Printable View
Has anybody got some experiences to relate and examples about these three lenses.
Particularly on a crop body. I believe it can be a real hit or abig miss.
Focusing on focus, haha. Durability, usability wide open, bokeh and so on.
I have read the reviews, but would appreciate opinions from the masses. Thanking you in advance.
Steve
Hi Steve. I have the 50 1.4 and use a crop body. Focusing, I
I've only used the two Canons, not the Sigma, but I've read a lot about it and looked at photos.
Autofocus:
The f/1.2 has the focus shift issue, and the Sigma has a poor reputation for QA, so I'd give the nod to the EF 50mm f/1.4 on that one. (The AF has been quick and accurate on my copy, at least.)
Durability: the Canons f/1.4 are right out on this category. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is one of the most fragile lenses that Canon makes. Posts about focus repairs for this lens are so common that they clog the intertubes. I dropped mine several inches onto a padded carpet (with no camear attached), and it died. Lensrentals kindly shares their repair data that shows 19% for the 50mm f/1.4 and 15% for the f/1.2:
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.09.20/lens-repair-data-40
That has improved a lot this year, so perhaps they fixed the problem:
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2010.09.20/lens-repair-data-40
Usability wide open:The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is definitely out of the contention for this category -- it has really bad halation wide open. It's OK on low contrast subjects, but really falls apart on scenes with a little bit more dynamic range. The other two are pretty nice wide open.
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
Bokeh:f/1.2 hands down. There is no contest. The bokeh is so much more beautiful that it's not even funny. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 bokeh isn't absolutely hideous, just garden-variety ugly. I'm not sure about the Sigma.
Overall, my advice is to get what you can afford. For most people, I think the Sigma is the best value.
I personally own the Sigma, but I'm using it on full-frame. I needed a micro-focus adjustment for front-focussing. The Sigma is known for focus issues unfortunately. I only had front-focussing which was consistent and therefor good to deal with.
It's absolutely better wide open than the Canon 1.4. I really like it wide open. If you have the opportunity to test or if you've got an easy return-policy, the Sigma is definitely worth a try. I my opinion it's much better than the Canon 1.4
The Canon 1.2 is a whole other story though. I don't have experience with it. Hope you can do something with this.
Jan
I have never used the Sigma, but I have seen really good photos from it and if I was a little more budget conscience I
Boy,...don't I sound like a greenhorn...[:#]
I recently purchased the canon 50 f1.4. I must have gotten one of the best copies because I do not see where the negative comments are coming from. It seems to focus just a fast and accurate as my "L" glass. It is sharper at f1.4 than I expected but not near as sharp as stopped down 2/3rds or more. I picked it up because I sometimes need a fast 50 but I do not use it much.
Mark
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLS
I don't think so -- your post was great.
I agree. Every input is welcome!
If it will be of any help I could post a sample of the Sigma with a 100 percent crop. Just let me know.
And to be honest DLS...sometimes we do get a bit too serious and pixel-fanatic around here [;)] And we might forget the simple things we take for granted.
Thank you all for your contributions, everyone has a story and while the technical detail is great, I find it very easy to identify and relate to the real life experiences, especially those people that are starting out and just trying to get better and learn.
I would appreciate samples (Jan) from the different lenses.
And perhaps comments on prime lens use. I wonder if you have the 50 1.2 if you leave it on your camera more often?
And if you have the 50 1.4