Lensrentals Blog: Yet Another Sigma 50mm Art Post

[mackguyver]

As Roger says, here's:
Yet Another Sigma 50mm Art Post

Nothing surprising, and sorry, no AF test, but the 50L pretty much ties the Otus for peak center resolution at f/5.6.

 

[Dylan777]

I don't recall shooting f5.6 on my 50L, ever. As many already said...."this is hate/love lens". The focus shift pushed people away from 50L @ smaller apertures. For those, whose have mastered the skills, the 50L will remain the their bag

 

[mackguyver]

I don't recall shooting f5.6 on my 50L, ever. As many already said...."this is hate/love lens". The focus shift pushed people away from 50L @ smaller apertures. For those, whose have mastered the skills, the 50L will remain the their bag

I completely agree and can live without the extra sharpness as well. I cancelled my pre-order and can live with that. Besides the 24-70 II works quite well beyond f/2.8.

Also, back to the topic, I love this quote from Roger in the comments section:

"buying a Sigma Art lens and not owning the dock is basically trying very hard to fail."

 

[distant.star]

.
Given the cherry picking of apparently Sigma negative comments from Roger's review, I think it's appropriate to quote his full conclusion here:

"I really don’t have a lot to add to what has already been said. From a resolution standpoint the Sigma is nearly as good as the Zeiss Otus, and clearly better than the Canon 50mm f/1.2 L. It does this at a price point far lower than either of the others. There may (or may not) be some sample variation, but I won’t know for certain until we’ve tested a lot more copies – but even the weakest two copies of the Sigma were clearly better than any of the Canon’s.

"Of course, people buying wide aperture 50mm lenses are at least as interested in bokeh, autofocus accuracy, color rendition, and a number of other traits as they are in resolution. More and more images are being posted every day to let you assess that before making a decision. But assuming those things all turn out acceptable to you, it’s hard to imagine a better value at 50mm than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 art."

Emphasis mine.

People buy lenses for many different reasons. I'd submit those who do not value corner-to-corner clarity are in the minority.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I'd submit those who do not value corner-to-corner clarity are in the minority.

There are a number of threads on the CR forum applauding the excellence of the 50A. I think one can let the minority who are satisfied with their 50L have this one.

 

[mackguyver]

I'd submit those who do not value corner-to-corner clarity are in the minority.

There are a number of threads on the CR forum applauding the excellence of the 50A. I think one can let the minority who are satisfied with their 50L have this one.

To paraphrase Paulie from Rocky IV, "I am a member of the "unsilent majority minority" ;D. The 50L rocks for portraits. I certainly wouldn't consider it a general purpose lens, but for it's intended purpose, I'm more than happy with it.

 

[Dylan777]

.
Given the cherry picking of apparently Sigma negative comments from Roger's review, I think it's appropriate to quote his full conclusion here:

"I really don’t have a lot to add to what has already been said. From a resolution standpoint the Sigma is nearly as good as the Zeiss Otus, and clearly better than the Canon 50mm f/1.2 L. It does this at a price point far lower than either of the others. There may (or may not) be some sample variation, but I won’t know for certain until we’ve tested a lot more copies – but even the weakest two copies of the Sigma were clearly better than any of the Canon’s.

"Of course, people buying wide aperture 50mm lenses are at least as interested in bokeh, autofocus accuracy, color rendition, and a number of other traits as they are in resolution. More and more images are being posted every day to let you assess that before making a decision. But assuming those things all turn out acceptable to you, it’s hard to imagine a better value at 50mm than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 art."

Emphasis mine.

People buy lenses for many different reasons. I'd submit those who do not value corner-to-corner clarity are in the minority.

WHAT IF, tomorrow Canon has new firmware or releases new bodies and Sigma ART series will no longer working properly with Canon bodies : Will history be repeated : : :

 

[sagittariansrock]

I'd submit those who do not value corner-to-corner clarity are in the minority.

There are a number of threads on the CR forum applauding the excellence of the 50A. I think one can let the minority who are satisfied with their 50L have this one.

To paraphrase Paulie from Rocky IV, "I am a member of the "unsilent majority minority" ;D. The 50L rocks for portraits. I certainly wouldn't consider it a general purpose lens, but for it's intended purpose, I'm more than happy with it.

I agree, and that's why I made the post.
Roger made an objective post (as usual), and subjective takeaways from it might not be all the same.
I laud the 50A, but bashing the 50L seems quite unnecessary, especially considering so many people love it.
Actually, I have not known someone who thinks of the 50L as just a workhorse (like they would say about the 24-70 or 16-35)- not a single person. Either they love it, or they hated it and sold it. Quite unusual for a standard FL lens.

 

[Loswr]

...bashing the 50L seems quite unnecessary...

Apparently, some people find it very necessary...in many cases, simply because it's made by Canon. Sigma lenses are better, Sony/Nikon sensors are better, Canon doesn't innovate. The horse is long dead and mostly decomposed, but some people feel the need to beat it anyway.