Upvote
0
-
UPDATE
The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being. I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure. ------------------------------------------------------------
DXOMark Compares the Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art to Zeiss 55 f/1.4 Otus
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
DxO is full of s***. End of story. Their summaries are nonsensical, so why should I trust their ability to accurately measure the properties of a lens? If they're too stupid to present a proper apples-to-apples comparison and meaningful analyses, why should I believe that they can do the measurements correctly? It is *not* a trivial thing to measure lens performance--there are numerous variables and interactions, and it requires very accurate and controlled testing conditions.
There exist plenty of other review sites that test lenses. Why keep looking at DxO? You might as well read science fiction. At least sites like LensTip and The Digital Picture will show you actual images.
That said--and ignoring DxO BS completely--the Sigma looks like a great lens. The thing I appreciate the most about it, though, is that I hope it will light a fire under Canon's lazy a**. If they think they can continue cranking out sub-par optical designs and slap a red ring on the barrel to justify selling products at grossly inflated prices, this is a wake-up call. What is the point of having f/1.2 if it's full of chromatic and spherical aberration, and can't focus properly? What's the point of paying a few hundred dollars more for that red ring? I've been a staunch defender of Canon's EF lens lineup in the past, but they've grown complacent. Companies like Sigma are proving that it is possible to design well-corrected, fast-aperture lenses at a competitive price. That the 50/1.4 Art is being compared to the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 speaks volumes about where Canon's lenses SHOULD be but are NOT, considering that Canon has far more resources (read: money and expertise) to create something this good. And that should make us Canon shooters angry, because it means that the big names (Canon and Nikon) have been holding back because they haven't had real competition in this area until relatively recently. I encourage people to vote with their wallets. I hope the Sigma sells like crazy.
There exist plenty of other review sites that test lenses. Why keep looking at DxO? You might as well read science fiction. At least sites like LensTip and The Digital Picture will show you actual images.
That said--and ignoring DxO BS completely--the Sigma looks like a great lens. The thing I appreciate the most about it, though, is that I hope it will light a fire under Canon's lazy a**. If they think they can continue cranking out sub-par optical designs and slap a red ring on the barrel to justify selling products at grossly inflated prices, this is a wake-up call. What is the point of having f/1.2 if it's full of chromatic and spherical aberration, and can't focus properly? What's the point of paying a few hundred dollars more for that red ring? I've been a staunch defender of Canon's EF lens lineup in the past, but they've grown complacent. Companies like Sigma are proving that it is possible to design well-corrected, fast-aperture lenses at a competitive price. That the 50/1.4 Art is being compared to the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 speaks volumes about where Canon's lenses SHOULD be but are NOT, considering that Canon has far more resources (read: money and expertise) to create something this good. And that should make us Canon shooters angry, because it means that the big names (Canon and Nikon) have been holding back because they haven't had real competition in this area until relatively recently. I encourage people to vote with their wallets. I hope the Sigma sells like crazy.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
Lol. I was definitely thinking earlier, "Does this neuroanatomist guy do anything besides disparage and critique?" There's definitely a theme with him.
Upvote
0
Looks like DxO chose f/2.0 for Sigma 50 and f/1.2 for 50L as "best" for their ratings. What the heck?
I am really looking forward to getting my hands on this lens.
If what I have read so far, I may end up selling the Otus, because I get the same performance from a 1/4 priced lens, with AF ... That would be something
If what I have read so far, I may end up selling the Otus, because I get the same performance from a 1/4 priced lens, with AF ... That would be something
Upvote
0
jrista said:
Probably because they also rate lenses only by their single best focal length+f-stop combination, which really makes no sense either. Especially when you consider what they mean by best f-stop and focal length, what they use to chose that MAKES ZERO SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!! And you get utter absurdity where they end up claiming best is often wide open for many lenses even though many of those lenses peform WORST there! EVEN FAR WORSE they will end up 'evenly' comparing one lens wide open at f/1.4 and another stopped down to f/2 and another at f/2.8 and another at f/1.8 even when they are all f/1.4 lenses. WTH!?! It's beyond a joke.
I mean can you get any more misleading! Look at the rankings for sharpness in this case and they compare the sigma stopped all the way down to f/2!!! TO the Zeiss and Canon at WIDE OPEN! WTH!
Plus I don't really trust them after their old claims that the 70-200 2.8 IS II is the least sharp of all the 70-200s at 200mm f/2.8 and that the 70-300 non-L from Canon is sharper at 300mm than the L (and I think they may have even put it above the f/4 primes) oh and how they said the 16-35 f/2.8 II peaked at FF far edge sharpness at wide open I think. I think they may have redone all of their tests since then though, not sure. But the way they present the info and scores is still so absurd I haven't been bothered to even look.
Other review sites so far all show the Otus to be sharper across the entire frame at f/1.4 and some samples hint at much less PF/LoCA at f/1.4 for the Otus.
OTOH, this DOES NOT mean that their sensor ratings are junk, since they seem to be pretty solid (at least if you look at the individual plots, any overall score is always a dicey business since once person may care most about low ISO DR and another about high ISO SNR and another about fine color gradations, etc. or you may care about all of those and one number mushing it together tells you nothing).
Upvote
0
jrista said:
+1
I mean comparing one lens at f/1.4 another at f/1.2 another at f/2 another at f/2.8? WTH?
And then for zooms they someone turn a zoom with a ton of different focal lengths and apertures into a SINGLE NUMBER for resolution?!? And it's not even a constant at wide open, or averaged over wide open, it's a single focal length and aperture, which they chose as best (even though their criteria for best, makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER AT ALL IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM), so you might have say the 24-70 II compared at 24mm f/2.8 to the 24-105 compared at 50mm f/5.6 to the 17-40L compared at 17mm f/4 to the 24-70 f/4 IS at 70mm f/4 (I'm just making those numbers up, but you get the point, didn't feel like bothering to go back and check what they exactly used) and then rating them each as so and so relative to one another based on that? WTH??
Upvote
0
jrista said:
Um... I'm pretty sure DxO scores are based on a specific "best" setting, where the "best" setting represents the highest achievable score on a given lens. The sigma score is based on f/2, and the Otus f/1.4. They both acheive similar sharpness at that setting, however that gives the Otus a full stop advatage on toward the score. You should maybe figure out how they score before trying to put down their scoring method......
Upvote
0
Viggo said:
That's what they show. The "best" setting shows f/1.2, which seems to be why the sharpenss score is so low on that lens at the "best" setting. However it seems that scoring at such a fast aperture, with their scoring methodolgy, the advatage of the fast aperture outweighs the disadvatage of the sharpness at that setting, thereby making it the "best" setting for overall score. Thats how I understand their testing to work anyway....
Upvote
0
I'm really glade Sigma is making these super-awesome new lenses, but giant no compromise lenses aren't my preference. I carry my 6D with no strap, so I like to go for light/compact lenses. This would be a great lens to have, but I'm gonna hold out for whatever Canon turns out for a new 50mm. Plus I like IS. I went for the 35mm f/2 IS over the 35mm Sigma, and I'm guessing I'll take the 50mm F/1.8 IS, if thats what Canon is going to offer. I also went for the 24-70mm f/4 IS, again because its the lightest option... Nevertheless good on Sigma for what they are up to these days.........
Upvote
0
Solar Eagle said:
If you look at all of DXO's lens tests, it's very clear that they are VERY HEAVILY weighted based on the T-stops value. That's a problem, because it makes comparing the overall quality of lenses with different maximum apertures practically impossible...it's why a 50mm f/1.4 lens scores higher than Canon's 600mm f/4 L II supertele. The 50/1.4 doesn't even come remotely close to comparing to the 600/4 II, but it scores quite a bit higher. Why? Because it's f/1.4, and the 600 is f/4.
The T-stops weighting effectively nullifies much of the value that could potentially exist in DXO's lens tests. There is a certain value to testing lenses that way...but not if the most important benchmark is T-stops.
BTW, DXO does not mix ratings for measures from different apertures. If they choose the measures for a lens when it is tested at f/1.2, then that means sharpness, distortion, vignetting, and CA are all based on the testing at that aperture. As far as I know, DXO tests all lenses at all of the full-stop apertures (plus the max aperture, in case it isn't a full stop faster), but when they score, it's based on whatever they deem is the "best" aperture. Since they put such a significant weight on T-stops, that is usually the maximum aperture, although not always.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
To clarify, "Best at FL+aperture" refers to the Lens Score, which is based primarily on 'performance in 150 lux illumination' (like a dimly lit warehouse). The Lens Score is only secondarily influenced by the optical metrics (sharpness, CA, etc.), despite those metrics being listed under the Score. That's why almost all lenses are 'best' wide open, even though the optical metrics are rarely highest at max aperture.
Consider that the Sigma 50/1.4 A is not 'best at 50mm f/1.4', but at f/2. Since giving up a full stop of light is obviously not better for 'performance in 150 lux' that suggests that one or more of the secondary factors measured for the Sigma 50/1.4 A at f/1.4 were sufficiently bad to counteract the loss of a stop of light. Or it could be that DxO just screwed up their testing, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Consider that the Sigma 50/1.4 A is not 'best at 50mm f/1.4', but at f/2. Since giving up a full stop of light is obviously not better for 'performance in 150 lux' that suggests that one or more of the secondary factors measured for the Sigma 50/1.4 A at f/1.4 were sufficiently bad to counteract the loss of a stop of light. Or it could be that DxO just screwed up their testing, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
LOL, no, not the first time.
I'm curious why the Sigma 50 A would bet the "best at f/2" treatment...but not the Canon 50L. It's quite clear that the 50L does not perform ideally (at least according to DXO's metrics) at f/1.2...and yet you can't even select f/1.4, f/1.8, or f/2 when comparing apertures with other lenses.
It's little things like that that always make me wonder if DXO really does have a bias against Canon. It seems they very often put Canon equipment in the worst possible light, and take special care to put other brand's products in the best possible light (such as the Sugma 50/1.4 A being best at f/2.)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
