your title: "Yes its better than Canon 50mm f/1.4" when in the text of your review:

"Since I do not own the Canon 50mm f1.4 I will compare this lens to Canon's 85mm f1.8 lens."

IMO, it hurts your credibility a little bit. You are making a strong statement which you cannot support having owned or even having directly compared the two lenses. Given your reasoning is probably sound, the Sigma seems to be as good as the 85 and the 85 is probably better than the Canon 50. However I wouldn't have such a bold title if I hadn't compared both directly.



Jul 04, 2009 at 12:51 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


It's a rather weak, non-critical review, without supporting data.

How can you compare two lenses without having the Canon 50/1.4 to test against? How are you testing it and how can you claim that it is best at f/2.8-4? I find that difficult to believe based on experience with many similar lenses. Vignetting may be nearly gone by f/4 but the far corners usually sharpen up to about f/8.

AF accuracy and precision (repeatability), and lens-to lens quality variation would be my major concerns with any Sigma lens.

EBH



Jul 04, 2009 at 01:22 PM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


Maybe you should post this in the lens review section of this site. It will be easier for readers to browse in the future.

Do you know if the operating ROM of this lens can be easily updated? In the mid-90s I bought 6 Sigmas and Sigma USA was not able to update 5 of them for use with newer EOS bodies. I did get a ROM update for my Sigma 50 2.8 EX and liked the lens. I haven't bought any Sigmas since because of that issue.



Jul 04, 2009 at 01:24 PM
abdul10000
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


DIS Ottawa wrote:
Very good review overall. However, I strongly recommend proofreading it more carefully as there are a number of errors. Boken instead of bokeh, mat instead of matte, missing colon, missing apostrophe, etc.

I hope this helps you.

DIS



ahh I wish I can spell better. I have this problem where I have to wait for few days before I can start noticing the spelling errors. Grammar is fine, right?

Thanks for the help

thedigitalbean wrote:
Your title: "Yes its better than Canon 50mm f/1.4" when in the text of your review:

"Since I do not own the Canon 50mm f1.4 I will compare this lens to Canon's 85mm f1.8 lens."

IMO, it hurts your credibility a little bit. You are making a strong statement which you cannot support having owned or even having directly compared the two lenses. Given your reasoning is probably sound, the Sigma seems to be as good as the 85 and the 85 is probably better than the Canon 50. However I wouldn't have such a bold title if I hadn't compared both
...Show more

You caught the marketeer in me. You are right for this forum which is loaded with gear experts the title is too bold, but for amazon I think you need as bold of a title as you can get, especially if you consider the review is on the sideline. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!



Jul 04, 2009 at 01:33 PM
abdul10000
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


EB-1 wrote:
It's a rather weak, non-critical review, without supporting data.


Why thank you, so brief and to the point. Quick question, provided you are completely right about the technical part, you never found the review fluid in its presentation of information?

EB-1 wrote:
How can you compare two lenses without having the Canon 50/1.4 to test against? How are you testing it and how can you claim that it is best at f/2.8-4?


I wasn't referring to the canon in that statement. I made that statement about the Sigma.

EB-1 wrote:
AF accuracy and precision (repeatability), and lens-to lens quality variation would be my major concerns with any Sigma lens.

EBH


That's precisely what made me so reluctant in ordering this lens, nonetheless I took the risk and was presently rewarded.

Edited on Jul 04, 2009 at 01:45 PM · View previous versions



Jul 04, 2009 at 01:42 PM
abdul10000
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


Gochugogi wrote:
Maybe you should post this in the lens review section of this site. It will be easier for readers to browse in the future.


Good idea I will do that

Gochugogi wrote:
Do you know if the operating ROM of this lens can be easily updated? In the mid-90s I bought 6 Sigmas and Sigma USA was not able to update 5 of them for use with newer EOS bodies. I did get a ROM update for my Sigma 50 2.8 EX and liked the lens. I haven't bought any Sigmas since because of that issue.


I really have no idea, nut I can understand your frustration, I would too stop buying Sigma lenses if I had to go through that 5 years from now.



Jul 04, 2009 at 01:44 PM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


ahh I wish I can spell better. I have this problem where I have to wait for few days before I can start noticing the spelling errors. Grammar is fine, right?

Why not use a spell checker? All word processors have them build in. When I write a review I compose it in Pages or Word and paste into Dreamweaver or a textbook in Safari or Firefox. The Mac OS has a spell checker at system level so you can check anything you write in Pages, Safari, Mail, etc. Even FireFox has a spell checker albeit without lookup features.

But, yes, EB-1 has a point about your title and statements about the Sigma being better than the EF 50 1.4 USM. If you actually only compared the Sigma to the EF 85 1.8 USM, how can you say it's better than the EF 50 1.4 USM?



Jul 04, 2009 at 01:49 PM
abdul10000
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


Gochugogi wrote:
Why not use a spell checker? All word processors have them build in. When I write a review I compose it in Pages or Word and paste into Dreamweaver or a textbook in Safari or Firefox. The Mac OS has a spell checker at system level so you can check anything you write in Pages, Safari, Mail, etc. Even FireFox has a spell checker albeit without lookup features.



shhhhhhhh... I already wrote it in Word and used spell checker. I am really bad with spelling and universally with other languages too..... but don't tell anybody that



Jul 04, 2009 at 01:53 PM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


I liked the IQ and BQ just as you but unfortunately, was not so lucky in the AF department.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/717198/

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Jul 04, 2009 at 01:55 PM
Cinstance
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


It did not take me more than reading beyond the first paragraph to find two critical errors: It is not a "medium telephoto lens", and it is not "all metal body". Hard to continue if the reviewer is not able to get some of the most basic factors right in the first place.

A very good writing however. Not much like an objective review, but much like an ad.



Jul 04, 2009 at 01:58 PM
abdul10000
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


Yakim Peled wrote:
I liked the IQ and BQ just as you but unfortunately, was not so lucky in the AF department.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/717198/

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


yup I remember that review. The blur test made me really want to buy the lens, but the focus issue made me relent.



Cinstance wrote:
It did not take me more than reading beyond the first paragraph to find two critical errors: It is not a "medium telephoto lens", and it is not "all metal body". Hard to continue if the reviewer is not able to get some of the most basic factors right in the first place.


You are right its a normal lens, I am using it on 1.6 crop camera most of the time that's why I keep referring to it as medium telephoto, I will change that. As for body, should I be changing that to "mostly metal"?

Cinstance wrote:
A very good writing however. Not much like an objective review, but much like an ad.


Thank you, as a photographer I find my self always leaning towards the marketing side to excel, though of course, that never should be on the expense of facts.

Thanks for the feedback!



Jul 04, 2009 at 02:07 PM
Cinstance
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


The shell is actually plastic, which Sigma used for most of its less heavy EX lenses. That's also part of the reason why some of the sigma lens can be so light relative to their bulkness, such as the 12-24, the 50/1.4. A lot of plastic is used in these lenses.

The Sig 50's build quality however is head and shoulder above the Canon.



Jul 04, 2009 at 02:10 PM
Geoff Costello
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


Thanks for taking the time.. From some of the pictures I saw late last year this is a truely special lens when it works. I'd be interested to see if this was on a crop or FF body... Earlier this year I used my 5D II to try two of the Sigma 50mms, from deliveries a few months apart. Both had beautiful image quality in the 4-6ft range but backfocussed at ridiculous levels beyond about 10 ft.

For example I focused on the licence plate of a car parked in the centre of the road maybe 35 ft away and it found a 50+ft focus, leaving the license plate blurred and trees on the other side of the road sharp.. Quite bizarre... One of the twop also had bad CA at longer distances. A local pro store had sold about 8 and had them all returned in the end and sent to Sigma. But with such a major problem, one would imagine Sigma have well and truely fixed it by now and new units are fine... I couldn't wait (and was put off by the two faulty lenses in a row) So I got a Canon 50mm f1.2L which is perfect (but nearly 3 times the price). The portrait shots I took with the Sigma's were special - simply amazing Bokeh - making them a bargain IF they can keep the AF quality up...



Jul 04, 2009 at 10:10 PM
abdul10000
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


Geoff Costello wrote:
Thanks for taking the time.. From some of the pictures I saw late last year this is a truely special lens when it works. I'd be interested to see if this was on a crop or FF body... Earlier this year I used my 5D II to try two of the Sigma 50mms, from deliveries a few months apart. Both had beautiful image quality in the 4-6ft range but backfocussed at ridiculous levels beyond about 10 ft.

For example I focused on the licence plate of a car parked in the centre of the road maybe 35 ft away and
...Show more

True

What aperture were you using when you did your long range test?



Jul 05, 2009 at 12:23 AM
Tom K.
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


The Sigma 50mm has very soft corner sharpness problems on a full frame camera.


Jul 05, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4


I've also read this is not the lens you want if you also want a tack sharp 50mm for stopped down landscape work. Superb wide open and creamy bokeh - which BTW many don't like! - but doesn't get as sharp as say a Zeiss 50 f/1.4 at f//11-f/16.

It'd be nice if the focus issues are fixed and even nicer if Canon did the same for the 50L, which could be about the best of the lot apart from this issue.



Jul 05, 2009 at 04:43 AM
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

       2       3       end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account