50 vs. 50 vs. 50 vs. 30 ?

[rubo]

<p>

 

<p>I know this topic is beat to death, but my question is purely about performance of these lenses wide open and stopped down until f/2.8. I don't care how well they perform beyond f/2.8, i need it for low light work.</p>

<p>The lenses in question are Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and i threw in Canon 50mm f/1.8 just because it's so cheap.</p>

<p>What i would like to know is from people who have used them and real life result (not test charts).<br>

The most important is the sharpness (CA, colors and distortion i can fix post).<br>

How do Sigmas stock up to Canon 1.4? Are they as sharp or sharper?<br>

Also, how is the AF with Canon 1.8? is it is fast as 1.4 or the Sigmas?</p>

<p>Thank you in advance.</p>

 

</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Why dont you just get a Sigma camera !</p>

[rubo]

<p>Why would i?</p>

[btmuir]

<p>I've owned the EF 50 1.8 II and use the EF 50 1.4 now (on FF and 1.3).</p>

<p>The 1.8 hunts for focus is noisy (as if that matters) and slow to lock on.</p>

<p>The 1.4 is nice by f/ 2.2 but any wider and....you live with it but it's soft and has barrel distortion at closer focussing distances.</p>

<p>The EF 1.4 also has an older micro motor? ? ? and the front element moves so it's fragile. Hope it's updated soon.</p>

<p> I'm wondering if I should try the siggy because so many like the boke or whatever you want to call it.</p>

<p> </p>

[btmuir]

<p>sorry double post if you hit back...</p>

[f72]

<p>i got the sigma over canon after reading so many reviews and almost every one one review this lens and compere to the canon one agrees on the sigma is the better lens in bulid quality and it is sharper wide open but it is alot biger and heavier the boukh is beautiful ,much better than canon 1.4 lens,the HSM is very fast and extremely quite,some people complain about front and back foucs in earlier copys but my copy is right on target and yeah it cost alot more but it is worth every penny to me.hear read more from other peoplehttp://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=367</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've never had the focus problem with the 50mm f/1.8 Mx II that Bruce describes. It seems crisp and quick to me and works well in low light. Noisy, a little. Has a sort of pentagonal bokeh, but if you use it wide open it's not a problem either.</p>

<p>How can you lose with a lens that goes used on eBay for around $50 if you are patient? It's the lightest lens available for the EOS, or close to it. I've bought two of them and both are still working just fine on 1.6x and 1x bodies.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Rubo, I use Canon FD and EOS gear. My best primes for low light work are the FD 50/1.2 L, the FD 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical, and the FD 85/1.2 L. I've never found the IQ of the FD or the EF 50/1.4 to be good wide open, as much as I love those lenses.</p>

<p>So, by extension, the EF primes that'll work best in low light are the EF 50/1.2 L and the 85/1.2 L. I'd never consider buying a Sigma lens, largely because of their lack of backwards compatibility and generally inferior IQ. I am, however, thinking of picking up a Tamron 85/1.4 Aspherical in EF-mount, which is reportedly a reasonable surrogate for the EF 85/1.2 II, which costs six times as much.</p>

[jay a. frew]

<p>Hello Rubo</p>

<p>I am wondering the same thing.</p>

<p>I haven't tried the Sigma. None of the camera shops in my area has one yet. It better be good because here in Southwestern Ontario Canada, it is $275.00 more than the Canon EF50/1.4 (with lens hood).</p>

<p>Both my kids have the EF50/1.8 and I don't like the out of focus backgrounds when the lens is used close-up and wide open. They seem a little harsh and ragged to me.</p>

<p>I tried an EF50mm/1.4 at a camera store the other day and the sample image below was taken in the store @ 1.4. The subject (my 35 f/2.0 lens) was on top of a a glass display case and was backlit by the light in the display case. I wanted to see the "halation" effect that is so often mentioned about this lens. I focused on the centre of the exposed metal lens mount (looks like a chrome ring in the photo).</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p><div></div>

[jay a. frew]

<p>Here is another shot at f/4.5</p><div></div>

[alexthornephotography]

<p>I use the Sigma 30mm at 1.4 all the time and really like the results. My Canon 50 1.4 is a little softer at 1.4, but very usable. I wouldn't hesitate to use either one wide open.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I've owned multiple copies of all the Canon fifties and the best two optically are the EF 50 1.2L USM and EF 50 2.5 CM. My 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 were terrible wide open and needed F2.8 to get decent. Both were poor at low light AF. The 50 1.2 is good wide open and outstanding by F1.8. It also has the most dependable AF of any 50mm I have owned. The 50 2.5 is excellent wide open and the most bang for the buck. Of course the 50 1.2 is the bokeh and low light king and I rarely remove it from my 5D. I've not owned any of the above mentioned Sigmas, but have owned 6 Sigmas including the 50 2.8 EX. None were dependable AF-wise and all stopped working every time I bought a new camera (once a year!).</p>

[rubo]

<p>Mark - Yeah, i remember FD line ol 50's, they were sweet :)<br /> Unfortunately since i don't make money with photography (exepct once in a while product shots for my clients website) i can't justify the price of the 1.2L, would love to, but will have to stick to less costly alternatives.</p>

<p>Jeff - like they say "picture is worth 1000 words" :) they look good.</p>

<p>Alex - that's good news. i had read the 30 was softer than canon 1.4 wide open, but it sound promising.</p>

<p>Puppy Face - so the 2.5 macro is better than the other 2 50's? How good is the AF in lowlight and how fast is it?</p>

[kasperhettinga]

<p>I have the 30 f/1.4 for indoor available light photos. I really like it: good IQ (even wide open), nice bokeh (also at smaller aperture), very good build quality with fast&silent HSM.</p>

<p>It has made me think of getting the sigma 50 f/1.4 (even though I use&love my manual Zuiko 50 f/1.4, which is even sharper than my 30 f/1.4@f/1.4)</p>

[bueh]

<p>I know this is a bit off-topic, but if you want to do low light work with fast primes why not get a body with built-in image stabilization? A used Pentax K10D plus a used FA 50mm f/1.4 probably cost less than a new SigMa 50mm f/1.4 or 30mm f/1.4. And the Pentax SMC-FA 50mm f/1.4 is a very highly regarded lens.</p>

<p>Else I can repeat what the other posters said. The 30mm lens is easier to handhold due to the shorter focal length. But make no mistake, with burst mode I can get good images at ridiculously slow speeds with my Tokina AT-X 12-24mm zoom @ 12mm, although it is only f/4. I am very happy with the EF 50mm f/1.8, but my f/1.4 is more useful due to USM and FTM despite its softness wide open.</p>

<p>Do yourself a favor and use the AF beam of an external flash unit in low light -- it is the only way to get consistently accurate and fast focus lock with any lens and camera.</p>

[jmichaelc]

Here are some "working" samples of both the Sigma 30MM and the Canon 50MM.

 

Be sure to view all these at LARGE size and look at the image details for the specific data.

 

I've concluded that both the sigma and canon are fantastic lenses, even when shot wide open. If you purchase a lens that isn't, simply send it back for calibration. The first thing that one must do is perform a 45 degree ruler test on their lenses. Once completed, you know without a doubt where your lens stands in regards to sharpness and focus accuracy. I had to send the 30mm back to Sigma for calibration because it was off. However, when i received it back, it was spot on. So, i have two perfectly sharp lenses when shot wide open because i've taken them through the proper steps to verify.

 

When shooting out in the field, you have to come to some sort of level of acceptance because there are many factors that will contribute to less-than-perfect results. I see my lenses as image makers, not pieces of equipment that can somehow overcome non-perfect user error. If you look at the below linked images, you'll notice that both the 50 and 30 produced similar results, less focal length. They both produced satisfactory images for me that i couldn't be happier with. However, if you zoon in to 100% and pixal peep, you'll notice that only one is tack sharp. The others are fairly sharp and are acceptable by my terms, but there are some user error found in them. I'll take the composition, DOF qualities, and the abient abilities over the lack of complete sharpness as a result of my error.

 

I've used the 30 now well over a year and a half and it has become my favorite lens for my 1DMIIN bodies - highly recommend it. Just be sure to do the ruler test and send back for calibration if needed.

 

By the way, i've also got the 50 1.8. For a $80 lens, it simply can't be beat and is also a fantastic lens in terms of sharpness and functionality. Recommend all three :)

 

Here is the link:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=891081

[robert_turner]

<p>Sorry for the threadjack, but Mark, what is the Tamron 85mm 1.4 aspherical you mention? <br>

Any info/links?</p>

<p> </p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>what is the Tamron 85mm 1.4 aspherical you mention?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Probably meant the new, manual focus(!) Vivitar 85mm f/1.4...</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Sorry, Robert, Bueh is right. It's a Vivitar Series 1, not a Tamron. Here's a link to a fairly thorough review of it: <a href="http://kwigibocity.com/Vivitar8514.html">http://kwigibocity.com/Vivitar8514.html</a>. It's manual focus only, but does come in EF mount. And its IQ looks pretty darn good...</p>

[pturton]

<p>My EF 50 f/1.4 works well with most of my bodies but short focuses when used with my 20D at close to minimum focus distances. On my other crop camera bodies, 10D -> 50D, my 50 f/1.4 focuses well gives excellent results from f/1.4 to f/2.8.</p>

<p>Since you threw in the Sigma 30 f/1.4 I assume you are using a crop body. Instead of the Sigma 30, why not consider the EF 35L? With my crop bodies, I prefer the 35mm focal length and use it much more than 50mm and yes it is razor sharp from f/1.4 to f/2.8.</p>

[rubo]

<p>

 

<p>Robert - no problem, i was interested in it also :), but for what i need it, it has to be auto-focus.</p>

<p>Mark - looks like a good lens, but no AF.</p>

<p>Paul - i would love to be able to justify any L (non-zoom), but just can't. And yes, i have an XSi.</p>

<p>Keep'em coming.</p>

 

</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>I recently purchased a Sigma 1.4. I specifically got it for night time photography and for the narrow depth of field at 1.4. I tested a friends 50 1.8 on my 5D but the corners were badly destorted in pictures of city lights from a nearby hill. On a Xsi it wouldn't be that bad but the build quality of the 1.8 leaves a lot to be desired. According to what I read on the Canon 1.4 it rattles if you shake it and the corners are soft at 1.4. At the store their copy rattled and the images I took with it in the store were OK but not great. In my opinion I just didn't see much improvement in for the money in the Canon 50 1.4. I never considered the Canon 50 1.2 due to the high cost.</p>

<p>So I got the Sigma (I had to order it from B&H since none of the local stores carried it) The build quality is equivelent to my other 4 L lenses and it comes with a very nice Nylon case. Only one of my L lenses came with good case. The few images I have taken look good so far at 1.4 although I haven't been able to use it as much as I would have liked due to some medical issues I have had recently (feel good now). The image below is from the Sigma at 1.4 (It looked better before I reduced the size for posting).</p><div></div>

[jbm]

<p>I used both of the Canons and both were excellent, but the plastic fantastic is really poorly built and will break. OOF areas not quite as pretty per above. I like the color rendition of the cheap lens the best. The 1.4 gets good press and I thought it was decent enough.<br>

I have not used the Sigmas, but own other Sigma lenses that are really great. My 10-20 is built well and survived a very high drop.<br>

The shot above from Steven is pretty convincing! Great color rendition...is that a jpeg capture and did you monkey with the colors?<br>

Happy shooting.</p>

[alexthornephotography]

<p>Some things about the Sigma 30 1.4 I should add. I use it mainly for low light portrait shots and the center performance is outstanding wide open. However, as has been discussed in many of the reviews online, edge performance is pretty poor, even stopped down. Not an issue for how I use the lens, but may be for you depending on what you are shooting. Also dropped this lens from about 4 feet onto a tile surface without any damage to the lens. It's very well built. </p>

[steven_f1]

<p>Jay, the picture I posted is RAW converted to JPEG. I didn't to anything in Photoshop with it. I did however discover last night that the reds are a little blown out (probably in the orange flower which is a California Poppy).</p>

<p>As I had said in my previous post the corners of the Canon 50 1.8 were badly distorted when I took a picture of city lights at night. Attached below is a 100% crop of one of the corners. Note the picture was taken on a 5D (full frame). You probably will not see this on an Xsi.</p><div></div>