Photozone finally joins the party on reviewing the Sigma 50 F/1.4 Art

[ahsanford]

Hey all,

PZ finally got to testing the Sigma 50 Art, but for some odd reason their first review is on APS-C and not FF. I expect that to be remedied soon, but here are the crop results:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/875-sigma50f14art_eosapsc?start=1

Shockingly, they found it to not suck to a very high degree. Stellar resolution numbers on their test rig (a 50D, I believe).

They did flag a small focus shift when stopping down, though -- that's the first I've heard of this.

But FYI on another highly satisfied reviewer with the 50 Art.

- A

 

[mackguyver]

Hey all,

PZ finally got to testing the Sigma 50 Art, but for some odd reason their first review is on APS-C and not FF. I expect that to be remedied soon, but here are the crop results:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/875-sigma50f14art_eosapsc?start=1

Shockingly, they found it to not suck to a very high degree. Stellar resolution numbers on their test rig (a 50D, I believe).

They did flag a small focus shift when stopping down, though -- that's the first I've heard of this.

But FYI on another highly satisfied reviewer with the 50 Art.

- A

Very impressive results on APS-C - essentially no distortion or CA.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Glad they finally published a review. For a while I kept going back to that site but there was seldom any new reviews.

 

[Sporgon]

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !

 

[ahsanford]

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !

What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded. That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.

However, the Sigma Art seems purpose-built to wow the forum crowd. If you are a sharpness junkie (who needs AF), you've found your lens.

- A

 

[mackguyver]

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !

What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded. That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.

However, the Sigma Art seems purpose-built to wow the forum crowd. If you are a sharpness junkie (who needs AF), you've found your lens.

- A

Well said

 

[ahsanford]

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !

What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded. That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.

However, the Sigma Art seems purpose-built to wow the forum crowd. If you are a sharpness junkie (who needs AF), you've found your lens.

- A

Well said

Ironically, I want neither of the two. The Canon 50 F/nooneknows IS is likely to be the Canon F/1.4 II I've always wanted -- an 8 or 9 out of 10 at everything -- without being the size of a pickle jar.

- A

 

[Sporgon]

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !

What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded. That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.

However, the Sigma Art seems purpose-built to wow the forum crowd. If you are a sharpness junkie (who needs AF), you've found your lens.

- A

Well said

Duh ! Now everyone's at it. When canon finally do bring out the 50 1.2L II they had better call it something else or no one will notice !

 

[ahsanford]

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !

What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded. That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.

However, the Sigma Art seems purpose-built to wow the forum crowd. If you are a sharpness junkie (who needs AF), you've found your lens.

- A

Well said

Duh ! Now everyone's at it. When canon finally do bring out the 50 1.2L II they had better call it something else or no one will notice !

Oh. Doh. My bad. Good catch.

- A

 

[jebrady03]

If you're on APS-C and you're going to shoot at f/2.8, don't bother with either of these 50's. Get the 60mm macro. Similar performance but more versatile. And substantially cheaper than the Sigma.

But, if you want to shoot at f/1.4, the Sigma is the obvious choice. The Canon 50/1.4 does decently well at f/2 - if that's enough of a distinction to warrant the purchase over the 60 macro.

1.4 (even on crop) is really thin so IMO, this isn't a lens for everyone.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Hey all,

PZ finally got to testing the Sigma 50 Art, but for some odd reason their first review is on APS-C and not FF. I expect that to be remedied soon, but here are the crop results:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/875-sigma50f14art_eosapsc?start=1

Shockingly, they found it to not suck to a very high degree. Stellar resolution numbers on their test rig (a 50D, I believe).

They did flag a small focus shift when stopping down, though -- that's the first I've heard of this.

But FYI on another highly satisfied reviewer with the 50 Art.

- A

very bizarre that they test it on aps-c first (or perhaps even only???)
I will wait until they do it on FF.

 

[TommyLee]

lens tip reported NO focus shift....so I wonder about this ...seeming....focus shift

just reporting here...

I stalled on this lens til the autofocus rumors fade..

my sigma 35 A is absolutely perfect.....

I actually like the 35mm angle better..
but I hate to miss a great lens... if only I used 50 more...

does not fit in here
14L II, 35 sig, 85L II, 135L ....

 

[mrsfotografie]

What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded. That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.

I'd say this goes for the Sigma f/1.4 EX as well, a lens that I absolutely love and whatever people have said about this lens, I must have an excellent copy or whatever, but it gives tack sharp results with a beautiful dreamy bokeh, good colors and contrast at all apertures. See attached photograph, taken at f/1.4.

I have been eyeing the new 50mm due to the regular GAS affliction but I'm worried it will draw too 'clinical', and besides that I think it's too big and bulky.

In reference to my 35mm A, that lens has a tendency to be clinical, but not overly so. For the 50mm I'm not so sure though...

FWIW This is what Photozone has to say about the 50mm Art:

Bokeh

One of the primary usage scenarios for a large aperture lens is to separate the main subject from the background. In such an image the quality of the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is of major significance.
The quality of the general blur is a bit of a mixed bag. In the image foreground the bokeh is comparatively harsh with fairly distinctive contrast edges. The more critical background is, however, pretty smooth albeit not totally perfect.

There's just something about 50 mm's with the double Gauss design. I also prefer the chunky shape of the old EX version. So I'm sticking to it too

 

[YuengLinger]

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !

What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded. That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.

However, the Sigma Art seems purpose-built to wow the forum crowd. If you are a sharpness junkie (who needs AF), you've found your lens.

- A

There seem to be plenty of high-end pros who consider the ef 50mm 1.2 L too problematic to use for photojournalism, wedding photography, or portraiture. Sigma saw an opportunity to make money with a desired focal length that Canon has arguably botched. It doesn't matter what kind of spiritual, esoteric, phantom beauty you experience with a lens you got stuck with--if it can't consistently deliver money shots, it's a dog.

Ok, I do personally know a young wedding photographer who loves the 1.2 L. Yet her portfolio is heavily weighted with hazy, back-lit shots that don't need Photoshop. Why? One, she can't or won't use any lights (rarely even a reflector), and, two, she hates using Photoshop. So, of course, even exhausted, middle aged brides don't need work when there is zero detail in their skin. So for this purpose, this niche, the 1.2 excels. And, for the "crowd" that likes misty, foggy, dreamy backlit shots for practically everything, she is a go-to in her area.

But if you DON'T own the 50mm 1.2 L, then why in the world are you boasting about it?

Yet because Sigma strives to produce a lens that is sharp and has good bokeh, color, and contrast, -A, you actually think the company sunk R&D and a production line into a lens designed for "the forum crowd," which you both are part of and disdain?

Somebody drank some bitter tea, it seems.

 

[ahsanford]

There seem to be plenty of high-end pros who consider the ef 50mm 1.2 L too problematic to use for photojournalism, wedding photography, or portraiture. Sigma saw an opportunity to make money with a desired focal length that Canon has arguably botched. It doesn't matter what kind of spiritual, esoteric, phantom beauty you experience with a lens you got stuck with--if it can't consistently deliver money shots, it's a dog.

And if you DON'T own the 50mm 1.2 L, then why in the world are you boasting about it?

Yet because Sigma strives to produce a lens that is sharp and has good bokeh, color, and contrast, -A, you actually think the company sunk R&D and a production line into a lens designed for "the forum crowd," which you both are part of and disdain?

Somebody drank some bitter tea, it seems.

First: Consider decaf. This is a place for pleasant discourse.

Second: You've misread my statements. I am neither a Canon fanboy nor a Sigma believer. I only offer these points as a collective summary of what I've read and experienced. I believe there is no best 50mm lens because we each have different needs.

Some folks driven are by hard performance metrics -- they will likely choose the Sigma 50 Art. I've never shot it, but the reviews are overwhelmingly positive and performance data is stellar.

But some 50L proponents argue there is an unmeasurable 'something' about the shots it takes. Curious, I rented one and gave it a try. I didn't buy one because my evaluation of that lens was that it was a specialist small DOF tool for F/1.2 to F/2, apertures at which I rarely shoot. Stopped down, far cheaper 50mm lenses were sharper. And I agree with you, the 50L is a finnicky diva with AF I cannot count on.

So I currently shoot the venerable Canon 50 F/1.4 and I'm waiting for something better that isn't as big as a standard L zoom. My money is on Canon 50 IS, which, if the 35mm F/2 IS is any indicator, will be 90% as sharp and half the weight of the Art lens at that focal length. That combination -- Size + Sharpness + IS -- is a winner for me, but it's likely not so for everyone else. Again, different folks have different needs.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

So you're justifying the 50/1.2L by saying that it has some immeasurable quality to it that nobody else can beat? Do you understand how irrational that sounds?

It was so irrational that I had to rent one and try it. I learned:

1) It's not so magical. The color was nice, but it wasn't game changing by any stretch.
2) Good luck with the AF when shooting wider than F/2.
3) It's soft in the corners, even when stopped down a bit.

And I learned that lens wasn't for me, especially for that price.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its too bad that lens reviewers are not able to test autofocus. I realize that testing it would open a can of worms, since its possibly different on every camera. Still, they could have canon calibrate their bodies, and determine a way to measure focus times and accuracy. FoCal does a good job of checking accuracy and consistency, and by using a standard setup, different lenses could be compared on the test camera. If a lens was acting up, it could be returned to the manufacturer for repair and retested.

I think that the results might open some eyes for all lens models. Lens autofocus can be pretty bad, and timing will vary all over the place depending on the distance, starting point, lighting, and even the subject. That's probably why no one does it.

 

[zlatko]

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !

What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded. That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.

However, the Sigma Art seems purpose-built to wow the forum crowd. If you are a sharpness junkie (who needs AF), you've found your lens.

So you're justifying the 50/1.2L by saying that it has some immeasurable quality to it that nobody else can beat? Do you understand how irrational that sounds?

Lenses have qualities that are not easily described with numbers, at least not in the measurements usually seen in online tests. Have you seen a numerical measurements for how a lens draws faces? I'm not talking about sharpness, but how it draws. Likewise, does any site publish numerical measurements of foreground and background bokeh with subjects at various distances and with foregrounds & backgrounds that have various degrees of detail and contrast? How about numerical measurements of a wide range of colors from various lenses? Probably not. And yet lenses produce all of these things.

Renowned photojournalist David Burnett uses the 50/L. He says, "It's really great ... It's funny how you can look at pictures and know it that it was shot with this lens ... What's the look? And it has a look, and there's no doubt about it." See at 15:30 — https://vimeo.com/13036394

 

[YuengLinger]

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !

What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded. That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.

However, the Sigma Art seems purpose-built to wow the forum crowd. If you are a sharpness junkie (who needs AF), you've found your lens.

So you're justifying the 50/1.2L by saying that it has some immeasurable quality to it that nobody else can beat? Do you understand how irrational that sounds?

Lenses have qualities that are not easily described with numbers, at least not in the measurements usually seen in online tests. Have you seen a numerical measurements for how a lens draws faces? I'm not talking about sharpness, but how it draws. Likewise, does any site publish numerical measurements of foreground and background bokeh with subjects at various distances and with foregrounds & backgrounds that have various degrees of detail and contrast? How about numerical measurements of a wide range of colors from various lenses? Probably not. And yet lenses produce all of these things.

Renowned photojournalist David Burnett uses the 50/L. He says, "It's really great ... It's funny how you can look at pictures and know it that it was shot with this lens ... What's the look? And it has a look, and there's no doubt about it." See at 15:30 — https://vimeo.com/13036394

Good interview. I especially like, at 16:15, when Burnett states, "If it isn't sharp, it isn't a picture."

And it is a good plug for the 50mm 1.2 L, though I'd also like to hear what he and other photojournalists (not just dedicated reviewers) say about the Sigma Art.

Glad somebody is making sense, as opposed to the contrarians who, slavishly following one website, have proclaimed that sharpness is irrelevant.

 

[ahsanford]

Its too bad that lens reviewers are not able to test autofocus. I realize that testing it would open a can of worms, since its possibly different on every camera. Still, they could have canon calibrate their bodies, and determine a way to measure focus times and accuracy. FoCal does a good job of checking accuracy and consistency, and by using a standard setup, different lenses could be compared on the test camera. If a lens was acting up, it could be returned to the manufacturer for repair and retested.

I think that the results might open some eyes for all lens models. Lens autofocus can be pretty bad, and timing will vary all over the place depending on the distance, starting point, lighting, and even the subject. That's probably why no one does it.

I think dialing things in with AFMA in-camera or with Sigma's USB dock can address basic offset issues, but AF consistency is rarely reported.

Bryan Carnathan at TDP did tackle this with his Sigma 50 Art review -- look for the butterfly mouseover interactive thingie he has set up here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx
(pan down about half way -- read text above and below the butterfly, be sure to mouseover numbers 1-10)

I'm not linking this to poke the Sigma so much as showing that some folks actually do 'review' AF in some fashion. But yes, I agree, we lack a gold standard for reviewing AF performance. There needs to be some kid of X-Men-like 'Danger Room' where photogs have a consistent battery of targets at different ranges and speeds and light levels to capture with the AF. Until then, we let pros buy the gear first and write about it.

That's why I try to read the deeper bits of lens reviews that get into things you only learn from using the lens quite a bit, stuff like curved focal planes, focus shift, inconsistent AF, only works well on certain bodies for some reason, etc.

FWIW, Carnathan is a focus nut and spends a fair amount of time talking about it on some lenses. He also has a mountain of bodies to try a lens with if he finds an issue -- often reporting what he's learned in the process. It's hit or miss, but I'd consider him a first go-to if you are curious about a lens' AF performance. If it's not in the review, drop him a line and ask. He's been stellar at writing me back on all kinds of questions.

- A