50/1.4USM vs. Sigma 50/1.4 EX

[ruslan]

<p>I am planning to shift to Canon, and what could you tell me about these 2 lenses? The Sigma is very bulky, I took it in my hands - it is just huge, weather - resistant...I am not used to such bulky 50mm. With FF camera like EOS-5D Mk2 - which of them is better? Is the Sigma that good wide open? Much better than Canon 50/1.4 USM? Focusing speed? Accuracy? Colors? Bokeh? <br>

Thank you in advance! </p>

[William Kahn]

<p>I'm not familiar with the Sigma, but I can tell you that the Canon EF 50mm/1.4 is an excellent lens in all respects, and I don't find it to be bulky at all. The general rule (for me, at least) is that the OEM version is usually superior to third-party products...</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>You should try handling the Canon 50mm f1.4 as well. I have one:</p>

<p>It's ok, but I'm a little disappointed by the feel/build. It's not L quality, that's for sure. It's a relatively bulky lens, with 58mm filter size.</p>

<p>Just for comparison, I have a pentax f1.4 with 49mm filter size. Though the Pentax lens front element diameter is likely the same, it looks much more "delated", due to the diminutive dimensions. Also, comparing feel: the Pentax feels silky smooth turning the barrel, whereas the Canon feels (and sounds) a little coarse.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Mendel, I don't know about your copy of the Canon 50mm, but the feel of mine is totally opposite of what you describe - smooth, and quiet.</p>

<p>At any rate, Ruslan, Mendel is right - get one in your hands first, then decide...</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Probably the most important consideration is how you'll use it. The Sigma is optimzed around using it wide open (or close to that). That's which it's such a large piece of glass. Beautful bokeh, great results when used as a fast, fast lens. But that may not be how a lot of people choose to use it, and that should impact the decision making process.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Ruslan, the Sigma 50/1.4 is reportedly sharper than the EF 50/1.4 wide open, as is the EF 50/1.2 L at around f/2, but from f/2.8 on, there's no better 50mm lens on the market with respect to image quality.</p>

<p>I use only full frame EOS bodies (5DII and 1V), and would never part with my EF 50/1.4. Sure, it's not weather sealed, doesn't have L build quality, and doesn't have the latest USM, but it does have reliable AF with full time manual, it's compact and light, and, perhaps best of all, it costs 40% less than the Sigma and only 25% of the price of the 50/1.2 L. </p>

[Brad_]

Can speak about the Sigma, but my Canon 50/1.4 is a little wonky, especially on AF.

 

Not my favorite lens and one that I always have doubts and can't totally trust about when I shoot with it. My Canon 35/1.4 is a much

different story but of course it costs a lot more...

[jimstrutz]

<p>For me the biggest problem with the Canon 50/1.4 is the unreliable AF system. I'm one of the many, many, many people with a failed lens. ------ Look it up.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I have an EF 50/1.4, and I've shot a number of times with the sigma 50/1.4. The sigma just blows the pants off the EF 50/1.4 from f1.4 to ~ f2.8. from ~ f2.8 on, they are both pretty indistinguishable (IQ wise on a 5d2).<br>

The bottom line is that as far as a mainstream optic, the EF 50/1.4 is just not up to snuff. The AF is frankly unreliable - mine(current copy --guess why I had to replace the old one) has never suffered a severe shock, yet in the middle of shooting @ less than 3mo old, the AF locked up tight. wouldn't move. I took some monkeying, then it started focusing again (WTF!) on a whim. If you are a hobbyist, maybe that's okay, but when you're getting paid, having a virtually new 50/1.4 that can (and does) lock up w/o warning, and seemingly w/o cause is not acceptable. <em>The replacement did it also.</em> Everybody on the planet knows about the problem, but Canon hasn't deemed it worth fixing, not for the last 18 years.<br>

The softness WO of the EF 50/1.4 is also frankly ... known. It is just NOT a sharp optic WO. You'll need to stop it down to ~f2 before you get a reasonably sharp image from side to side FF. I'm not saying that that poor IQ is unreasonable (the reasons are numerous, and valid), just that now there's a better choice - a far better one, for only a benji more.<br>

I personally think they should offer a new 50, obv, they don't feel that way, but maybe the Sigma, which is only about $100 more, but twice the lens in IQ, durability, and reliability, will give them reasonable competition to justify Canon's revisiting this lens.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Canon f1.4 is a fine lens optically - low contrast and softer at f1.4 - good at f2, and excellent at f2.8. AF OK, but it is not a lens that gives the same pride of ownership as, say, the 35L. So far no problems with mine, but I don't full time manual focus mine (I have never needed to). The Sigma is not immune to complaints about its AF either (see the digital picture) and the reports I have read have not suggested that it is a clearly superior lens in performance at any aperture on a FF camera. I will contend however that it is bigger and more impressive looking and has a nicer feel to it than the Canon and I know quite a few pros who like it.</p>

[pierrearnaud]

<p>I use the 50mm focal length a lot and have the Sigma 50. In absolute terms, I find it an excellent lens, great tonal rendition and bokeh in my opinion. You should test it with your body before buying it however. Mine had a weird flaw : perfect focus at short distances, badly off at long distances. I had to send it back twice to Sigma to get this fixed. <br>

I have just uploaded a few samples for you to check out : they are in my "sigma-50-samples" folder. You may want to look especially at MG_841 and MG_838, as they were taken at 1.4. <br>

Colors are badly off : this was my first upload of color pictures to photo.net, and for some reason, the colors got all washed out in the applet. Certainly a color management issue, but all of my attempts failed. If someone can tell me what I'm doing wrong, I will post them again.<br>

All pictures taken with 5D1. Hope this helps.</p>

[pierrearnaud]

<p>I have uploaded a few of the pictures from the sigma-50-samples folder into the single photo section using the basic one picture upload option rather than the upload applet. This seems to solve the color management issue, at least on my screen.</p>

<p>I'm using a Mac, so if anyone out there with a PC could tell me if they see a difference between the two version of these pictures, this would help me investigate this issue.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

 

[ruslan]

<p>Thank all of you! Your words can help. I have examined the Carl Zeiss 50/1.4 ZE too, and would prefer its bokeh it has silky focusing ring and it is well made, but it has no AF and auto diaphragm either! The sigma is so huge, and here comes the 2-nd question - I wonder if it (with a hood) casts a shade off the flash mounted on the hot shoe! I currently use the pankace which is very very small and ... flat (10-12 mm off the flange).</p>

[pierrearnaud]

<p>Ruslan,<br>

The Sigma is bigger than the EF 50/1.4, but in my experience, it is better at wide apertures. As you mention bokeh, I believe this one big plus of the sigma. I'll try and attach a sample picture of that. <br>

As for hood shade with flash, I never used the flash with the hood. it's too bright here to try that now, but I will do it when it's darker.</p><div></div>

[pierrearnaud]

<p>here's another sample. My apologies for the quick and dirty (I mean, really dirty) scans !</p><div></div>

[pierrearnaud]

<p>Ruslan,<br>

After trying the Sigma with shade and flash, I personally can't see any shadow produced by the shade. In fact, the lighting seems quite even throughout the field.<br>

Hope this helps,</p>

<p>Pierre</p>

[derek_stanton2]

<p>"Ruslan, the Sigma 50/1.4 is reportedly sharper than the EF 50/1.4 wide open, as is the EF 50/1.2 L at around f/2, but from f/2.8 on, there's no better 50mm lens on the market with respect to image quality."</p>

<p>My experience is different. I have had an excellent sample of the Canon 50/1.4, for many years. When the Sigma first came out, i tried three copies but couldn't find one that was suitably sharp and reliable in focus. That was when the 5D v1 was current. Later, when the v2 was out, i tried the Sigma again, and found it worked fairly well, but only with the 5DMk2's AF micro-adjustment. </p>

<p>Still, the Sigma was never sharp-ER than the Canon. It was close enough, though, and the bokeh was better, so i kept it. For awhile. But, i found later that the AF wasn't consistently accurate. I sold it and tried the Canon 50L. Again, the 50L wasn't as sharp as my copy of the 50/1.4, but the focus was a bit more consistent than the Sigma and the bokeh was better than the Canon 50/1.4, so i kept it. I only sold the 50L for financial reasons.</p>

<p>Still, i never sold the Canon 50/1.4. It really is an excellent lens. Bokeh is already better than most other 50s, and sharpness (if you have a good copy) is top-notch. I once had a Leica-R 50mm Summicron, and the Canon 50/1.4 was equal to it when both lenses were at F2. The Leica was wide open, and the Canon stopped down a bit, but the Leica only goes to f2, so you could think of it as having Summicron-level performance PLUS an extra stop. My Canon 50/1.4 is good at 1.4, so long as there aren't too many bright/white areas in the frame, which cause a sort of halation effect (if you're pixel peeping). Still, it's useful. You should expect a bit of softness wide open. </p>

<p>Build quality: The Sigma and 50L are bulls. Construction can give you a bit of confidence, but you pay for it in weight. The Canon is just 'okay' - neither cheap nor tank-like. It just sits there and works. Put the hood on it if you want it to look a bit more 'pro.' </p>

<p>I don't remember comparing AF speed, but i'm pretty sure the Canon 1.4 is fastest and the Sigma and 50L are probably a wash. But, i don't shoot sequences, and never use tracking AF, so my opinion's probably moot for those purposes. </p>

<p>So, which lens? You can't lose with any of them. Remember that pros, shooting fashion with huge budgets and critical art directors have been shooting the Canon 50/1.4 for years. The 50L and Sigma are relatively new offerings. It's certainly good enough for anyone. That said, the Sigma and 50L do have a measure of better bokeh, and if you use that characteristic, there are benefits. See the flickr portfolio of Markus Schwarze.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/<br>

He's been doing street portraits with the Sigma first, and now the 50L. If that's your thing, get one of those lenses. If you shoot mainly at smaller apertures, the old Canon is probably the best all-rounder. </p>

[drpath]

<p>In the past forty-odd years I've used all the Canon 50/1.4's except the nFD, from the FL II to todays EF. They've all been very simular optically: mediocre (at best) below f2, good around 2.8 and just plain stellar above 3.5. The Sigma f1.4 series of lenses offers an intriguing alternative, with lenses that are plainly better than OEM at wide apertures. But, alas, the compromises Sigma designers had to make to acheive this means they cannot match the Canon stopped down. And there are the focusing issues. As always with lenses, you have to pick the compromise which suits your shooting style.</p>

<p>In build quality, on the other hand, the EF is a cheap plastic toy compared to my 1971 'chrome nose.' I really cannot understand Canon's thinking on this. Today only pros and serious amateurs are going to buy a 50/1.4 I would gladly pay more to get better quality -- as the many who have bought the Sigma have done. At least they could give us real USM.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>Unfortunately Nikon seems to be stealing the march on Canon in this department. Their 35 f1.8 DX and now 50 f1.4 FX look to have proper USM, good optics and are quite affordable. Canon has been putting all their effort into expensive and esoteric L optics and hasn't upgraded any of their non-L primes in over a decade. Still these ancient designs are not that cheap.<br>

Where is my affordable 35 f2 USM? Where is my 28 f1.8 USM with optics to match the $500 price tag? What about rign USM in either the 50 f1.8 or 50 f1.4?<br>

How about building it once and building it right instead of offering 3 different 50s, each with its drawbacks.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>Photozone gives Sigma's 50 1.4 rather poor reviews. The center of the images appears fairly good while the corners(border)are very soft.</p>

[nicolas_ferretti]

<p>I don't know about Canon, but I have the Sigma and it's extremely sharp. I use it with a 5D Mark II. The construction is very solid. If you want to be unnoticed, maybe it's not your lens because it's bulky and even more with the hood attached to it. The only problem is the focus, It's not like an USM (even being HSM), and for me, it took some time to get used to it.<br>

It's a solid lens, with great sharpness and nice bokeh.</p>