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

[Tony Printezis]

Hi all,


Currently, I have four Canon lenses (10-22, 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200 f4 IS) and I would like to compliment them with a fast prime. I definitely want something faster than f/2 (f/1.4 ideally). Focal-length-wise, I was thinking of something in the "normal" range. I have a 40D and an XTi and, of course, I should really consider something around 30mm to 35mm (the 35mm 1.4 L would be perfect, I just can't justify spending that much money on it). However, I think I might end up with a 5DmkII in the future (yes, dream on Tony!), so I should stick to a 50mm to be future-proof. I have a Lensbaby Composer so I'm familiar with what 50mm feels like on a crop camera and I'll be OK with it.


Anyway, to cut a long story short, I read all the reviews, considered all the options, I even asked Bryan some time ago who very kindly gave me some good pointers and advice. So, in my current "phase" I'm considering the Sigma 50mm 1.4. IQ-wise and bokeh-wise, it looks to be superb. The more expensive 77mm filter size is actually an advantage for me as, apart from the UV protector on my 70-200 f4 IS, all my filters are 77mm anyway (and 77mm filters on a 52mm/58mm lens would look daft anyway!).


The main thing that worries me is the auto-focus / front-focusing / back-focusing issues that everybody has been reporting. I don't mind having to manually focus to get the best possible results (one of the things I got out of using my Lensbaby was that I got much better at manually focusing). But, in all honesty, I don't want to do it all the time. And given that the lens does have AF, might as well I use it. I also had a bad experience with the 10-20 f/4-5.6, the only Sigma lens I've ever ordered. I got an awful copy (blurry left side) which I promptly sent back and eventually got the 10-22.


So, does anyone use the Sigma 50mm 1.4? Are you happy with it? Did it need to be sent in for calibration (to be honest, I'd rather avoid Sigma fiddling with a brand new lens)? Is there any way to minimize the chance of getting a bad copy (i.e., if I order from a shop like adorama, can I ask them to check it)? Any feedback / help you can give me would be very very helpful.


And would anyone really recommend the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 over the Sigma (yes, I know it's manual focus only)?


Sorry for the lengthy e-mail and many thanks in advance for any helpful information you'll share,


Tony

[Brendan7]

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


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


Also, don't pay top dollar for the fastest lenses and then put them on crop bodies. Remember, a 50mm f/1.4 on a 40d is acting like an 80mm f/2.2, and a 50mm f/1.2 is acting like an 80mm f/1.9 (others on this forum who know exactly why will be more than happy to explain that to you, I am not quite sure how that works, but it's true anyways).


I just think that you would want the Canon lens. Canon almost always outperforms Sigma.


hope this helps


brendan b.

[mattsartin]

I haven't personally used this but it seems that the Canon 50mm 1.4 is similarly priced. I would say the Canon is less likely to have any of the focusing issues that Sigmas are known for, also if you were to ever re-sell it, Canons hold their resale value much better than any third party manufacturer. However comma, I do own the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8. I went with this option because there wasn't a Canon alternative for the same price, I have yet to have any issues with it, in fact I love it, but if there is a Canon option for a similar price I would say that is the safer option. Good luck with whatever you choose -Matt

[barba]

I am not sure this makes sense to me. If the effectiveapertureis influenced by the crop factor, that seems a very goodargumentfor buying a faster lens. I would consider a 35mm or similar if you want a normal lens. 50mm on a crop camera makes for a nice portrait lens, though.

[neuroanatomist]

Instead of the Sigma, with the known possibility of AF issues, get either the Canon 50mm f.1/4 USM or the Canon 35mm f/2. Both have good IQ and cost less than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4.

[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

[Keith B]

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

Do not borrow, rent or go near this lens if you can't afford it. You will find yourself offering up a kidney.


If you plan on going full frame some day, be careful of your choices. It can really throw you off with your fixed lenses. When I shot solely with 1.6 crop I loved my 24 1.4, but when I upgraded to FF I just never got use to the framing. Fortunately I have the 35 1.4 now.

[Jordan]

Well Tony,


I recently went through the EXACT same dilemma. I was debating between the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 or the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 or the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I decided it would be better to get something that is full-frame capable in case I make the jump soon to a 5D MK II or 1D MKIV (1.3x crop but nonetheless....) I have owned ONE Sigma lens and had ZERO problems with it... but I have head of a big hassle with many Sigma lens owners.... I am moving to France soon and didn't want the hassle of having to ship something back just as my mailing address changes, international shipping etc... and the 50mm f/1.4 really didn't sound too bad. So I ordered it from B&H ($365 - this was about 3 weeks ago) along with a lens hood and 58mm circular polarization filter (had a spare UV laying around). I LOVE that lens... I have take so many amazing photos with it, it's SUPER-SHARP and the bokeh is beautiful! Only thing I don't like is the focus ring is kinda' dinky.... but really not BAD, just not very good either. It's certainly usable and the focus is spot on, so I never really need to manual focus anyway. Hope this helps!!


- Jordan


www.freshphotohawaii.com

[Tony Printezis]

Do not borrow, rent or go near this lens if you can't afford it. You will find yourself offering up a kidney.

That good, eh? :-) Yeah, I've read very nice things about this lens. And let me clarify: I could spend $1,400 on it... But I think I'll be better off getting a cheaper lens and putting the difference towards a 5DmkII...

I LOVE that lens...

Hi Jordan, thanks for taking the time to write. After reading reviews, seeing samples, etc. I've decided not to get the Canon 1.4. It looks too dreamy wide open and the AF motor is not the best... Sure, I'm being picky. But, I'd rather wait and get something I'm real happy with, instead of something I'm so-and-so happy with.


Tony