Help. 50mm 1.2 ?

[bchernicoff]

Yes, the Sigma was shot at 1.4 and the Canon at 1.2. I will shoot some direct comparison images and post today.

 

[bchernicoff]

Canon 50mm 1.2L @ f/1.4

 

[bchernicoff]

Sigma 50mm 1.4 @ f/1.4

 

[bchernicoff]

Sigma 85mm 1.4 @f/1.4

All three were taken from the same spot.

 

[bchernicoff]

A couple of comments on the above images...

Lightroom default processing of RAW files from a 5D Mk III... no tweaks.

I don't think I hit critical focus in the image from the Canon. I haven't done any focus calibration with that lens yet, but it should have been as sharp as the Sigma 50mm. Live view manual focusing shows similar sharpness. The Sigma 85mm is the sharpest lens of the three. When you step back so that it frames the same as either of the 50's, the images from the Sigma 85mm are much sharper at all apertures.

 

[Dylan777]

Canon 50mm 1.2L @ f/1.4

Thanks bchernicoff for the comparison.

The Sigma seems to be sharper. 50L has better color and contrast - better background.

 

[Pi]

A couple of comments on the above images...

Lightroom default processing of RAW files from a 5D Mk III... no tweaks.

I don't think I hit critical focus in the image from the Canon. I haven't done any focus calibration with that lens yet, but it should have been as sharp as the Sigma 50mm. Live view manual focusing shows similar sharpness. The Sigma 85mm is the sharpest lens of the three. When you step back so that it frames the same as either of the 50's, the images from the Sigma 85mm are much sharper at all apertures.

The 50L is front focused. It seems longer?

Is the WB set to the same number?

 

[sdsr]

Hi I'm stuck deciding if I should upgrade my 50mm 1.8 to a 1.2 or go with the 1.4, I've done some research and read that the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 1.4. If you have had any of these lens any advice would be great to help me make my decision.

Since no-one else seems to have done so yet, I might as well give the obligatory warning re the Sigma, i.e. that you should be prepared to try several copies - this lens seems more prone to sample variations than most. The copy I bought was so terrible in every way (it didn't seem to want to focus on anything, not even the wrong thing) that I found it annoying; I decided to stay with my Canon 1.4 (which is just fine) and not seek a better copy.

What do you want the lens for? The 1.2 would likely be overkill (or even pointless) unless you're into very shallow focus effects. If you're not, the Canon 1.4 is a very good lens - though it might be worth waiting a bit to see whether rumors of a new Canon 50mm IS or an upgraded Sigma 1.4 pan out.

 

[bchernicoff]

The 50L is front focused. It seems longer?

The Sigma is more like a 46mm. At least that's what I've read on this forum and others.

 

[surapon]

Sigma 85mm 1.4 @f/1.4

All three were taken from the same spot.

Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff.
From your Test at F= 1.4 both lens, My decision is to keep My Dear Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 and Not spend my money $ 1619 US Dollars for That Beautiful Canon 50 mm F/ 1.2 L.
No, Sir, Not worth 4 time of the cost of my old Sigma, just one stop faster and better Contrast/ Better Colors that my Old yes could not see the difference.
Thanks again, Sir for your great Job.
Surapon

 

[bchernicoff]

Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff.
From your Test at F= 1.4 both lens, My decision is to keep My Dear Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 and Not spend my money $ 1619 US Dollars for That Beautiful Canon 50 mm F/ 1.2 L.
No, Sir, Not worth 4 time of the cost of my old Sigma, just one stop faster and better Contrast/ Better Colors that my Old yes could not see the difference.
Thanks again, Sir for your great Job.
Surapon

You're welcome! Also 1.2 is only a half stop faster than 1.4.

 

[mackguyver]

Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff.
From your Test at F= 1.4 both lens, My decision is to keep My Dear Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 and Not spend my money $ 1619 US Dollars for That Beautiful Canon 50 mm F/ 1.2 L.
No, Sir, Not worth 4 time of the cost of my old Sigma, just one stop faster and better Contrast/ Better Colors that my Old yes could not see the difference.
Thanks again, Sir for your great Job.
Surapon

You're welcome! Also 1.2 is only a half stop faster than 1.4.

I think the 50 1.2 is a great lens, but I don't think it's as good as Canon's other L primes, and ultimately not worth the money unless you need the things I mentioned previously. If you shoot at 50mm a lot and need great performance from f/1.2-2, I would buy it, but if it will see limited use, you're better off putting that money into another lens and getting the 1.4. Another thing to throw out is the that the 24-70 f/2.8 II is as sharp as both primes from f/2.8 on and is only a bit worse on CA and vignetting.

 

[surapon]

Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff.
From your Test at F= 1.4 both lens, My decision is to keep My Dear Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 and Not spend my money $ 1619 US Dollars for That Beautiful Canon 50 mm F/ 1.2 L.
No, Sir, Not worth 4 time of the cost of my old Sigma, just one stop faster and better Contrast/ Better Colors that my Old yes could not see the difference.
Thanks again, Sir for your great Job.
Surapon

You're welcome! Also 1.2 is only a half stop faster than 1.4.

Thanks you again, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff
Surapon

 

[surapon]

Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff.
From your Test at F= 1.4 both lens, My decision is to keep My Dear Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 and Not spend my money $ 1619 US Dollars for That Beautiful Canon 50 mm F/ 1.2 L.
No, Sir, Not worth 4 time of the cost of my old Sigma, just one stop faster and better Contrast/ Better Colors that my Old yes could not see the difference.
Thanks again, Sir for your great Job.
Surapon

You're welcome! Also 1.2 is only a half stop faster than 1.4.

I think the 50 1.2 is a great lens, but I don't think it's as good as Canon's other L primes, and ultimately not worth the money unless you need the things I mentioned previously. If you shoot at 50mm a lot and need great performance from f/1.2-2, I would buy it, but if it will see limited use, you're better off putting that money into another lens and getting the 1.4. Another thing to throw out is the that the 24-70 f/2.8 II is as sharp as both primes from f/2.8 on and is only a bit worse on CA and vignetting.

Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. mackguyver.
Now, at this time ( past 2 months), I just fell in love with my Canon TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II , For Local Scenery shots. I not use my 50 mm Sigma past 5 months, Just 1 time ti test the Shallow DOF at F/ 1.4 only.
Yes, Sir, Thanks for your Great Comments--Yes, My Next Lens = Canon 24 -70 MM F/ 2.8 L II, And I will Give my Trustfully Old 24-70 L 2.8 to my son.
Thanks again , Sir.
Surapon

 

[wickidwombat]

Hi I'm stuck deciding if I should upgrade my 50mm 1.8 to a 1.2 or go with the 1.4, I've done some research and read that the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 1.4. If you have had any of these lens any advice would be great to help me make my decision.

i would do nothing and wait to see what the new 50mm comes out with and keep using your 1.8 in the mean time

 

[Menace]

Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff.
From your Test at F= 1.4 both lens, My decision is to keep My Dear Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 and Not spend my money $ 1619 US Dollars for That Beautiful Canon 50 mm F/ 1.2 L.
No, Sir, Not worth 4 time of the cost of my old Sigma, just one stop faster and better Contrast/ Better Colors that my Old yes could not see the difference.
Thanks again, Sir for your great Job.
Surapon

You're welcome! Also 1.2 is only a half stop faster than 1.4.

I think the 50 1.2 is a great lens, but I don't think it's as good as Canon's other L primes, and ultimately not worth the money unless you need the things I mentioned previously. If you shoot at 50mm a lot and need great performance from f/1.2-2, I would buy it, but if it will see limited use, you're better off putting that money into another lens and getting the 1.4. Another thing to throw out is the that the 24-70 f/2.8 II is as sharp as both primes from f/2.8 on and is only a bit worse on CA and vignetting.

Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. mackguyver.
Now, at this time ( past 2 months), I just fell in love with my Canon TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II , For Local Scenery shots. I not use my 50 mm Sigma past 5 months, Just 1 time ti test the Shallow DOF at F/ 1.4 only.
Yes, Sir, Thanks for your Great Comments--Yes, My Next Lens = Canon 24 -70 MM F/ 2.8 L II, And I will Give my Trustfully Old 24-70 L 2.8 to my son.
Thanks again , Sir.
Surapon

You'll love the 24-70 II and your son will be extremely happy with the original version. Happy family

 

[Menace]

Hi I'm stuck deciding if I should upgrade my 50mm 1.8 to a 1.2 or go with the 1.4, I've done some research and read that the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 1.4. If you have had any of these lens any advice would be great to help me make my decision.

As others have said, if you'll be shooting from 1.2 to 2.0, get the 50 1.2 otherwise get the 1.4 and save a lot of money.

Personally, i love my 50 1.2

 

[Twostones]

As others have said, wait for the new 50 that should be out soon. If you can't wait get the 50mm 1.4. I have the 1.4 and it is really a very good lens, so good in fact I see no need to upgrade to the expensive 1.2. The 50 1.4 is also really inexpensive. You can use the $1000 you didn't spend on something else.

 

[RoaVision]

Thanks everybody for the comments and advice. I'm considering going with the 1.4 and just waiting to see if any new 50mm come out. Now just debating if I should go with Sigma or Canon I'm hearing positive and negative things about both. Or just go with a 85mm f1.8 and continue to keep my 50mm f1.8

 

[Rat]

The 85/1.8 has terrible CA in high contrast shots. I hardly use it at all, because I like high contrast...