50mm: Wich one?

[vlad]

I got the Sigma 1.4 recently after a few years of shooting with the nifty fifty.  Shooting on full frame, no problems, good focus right out of the box.  Overall very good image quality, the 1.8 can't touch it at 1.8 obviously.  Also, no more pentagon-shaped bokeh.  Haven't had any AF issues - the 5DIII locks it in fine even in low light.

I was calibrating it recently, and noticed that it only needed focus adjustment at 1 meter focusing distance and closer.  As I pulled away, it was sharp at 0, so I just kept it at 0 and will be more careful with focus up close. (Edit, I wonder if that's the schizophrenic focus that was mentioned.  I should try it at longer distances...)

[pwp]

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is optimized for APS-C , while the Canon 50mm f/1.4 performs better on FF. 
Reasons to upgrade are
F/1.4
Better build and reliability.
 
Downside to Sigma - commonly have AF issues (for those that check) and need to go to Sigma for adjustment.  None of them have AF that is outstanding.

+1....I turfed out my EF 50 f/1.4 and replaced it with the Sigma 50 f/1.4. What a wasted exercise. Not only was the Sigma heavier, it took up more room in my bag than the beautifully compact Canon 50. Should have kept the Canon...

I shoot on FF and found the Sigma AF erratic to the point where I just couldn't trust it on jobs. Which means I never used it. When it nailed focus it was terrific, but the inconsistency was the killer. It's gone now, replaced with a 40 f/2.8 which I also hardly use. But at least it's small, dependable...a lens I can trust.

Really, I'm a zooms shooter with primes kicking in at the long telephoto end. The new 24-70 f/2.8II is such an extraordinary piece of glass that primes in this range seem redundant. I'm even looking at disposing of my 24 f/1.4II because there is little need for it any more. A f/2.8 or even slower lens is not the liability it used to be when we were tied to 100iso if we wanted quality files. Now with our new best friend,ISO, carefully shot/exposed images done on sky high iso settings can deliver superb commercial quality files.

-PW

[florianbieler.de]

Get the L. 

[drjlo]

I second the notion that sigma update the 50mm 1.4 to join the art line

I third that, hoping it would happen if enough people kept saying it    Dare I even wish for f/1.2?

[bseitz234]

I second the notion that sigma update the 50mm 1.4 to join the art line

I third that, hoping it would happen if enough people kept saying it    Dare I even wish for f/1.2?

1.0, like the 50L from the days of yore? 

[pwp]

I second the notion that sigma update the 50mm 1.4 to join the art line

I third that, hoping it would happen if enough people kept saying it    Dare I even wish for f/1.2?

1.0, like the 50L from the days of yore? 

F/1 as the EF 50 replacement? Sure...and will you relish the weight and price penalty? Make it an f/2 but get the optics perfect and the weight realistic and the pricepoint somewhere where volume sales would happen. But the L 50? Now that might be a viable candidate for heavyweight, high priced f/1 goodness...

-PW

[EvilTed]

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is optimized for APS-C , while the Canon 50mm f/1.4 performs better on FF. 
Reasons to upgrade are
F/1.4
Better build and reliability.
 
Downside to Sigma - commonly have AF issues (for those that check) and need to go to Sigma for adjustment.  None of them have AF that is outstanding.

+1....I turfed out my EF 50 f/1.4 and replaced it with the Sigma 50 f/1.4. What a wasted exercise. Not only was the Sigma heavier, it took up more room in my bag than the beautifully compact Canon 50. Should have kept the Canon...

I shoot on FF and found the Sigma AF erratic to the point where I just couldn't trust it on jobs. Which means I never used it. When it nailed focus it was terrific, but the inconsistency was the killer. It's gone now, replaced with a 40 f/2.8 which I also hardly use. But at least it's small, dependable...a lens I can trust.

Really, I'm a zooms shooter with primes kicking in at the long telephoto end. The new 24-70 f/2.8II is such an extraordinary piece of glass that primes in this range seem redundant. I'm even looking at disposing of my 24 f/1.4II because there is little need for it any more. A f/2.8 or even slower lens is not the liability it used to be when we were tied to 100iso if we wanted quality files. Now with our new best friend,ISO, carefully shot/exposed images done on sky high iso settings can deliver superb commercial quality files.

-PW

I sold my 50L and 24 L II once I got the 24-70 II.
As you say, for sharpness, it's better.
It's also more modern and auto-focuses quicker.

ET

[mrsfotografie]

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is optimized for APS-C

If it were, it would have a reduced image circle and be a lot smaller.

I love mine on FF, it's a solid performer. So either I know how to handle the shallow DOF well or I have a brilliant copy (or both).

[redelses]

I haven't used the canon 1.4, but my sigma 1.4 is awesome - now that it's on a FF. On the 7D it was so-so, with some awesome shots, but too many soft or poor focus photos (about 30-70). Now on a FF, it's spectacular. Focus is spot on every time, maybe a little soft a 1.4, but even at 1.8 it's superb - like a completely different lens. I was always having to redo the AF cal on the 7D, but haven't had to touch that since going FF.
I also like that it's a 77mm filter size - since most of my other lenses are the same.