p.2 #1 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4
The 50L is not sharp until stopped down significantly...don't buy if you care about that. I tried both the Siggy 50 1.4 and Canon 50 1.4 side by side, for more than a few photos. It's soft in the corners, and the sharpness is more a function of focusing distance to subject and variations from copy to copy (I tried 3). The Canon has the same rich depth of color and contrast SOOC as the Sigma which is pretty damn good. My copy is sharp at 1.4 and get's very much better at F2. A rare occurence I'm told from others who own the lens. Corner sharpness catches up in a hurry. Very important for those of us who don't ride the center focus point the majority of the time. Though I suspect, not many buy a 1.4 version to worry about corner sharpness. We want bokeh, bokeh, bokeh smooth as butter and round.
Where the Siggy bested Canon: Slightly better contrast, build quality rocks the Canon big time, not significanty heavier, and fast focus. I dropped my Canon on soft sand on a trip abroad...needless to say it's manual focus only now from a less than 1ft fall. My Siggy 24-70 on the other hand survived a 20ft roll down an incline on Baffin Island and escaped with minor scratches. Their lenses appear to be more robust. Optically, I would give the edge to Siggy, it's so slight though that most won't notice. AF speed is comparable...the Siggy HSM is pretty fast and very quiet...so is USM on Canons...woopteedoo.
For an extra 200+ you get better build, and margibally better optics....not such a great deal for me.
Also, guess what?
This isn't an english class forum...give the guy a break on the grammer/spelling errors...sheesh. Blow a few highlights once in awhile.
p.2 #3 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4
EyeBrock wrote:
My 50L is pretty sharp at 1.8-2.0. Do you have a 50L MrAdventure?
In fact I tried several copies EyeBrock...of course you realize that sharpness is subjective and varies by copy to copy. When I went shopping for a 50mm to replace my 1.4 I tried several Sigma and Canon copies before settling on fixing my 50 1.4 and leaving it at that. The 50L has other qualities which rock. What's the purpose of your question?
p.2 #5 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4
EyeBrock wrote:
There are many people who say how bad the 50L is and don't own one.
I'm sorry...wasn't aware that I had to "own" a lens in order to render an objective opinion on it. Also, read my post. Nowhere in it did I say the 50L was bad. My objection was purely to the sharpness at it's widest aperture in relation to the cost. I did love the colour and contrast SOOC. I didn't love the thought of spending so much on a lens that was sharp from 1.8 (in your opinion) ...when it's max is 1.2. I found it sharp on avg from 1.4 onwards to about f/8. Comparable to my 50 1.4, the red ring does look nicer, and the focus ring is smoooth. Not enough to make me switch.
I can sort of guess at where your headed so let me go a few steps further as to why I'm keeping the 50 1.4: Faster AF, similar sooc IQ, very sharp at f/2. At 1.2 the DOF is so tricky with close subjects that you almost always have to stop down in anything but the brightest lighting conditions. I'm shaky and getting old, I need a cushion.
p.2 #6 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4
I like your shots on flickr.
I just disagree with your views on the 50L. The narrow DOF is a challenge but I find shots wide open usable and at 1.8 it's pretty sharp. It took me a while to get to grips with the 50L (I also got it at $1150 US when the loony was at par) but the learning curve was worth it. It's my most used lens these days.
We got back from Playa de Carmen in May (middle of H1N1), a great spot!
p.2 #7 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4
EyeBrock wrote:
I like your shots on flickr.
I just disagree with your views on the 50L. The narrow DOF is a challenge but I find shots wide open usable and at 1.8 it's pretty sharp. It took me a while to get to grips with the 50L (I also got it at $1150 US when the loony was at par) but the learning curve was worth it. It's my most used lens these days.
We got back from Playa de Carmen in May (middle of H1N1), a great spot!
Thx!
Playa is my spot, have a few friends from the USA who live there year round' and many more I made on the last trip.
Ya I wouldn't turn it down if I got a good price or better yet, free!!
Since I already had the 50 1.4 that did exactly what I wanted of it, kinda hard to go L without a huge upside. I ended up getting a 24L which I hate below f/2.8. That was a mistake...should have gotten the 35L and called it a day. Live and learn.
p.2 #9 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4
Yea, the price at Henry's is very silly and I wouldn't have got it without the B&H deal but I'm very happy with it now. It wasn't great on my 20D but on FF it's nice. The 35L does interest me but I'm pretty pleased with my 16-35 II.
p.2 #11 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4
EyeBrock wrote:
Yea, the price at Henry's is very silly and I wouldn't have got it without the B&H deal but I'm very happy with it now. It wasn't great on my 20D but on FF it's nice. The 35L does interest me but I'm pretty pleased with my 16-35 II.
Great portraits of the Pride parade too.
Ya I got the same...it rocked on the 1D and 5D but sucked on the 50D. I wouldn't trade a nice copy of the 16-35 for anything!
p.2 #12 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4
Well i'm happy you like it but MANY of us decided to stop playing the " HEY SIGMA! LOOK, CANON HAS A NEW BODY OUT, WOULD YOU UPDATE MY LENS?" game
I only kept the Sigma macro 50mm f2.8 (using liveview only) 'cause I like the focal lenght for jewellery work and Canon's 50mm macro is really really old and does only 1:2 magnification.
p.2 #13 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4
big country wrote:
The OP really has no credibility in his review. Just another internet forum reader that has no real world experience.
I wonder if he has ever used or owned the 85 1.2 or just made something up to post a review on amazon.
Where exactly in my review was I comparing the Sigma to the Canon 85mm 1.2? I compared the Sigma to the 85mm 1.8, which I have owned and used for three and a half years.
I posted this review so that willing forum members can help me improve it by critiquing its content, not to throw useless comments. If that is how you want to comment that's just up to you.
p.2 #16 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4
MrAdventure wrote:
The 85 1.2 and 1.8 are in a class all by themselves.
I personally think the 85mm 1.8 is better. It focuses much faster, which can make or break a shot. The 1.2 had better color from what I remember, and the blur is amazing at 1.2.
Thanks for the kind PM by the way, I really appreciate it!
big country wrote:
abdul, i was talking about your 85 1.2 review on amazon.
sorry to confuse you.
np man.
Regarding my 1.2 mk1 review I stated in the review that I do not own it, but have studied it extensively. My review revolved around my decision not to buy it.
I thought adding that review was useful because when I was new to photography and started researching lenses I had the delusion that expensive lenses produce much better pictures, pictures in a different league. Obviously, I was wrong.
Therefore, I added that review to clarify that issue with the full understanding that not everyone will like it, but it's really not intended for everyone, only newbies. At any rate it's been well received by most readers. Hope this clarify things.
p.2 #19 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4
So you do a review from a lens you just 'tried out' at the store?
I'm not trying to give you a hard time here but a would think a few hundred shots over at least a couple of weeks in various light situations would be the minimum. That's my yardstick for FM reviews on my gear.
p.2 #20 · Sigma 50mm Review: Yes its better than Canon 50mm f1.4
I appreciate your hard work and willingness to share your opinions. I recommend posting a short summary paragraph here along with a link to the externally-posted article rather than posting such a long message here.
