I'm looking at rentig/buying a new lens for weddings

[Kayaker72]

Hi James.....I've never used the 50 f/1.2 (I own the 50 f/1.4). But, the Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art is being reported as sharper than the 50 f/1.2.

Here is Bryan's comparison at f/1.4. Then Sean and I have both purchased the 50A. Here is the thread. While there has been some concern with AF, thus far mine is fine. And I put it through some tests over the weekend and it was much sharper than my 24-105, 24-70 II, and 50 f/1.4 @ 50 mm.

BTW, I ordered two copies of the 50A to test side by side about 2 hrs apart in early April. I received one copy about two weeks ago and just received the second copy today. So, assuming it tests out, I may have a second copy someone could buy off me.

[Sean Setters]

For what it's worth, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is quickly becoming one of my favorite, go-to lenses. It really is a fantastic lens.

On my recent two-week beach vacation I wanted to be able to capture environmental shots (landscapes) and portraits (possibly in low light). I took my 5D III and 4 lenses - the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4, Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art.

If I can only bring one portrait lens with me, right now it is the Sigma 50mm Art for three reasons:1) The focal length is an ideal compromise between a perfectly-suited-for-portraits 85mm+ focal length and something that's too short for my tastes, 2) the image quality is superb at nearly any aperture below DLA, and 3) it seems to nail focus on relatively static subjects extremely well.


Amanda on the Beach by budrowilson, on Flickr

I really enjoy my 85L II - but the Sigma is a more practical tool for a myriad of situations.

[Photog82]

I've never used a non-Canon lens... the idea of it seems odd to me but from Bryan's review and the sample posted here it looks really nice and the price is pretty decent too. There isn't a huge difference between 1.2 and 1.4. I'd primarily use this inside with my daughter and when situations arise that are low light. I love my 24-105 and don't think that I could replace it with a similar model.

[Photog82]

I rented the Sigma lens to compare it to the Canon 50 1.2L that I rented a few weeks back and so far I'm very impressed with it. I am getting more infocus and sharp photos @ 1.4 than I was with the 1.2. I did use my flash to lighten up her eyes. I think that I may buy this lens and a plus for me is that all of my filters for my Canon 24-105 L are 77mm so they will fit this lens.
















I took this the other night to experiment as well. I wish that I'd taken some with my Canon 17-55 2.8 lens to compare. I'll have to see if they are out tonight. Firefly's, taken @ f 1.4 for 30 seconds.

[Tad Atkinson]

I used a 50 f/1.8 at a reception last week and got amazing results for a $100 lens. On a 6D in very very minimal light.


Tad Atkinson
http://www.palmettophoto1.com/

[conropl]

I rented the Sigma lens to compare it to the Canon 50 1.2L that I rented a few weeks back and so far I'm very impressed with it. I am getting more infocus and sharp photos @ 1.4 than I was with the 1.2. I did use my flash to lighten up her eyes. I think that I may buy this lens and a plus for me is that all of my filters for my Canon 24-105 L are 77mm so they will fit this lens.

James:

With such a beautiful subject as that, any lens would perform well.

Pat

[Anthony M]

When the 6D was announced, I very nearly went over to the dark side - well actually back to the dark side. On paper the AF was beyond dismal. I was fit to be tied. I didn't want to be forced to move up to the 5D mkIII, and the D600 was looking pretty good considering I was only invested in one FF lens, and hadn't upgraded my flashes yet.

Once I got my hands on the 6D, that all changed. Don't sell the 6D short, I'll put it up against the 7D's AF for everything but sports when it comes to AF accuracy and speed. Especially for the type of shooting you do! It literally can see in the dark - and I'm not kidding. I really can shoot things I can't even see. It would give you a new lease on life with your lenses (except the 17-55).

Funny thing - I'm not at all enamored with the 24-105 on crop. I won't even bother with it and would much rather use my EF-S or Sigma DC lenses. My little 17-50/2.8 EX DC OS (I think that's it) is oodles sharper, nice, compact and faster too. I've got the 24-70/2.8 II as well, but the 24-105 is such a nice range my nice lens stays in the little gray bag frequently. And, suddenly f4 is plenty fast. Besides - never in my wildest dreams did I think I could let the camera stay on auto ISO! Before I could never shoot much above 800, and even then the noise was apparent. Now, I have to look at the EXIF data to see just where I'm at. Only if I think I need to worry about it do I set it.

I highly recommend you at least try the camera out - the prices lately are the cost of a lens, and not a particularly expensive one at that! The cost savings on the 6D has allowed me to invest in 600EX-RT's and L lenses and a new motorcycle and (well, maybe not quite) but you get the idea.

BTW, if I was still shooting crop as my main camera, I'd have picked up the Sigma 18-35/1.8 in a heartbeat. Perhaps it's a bit too wide for your purposes, but for a zoom it's pretty amazing. I also couldn't live without my 70-200/2.8 - and especially when I was on crop. 3lbs gets a bit heavy though.

For what it's worth, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is quickly becoming one of my favorite, go-to lenses. It really is a fantastic lens.

I have a bunch of Canon rebate cards from the last round of "double dips", and enough to pretty much pay for a lens. The 2 I'm looking at are the Sigma 50/1.4 Art and the Tamron 150-600. The Sigma is looking to be an extraordinary lens by any measure, where the Tamron looks to be a lot of reach for not much money. But not a lot more than that. I think the only thing keeping me from the Sigma is I've got that range covered 3 fold. Then I see pictures like that. Since I'm going to be taking my annual trek to Hawaii, I guess I better come to a decision fast!

Problem is - I think I'd have to call B&H to spread the lens out over a bunch of cards - unless you have some magic TDP link? I always click through on you guys!

[photojohn]

I used to shoot mostly primes but the 24-70 2.8 II is really amazing. It has a prime look to it, especially when zoomed out to 70mm at 2.8. It is fast sharp accurate. It is my most used lens on the wedding day.

[peety3]

I was initially looking at the Canon 24 1.4 but thought that it would be too wide at a distance. I'm leaning towards the Canon 50 1.4 L or the 100mm Macro IS L 2.8 as I can use that for close ups and portraits as well but how well would that work in dim lit rooms?

Every time I see a new reply in this thread, I keep thinking back to this original post. I mean this kindly, but I do mean it: if you can't pick between a 24, a 50, or a 100 Macro, I question whether you should be buying any of them.