M Vers wrote:
because the 50/1.4 was a huge 'fail' in my experience
If that was your conclusion last time out, I wouldn't get too worked up about the 85/1.4 The Sigma 50 anchors my FF lineup, so you can imagine how interesting this release will be for me.
The IQ will be substantially better than the 85/1.8, better even than the 85L/Nikkor 85/1.4's (Sigma MTF's are reliable indicators of real-world performance), but for those who can't get it to work... well, the lens isn't for you.
chez wrote:
But then again, there is a huge number of very satisfied photographers ( me included ) with the 50 1.4. From my perspective, a huge improvement over the Canon version and 1/3 the cost of the 1.2.
My focus was a little off, sent to Sigma for a tuneup, spot on now. Worth the effort IMHO for this marvelous lens. If the 85 is anything close, my 1.8 will be on the selling blocks.
My experience, having purchased two copies, both with serious issues, one completely unusable, has been dismal. Having gone through that once, it's hard for me to put my trust back into Sigma in regards to AF lenses and I'm sure I'm not alone. In fact for every good experience with the lens there seems to be a bad one. When I compared the Sigma to the EF 50/1.4 I did not see a noticeable difference in terms of contrast and sharpness, if you pixel peeped the Sigma was a touch sharper. In terms of bokeh the Sigma was a bit less choppy/nervous, which is more noticeable at 100% and or in larger prints. Build wise there simply is no contest, the Sigma felt considerably more solid, although the finish is terrible. Now, here is where my issue with the 50/1.4 EX lies--AF. After a +20ma on my 1DIII (forget about using the lens with my 5D) the lens seemed to work quite well, until I attempted to focus on a subject at and or past 20ft. The lens was simply incapable of locking focus accurately at these distances. Not only that but its AF performance in low light was poor as well, even my EF 50/1.4 performed better, and it's my poorest performing lens in these conditions. So in the end I sent both Sigma's back and decided to keep my EF 50 around until something a bit more reliable is available. The Sigma 50/1.4 simply is not an option for me any longer.
With the Sigma 50 f/1.4 going for around $500AUD, I'd expect the 85 to be under $1000AUD, and probably $750-800AUD from online stores or grey importers. Any how IMO it'll be a fair bit less than 2x the price of the 50.
When comparing MTF-charts, you should remember that Canon is the manufacturer that consistently shows the largest discrepancy between reality and official MTF-charts of all modern lens-manufacturers.
It is highly probable (from comparing realworld results on a Zeiss K7 bench to the published Canon MTF-charts) that the Canon charts are:
1) Simulated with a very narrow spectrum green light stimuli, not "white" light. This lifts the curves by quite a lot.
2) Simulated without diffraction effects - a lot of the F/8 MTF lines they publish are actually physically impossible to achieve...
And also - they are simulations, not measurements. No real physical lens will ever be manufactured that reaches the absolute mount/centering/material/glass surface perfection of the simulated model.
Those comments are applicable to most manufacturers - except Zeiss. Even Leica have reverted to publishing simulations in stead of measurements nowadays.
Even though the 50F/1.4 isn't a speed demon in the AF department, it still outperforms the EF50F/1.4 copies that I've tried in accuracy. And since I'm not a sucker for AF-speed, the point is largely moot for me. I have no doubt that the Sig85 will be really good.
honest question: did sigma ever fix what was plaguing their 50mm 1.4's autofocus (as in straight from the factory fixed, not post-disappointment-fixed), or even acknowledge that a large amount of 50mm 1.4s ill-focused and/or had misaligned elements?
if yes to the former, yay capitalism. if no, i won't hold my breath for the new 85mm 1.4.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Yakim, the 150 is already superb IQ, I'm guessing it's not a priority. To me the fact they are now offering alternative superfast primes is great news. I've been agonizing over an 85mm for months and it looks like Sigma has come to the rescue. The next lenses I would love to see are a FF 16-40 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4(1.2!), 105 f/1.8, 400 f/5.6 OS, 500 f/4.5 OS.
I take great IQ for granted, and then look for other stuff. I tried their 50/1.4 and indeed found IQ to be great but AF inaccuracy issues (even after calibration) got me at last and I sold it.
M Vers wrote:
[My experience, having purchased two copies, both with serious issues, one completely unusable, has been dismal. Having gone through that once, it's hard for me to put my trust back into Sigma in regards to AF lenses and I'm sure I'm not alone. In fact for every good experience with the lens there seems to be a bad one. When I compared the Sigma to the EF 50/1.4 I did not see a noticeable difference in terms of contrast and sharpness, if you pixel peeped the Sigma was a touch sharper. In terms of bokeh the Sigma was a bit less choppy/nervous, which is more noticeable at 100% and or in larger prints. Build wise there simply is no contest, the Sigma felt considerably more solid, although the finish is terrible. Now, here is where my issue with the 50/1.4 EX lies--AF. After a +20ma on my 1DIII (forget about using the lens with my 5D) the lens seemed to work quite well, until I attempted to focus on a subject at and or past 20ft. The lens was simply incapable of locking focus accurately at these distances. Not only that but its AF performance in low light was poor as well, even my EF 50/1.4 performed better, and it's my poorest performing lens in these conditions. So in the end I sent both Sigma's back and decided to keep my EF 50 around until something a bit more reliable is available. The Sigma 50/1.4 simply is not an option for me any longer....Show more →
Same experience here. AF is not reliable as EF lenses and it did not work well on MA body.
Too bad the 85/1.4 won't have an apreture ring -> impossible to adjust aperture with my Nikon cameras... I wish Zeiss was cheaper or Samyang had better IQ when stopped down
Langran wrote:
Got to admit that I'd be tempted to trade my Siggy 18-50mm F2.8 for the new 17-50 if the price isn't too much. I'd love 8mm too but I doubt I'll bother replacing the 10-20mm.
M Vers wrote:
....My experience, having purchased two copies, both with serious issues, one completely unusable, has been dismal. Having gone through that once, it's hard for me to put my trust back into Sigma in regards to AF lenses and I'm sure I'm not alone. In fact for every good experience with the lens there seems to be a bad one. When I compared the Sigma to the EF 50/1.4 I did not see a noticeable difference in terms of contrast and sharpness, if you pixel peeped the Sigma was a touch sharper. In terms of bokeh the Sigma was a bit less choppy/nervous, which is more noticeable at 100% and or in larger prints. Build wise there simply is no contest, the Sigma felt considerably more solid, although the finish is terrible. Now, here is where my issue with the 50/1.4 EX lies--AF. After a +20ma on my 1DIII (forget about using the lens with my 5D) the lens seemed to work quite well, until I attempted to focus on a subject at and or past 20ft. The lens was simply incapable of locking focus accurately at these distances. Not only that but its AF performance in low light was poor as well, even my EF 50/1.4 performed better, and it's my poorest performing lens in these conditions. So in the end I sent both Sigma's back and decided to keep my EF 50 around until something a bit more reliable is available. The Sigma 50/1.4 simply is not an option for me any longer....Show more →
Its a shame you had those AF issues with your Sigmalux.
Mine had AF issues out of the box, but its been perfect on my 5d2 after a trip to Sigma. In fact, its now one of my most accurate lenses in terms of AF. I've got tons of images from it at wide aperature. Its now one of my most used lenses.
The main benefit of the Sigma for me is the bokeh, as you say its less "nervous" than the Canon 50 1.4, especially with busy backgrounds.
Additionally, IMO, the Sigmalux is very close if not equal to the 50L, without the focus/shift issues.......
yow, the sigma bokeh is so much better than the 1.2L. Makes me curious how sigma does it.
michael49 wrote:
Its a shame you had those AF issues with your Sigmalux.
Mine had AF issues out of the box, but its been perfect on my 5d2 after a trip to Sigma. In fact, its now one of my most accurate lenses in terms of AF. I've got tons of images from it at wide aperature. Its now one of my most used lenses.
The main benefit of the Sigma for me is the bokeh, as you say its less "nervous" than the Canon 50 1.4, especially with busy backgrounds.
Additionally, IMO, the Sigmalux is very close if not equal to the 50L, without the focus/shift issues.......
michael49 wrote:
Its a shame you had those AF issues with your Sigmalux.
Mine had AF issues out of the box, but its been perfect on my 5d2 after a trip to Sigma. In fact, its now one of my most accurate lenses in terms of AF. I've got tons of images from it at wide aperature. Its now one of my most used lenses.
The main benefit of the Sigma for me is the bokeh, as you say its less "nervous" than the Canon 50 1.4, especially with busy backgrounds.
Additionally, IMO, the Sigmalux is very close if not equal to the 50L, without the focus/shift issues.......
I wanted to like the lens...I really did. One other thing I forgot to mention, and you may remember this from my thread a while back, the Sigma renders OOF circular highlights in a very strange, and very unappealing, way. While they are more circular than the EF 50's they have a swirling/onion ring effect in the fill--which bothered the hell out of me. Sure it's not something you see always, but I do have a bunch of shots that would have been ruined by the effect. I want so bad for Canon to develop either a new 50/1.4 or 50/1.2, but until then it looks like I'll be taking a pass on the Sigma--my gambling days are behind me
M Vers wrote:
...the Sigma renders OOF circular highlights in a very strange, and very unappealing, way. While they are more circular than the EF 50's they have a swirling/onion ring effect in the fill--which bothered the hell out of me...
Here's the Sigma 50 1.4 bokeh on the left vs the Canon 50 1.4 on the right (both at f/1.6). I prefer the Sigma bokeh....
M Vers wrote:
Here is what I'm talking about (Ignore the '1.5'--twas a typo)
....
There is no doubt that the Sigma is smoother, but that swirling....ick.
...
Interesting, I've taken a ton of shots at large aperatures with the Sigmalux and I can't say I've ever noticed that effect, although I don't think it would bother me if I did - I actually kind of like it.
The Sigma 50 anchors my FF lineup, so you can imagine how interesting this release will be for me.
! Hint - never unexpectedly laugh so hard that the spendy wine you're drinking ends up in your nose - - - ouch!