Just received my 50 1.4 from Amazon last night. Obviously I was not able to test it extensively but I did try it around the house and checked it out on the Lens Align and focus appears to be spot on. Using a 1D4. Shot everything wide open. So far it looks to be sharp and focuses accurately. Will try it out this weekend, but at this point I like what I see.
people in he forums just repeat urban legend such as all Sigma 50mm F1.4's cannot focus
I bet many of the people repeating that have not actually used a Sigma 50mm F1.4
also bet part of the remainder is error using fast F1.4 and shallow depth of field
I have an excellent Sigma 50mm F1.4 and have tried several others that friends have
abqnmusa wrote:
people in he forums just repeat urban legend such as all Sigma 50mm F1.4's cannot focus
And people who lucked out by getting a decent one keep on ignoring the fact that there is an issue with a lot of them My experience with the Sigma 50/1.4 (all four of them) is well documented--I absolutely dare you to tell me I'm making any of it up or that I have little experience with wide aperture lens technique.
I "heard on the internet" that Sigma changed focusing algorithm several months ago. Maybe that explains why some people had lots of problems and others haven't. I recently bought 3, and non of them had focusing problems nor required much MA.
Bought my Sigma 50 off the B&S boards here from a gentleman that shot some college basketball with it. His samples in his gallery looked awesome so I jumped on it. Best BBall images I've ever shot. Planning on using it for some weddings later in the year. Right now shooting it on a 7D and nails focus, IQ great.
mmmm Chevy had that "Sigma" issue with their corvette sports car back in the day. Loved the old muscle cars but they only did one thing well: go fast in a straight line. If you wanted them to do other things like take turns without killing you or be better on gas, you had to spend lot's of money. So my question is "what's the point"?
The Euro "trash" may not have the all out muscle but it runs away in the twisties and are way more fun to drive.
Why go thru all that with the Siggy stuff when the general IQ is the same with Canon at a fraction of the cost...plus very reliable auto-focus?
Congrats to the people who snare "good" copies of Sigma lenses.
MrAdventure wrote:
the general IQ is the same with Canon
I don't agree with that statement after using both lenses for several months. The photos the Canon lens produced for me were never that great. The Sigma IQ is much better. Also, the build quality of the Sigma is much, much better.
Richard Nye wrote:
I don't agree with that statement after using both lenses for several months. The photos the Canon lens produced for me were never that great. The Sigma IQ is much better. Also, the build quality of the Sigma is much, much better.
Ya ok and that's cool...I've used a bunch of 50's as well and don't see the kind of "of wow" that you do. I agree on the build quality though. My point is this; if the Sigma is built like a tank but you can't take a consistently focused set of images, is it worth anything to you?
I used mine for longer than "several months"...well over a year side by side with the EF 50's. Know what? clients didn't notice the IQ difference you cited. They did notice the softness vs the crispness between them. The Siggy was great when the AF connected but I tend to change distance,composition etc during a shoot quite a bit, even in the studio. That's where the Siggy fell apart. Differences in focusing distances..among other things tripped it up, whereas the Canon nailed it every time no matter what I did or where I shot from.
I don't want to tune a lens before every shoot. I want to pull it out, snap it on and get some images. I don't want to labor over how/why a piece of equipment works. I gotta do my job in front of clients whether it's a beauty, fashion editorial or portrait session. My glass has to be able to do it's heavy lifting each time, no excuses.
Why go thru all that with the Siggy stuff when the general IQ is the same with Canon at a fraction of the cost...plus very reliable auto-focus?
The IQ of Canon 50mm 1.4 is mediocre at best wide-open and not bad at all at 2.8, but I will have to strongly disagree with you about its AF system, which as you might be aware, for the lack of a better word, SUCKS. I went through 2 copies and both broke on me. Today I'd rather buy Canon 1.8 then 1.4. It makes me laugh very hard when somebody says that Canon 1.4 AF is reliable.
faremax wrote:
The IQ of Canon 50mm 1.4 is mediocre at best wide-open and not bad at all at 2.8, but I will have to strongly disagree with you about its AF system, which as you might be aware, for the lack of a better word, SUCKS. I went through 2 copies and both broke on me. Today I'd rather buy Canon 1.8 then 1.4. It makes me laugh very hard when somebody says that Canon 1.4 AF is reliable.
Be aware that you are buying this lens only for potential iq. It is actually an f/1.6 lens, and the af is not consistently accurate. Tested 3 copies, sent back 2, it is the best if the bunch and still is a bit soft at close focus distance (prone to slight misfocus and oof fringing). It is also not giving true f/1.4: I compared it to my 35l and the sigma at f/1.4 is about the same as the 35l at f/1.6. The sigma also shows only tiny fractional brightness difference between f/1.4 and f/1.6. I want to sell mine.
My experience with the Sigma 50/1.4 (all four of them) is well documented--I absolutely dare you to tell me I'm making any of it up or that I have little experience with wide aperture lens technique.