Another Sigma 50mm 1.4 thread

[andrewsoem]

<p>So after a month of being torn on which 50mm lens to get for my 5DI body, I plunged and gambled my way into buying the Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX DG HSM. It arrived yesterday! Would I get a problematic copy? Would I have to return / exchange the lens for a few times before getting a copy that focuses accurately?</p>

<p>I either have lucked out or that Sigma has addressed the issue(s) that so many buyers complain about in various photography fora. My copy doesn't exhibit any visible front/back focus problem as far as I observe from yesterday's test. So happy! :)</p>

<p>Anybody bought a Sigma 50mm 1.4 recently and also did not experience any issue with its focus?</p>

<p>The images below were taken yesterday at a local big box furniture store while shopping and testing my new lens at the same time. Not much thought went into the compostion, color balance, etc. while taking these photos...I was merely testing its focusing accuracy:</p>

<p>ALL SHOT AT F/1.4, unsharpened, focus trained on the center of the images in most<br /><a href="http://s1017.photobucket.com/albums/af300/andrewsoem/?action=view&current=_MG_1558.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/af300/andrewsoem/_MG_1558.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a> <a href="http://s1017.photobucket.com/albums/af300/andrewsoem/?action=view&current=_MG_1544.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/af300/andrewsoem/_MG_1544.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a> <a href="http://s1017.photobucket.com/albums/af300/andrewsoem/?action=view&current=_MG_1531.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/af300/andrewsoem/_MG_1531.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a> <a href="http://s1017.photobucket.com/albums/af300/andrewsoem/?action=view&current=_MG_1519.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/af300/andrewsoem/_MG_1519.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a> <a href="http://s1017.photobucket.com/albums/af300/andrewsoem/?action=view&current=_MG_1511.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/af300/andrewsoem/_MG_1511.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /></a></p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It's a beauty, isn't it? Bokehlicious.</p>

[azenall]

<p> The F/1.4 have a deep of field very short (on Sigma, Canon or anithing other lens) I have a Canon 50 mm f/1.4 and I'm enchanted with it. You can view results in my portfolio.</p>

[r_rubinstein]

<p>I was an "early adapter" and my copy was just fine. It is a tremendous lens.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Argh! Just when I thought I'd made up my mind, was gonna get the Canon.</p>

[gerrymorgan]

<p>This lens is the king of soft bokeh and is rarely off my 5D. I wish Sigma would make a fast 35mm lens (for full-frame) with similar bokeh qualities.</p>

[andrewsoem]

<p>It is a solidly built lens. The focus mechanism tends to overstep a touch and steps itself back into focus, at least with my copy. This is unlike Canon USM, which almost always arrives at focus confidently.</p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3688373">Arie Vandervelden</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 07, 2009; 11:46 a.m.<br>

Argh! Just when I thought I'd made up my mind, was gonna get the Canon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this Sigma is more than worth the $100 price difference of the Canon 1.4 in terms of optics and built quality.</p>

[kari v]

<p>Yep, Canon is a classic (or simply ages old...) design, not at its best at large apertures, has average build and offers no real USM. Sigma bashers can say whatever they please but Sigma 50/1.4 is still a winner for people who really use their fast lenses at f1.4-2 and not just stop down for "max overall IQ" or something.</p>

<p>I'm not saying Canon 50/1.4 is a bad lens, I've taken many great shots with it, often wide open too. Sigma just did extremely good work whereas Canon doesn't show much interest in updating their lower cost primes.</p>

[andrewsoem]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not saying Canon 50/1.4 is a bad lens, I've taken many great shots with it, often wide open too. Sigma just did extremely good work whereas Canon doesn't show much interest in updating their lower cost primes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Having owned one before, I agree that Canon's 50/1.4 is a good lens overall. But not only Sigma has given Canon a run for its money, Sigma has outdone Canon in the 50mm 1.4 line. I suspect that Canon is not going to update its 1.4 anytime soon as an improved version could cannibalize the market for their 50/1.2L. My 2 cents.</p>

[c jensen]

<p>I agree with Thomas. I had the Canon 50 1.4, bought the Sigma a few months ago, and sold the Canon. Don't get me wrong - the Canon was a great lens; can't go wrong with it. I just liked the Sigma build better.</p>

[c jensen]

<p>I meant Andrew not Thomas.</p>

[alec_style]

<p>I've used this lens for several months and am very pleased with it. I use it mainly for portraits on a Canon 40D.<br>

Great bokeh.<br>

At f1.4 I don't get perfect focus all the time. Of course the depth of field is very shallow at this aperture, so I usually take several shots in a burst.<br>

This is the first non Canon lens I've bought for a long time and highly recommend it.</p>

[azenall]

<p>Look at this:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9014191">http://www.photo.net/photo/9014191</a></p>

<p>A 50 mm f/1.4 Canon, perfect for portraits in low ligth. Tremendous lens.</p>