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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote