Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART-price tag

[robert_stig]

<p>Just wondering what are your thoughts about the lens. and what do you think it will priced at?</p>

<p>my biggest concern is just regarding AF accuracy and hunting thats the issue with 3rd party lenses. tying to estimate what its price tag would be.</p>

<p>theyre noting that nikon and canons versions are no comparison and its actually closer to the otus league. hope the price isnt more than $500. </p>

<p>the 58 1.4 at $1700 is the ripoff of the century. and the otus is a ripoff of all ripoffs to be noted in all history books. its not that I dont have the money, its that I want to buy something im getting worth for. the 58 is not worth it IQ wise. the 50 1.4G can do 98% of what it does and I saw those pics of the 55 otus and while its impressive, its not $5000 impressive. not even $1000 impressive for a manual focus lens. no way. </p>

<p>its only a damn 50mm lens. its a must have focal length but nothing special perspective wise. I want something on the nikon 50 1.4 AFS level performance wise with a faster AF (the G is very slow) with the same price tag. dont think im asking for something unreasonable. the nikon sells for $400. the sigma ART may be better but the HSM is selling for the same price more or less as the G. I figure they want more money on the ART lens, but not willing to go more than $500 at most just because its a little sharper at open apertures and it has a nice finish. otherwise will just get the 1.8 AFS and be done with it. a 50mm lens are not worth these kind of prices. </p>

<p>im still waiting for the 135 1.8 but truthfully, I would be VERY happy with a sharp 2.8. a 1.8 lens is crazy and too shallow. a very useable 2.8 at 2.8 is just fine. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>"They say" is likely to be just made up stuff at this point; where is the hard evidence? I think it is reasonable to wait 3-6 months for a set of reputable reviews to be published on any new lens. Often initial comments are driven more by hormones than user experience and measurements.</p>

<p>The AF-S 58/1.4 Nikkor is an outstanding lens and its price is in line with the 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 Nikkors and a bargain compared to its predecessor the 58/1.2 Noct Nikkor which can call used prices twice as high as the 58/1.4 AF-S although the latter has nano coating, SWM, less field curvature and smoother bokeh. The Noct has its optical advantages also but the price is high given the difficulty in focusing an f/1.2 lens using modern manual focus unfriendly DSLR viewfinders.</p>

<p>Compared to AF-S 50/1.4 the 58 produces images with better resistance to flare and richer colors, much less CA, more consistently smooth bokeh and a wider and easier to use manual focus ring. The 50/1.4 in turn has much smaller size, lower price, and better corner sharpness stopped down. I prefer the livelier image from the 58 for most subjects especially people subjects but use other lenses for landscape and architecture.</p>

<p>The new Sigma should support their USB dock which lets you fix many AF issues without resorting to repair. So it should be considered an advantage.</p>

<p>As for price, it is highly subjective, what constitutes a good value. For some people a 500/4 or 600/4 are good value for what they do. The Leica 50/2 Apo costs about $7300. Some portrait photographers literally live from the images made with their 50mm lenses. It is understandable that manufacturers make lenses with different characteristics in this very popular focal length. It is up to every photographer to make their choice - using derogatory terms does not help.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I don`t know the reason of the price in the 58/1.4 but maybe,<br /> 1. They want "connoiseur" type kind of buyer who want an "exclusive" lens, or<br /> 2. It`s aimed to pros, with a D800 still a cheap option for a photography studio if compared to a medium format system.<br /> Whatever it is, I think it`s not another "standard" lens for someone who is looking for a cheap "must have".</p>

<p>But if Sigma made another good "Art" version like the 35/1.4, only people who want a "Nikkor" engraving on the lens will buy it at $1700...</p>

<p>The new 35 from Sigma is $900, so I think the new 58/1.4, with the same element quantity (althought with a wider diameter), should be in the same range, maybe a bit higher simply because the Otus and the Nikkor (and the Leica) are much higher.</p>

<p>BTW, it`s "only a 50mm lens", but a highly corrected one, huge, and with higher performance than others. The focal lenght doesn`t matter, it`s the complexity and the quality of the construction, and the performance, I think.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Whatever it is, I think it`s not another "standard" lens for someone who is looking for a cheap "must have".</em></p>

<p>Right; the 58/1.4 is designed for a special effect or "look" that e.g. some portrait photographers want. They are not very price sensitive when it comes to a key lens for 2/3 portraits or couples, which is one reason why the price is what it is. It may also be more difficult to manufacture a lens with such special bokeh characteristics (how the aspherical element surfaces are polished, etc. may contribute according to some reports; the application of the nano coating also can add to the cost, finally since it's not expected to gather a large market due to the price that again has a tendency to increase the price further to cover the research, development and tool making costs with a small number of lenses made). The 50/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4 are intended for general use and have somewhat more rudimentary construction quality and fewer exotic elements but perform well for what they are. Personally I think all three are very nice lenses.</p>

<p>The Otus by contrast seems to be designed for the highest possible sharpness and contrast and least aberrations at f/1.4; the urban night scenes displayed at some reviews are are stunningly good. However, to my eye the portraits from this lens do not look at all the way I'd want to show people. The more specialized a lens is the higher the cost per unit because fewer lenses are expected to be sold. In this case the Otus also has a very complex optical design with many elements so that further reduces the market interest as a 1kg normal lens, if it is replicated at the same quality level at all focal lengths makes for a very heavy bag! But in some specialized applications the weight and the fact that it's manual focus only may not matter at all. The 135/2 Apo Sonnar is similar in many ways that the technical image quality is extremely high but something on the emotional level I find lacking in the images. The highest contrast, precise rendition of details may not be aesthetically pleasing, depending on the subject and the photographer's sense of aesthetics.</p>

[robert_stig]

<p>Lets get away from the 58 and otus, shall we?</p>

<p>"my biggest concern is just regarding AF accuracy and hunting thats the issue with 3rd party lenses. tying to estimate what its price tag would be." lets comment on this please.</p>

<p>"is likely to be just made up stuff at this point" Im not a sigma fan at all. I started with sigma lenses and I vowed never to buy one again and yet here they are with I lens I think will be better than the main competition. nikon/canon. not sure how good it will be but with the 35 ART performance, I have no doubt regarding the 50 ART.</p>

 

[mike_earussi1]

<p>First of all, with lenses you usually get what you pay for, though occasionally there are true bargains to be found. Having a truly remarkable, virtually perfect 50mm lens <em>is</em> worth $4,000 to some people. I'd love to have it but it's way out of my price range, but if I could afford it I would buy it. As for the new Sigma, I hope it's close to the Otus, and I do expect it to be better than their last offering, but I'm also expecting the piece to be in line with their new 35 f1.4 A, so around $900-$1,000 is my guess. AF quality is unknown at this time, but as other Sigma lenses have had trouble focusing with Nikon the new 50 could easily have the same issues. But no one will know anything for sure until it's been tested.<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52934171</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'd just say that I personally have found Sigma to be an innovative and reliable source of lenses that often fill gaps in other companies offerings or alternatives that top the originals in quality.<br>

Some of the problems with "third-party" focus, etc. will eventually be mitigated by the USB-port and updatable lens firmware that Sigma is starting to offer ( http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/usb.html ). </p>

[robert_stig]

I completely disagree with you regarding "with lenses you get what you pay for" if you asked me this 5. Years ago i would

say yes, but today? Heeeeeeeelllll no. i can write a huge list of lenses i feel are a ripoff. But lets keep talking about the

sigma. Priced over $600 and i will pass. No 50mm lens is worth that much. Id rather have a 35 or 85. A 50 is must have

though but not a lens i use a lot so see no reason To fork over that much for it. Im guessing at the end ill just get the 50

1.8 afs. I have enough lenses as it is. Now im just looking for something a bit better in the 50. Will upgrade my tamron 17-

35 to tomina 16-28 in the summer and i want either the 135 (either the sigma or the dc) or just get the 180 afd. Have used

the 135 dc from my good friend but the f2 is too much for me. I shoot between 2.2 to 4.5 on my primes. Depending which.

[Matt Laur]

<p>I use the "older" Sigma 50/1.4 HSM, and really like it. I also use the new "art" flavor Sigma 35/1.4 - which is a wonderful lens. If I were buying another 50 right now, I'd choose that 35/1.4's slightly longer new brother. But the 50/1.4 HSM is producing exactly the images I want it to, so no need to spend the money. Based on the behavior of the 35/1.4, I expect the newer Sigma 50 will be a somewhat snappier performer, AF-wise. Having the USB dock firmware update/tweek option is a pretty compelling new feature. Not that I've any reason to want to change the out of the box behavior of the 35/1.4.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I don't see the point in speculating about the new Sigma lens and how much it will cost. The older Sigma 50mm f/1.4, a good lens as Matt points out, was initially more expensive than the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, but has been heavily discounted during something like the last month, so it now costs less than the Nikon. Whether the performance of the new Sigma (which we don't know) will justify its price (which we also don't know) will reveal itself with time.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>theyre noting that nikon and canons versions are no comparison and its actually closer to the otus league. hope the price isnt more than $500.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it will almost certainly be more than $500.</p>

<p>i also own the sigma 50/1.4 HSM and it focuses great, even under demanding, low-light conditions (on D3s). even if the new ART lens is better in the corners, which it almost certainly will be, i'm not certain it would be worth it to me to ugrade, since i typically shoot that in situations where corners dont matter too much.</p>

[andylynn]

I think you'd be nuts to pay for any of those expensive 50mm lenses when the Nikon 1.8G is so good. I bet that new

Sigma lens will cost nearly as much as the 50 and 85 1.8G's put together.

[rick_chen]

<p>As far as I can remember, I dont think there is a f/1.4 G lens with SWM (silent wave motor) that is fast, the reason is probably Nikon assume users want accurate focus at f/1.4 vs its speed (24 1.4, 35 1.4, 1.8, 50 1.4, 1.8 85 1.4, 1.8, 105 f/2 135 f/2). Even the Sigma 35 1.4 is not a speed demon. Pro f/2.8 zooms are the ones with faster AF speed, and the super teles.<br>

If you need something fast why not go for the AF Ds, I had the impression they are a lot faster.<br>

As for the Sigma 50mm, well you dont have to buy it. If it's anywhere close to a Otus, I will pay any price for it. Maybe not $4000, but if it's as sharp with AF, they will get my money. That's just me. The sigma 35 in my opinion is well worth $900. If it's $500 I would be worried, because chances are it's just like the rest of the 50mm in the market and probably not much different to be worth a upgrade. There's plenty of 50mm options out there already</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Lets get away from the 58 and otus, shall we?</blockquote>

 

<p>Why? The new Sigma has 13 elements in 8 groups (SLD and aspheric). The 58mm has 9 elements in 6 groups (2 aspheric). The Otus is 12 elements in 10 groups, with an aspheric and some low-dispersion elements. By contrast, the old Sigma had 8 elements in 6 groups with one aspheric, and the 50mm f/1.4 AF-S has 8 elements in 7 groups. The Sigma is a significantly more complex design than either their current 50 f/1.4 or the Nikon equivalent - and they weren't afraid to charge more than Nikon for that.<br />

<br />

The 58mm has Noct-like coma correction and very nice bokeh, but tack sharp and LoCA free it isn't. Assuming that Sigma actually put all those elements in there for a reason, I'd hope the performance was at least competitive with the 58mm, if not the Otus. If so, why on earth would they sell it for $500 when they could ask several times that? I'm at least waiting to see what the Sigma can do rather than saving for the Zeiss right now. I would be disappointed if it performs like the 58mm, but I can see why people would currently go for that lens.<br />

<br />

Sigma could probably sell a 50mm replacement with faster AF and slightly better corners for a more reasonable amount of money, but there's no indication that's what the new ART lens is. Besides, it would be in their "sport" range if so.<br />

<br />

I don't agree that there's no justification for an expensive 50mm. I do believe that no Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is worth the price to me in optical performance (which is why I bought an f/1.8 AF-D... and then an AF-S when I realised it was too soft at wide apertures to let me test my D800's AF points), and the current 50mm Sigma's corners put me off. The 58mm is better, but I have higher standards in that price bracket (I own the f/1.8 lenses because I'll forgive limitations at low cost); it's the same reason I don't own an 85 f/1.4. Give me a lens that actually performs well - like my 200 f/2, say - and I'll pay more for it, at least when I can. When I can afford to do so is another matter, which is why Sigma aren't about to lose a sale to Zeiss in the short term. YMMV, but sharpness off-centre and LoCA matter to me.<br />

<br />

I would encourage Nikon to look closely at the 135mm Zeiss while replacing the 135 DC lens, too - if they're going to bump the prices as much as most AF-S rehashes have, it had better be good...</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>At the risk of replying to myself, having had another look, I <i>do</i> have some concerns with the Otus. For example, in <a href=" sample image</a> there's clear longitudinal chromatic aberration - not bad, probably much better than an f/1.4 AF-S, but definitely present - and, while it might be the fault of sharpening, the bokeh of the transition zone is a bit iffy. I'm sure all other normal lenses would be worse, and I don't know whether focal length is an issue, but I'd be interested in knowing what medium and large format lenses can do with the same DoF (and a smaller relative aperture). Sigma: beat that with completely fixed LoCA and you've got a sale.<br />

<br />

In related news, Sigma <i>are</i> <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/01/08/sigma-50mm-f-1.4-art-targets-zeiss-otus-ignores-canon-l-nikon-glass">reportedly</a> trying to compete with the Zeiss. I'd be surprised if it costs more than the Otus, but I'm not expecting it to be cheap.</p>