LSXPhotog said:Excellent review, Dustin. My results mirror yours.
I have owned most of Canon's modern autofocus 50s. I sold my 1.2L because it wasn't a lens I used very often. I decided I'd rather not have so much money invested in a lens that rarely left the bag, so I sold it and got the Canon 1.4. That lens got the job done, but 50mm just wasn't a focal length I seemed to enjoy.
Then Sigma came out with the Art. There was so much hype, and after reading all of the reviews and seeing loads of sample images, I decided to give it a shot. Well I've had it for about 9 months now and it turns out that 50mm is indeed a focal length I enjoy a lot, I was just never happy with the lenses I had. The lens gives images a certain look that is all its own.
Autofocus on my 6D is about 90-95% accurate and about 60-70% accurate on my 7D MkII...so I certainly think a firmware update down the road with the $60 dock will solve the accuracy issues. Although, it does seem to depend on the copy as well.
I'm an Art fan now and plan to fill out my bag as they release lenses I use/need.
I shot this at f/2.0 and the background looks like a damn painting it's so smooth and beautifully rendered. Love this lens and so do my clients.
[email protected] said:On the empirical side of things, it seems the Sigma is just about as good as the Zeiss, perhaps just a tad lower IQ - generally thought to be not big enough a difference to overpower the advantage of having autofocus.
But people who like Zeiss and Leica lenses often talk of "drawing" or "rendering." Not having really used these lenses myself, I'm wondering if you might try to show us what this means. I'm imagining that one might be able to do this by showing pictures of the same subject matter showing the differences in rendering. I understand it might not be quantifiable, but if it's a real difference, it has to be demonstrable.
Thanks for the review.
I know that the best Bokeh, is subjective and one can prefer the "dreamy" look. But to say that sharpness of the Canon 50mm F1.2 is as good as Sigma Art in the center, and is worse only in the corners ... It seems to me that you used a bad copy of the Sigma 50 Art.Travelintrevor said:I do mainly portraits and the 50L is phenomenal. I could have saved the extra money and bought the Sigma but found that, after using both, the 50L was overall better except in the corners. By 1.8-2.0, corners were the same.
ajfotofilmagem said:I know that the best Bokeh, is subjective and one can prefer the "dreamy" look. But to say that sharpness of the Canon 50mm F1.2 is as good as Sigma Art in the center, and is worse only in the corners ... It seems to me that you used a bad copy of the Sigma 50 Art.Travelintrevor said:I do mainly portraits and the 50L is phenomenal. I could have saved the extra money and bought the Sigma but found that, after using both, the 50L was overall better except in the corners. By 1.8-2.0, corners were the same.
My experience is similar to that found by thedigitalpicture.com the link below.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=941&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
See also compared both in aperture F2.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
cannondale1974 said:I have a love/hate relationship with my Canon 50/1.4 (on a T3i body) So many of my shots are OOF, I was wondering if it was my technique but with my 17-55 I am much more accurate. I'm really thinking of selling the Canon and going with the Sigma ART, the pictures are simply amazing. Any idea if the price is anticipated to drop in the near future?
AFMA could not help if your copy of Sigma Art had some decentralized element. That would explain the mediocre performance in image corners, unlike all the good copies of the 50 Art.Travelintrevor said:I love Brian's reviews and generally find that my experiences mirrors his data as well but not so with the 50L.
I don't think the Art copy was bad. It was AFMA'd, live view and VF AF showed the same sharpness.
Comparing it wide open to the 135 f/2.0 also does not give me the same results as shown on his comparison page and my 135mm is not a bad copy. Same for the 24-70 II
I would love nothing more than to put some extra money in my pocket by selling the L and purchasing the ART but...there is no compelling reason for me to do so. If I happen to have a stellar copy of the L, then even better
The distributor in Scandinavia had a surprise sale last week (lasting for 5 days). The price dropped 35-40% for both the 35 and 50 Art lenses.TWI by Dustin Abbott said:cannondale1974 said:I have a love/hate relationship with my Canon 50/1.4 (on a T3i body) So many of my shots are OOF, I was wondering if it was my technique but with my 17-55 I am much more accurate. I'm really thinking of selling the Canon and going with the Sigma ART, the pictures are simply amazing. Any idea if the price is anticipated to drop in the near future?
There has been an occasional sale, but as for a permanent price drop...don't hold your breath. Maybe $899, but I think Sigma is doing pretty with the lens at its current price point.
ajfotofilmagem said:AFMA could not help if your copy of Sigma Art had some decentralized element. That would explain the mediocre performance in image corners, unlike all the good copies of the 50 Art.Travelintrevor said:I love Brian's reviews and generally find that my experiences mirrors his data as well but not so with the 50L.
I don't think the Art copy was bad. It was AFMA'd, live view and VF AF showed the same sharpness.
Comparing it wide open to the 135 f/2.0 also does not give me the same results as shown on his comparison page and my 135mm is not a bad copy. Same for the 24-70 II
I would love nothing more than to put some extra money in my pocket by selling the L and purchasing the ART but...there is no compelling reason for me to do so. If I happen to have a stellar copy of the L, then even better