September 30, 2014, 02:35:48 PM

Author Topic: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More  (Read 29510 times)

Radiating

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 336
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #180 on: January 09, 2014, 10:49:59 AM »
I mean to say that double gauss f/1.4 or faster lenses have image quality that is so incredibly bad that it's off the scale.

Compared to 85mm or 35mm primes @ f/1.4 double gauss normal lenses have:

10 times less spacial resolution
5 times more chromatic aberration
4 times more purple fringing
4 times as much hazing

Nevertheless, ...

  • As of 2012, the 50/1.2L tested better for resolution than any 50mm from Nikon, Zeiss or Sigma on LensRentals' shootout.  That's a success. 
  • The 50/1.2L stopped down delivers a wonderful look that is not accounted for in those tests but that is known to photographers.  The advantage of the lens is not the slight extra bit of light going from f/1.4 to f/1.2 — this is less important than ever in the digital era.  And it's not the bokeh at f/1.2 — that's not a useful aperture for a lot of what a 50mm is used for.  Instead, the advantage is the overall look, especially for portraits, and especially stopped down 1, 2 or 3 stops.  That look is why some photographers describe it as their favorite lens.  In that regard too, it's a success. 

Even though you say it's a fact that 50mm lenses are "horrible", it's also fact that many photographers buy, use, enjoy and often prefer 50mm lenses.  That says the photograph is what matters, not the metrics.

Even though a lens may be "just right" for some photographers, it won't & can't please everyone.  A manufacturer can't make a lens that pleases everyone, or the variety of lenses that would be needed to please everyone.  So whatever they make, someone will be unhappy that their personal goals for a new lens weren't met.

It appears that Nikon designed their new 58/1.4 with similar goals — it offers a very nice look, similar to the 50/1.2L based on what I've seen online.  It's not surprising that Ming Thein recently wrote about the Nikon 58/1.4:  "No intention of buying one since the demos I tried in Japan a couple of weeks ago were pretty soft and ‘glowy’ at f1.4 ..."  It's not his kind of lens — so he bought the Otus instead.

With the 50/1.2L Canon delivered a lens that some photographers very much wanted and that measured very well in the 50mm ecosystem of its time.  It doesn't please everyone, but it pleases some photographers very much.  The fact that the Otus raises the bar is great, but not so relevant for the many photographers who are simply not interested in a $4k manual focus non-weather-sealed lens, even one as good as that. 

Now we eagerly wait to see what Sigma brings to the table ...

You do have a meaningful point here, basically:

Canon 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2

Center Resolution: 4/10 
Average Resolution: 0/10
Lack of Chromatic Aberration: 3/10
Lack of Purple Fringing: 3/10
Lack of Glowiness/Hazing: 2/10
Bokeh Transition Quality: 8/10
Lack of Bokeh Artifacts: 10/10
Contrast & Color: 10/10
Lack of Onion Bokeh: 8/10
Lack of Ugly Distortion: 8/10

The Canon f/1.2 L is one of the worst lenses in a few categories, and one of the best in others. Personally I like a well balanced lens.

I actually switched from using a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, to a Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC because of this idea of balance because it has much better bokeh transitions, lacks bokeh artifacts, and has much better color and contrast than the Canon II, which is 3 times more expensive. Which to most people would be a hugely sacrilegious switch, considering the advantages in resolution and the fact that the Canon is an APO lens, which is mind blowing. But after using both the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I, and II, and the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 vc, I stuck with the Tamron. The Canon 24-70mm II just has a look that is way too clinical, it makes things look ugly and lacks color and contrast, and the bokeh of the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I just looks  busy. I also tried the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G and it was actually between the Tamron and the Canon I 24-70mm in almost every way. The Nikon had some business in the background but was a little better controlled than the Canon.

Simply put the Tamron 24-70mm VC takes the best all around photos out of any of the Canon or Nikon compatible 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses (You can also adapt Nikon lenses to Canon and manual focus). Go figure, though I still keep a spare in case I run into onion bokeh issues, which is the lenses only major flaw.

I also don't like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 because it takes too much away from other categories to achieve it's resolution. After owning the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (the best one I found out of several copies) I sold it and went back to the Canon 35mm f/1.4, because it has much less purple fringing, lacks that weird mustache distortion, and has slightly nicer bokeh.

I used to be very obsessed with resolution, but experience has taught me that a well balanced lens takes better photos.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is not a well balanced lens though. At resolutions above 1024 pixels on the short side, it really shows a lack of detail, and even at resolutions below that you have to basically walk on eggshells to get it to create a sharp image wide open. There is no room for error. It also has a painfully high level of purple fringing.

At f/1.4 I like the Canon 1.2 over the 1.4 though because the 1.4 has very busy bokeh which is very noticeable at that aperture, even though the 1.4 has more resolution at that aperture. However I think that the Sigma 1.4 is better than either Canon at 1.4. It basically combines the strengths of both Canon lenses into one, and you can't beat that. The Nikon 58mm is basically a lot like the Sigma 1.4 wide open, except the Nikon is super sharp. It's a shame then that the other main difference is that it has so much purple fringing.

In conclusion, excluding the Otus due to price:

Canon 1.4 @ f/2.0 = best
Sigma 1.4 @ f/1.4 = best
Nikon 58mm 1.4 @ f/1.4 = too much purple fringing
Canon 1.2 @ f/1.4 (or f/1.2) = Capable of great images in the right hands but only up to web sized wide open, due to extreme softness.

Also @ f/1.4 Zeiss 50mm Sumi = Sigma 50mm = Nikon 50mm G f/1.4 (for the most part they deliver basically the same images)

I wouldn't shoot with any 50mm other than the Otus wide open though as the image quality of the double gauss design wide open is just really unacceptable.

If Sigma is releasing a new 50mm though that means that they have probably made huge improvements in image quality. Lets just hope there are no downsides.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 03:29:50 PM by Radiating »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #180 on: January 09, 2014, 10:49:59 AM »

Radiating

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 336
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #181 on: January 09, 2014, 11:17:53 AM »
...
50mm lenses other than the Otus are objectively terrible. It's a fact and it's not limited to the 50mm f/1.2, the f/1.2 is just a lens that happens to add insult to injury, it's a lens that takes an already weak segment and says "let's compromise this even more". Again there is very little to advantage to f/1.2 over f/1.4 due to the way digital sensors absorb light from fast lenses, you certainly can't really see a major difference in bokeh as the samples on the last page showed, so basically the 50mm L means that Canon ignored making a 50mm f/1.4 L that had good contrast color and bokeh. That is a tragedy.
...

So I don't know much about what is or isn't a double gauss design but what I do know that is the Otus is significantly different to other 50mm lenses by it being long rather than short.

If the Sigma is also a long lens then wouldn't that suggest that it too is not a double-gauss design?

The Zeiss Otus is nearly 10 inches long, which seems to be what you need to avoid the double gauss design. The new Sigma is an inch longer than the last one, at 4 inches so I highly doubt that it will be any other design, but we don't know for sure.

However, and this is important, the new Sigma has 50% more elements than any double gauss design lens ever made, and it is an inch longer than any double gauss normal lens I am aware of. What this means is that the lens has more corrective elements and more room to do correction than any other full frame normal lens on the planet. If this lens is not the best non-otus normal lens available, then I would be shocked. Sigma obviously is doing something very special with the design of this lens and that alone indicates that it must be good.

The question is really going to be: does it have any weird drawbacks? Will the bokeh transitions be smooth? Will it have crazy CA or PF? etc.

All I know is that i want to order this lens and test it now.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 11:20:11 AM by Radiating »

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1404
  • www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #182 on: January 09, 2014, 01:20:09 PM »
Just curious. Why would someone pick a 50mm f/1.8 with IS over a 50mm f/1.4 (no IS)? Or vice versa.

1.4 for shallower DOF, 1.8 IS for low light handheld photography and smaller size + weight.

In both cases, the lenses need to be perfectly usable at their maximum aperture. The current 1.4 (at least my copy) wasn't.

The current SIGMA 1.4 at f/1.4, 1/60sec, iso 1600, handheld  ::).
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 03:40:57 PM by mrsfotografie »
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000, S90 | SY14 f/2.8, Ʃ20 f/1.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, Ʃ35 f/1.4A, 50 f/1.8 I, Ʃ50 f/1.4 EX, 100L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12 f/2, Ʃ19 & 30 f/2.8 EX DN, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, Metabones SB | FT-QL, AE-1P | FD(n) & FL lenses

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 906
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #183 on: January 09, 2014, 01:44:15 PM »

In both cases, the lenses need to be perfectly usable at their maximum aperture. The current 1.4 (at least my copy) wasn't.

The current 1.4 at f/1.4, 1/60sec, iso 1600, handheld  ::).

Thanks for sharing that.  I think the wildcard in any assessment of the Canon F/1.2L and F/1.4 is copy to copy variation.  My 50 F/1.4 @ 1.4 is solid in the center but is problematic away from it.  I relegate most shots to F/2 or narrower because of this.

Roger at LR has posted at length about the scatter seen in his stable of lenses.  Some copies are stellar while others are weak. 

Thankfully, the newer Canon non-L IS refreshes have really tightened up the performance to where most new lenses are loosely equivalent in performance.   Hopefully this new Sigma will also have a small copy to copy variation as well.

- A



mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1404
  • www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #184 on: January 09, 2014, 03:43:21 PM »

In both cases, the lenses need to be perfectly usable at their maximum aperture. The current 1.4 (at least my copy) wasn't.

The current 1.4 at f/1.4, 1/60sec, iso 1600, handheld  ::).

Thanks for sharing that.  I think the wildcard in any assessment of the Canon F/1.2L and F/1.4 is copy to copy variation.  My 50 F/1.4 @ 1.4 is solid in the center but is problematic away from it.  I relegate most shots to F/2 or narrower because of this.

Roger at LR has posted at length about the scatter seen in his stable of lenses.  Some copies are stellar while others are weak. 

Thankfully, the newer Canon non-L IS refreshes have really tightened up the performance to where most new lenses are loosely equivalent in performance.   Hopefully this new Sigma will also have a small copy to copy variation as well.

- A

Just to be sure, that image I posted was made with the Sigma 1.4 ;)
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000, S90 | SY14 f/2.8, Ʃ20 f/1.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, Ʃ35 f/1.4A, 50 f/1.8 I, Ʃ50 f/1.4 EX, 100L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12 f/2, Ʃ19 & 30 f/2.8 EX DN, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, Metabones SB | FT-QL, AE-1P | FD(n) & FL lenses

skybraun

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #185 on: January 09, 2014, 05:18:10 PM »
Bought my EF 50mm 1.4 USM on January 2nd 2014 and returned it today in anticipation of this lens. Thank god it was still within the return policy. B&H is great sometimes. Can anyone give a good prediction on when this lens will be available for pre-order? I hope it gets released within a month or two. I could be totally wrong but I hope I'm not!

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 723
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #186 on: January 09, 2014, 07:05:16 PM »
I agree, I have all of the Canon fast primes from the 24IIL up to the 135L and I have to say that the 50 f1.2L is the weakest and softest performer in terms of optics of all the primes. Its a shame but true, its a good lens but not a great one. It pales next to the 85mm f1.2 II L and 35mm f1.4 L in just about every respect. But sadly, it's still the best performing 50mm available on the Canon ef mount when shooting wide open. I'm just waiting for a 50mm f1.2 II L to come along and rock my world....
+1 - Like you, I have owned all of them (and still own most of them), and the 50L is the weakest of the L primes, and that's why I sold mine a few months ago.  I soon realized that for it's purposes (portraits at f/1.2-2) and general shooting at f/8-f/16, it's a great lens.  the 24-70 f/2.8 II is sharper and performs better in tests, but when I look at the final image, the 50L is just better in my eyes, and f/2.8 is a poor substitute for f/2 or larger apertures when it comes to portraits.  I'm mighty interested in the Sigma and a future 50L II, but for now, I've realized that the 50L gives me great results even if it's not as great as its siblings.

Yup and as I've said so many time before...sharpness is just one measurable component of a lens, it shouldn't  be a deciding factor, but an added bonus. Unfortunately, so many photographers choose optics purely based on sharpness reviews. The 50L really does offer a nice view on the world and offers a great look to the final images. Just a little softer than other L's as it struts it's stuff. I'm more of a 35/85 combo guy. Recently I did a few portraits at a conference using my 24IIL and 50L and fell in love with that combo all over. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #186 on: January 09, 2014, 07:05:16 PM »

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4101
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #187 on: January 10, 2014, 01:05:13 AM »
I mean to say that double gauss f/1.4 or faster lenses have image quality that is so incredibly bad that it's off the scale.

Compared to 85mm or 35mm primes @ f/1.4 double gauss normal lenses have:

10 times less spacial resolution
5 times more chromatic aberration
4 times more purple fringing
4 times as much hazing

Nevertheless, ...

  • As of 2012, the 50/1.2L tested better for resolution than any 50mm from Nikon, Zeiss or Sigma on LensRentals' shootout.  That's a success. 
  • The 50/1.2L stopped down delivers a wonderful look that is not accounted for in those tests but that is known to photographers.  The advantage of the lens is not the slight extra bit of light going from f/1.4 to f/1.2 — this is less important than ever in the digital era.  And it's not the bokeh at f/1.2 — that's not a useful aperture for a lot of what a 50mm is used for.  Instead, the advantage is the overall look, especially for portraits, and especially stopped down 1, 2 or 3 stops.  That look is why some photographers describe it as their favorite lens.  In that regard too, it's a success. 

Even though you say it's a fact that 50mm lenses are "horrible", it's also fact that many photographers buy, use, enjoy and often prefer 50mm lenses.  That says the photograph is what matters, not the metrics.

Even though a lens may be "just right" for some photographers, it won't & can't please everyone.  A manufacturer can't make a lens that pleases everyone, or the variety of lenses that would be needed to please everyone.  So whatever they make, someone will be unhappy that their personal goals for a new lens weren't met.

It appears that Nikon designed their new 58/1.4 with similar goals — it offers a very nice look, similar to the 50/1.2L based on what I've seen online.  It's not surprising that Ming Thein recently wrote about the Nikon 58/1.4:  "No intention of buying one since the demos I tried in Japan a couple of weeks ago were pretty soft and ‘glowy’ at f1.4 ..."  It's not his kind of lens — so he bought the Otus instead.

With the 50/1.2L Canon delivered a lens that some photographers very much wanted and that measured very well in the 50mm ecosystem of its time.  It doesn't please everyone, but it pleases some photographers very much.  The fact that the Otus raises the bar is great, but not so relevant for the many photographers who are simply not interested in a $4k manual focus non-weather-sealed lens, even one as good as that. 

Now we eagerly wait to see what Sigma brings to the table ...

You do have a meaningful point here, basically:

Canon 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2

Center Resolution: 4/10 
Average Resolution: 0/10
Lack of Chromatic Aberration: 3/10
Lack of Purple Fringing: 3/10
Lack of Glowiness/Hazing: 2/10
Bokeh Transition Quality: 8/10
Lack of Bokeh Artifacts: 10/10
Contrast & Color: 10/10
Lack of Onion Bokeh: 8/10
Lack of Ugly Distortion: 8/10

The Canon f/1.2 L is one of the worst lenses in a few categories, and one of the best in others. Personally I like a well balanced lens.

I actually switched from using a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, to a Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC because of this idea of balance band has much better color and ecause it has much better bokeh transitions, lacks bokeh artifacts, contrast than the Canon II, which is 3 times more expensive. Which to most people would be a hugely sacrilegious switch, considering the advantages in resolution and the fact that the Canon is an APO lens, which is mind blowing. But after using both the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I, and II, and the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 vc, I stuck with the Tamron. The Canon 24-70mm II just has a look that is way too clinical, it makes things look ugly and lacks color and contrast, and the bokeh of the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I just looks  busy. I also tried the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G and it was actually between the Tamron and the Canon I 24-70mm in almost every way. The Nikon had some business in the background but was a little better controlled than the Canon.

Simply put the Tamron 24-70mm VC takes the best all around photos out of any of the Canon or Nikon compatible 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses (You can also adapt Nikon lenses to Canon and manual focus). Go figure, though I still keep a spare in case I run into onion bokeh issues, which is the lenses only major flaw.

I also don't like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 because it takes too much away from other categories to achieve it's resolution. After owning the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (the best one I found out of several copies) I sold it and went back to the Canon 35mm f/1.4, because it has much less purple fringing, lacks that weird mustache distortion, and has slightly nicer bokeh.

I used to be very obsessed with resolution, but experience has taught me that a well balanced lens takes better photos.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is not a well balanced lens though. At resolutions above 1024 pixels on the short side, it really shows a lack of detail, and even at resolutions below that you have to basically walk on eggshells to get it to create a sharp image wide open. There is no room for error. It also has a painfully high level of purple fringing.

At f/1.4 I like the Canon 1.2 over the 1.4 though because the 1.4 has very busy bokeh which is very noticeable at that aperture, even though the 1.4 has more resolution at that aperture. However I think that the Sigma 1.4 is better than either Canon at 1.4. It basically combines the strengths of both Canon lenses into one, and you can't beat that. The Nikon 58mm is basically a lot like the Sigma 1.4 wide open, except the Nikon is super sharp. It's a shame then that the other main difference is that it has so much purple fringing.

In conclusion, excluding the Otus due to price:

Canon 1.4 @ f/2.0 = best
Sigma 1.4 @ f/1.4 = best
Nikon 58mm 1.4 @ f/1.4 = too much purple fringing
Canon 1.2 @ f/1.4 (or f/1.2) = Capable of great images in the right hands but only up to web sized wide open, due to extreme softness.

Also @ f/1.4 Zeiss 50mm Sumi = Sigma 50mm = Nikon 50mm G f/1.4 (for the most part they deliver basically the same images)

I wouldn't shoot with any 50mm other than the Otus wide open though as the image quality of the double gauss design wide open is just really unacceptable.

If Sigma is releasing a new 50mm though that means that they have probably made huge improvements in image quality. Lets just hope there are no downsides.

LOL-LOL-LOL

There is nothing wrong shooting with TAMMY. However, the number #1 reason many photographers settle with TAMMY is due to tighter budget - not for better IQ, not better in AF speed, or VC feature etc...

If we have a choice to pick one FREE lens between Canon 24-70 II and Tammy 24-70 f2.8 VC, you think people going to take TAMMY over Canon?

You can love me or hate me by saying that, but that is the TRUE in many cases.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 01:26:09 AM by Dylan777 »
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

Northstar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1463
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #188 on: January 10, 2014, 05:21:28 AM »
I mean to say that double gauss f/1.4 or faster lenses have image quality that is so incredibly bad that it's off the scale.

Compared to 85mm or 35mm primes @ f/1.4 double gauss normal lenses have:

10 times less spacial resolution
5 times more chromatic aberration
4 times more purple fringing
4 times as much hazing

Nevertheless, ...

  • As of 2012, the 50/1.2L tested better for resolution than any 50mm from Nikon, Zeiss or Sigma on LensRentals' shootout.  That's a success. 
  • The 50/1.2L stopped down delivers a wonderful look that is not accounted for in those tests but that is known to photographers.  The advantage of the lens is not the slight extra bit of light going from f/1.4 to f/1.2 — this is less important than ever in the digital era.  And it's not the bokeh at f/1.2 — that's not a useful aperture for a lot of what a 50mm is used for.  Instead, the advantage is the overall look, especially for portraits, and especially stopped down 1, 2 or 3 stops.  That look is why some photographers describe it as their favorite lens.  In that regard too, it's a success. 

Even though you say it's a fact that 50mm lenses are "horrible", it's also fact that many photographers buy, use, enjoy and often prefer 50mm lenses.  That says the photograph is what matters, not the metrics.

Even though a lens may be "just right" for some photographers, it won't & can't please everyone.  A manufacturer can't make a lens that pleases everyone, or the variety of lenses that would be needed to please everyone.  So whatever they make, someone will be unhappy that their personal goals for a new lens weren't met.

It appears that Nikon designed their new 58/1.4 with similar goals — it offers a very nice look, similar to the 50/1.2L based on what I've seen online.  It's not surprising that Ming Thein recently wrote about the Nikon 58/1.4:  "No intention of buying one since the demos I tried in Japan a couple of weeks ago were pretty soft and ‘glowy’ at f1.4 ..."  It's not his kind of lens — so he bought the Otus instead.

With the 50/1.2L Canon delivered a lens that some photographers very much wanted and that measured very well in the 50mm ecosystem of its time.  It doesn't please everyone, but it pleases some photographers very much.  The fact that the Otus raises the bar is great, but not so relevant for the many photographers who are simply not interested in a $4k manual focus non-weather-sealed lens, even one as good as that. 

Now we eagerly wait to see what Sigma brings to the table ...

You do have a meaningful point here, basically:

Canon 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2

Center Resolution: 4/10 
Average Resolution: 0/10
Lack of Chromatic Aberration: 3/10
Lack of Purple Fringing: 3/10
Lack of Glowiness/Hazing: 2/10
Bokeh Transition Quality: 8/10
Lack of Bokeh Artifacts: 10/10
Contrast & Color: 10/10
Lack of Onion Bokeh: 8/10
Lack of Ugly Distortion: 8/10

The Canon f/1.2 L is one of the worst lenses in a few categories, and one of the best in others. Personally I like a well balanced lens.

I actually switched from using a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, to a Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC because of this idea of balance because it has much better bokeh transitions, lacks bokeh artifacts, and has much better color and contrast than the Canon II, which is 3 times more expensive. Which to most people would be a hugely sacrilegious switch, considering the advantages in resolution and the fact that the Canon is an APO lens, which is mind blowing. But after using both the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I, and II, and the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 vc, I stuck with the Tamron. The Canon 24-70mm II just has a look that is way too clinical, it makes things look ugly and lacks color and contrast, and the bokeh of the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I just looks  busy. I also tried the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G and it was actually between the Tamron and the Canon I 24-70mm in almost every way. The Nikon had some business in the background but was a little better controlled than the Canon.

Simply put the Tamron 24-70mm VC takes the best all around photos out of any of the Canon or Nikon compatible 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses (You can also adapt Nikon lenses to Canon and manual focus). Go figure, though I still keep a spare in case I run into onion bokeh issues, which is the lenses only major flaw.

I also don't like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 because it takes too much away from other categories to achieve it's resolution. After owning the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (the best one I found out of several copies) I sold it and went back to the Canon 35mm f/1.4, because it has much less purple fringing, lacks that weird mustache distortion, and has slightly nicer bokeh.

I used to be very obsessed with resolution, but experience has taught me that a well balanced lens takes better photos.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is not a well balanced lens though. At resolutions above 1024 pixels on the short side, it really shows a lack of detail, and even at resolutions below that you have to basically walk on eggshells to get it to create a sharp image wide open. There is no room for error. It also has a painfully high level of purple fringing.

At f/1.4 I like the Canon 1.2 over the 1.4 though because the 1.4 has very busy bokeh which is very noticeable at that aperture, even though the 1.4 has more resolution at that aperture. However I think that the Sigma 1.4 is better than either Canon at 1.4. It basically combines the strengths of both Canon lenses into one, and you can't beat that. The Nikon 58mm is basically a lot like the Sigma 1.4 wide open, except the Nikon is super sharp. It's a shame then that the other main difference is that it has so much purple fringing.

In conclusion, excluding the Otus due to price:

Canon 1.4 @ f/2.0 = best
Sigma 1.4 @ f/1.4 = best
Nikon 58mm 1.4 @ f/1.4 = too much purple fringing
Canon 1.2 @ f/1.4 (or f/1.2) = Capable of great images in the right hands but only up to web sized wide open, due to extreme softness.

Also @ f/1.4 Zeiss 50mm Sumi = Sigma 50mm = Nikon 50mm G f/1.4 (for the most part they deliver basically the same images)

I wouldn't shoot with any 50mm other than the Otus wide open though as the image quality of the double gauss design wide open is just really unacceptable.

If Sigma is releasing a new 50mm though that means that they have probably made huge improvements in image quality. Lets just hope there are no downsides.

Radiating...you definitely provide an interesting point of view.  Thanks for posting your thoughts/opinions.  But, to choose a Tammy 24-70 over the Canon 24-70ii due to better overall image quality, really?   

To me, it seems you may have become a bit too obsessed with bokeh as compared to resolution.   While a pleasing bokeh is nice, it's importance relative to resolution is minor.   IMO. 

My 24-70 2.8 ii creates images with such incredible sharpness, contrast, and color that it eliminates the need to own a prime in that focal range unless you need to work wider than 2.8.

Back to topic...i have been waiting a long time for a 50mm lens that can create sharp and contrasty images at 1.4, and has accurate and fast AF.  So I'll be buying this lens immediately when it's available and keeping it if it performs as required.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 05:43:31 AM by Northstar »
Sport Shooter

1dX and 5d3... 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, 1.4xiii and 2xiii, 85, 40mm, 300 2.8L IS....430ex

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1419
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #189 on: January 10, 2014, 03:10:55 PM »
The Zeiss Otus is nearly 10 inches long, which seems to be what you need to avoid the double gauss design. The new Sigma is an inch longer than the last one, at 4 inches so I highly doubt that it will be any other design, but we don't know for sure.

The Otus is about 6" long, I don't know if I call that "nearly 10 inches".
Sigma seems to have an "enhanced" double gauss design, by the way:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sites/default/files/311-lens-construction.jpg
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

Artifex

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #190 on: January 10, 2014, 04:05:42 PM »
The Zeiss Otus is nearly 10 inches long, which seems to be what you need to avoid the double gauss design. The new Sigma is an inch longer than the last one, at 4 inches so I highly doubt that it will be any other design, but we don't know for sure.

The Otus is about 6" long, I don't know if I call that "nearly 10 inches".
Sigma seems to have an "enhanced" double gauss design, by the way:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sites/default/files/311-lens-construction.jpg

I'm in no way a specialist and I might be wrong, but the 50mm Art design makes me more think it could be a retrofocus design like the Otus 55mm. Maybe someone with better knowledge could confirm or negate this.
6D, 550D; Samyang 14mm f/2.8, Zuiko 28mm f/3.5, Samyang 35mm f/1.4, Zuiko 50mm f/1.8, Sears 55mm f/1.4, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2, Canon 85mm f/1.8, Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5, Kenko Extension Tubes.

Eldar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1526
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #191 on: January 10, 2014, 04:47:43 PM »
The Zeiss Otus is nearly 10 inches long, which seems to be what you need to avoid the double gauss design. The new Sigma is an inch longer than the last one, at 4 inches so I highly doubt that it will be any other design, but we don't know for sure.

The Otus is about 6" long, I don't know if I call that "nearly 10 inches".
Sigma seems to have an "enhanced" double gauss design, by the way:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sites/default/files/311-lens-construction.jpg

I'm in no way a specialist and I might be wrong, but the 50mm Art design makes me more think it could be a retrofocus design like the Otus 55mm. Maybe someone with better knowledge could confirm or negate this.
The Otus, just the bare lens without cap, is (measured with a plastic ruler) 5" long.
5DIII, 1DX, 8-15/4L, 16-35 f4L IS, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, 70-300/4-5.6L IS, 200-400/4L IS 1.4x, Zeiss 15/2.8, 17/4L TS-E, Zeiss 21/2.8, 24/3.5L TS-E II, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, 85/1.2L II, 100/2.8L IS Macro, Zeiss 135/2, 600/4L IS II

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1419
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #192 on: January 10, 2014, 07:29:08 PM »
The Zeiss Otus is nearly 10 inches long, which seems to be what you need to avoid the double gauss design. The new Sigma is an inch longer than the last one, at 4 inches so I highly doubt that it will be any other design, but we don't know for sure.

The Otus is about 6" long, I don't know if I call that "nearly 10 inches".
Sigma seems to have an "enhanced" double gauss design, by the way:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sites/default/files/311-lens-construction.jpg

I'm in no way a specialist and I might be wrong, but the 50mm Art design makes me more think it could be a retrofocus design like the Otus 55mm. Maybe someone with better knowledge could confirm or negate this.
The Otus, just the bare lens without cap, is (measured with a plastic ruler) 5" long.

I just rounded off the specs on the website (because 10" sounded ridiculous); you, of course, have the real thing :)
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #192 on: January 10, 2014, 07:29:08 PM »

mrsfotografie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1404
  • www.mrsfotografie.nl
    • View Profile
    • MRS fotografie
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #193 on: January 10, 2014, 07:43:27 PM »
Sigma seems to have an "enhanced" double gauss design, by the way:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sites/default/files/311-lens-construction.jpg

Very true, I would say. It's very similar to, but simpler than the 35mm, and it looks almost like they took a double gauss design and added an entire set of front elements to correct all sorts of aberrations, almost like two lenses in one. Here are the two designs compared to the double Gauss of the 1.2L (bottom):

(Top to bottom: Sigma 50mm A, 35mm A, 50L 1.2)

Note: that 35mm A has some engineering gone into it; makes the 1.2L look shamefully simple (and overpriced despite the elements being bigger of course!!!).
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 07:54:35 PM by mrsfotografie »
5D3, 5D2, Sony α6000, S90 | SY14 f/2.8, Ʃ20 f/1.8, 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, Ʃ35 f/1.4A, 50 f/1.8 I, Ʃ50 f/1.4 EX, 100L Macro, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 1.4x II, 70-300L, 100-400L | E-mount: SY12 f/2, Ʃ19 & 30 f/2.8 EX DN, 16-70 ZA OSS, 55-210 OSS, Metabones SB | FT-QL, AE-1P | FD(n) & FL lenses

Albi86

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #194 on: January 11, 2014, 06:34:58 AM »
This 50A promises to be an excellent performer. Sigma has again been able to identify a lack in the current available lineups - no 50mm out there is a top performer wide open, except the Otus.

The fact that it's smaller and lighter than the 35A is an additional plus. Hopefully the price will be around 600 EUR/USD, though I expect it more in the 700 range.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
« Reply #194 on: January 11, 2014, 06:34:58 AM »