Printable View
Hi guys! I'm planning to upgrade my canon 50mm f1.8 to the f1.4. I'm deciding whether to go for canon or sigma. Anyone here tried the sigma 50 1.4? Is it better than the canon 50 1.4? And how about for those who have the canon 50 1.4, how is it optical wise & build quality wise? Thanks everyone!
Hey mate,
I'm a lucky Sigma 50mm 1.4 owner and I'm very happy with it. You must notice the "lucky" part in my sentence, because these lenses seem to have focus-issues. Pretty much every one of them 50mm Sigma lenses if you may believe the stories.
In short words: the Sigma can be a lot better than the Canon. Mine had just a little front-focussing which was solvable by micro-adjustment. Now it's usable sharp at f1.4 (better than the canon) and it gives me amazing sharp results from f2 and on.
My advice: if you're buying from a local dealer where you can easily try it out and have the opportunity to return it if it turns out to be a real disaster, buy the Sigma. Oh of course if you have micro-adjustment, that would be great too. Else you better go to the safe side and buy the Canon which is softer wide open, but doesn't have(or less) focus-issues.
An even safer bet would be the canon 85mm 1.8, but it would be a different focal length...
Jan
I personally am not a fan of the Canon 1.4. I always chose a zoom over it unless I really needed the two stops of light. I really didn't like the images shot under f/2. The AF seemed to search and miss a lot also. I didn't own mine long enough but I have read and witnessed others having issues with the focusing motor after a couple years or lots of use. It definitely won't handle being banged around.
I have seen some really great shots from the Sigma 1.4 and was close to buying it, but I had read so many reviews talking about the focus issue, I held off.
After reading later reviews of the Canon 1.2, people believe there has been a change in it's production in the last year or so and it's focusing issues have been improved (fixed?). People are now raving about it. So I ordered one of those.
That is probably out of the price range you are looking at, so I'd say if you aren't too concerned about build quality and IQ under f/2.8 go with the Canon 1.4. If you are concerned about those things and are willing to deal with some returns or servicing, try the Sigma.
One last note; from all the reviews and reports I've read in my quest for the "perfect" 50mm lens, it seems they all suffer from focusing issues even the the Zeiss manual focus. I'm guessing it is something technically/physically to do with the focal length.
I just bought the Canon f/1.4. Here's the excuse I used: my kid (Jr High) signed up for a summer photography class at the local college and needed a DSLR. Rather than renting one, my 7D became a loaner. My 24-70 USM and 20-200 f/4 IS USM were too big for those little hands, so i "HAD" to buy a smaller lens. At least that's what I told the wife. I am pretty happy with this lens; it makes my camera feel like a toy in that it is so lightweight now. I am heading to the "O.C." this weekend for the sawdust festival and the Pageant of the Masters. I am going to take just this one lens as my walk-around and see what I can do with it. I've never travelled with just one lens, so this will be a first.
I cannot speak to the Sigma, but I am sure both will produce fine images. I shot this one in the backyard using the Canon f/1.4 a couple of weeks ago.
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/400x600/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.43.06/IMG_5F00_6932.jpg[/img]
Can't speak for the Sigma as well, but you can see the versatility of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 through these 2 shots (posted in 2 other forums here also). It can be soft for effect in one and tack sharp in another.
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1..._012_Kacie.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...04_049_4th.jpg
You know, I had a very long reply typed out when my browser unexpectedly navigated to a previous page--and I lost everything. So, instead of posting 5 or image samples taken with the Canon 50mm f/1.4, I'll direct you to a page where you can view all my images taken with that particular lens.
Sheesh...
As far as my observations, the build quality is certainly a step up from the plastic wonder, however, on the same note, it isn't fantastic either. As long as you aren't abusive, it should hold up well. I have had the focus fail me on a couple of occasions, but only under the dimmest of circumstances (where all my lenses would have hunted for focus).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr
I have the Canon 50 1.4 & am very happy with it. It was my first used lens purchase so I was pretty nervous about it but all turned out good for me. It was one of the lenses I used at my granddaughter's birthday party and I was very pleased with the results.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.37.26/IMG_5F00_6229.JPG[/img]
Good luck making your decision!
Denise
I have had both, and now currently have the Sigma 50. I bought when they first came out, returned one, then got another. They do have focus issues, but when they're on, it is much better than the Canon 50 1.4. finally, after getting tired of the focus issues, I sent it under warranty to https://www.criscam.com/. they fixed the front/back focusing issues, and it has worked excellently for almost a year. I think that it is better than the Canon 1.4, and probably as good as the 1.2(IMHO). I have tried several copies of the 50 1.2, and http://www.lensrentals.com/ has sales of their used equipment every now and then. Bought a 1.2 from them, compared it to my Sig, and wasn't to impressed!! It's great, and I mean great when it focuses correctly at 1.2...but they were few and far between...and I sent it back to Lensrentals.com.
Then more recently, having heard the same thing as a previous poster that very new versions of the 1.2 are spot on, I bought one from Amazon, 3 weeks ago. It was a 2010 model, brand new, and couldn't wait to see how it worked! Much to my chagrin, nothing had gotten better. I mean, yep it was good at 1.2, but NOT $1000 more better than my Sigma. To be honest, I still wasn't impressed. So I promptly returned it. It still had focusing issues!!
Maybe I just got another bad copy. I don't know, but I think my money is better spent elsewhere!! I have sent the Sigma to get re calibrated again,(and found out that it is covered under extended warranty!!), so if you do get the Sigma, there is that option, too. And to be honest, I really don't see that much difference from 1.4 to 1.2. Here are 2 real world examples of the 1.2 vs 1.4. Processed in LR3 with "punch" the only added editing. Let me know what you think??
Canon 50 1.2
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/untitled_2D00_9271-_2800_Large_2900_.jpg[/img]
Sigma 50 1.4
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/untitled_2D00_9273-_2800_Large_2900_.jpg[/img]
I've used the 1.8 on crop and now I'm using the canon 1.4 FF. It's a bit hard to compare the two since I switched formats, but I will say that I really enjoy the 1.4 and for the money I can't fault it. Build wise I am a bit disappointed. I was expecting it to be inline with the 85 1.8 and 28 1.8 and it simply isn't. Maybe that's not fair since those lenses are more expensive, but the focus ring just isn't nearly as nice and the external movement makes it feel a lot less sturdy
thank you everyone for all your comments and suggestions. I really appreciate it, what I'm planning to do is probably go to a local shop and try both lenses and decide which one should I go for. Most of the replies here are for the canon 1.4 and I think its a good oneandI'm leaning towards itbut I'm not counting out the Sigma just yetbecause I haven't tried it. Folks, thanks again!
Gregg
You two shots look very similar in color. Have you made correction to either to achieve this? One of the reasons I chose the Canon 1.2 is for color consistency in my work flow. I read that the color from the Sigma tends to be slightly more yellow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greggf
Well, the DoF differences between f/1.2 and f/1.4 are real, but certainly not huge. Also, your scene would completely eliminate any difference due to the substantial physical distance separating subject from background. To see theDoF differences between f/1.2 and f/1.4, try focusing on one flower in a field of them, for example.
FWIW, the Canon 50mm f/1.2L seems to have slightly better quality of OOF blur, while still maintaining better resolution even in the OOF areas, compared to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. For example, the picket fence across the street seems more blurred with the Canon lens, and yet you can still resolve the individual pickets better. Just my 2¢ - the differences are there, but minor. Are those differences, plus the improved build and weather sealing, etc., worth $1K? That's a personal decision.
Maybe my copy is better than most, or maybe I'm just not that picky, but I'm pretty happy with the performance of my canon 50mm f/1.4.
Here are two pics. Both are shot wide open on a 5DII. In both of these the shutter speed was too slow and I missed the focus a little, but they came out okay.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93/sarah-2-50mm-800.JPG[/img]
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93/sarah-1-50mm-800.JPG[/img]
I have no experience with the sigma, so I'm definitely not saying "the canon is better." Looking at Bryan's crops, though, the two lenses look pretty similar at f/1.4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I actually expect the oof blur of the 50 f/1.2 is significantly better, though I agree that the difference isn't so apparent in the posted example.
Keep in mind that the 50 f/1.2, unlike most canon lenses (and probably, though I'm not sure, unlike the sigma as well), is corrected to sacrifice sharpness and foreground blur in favor of background blur. In other words, the strange focus issues and lack of sharpness are the result of a design choice. There is no way to get that particular super creamy bokeh (which is a convolution of a disk weighted more heavily in the center than the edges) without doing this. (For a "properly" corrected lens, the bokeh is a convolution of a disk)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Definitely. I was commenting on those specific examples, not the lenses in general. As I also commented, the examples really aren't suitable for evaluation of OOF blur or bokeh, due to the large physical separation of subject and background.
Hi Keith. both shots were taken on my Mark IV. the only post I did was add "punch" from LR3. I haven't noticed any yellowness in most of my shots, but I do shoot Raw 99.9% time...
I understand the fact that the 1.2 blurs just a touch better...it should!! I just couldn't live the missed focus a lot of the time. I could take 3-4 shots with the focus confirmation light going off, on the same subject, same spot, and it would only hit maybe 1 out of 3 times!! Very frustrating! I told myself, I could live with my Sigma, which does have very nice bokeh!! Here is an example of the Sigma when it came back from calibration.
5D Mark ll ISO 100 f1.4@1/800th, natural light. I was pretty close to the little girl, too. Processed in LR2 with some sharpening and dodging/burning. It is representative of what you can achieve with the Sigma, IMHO.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/untitled_2D00_-_2800_Large_2900_.jpg[/img]
Thanks Gregg.
I'm not sure what "punch" is, I'm an Aperture guy, but I follow.
I definitely have liked the images I've seen from the Sigma but Canon got me on the hook with my overwhelming happiness with the 35L and 85L. I'm hoping lightning will strike 3 times. I'm not married to it yet and plan to be very thorough before I commit to keeping it.
So far I'm a little surprised at it's softness although I shouldn't be. I have shot a handful of shots of a hyper dog @ 1.2 in servo and have had respectable hit rates.
The b&w shot of the little girl is really great. That is going to be my benchmark for critiquing the 50L.
Thanks Keith. Overall, I have been very happy with the Sigma. I had put it away for awhile, my interest in the 70-200 2.8ll, and 16-35ll coupled with my Mark IV leading me elsewhere. Pulled it out recently, and using an on camera flash for a friends little girls birthday(different than the previous pic), really made me want to use it again. Then I decided to send it get calibrated again, and they told me, that after 1 1/2 yrs, that it was still covered under extended warranty, and no charge to me!! Looking forward to get it back.
I understand how you feel about the 35L and 85L...they are fantastic. I used the 85L recently(a friend has a copy he let me borrow for a photo shoot), and got some fantastic portraits.
Anyways, back to the original poster....give the Sigma a try. I don't think you will regret it. I don't.
Gregg
For what it's worth, I own the 50 1.4 from Canon and have a great copy. The colors are great and mine is actually pretty sharp at 1.4. I got the lens and immediately sent it in for calibration with canon. Got it back in about 7 days and it is perfect. Back focused a little bit. At that time i had a rebel and couldn't MA it at all. On my 7d it is magic.
I will try to post pictures tonight when I get to my work computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greggf
Do you only send in the lens, or with body? My lens needed focus-adjustment of +9, could that be calibrated? And did you contact Sigma directly or via a shop? Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by greggf
Yep, I was also aware of the Sigma's flaws, but also aware of it's pros (build-quality, manual focus, in-barrel zoom, optical quality) and I'm very happy that I tried them both and picked the Sigma.
Jan
Hi Jan,
Both times I just sent the lens into this place calledhttps://www.criscam.com/. On Sigma's main site , they say that Criscam is an authorized repair facility for their lenses(maybe others, too!??). When it came back the first time, it was dead sharp wide-open, and only needed, I think, a +1 MA on my 5Dll. Now I don't know what has happened in the year and half since, but I haven't used it all that much recently. Picked it up again, and realized it had fallen from grace(a little). But, when stopped down to 2.8 or f4, it was tack, and I mean TACK sharp!! Granted, you have a 50 1.4 for the 1.4!! But there are times when you want to stop down a little...
So this second calibration is under warranty, too.
I'm happy I jumped from my Canon 50 1.4, and happy that I least tried a couple of the 1.2's, but for what it's worth, I think the Sigma is the way to go.
On the other hand...I just rented, and received today from lensrentals.com, a Zeiss ZE 50 f2 Makro Planar! I haven't downloaded the few pictures I took out on route today(I deliver UPS full time!), but from looking at the screen on my cameras, it looks to be incredibly sharp wide open!! I will post some later, once I download...
Thanks Gregg,
well the fact is that it's dead-sharp on my 5D, but not on my girlfriends 450D, which doesn't have the micro-adjustment...
My local store said that it needed to be send in with the body and so I decided my girlfriend just has bad luck [:P]
But if I could only send in the lens, that would be great...gotta contact Sigma I guess, thanks! That way she could also enjoy the full range of my 3 lenses [;)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by greggf
I'm looking forward to it...