I'm considering the Sigma 50mm 1.4. Any thoughts?

[Tony Printezis]

Hi all,


Thanks for taking the time to write. As I said, I did put a lot of thought into this and I spent quite a lot of time reading reviews / user reports / looking at image samples / etc. Here's some reaction to some of the suggestions.

I am not an expert or anything, but in my experience Canon lenses are always the way to go.

I've been apprehensive in considering a non-Canon lens too, given my bad experience with the Sigma 10-20 (and which is why I started this thread!). However, there's a lot going for the Sigma (see below).

I would consider a 35mm or similar if you want a normal lens.

or the Canon 35mm f/2

A lens around 35mm would be my first choice for a normal lens on my crop bodies. However, what are the options?


- Canon 28mm 1.8: very soft corners (and that's on crop cameras!) and terrible CA. I'm not paying almost $500 for it. And it's unlikely I'll need a 28mm prime if I bought a FF body anyway.


- Sigma 30mm 1.4: even softer corners and, most importantly, it's a DC lens (i.e., for crop cameras).


- Canon 35 2: apart from the 20-year micro-motor AF (I can't believe it'd be better than Sigma's HSM), it has terrible, terrible bokeh.


- Canon 35 1.4: this'd be my first choice, I just cant't afford it.

If you want 50mm f/1.4, why not get the Canon version?

but it seems that the Canon 50mm 1.4 is similarly priced.

get either the Canon 50mm f.1/4 USM

The Canon 50mm 1.4 would of course be the obvious alternative. Here are a few reasons why I'm leaning towards the Sigma:


- price: the Sigma is around $150 more than the Canon. However, it comes with the lens hood and the Canon doesn't. And the fact that I can use all my filters on the Sigma is probably worth the remaining price difference (to me at least).


- AF: the Canon has a 17-year-old not-quite-USM AF motor and there are many reports that's very delicate and it often seizes up / stops working. So, AF-wise, the choice is not so clear cut.


- bokeh: the Sigma wins hands down.


- image quality: the reason for getting a fast prime is to shoot it at wide apertures and sharpness-wise the Sigma looks to be quite stellar at wide apertures. It also seems to have much less vignetting (this is the reason why it's so big apparently).


- build quality: apparently, the Sigma is much better. Even though I was disappointed with the image quality of the Sigma 10-20 I had originally got, I was happy with its build quality and especially with how the focus / zoom rings on it felt (and I was positively disappointed with how cheap they feel on the 10-22).


To be honest, if Canon came up with a 50mm 1.4 II with a modern USM motor and improved bokeh, it'd be my first choice. But the 50mm 1.4 is currently dated and the Sigma seems to beat it hands down in most aspects. And I can't wait for ever for Canon to get their act together to replace the current 50mm 1.4.

also if you were to ever re-sell it, Canons hold their resale value much better than any third party manufacturer.

This is of course a very good point. But I generally buy a lens to keep, not to sell shortly after. The only reason why I'd consider selling the 50mm 1.4 is maybe if Canon comes up with an updated version. But, if they do, the original will probably lose its value anyway...


Tony