50mm f1.4 - Canon or Sigma

[taemo]

Does anyone have personal experience using both the
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM?

I have a Canon 50 1.8 already but I was thinking on using it on my 40D and a 50 1.4 on my 5D for walk around portrait.

I might also consider getting an 85 1.8 instead if there's no substantial difference between a 1.4 and 1.8.

But back on my main question, which one would you recommend, the Sigma or Canon?

The Canon is a couple of bucks cheaper but I've read that it's fairly soft and doesn't improve until you step down below f2 or f2.8
On the other hand, the Sigma is a newer build, more expensive and sharp at f1.4 however complaints are about it's poor performance on focusing. Plus being a Sigma lens I may have a higher chance of having to send it back to be calibrated.

Met someone with a Sigma 50mm 1.4 and asked if I could try it on my 5D and wasn't overly impressed, found AF a little slow and soft.

[HK2NR]

Yup pretty much as you described, but I still enjoy my Sigma over the Canon. The Sigma is very quick under the right lighting, however. Low light it does have some issues with focusing. It's a bit bulky since its twice the size of the Canon but definitely sharper. Build quality seems to be better as it doesn't have the Canon's plastic mount and cheap feel.

[Mitsu3000gt]

The Sigma is a better lens if you get a good copy without focus issues. Focus issues seem to be less common on the 50, which is good. The Canon 50/1.4 is pretty average.

Or, save a bunch of money and buy another 50/1.8.

[pea_soup]

Buy the Sigma through TCS and get a good copy, you won't regret it. TCS will allow you to return them until you get a copy you are happy with.

The Sigma 50mm is better than the Canon 50mm.

[AccentAE86]

I've owned the 50 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2.

The 1.8 sucks. It's just nasty. It has the most horrible bokeh. It's ok wide open but stop it down at all and it falls apart and looks disgusting.

The 1.4 is a huge improvement. The focusing is more accurate. People say it's slow, but I don't find it to be terrible. People say it's soft wider than f/2, but it's not sharpness that's the issue, it's halation.

I currently use the 1.2. The only reason I got it is because it has less halation at large apertures, but it's still present. But after owning it for a few years now, I think I would be just as happy if I kept my 1.4. In fact, I've been thinking of downgrading.

I haven't used the Sigma, but from what I remember of the samples I have seen from colleagues, there is also significant halation present at large apertures, though it maintains detail better than the Canon. The focusing I hear is a bit of a lottery. I have a sigma 30 1.4 which I totally love, and it focuses just fine so I've been lucky, but I know many people have trouble with some of these siggy lenses.

[pea_soup]

The newer sigmas seem to have a lot better QC. I recently bought a Sigma 50mm 1.4 just to use with photo booths. I'd say its very sharp from 1.8. Bokeh significantly better than the 50mm 1.2L. Focus accuracy on the copy I got is high, roughly 80% keeper rate.

[muse017]

I just bought Canon 50mm 1.4 about a month ago and very impress with it. It's so much better than 1.8 in every way except for the price tag. I was also considering Sigma but I had really bad experience with 30mm before, so no go for me. Also not a huge fan of Pearl coating on Sigma lenses.
New ones are ok but looks cheap. Just my opinion.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

The Sigma 50/1.4 is an excellent piece of glass. Set it at f/2 and the images just pop.

[AccentAE86]

Originally posted by pea_soup
The newer sigmas seem to have a lot better QC. I recently bought a Sigma 50mm 1.4 just to use with photo booths. I'd say its very sharp from 1.8. Bokeh significantly better than the 50mm 1.2L. Focus accuracy on the copy I got is high, roughly 80% keeper rate.

I have to disagree with you there. Though bokeh is very subjective and everyone has their opinions, bokeh is the ONE reason that people spend the huge premium for the L over the Canon 1.4 or Sigma. It's also the one thing that's really preventing me from downgrading.

[pea_soup]

Mleh I've owned the 50L on numerous occasions. It's a great lens but the bokeh is choppy when compared to the Sigma. The sigma just is more natural and smooth. It's still a very nice lens though.

However I'm not alone when I say outright it has the worst bokeh of the Canon's well known primes (24L 35L 85L 135L 200L). It simply does not live up to what its siblings are capable of.

In terms of sharpness, AF speed, AF accuracy and overall IQ its the best of the 50mm range. I'm not alone in saying the lens is in need of updating.

The one thing I loved about the 50L was the contrast. The colors just seem so different with that lens. For the price point though most Canon shooters will take the 35L over the 50L.

[taemo]

Thanks for the input guys.
I think i've decided to go with the sigma version and test my luck, one more advantage it has than the canon 1.4 is that it's weather sealed plus its 77mm filter size.
Doesn't look like TCS has either one in stock and I don't want to try online either so I'll have to wait.

[pea_soup]

If you buy it through B&H they'll ship it to you for free if you need to exchange it. Their price is also lower than any place in Calgary by quite a bit.

[mboldt]

I loved the Sigma 50mm 1.4 when I owned it (Nikon mount). Really contrasty, nice colors, and sharp. If I went 50mm again, I'd definitely buy that lens.

[kobe tai]

Bought the Sigma 50mm today and am dissapointed. Tried 1 copy at McBain and it was horrible wide open (super soft and crazy CA), then tried a second copy and it was a bit better but not by much. Then ended up buying one at Vistek (not able to try it out in store) and it's soft as well. Thats pretty shitty odds 3 out of 3 were bunk. Here is a small comparison I did against my Canon 50mm 1.8 ($130 lens). The Canon seems sharper all the way to f4.0 which is weird. Also looks like the Sigma is front focussing a tiny bit.


FOCUS WAS ON THE RED 16 MARK.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6159/6173856138_e5ae4408e7_o.jpg

[pea_soup]

As I said, key is getting that good copy which is nothing but a pain. With my Nikon mount it took me 5 tries with B&H. Horrible.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Just a cautionary word about AF testing, it's still best to do so in real-world environments too. Camera companies suggest using high contrast targets parallel to the camera, and no closer than 2ft away from the target.

In addition to that, I know you shoot Canon, but phase detect AF systems are basically the same so here is what Nikon has to say about why modern phase detect AF systems are not infallible:

https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4585

What I'd suggest you do is go 5+ feet from a piece of paper with a big black "X" on it, put the camera parallel to that (i.e. head on), use a tripod, the flash if you want, and test it that way. Focusing on the red "16" is not that contrasty, it's small, it's surrounded by similar small shapes, and it's on an angle - 4 things you aren't technically 'supposed' to do, so something may be fooling the camera.

Of course, you might also have some bad Sigma samples, that is completely possible. Especially with the wide aperture Sigmas, there is above average sample variation. Sigma will calibrate the lens for you though, if you want. I hear turn around time is actually fairly decent (though nobody should have to do this).

Lastly, never use AF fine tune to solve a lens problem. AF fine tune values effect the lens only at that EXACT DISTANCE from camera to subject. As soon as you move, it's off again. So, adjusting the lens might make it 10% sharper at exactly 5.5ft, for example, but 20% worse at all other focal lengths and focus distances. It's really only useful in some studio environments.

I'd just suggest doing a few more reliable tests and some real world testing before discounting it completely. Also, test most thoroughly wide open at f1.4 - what good is a f1.4 lens if it won't perform as advertised at that aperture.

[taemo]

newb question but is it normal that shots at widest aperture is slightly darker?

I noticed this on both 40D and 5D.

f1.4 vs f2.0
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6151/6174740881_2c4508083e.jpghttp://farm7.static.flickr.com/6174/6175267572_bdd2564f64.jpg

[kobe tai]

Some real world examples since my test is flawed. I used center focus point and focusses on the eye in the human shots and then on the barcode in the box shot. I took a lot more of these and the focus (to me) looks off in every shot. Maybe it`s my eyes but it looks like it is focussing on the nose. What do you think ?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6153/6175438094_ea43717ca2_o.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/6175436556_31097bf3ec_o.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6162/6174912365_472ca028ae_o.jpg

I should mention that all 3 of these examples were wide open at 1.4.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I'd agree that your lens is probably the issue if it wouldn't grab focus on that lens box. I'd return it too at that point.

[muse017]

wow..that's bad....Glad I went for Canon 50mm
I had same issues with PK mount Sigma 30mm 1.4 and later gave up and returned it.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Just buy one from The Camera Store, and keep swapping it until you get a good one. A good Sigma 50 1.4 is better than either Canon version, so if you are willing to put in the effort it'll pay off.

It just sucks that Sigma's QC on fast lenses is so bad, particularly the 1.4 stuff.

Thankfully, I've never had a single issue with Sigma or Nikon QC, but I've never tried to buy a fast Sigma prime.

[pea_soup]

No offence, but the 50mm F1.4 is not in the same league as the Sigma. The 1.2 optically is just as good but does not have a nice creamy bokeh.

The issue with the 50 Sigma is getting a good copy. I lucked out with Nikon. With Canon it's been six copies back to B&H thus far for me.

[kobe tai]

Tried to microadjust and here is comparison betwenn 0 and +20 (which seemed to be best and I can't adjust further):

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6162/6176943848_7480cdf1f9_o.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6176/6176944282_849256b9e1_o.jpg

I don't think I had any user error here. Did mirror lock up, on a timer, center focus point, single shot AF and took 3 pics for each 0, +5, +10, +15, +20.

In conclusion I strongly suggest staying away from this lens. :facepalm:

[Mitsu3000gt]

There is nothing wrong with the optics, but rather the focus. Try manual focusing it, I bet you can get a pretty sharp pic (not that you should have to...).

If you want, you can keep trying to get a good copy by using a store like TCS which will swap lenses for you.

Also, make sure you reset your AF tune back to zero. You never want to have to use that.

It's a better lens than the Canon variants, but getting a good copy may be annoying. Up to you how much effort you want to put in, I guess.

[screw_loose]

Ya to say to avoid it is bad advice. It's a good lens. Getting the good copy is the hard part.

I had bought a Nikon 135mm DC F2 that was soft as all hell. It happens with every company but the Sigma 50 is famous for it. You get a good copy and you'll honestly never ever complain.

[kobe tai]

So a quick update - went to try the only other copy the store I bought at had in stock and it was a bit better than this one but still off. I was now worried that it might be my 5d2 that is off but I tested it today shooting a white paper with printed writing (although handheld this time with both a 135mm f2l and my 50mm 1.8 and both those lenses were spot on sharp). So now this makes 4 out of 4 Sigma 50mm that I tried that were all focussing incorrectly. They decided to send it off for caliberation. We will see how it is when it comes back in 4-8 weeks. :dunno:

[Mitsu3000gt]

That's really not too unusual with a Sigma fast prime - just think, the 30/1.4 has an even worse reputation.

Anyways, it sucks you had to send away your brand new lens but hopefully it comes back perfect. Sigma is usually pretty good about calibrations - they get a lot of them.

[pea_soup]

Not sure where you got that 4-8 week time line from. Sigma is usually extremely FAST.

The thing is once you get a Sigma 50 that focuses properly you have the best 50 out there.

[kobe tai]

Originally posted by pea_soup
Not sure where you got that 4-8 week time line from. Sigma is usually extremely FAST.

The thing is once you get a Sigma 50 that focuses properly you have the best 50 out there.

Thats what Vistek quoted me for a turnaround.

[pea_soup]

You had Vistek send it in for you? I would always advise against that.

In any event the turn around time from Sigma is generally quite good especially when it comes to calibration.

FYI the copy sitting at the camera store right now, they only have 1 left, is sharp wide open.

[kobe tai]

I called camera store when looking and they said they were out.

[pea_soup]

I was in there on Friday they had one in the box that I was playing around with as I am contemplating re-buying the 50. Just not sure how much use it'll get between the 35L and Sigma 85.

They did have 1 in though I know this. Granted their sales staff are questionable at best.

When I was there I caught one of their sales staff talking to a customer regarding which Canon camera to buy. The guy was looking at a 5D Mark II and was asking if the 1D Mark IV is a better camera.

The guy physically told him "no it has a smaller sensor so it's not as good as this one".

Me thinks they should screen their sales staff properly.

[HK2NR]

Agree with everyone else as much as it does irk me that every now and then i get the occasional focusing issue... the image quality is great and bokeh so smooth


http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/37814_408124857729_505157729_4540627_6411654_n.jpg

[taemo]

^ is that at 1.4?

does shots taken at f1.4 turns a little underexposed for you compared to f2?

[HK2NR]

Yeah that was at 1.4. Haven't really come across that issue, if anything I have to drop the exposure a notch or two in lightroom.

[taemo]

can you please check when you have time? compare f1.4 to f2?

here's one I did couple of days ago


f1.4 vs f2.0
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6151/6174740881_2c4508083e.jpghttp://farm7.static.flickr.com/6174/6175267572_bdd2564f64.jpg

[HK2NR]

sure thing I'll try it out tonight if I get a chance.

[Mitsu3000gt]

It's not uncommon at all for 3rd party glass to have slightly inconsistent exposure results.

There are copies of the Tamron 17-50/2.8, for example, that need a constant 1/3 stop adjustment dialed into the camera to get reliable exposure.

It's also not uncommon for 3rd party glass to have a very slight color cast. Sigma, for example, is famous for producing a very slight warm color cast.

[HK2NR]

1/60 f1.4 vs 1/60 f2
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k199/agito88/IMG_5757LRPP.jpghttp://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k199/agito88/IMG_5758LRPP.jpg

[D'z Nutz]

Originally posted by HK2NR
1/60 f1.4 vs 1/60 f2

Well, of course your f/2 would be darker. You didn't compensate the shutter speed for the smaller aperture. Try 1/60s @ f/1.4 and 1/30s @ f/2.

Dunno what taemo's problem is because he didn't include exif.

[taemo]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
It's not uncommon at all for 3rd party glass to have slightly inconsistent exposure results.

There are copies of the Tamron 17-50/2.8, for example, that need a constant 1/3 stop adjustment dialed into the camera to get reliable exposure.

It's also not uncommon for 3rd party glass to have a very slight color cast. Sigma, for example, is famous for producing a very slight warm color cast.
gotcha, was thinking too that at f1.4 I'm 1/3 underexposed, atleast in the future I'll know to adjust it when shooting at f1.4


Originally posted by HK2NR
1/60 f1.4 vs 1/60 f2
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k199/agito88/IMG_5757LRPP.jpghttp://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k199/agito88/IMG_5758LRPP.jpg

thanks man, looks like it's the other way around for you :nut:

[HK2NR]

Originally posted by D'z Nutz


Well, of course your f/2 would be darker. You didn't compensate the shutter speed for the smaller aperture. Try 1/60s @ f/1.4 and 1/30s @ f/2.

Dunno what taemo's problem is because he didn't include exif.

lol yeah was kinda confused :nut:
Taemo, what speed did you shoot at?

[HK2NR]

here lets try this again
1/60 f1.4 vs 1/30 f2
slightly underexposed aswell
http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k199/agito88/IMG_5762LRPP.jpghttp://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k199/agito88/IMG_5763LRPP.jpg

lol sorry for the shift too lazy to get the tripod and grabbed some random jar

[taemo]

Originally posted by HK2NR


lol yeah was kinda confused :nut:
Taemo, what speed did you shoot at?

sorry forgot to include exif

Camera Canon EOS 40D
Exposure 0.033 sec (1/30)
Aperture f/1.4
Focal Length 50 mm
ISO Speed 100
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Exposure Program Aperture-priority AE

Camera Canon EOS 40D
Exposure 0.05 sec (1/20)
Aperture f/1.8
Focal Length 50 mm
ISO Speed 100
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Exposure Program Aperture-priority AE