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

[NancyP]

ahsanford has it right - different lenses for different photographer needs. Right now I am testing out the 40mm f/2.8 as a lightweight landscape prime to use in a primes kit.

 

[sdsr]

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

Not "only" - they say there will be a FF review shortly and, in the conclusion portion of the review, give a more than subtle hint at their overall opinion of it on FF. But yes, it does seem odd to start with APS-C first.

 

[sdsr]

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.

Some do, at least up to a point, such as lenstip:

http://www.lenstip.com/400.10-Lens_review-Sigma_A_50_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Autofocus.html

But it seems pretty clear that they don't cover the range of contexts you refer to in your second paragraph. I've no idea whether anyone else comes closer.

 

[sdsr]

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?

He didn't say it has some immeasurable quality that nobody else can beat, only that it has distinctive qualities that can't readily be measured. That's neither irrational nor false (his statement as you reworded it may or may not be true, but it's not irrational). You may not care for those distinctive qualities or even notice them; and it may well be that they're related to various aspects of the lens that *can* be measured (if you like, one could say that it's desirable because of, not despite, its flaws). But simply to dismiss it, as you seem to want to do, because it fails in various ways that can be measured begs the question.

(And, in case this is necessary to add, none of that is to say anything at all negative about the Sigma or, for that matter, to say anything positive about the Canon.)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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?

He didn't say it has some immeasurable quality that nobody else can beat, only that it has distinctive qualities that can't readily be measured. That's neither irrational nor false (his statement as you reworded it may or may not be true, but it's not irrational). You may not care for those distinctive qualities or even notice them; and it may well be that they're related to various aspects of the lens that *can* be measured (if you like, one could say that it's desirable because of, not despite, its flaws). But simply to dismiss it, as you seem to want to do, because it fails in various ways that can be measured begs the question.

(And, in case this is necessary to add, none of that is to say anything at all negative about the Sigma or, for that matter, to say anything positive about the Canon.)

There are indeed qualities that cannot be measured. There is no definition or agreement as to what they actually are. When someone refers to a lens giving a 3D effect, that is not even a defined term.

Measurement of Bokeh is another that has no way to give a numerical value, just a opinion. Usually though, Photozone does give examples of bokeh at various apertures, but its still subject to disagreement, because someone else feels that they would do it differently.

A lot of the undefined qualities are that way. Since different people see them differently, its pretty difficult to do more than look at the images and see if you agree.

 

[sdsr]

A lot of the undefined qualities are that way. Since different people see them differently, its pretty difficult to do more than look at the images and see if you agree.

Exactly. I find reviews far more useful when they provide photos taken in various conditions with the lens under review and its older rivals, if any. You can sometimes find such comparisons, but not often enough. Simply providing a bunch of photos taken in isolation with a particular lens doesn't tell you much - they tend to all look much the same (which may tell us something more important, of course).

 

[ahsanford]

And behold! The FF review is now posted:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/876-sigma50f14art?start=1

Compared to the 35 Art, the 50 Art is less sharp in the center on the wide open side of things, but it appears to have sharper corners when you stop it down to F/2.8, F/4, etc.

The pincushion distortion was a tad surprising in that FL, though. Thought we wouldn't see much.

- A

 

[mrsfotografie]

And behold! The FF review is now posted:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/876-sigma50f14art?start=1

Compared to the 35 Art, the 50 Art is less sharp in the center on the wide open side of things, but it appears to have sharper corners when you stop it down to F/2.8, F/4, etc.

The pincushion distortion was a tad surprising in that FL, though. Thought we wouldn't see much.

- A

At 815g it's a monster lens!

 

[ahsanford]

At 815g it's a monster lens!

Yep. And it's as big as a 24-70 F/4 zoom! It's a monster-sized standard prime. Almost as big as the Zeiss Otus.

- A

 

[R1-7D]

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?

He didn't say it has some immeasurable quality that nobody else can beat, only that it has distinctive qualities that can't readily be measured. That's neither irrational nor false (his statement as you reworded it may or may not be true, but it's not irrational). You may not care for those distinctive qualities or even notice them; and it may well be that they're related to various aspects of the lens that *can* be measured (if you like, one could say that it's desirable because of, not despite, its flaws). But simply to dismiss it, as you seem to want to do, because it fails in various ways that can be measured begs the question.

(And, in case this is necessary to add, none of that is to say anything at all negative about the Sigma or, for that matter, to say anything positive about the Canon.)

There are indeed qualities that cannot be measured. There is no definition or agreement as to what they actually are. When someone refers to a lens giving a 3D effect, that is not even a defined term.

Measurement of Bokeh is another that has no way to give a numerical value, just a opinion. Usually though, Photozone does give examples of bokeh at various apertures, but its still subject to disagreement, because someone else feels that they would do it differently.

A lot of the undefined qualities are that way. Since different people see them differently, its pretty difficult to do more than look at the images and see if you agree.

Trying to talk sense to Dilbert is like trying to describe colours to a blind person. He likes his spec sheets and DxO scores. Nothing else matters

 

[YuengLinger]

Ok so photozone is using a 5d Mark II and praising AF. Any thoughts?

 

[ahsanford]

Ok so photozone is using a 5d Mark II and praising AF. Any thoughts?

Yeah, they are admittedly gear poor compared to TDP, DXO, Roger at LR, etc.

But I love the concise, consistent format of the reviews -- specifically the resolution numbers vs. aperture vs. location in the frame. It's like reading baseball cards.

- A

 

[drjlo]

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.

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

Can't argue with the solid logic here.. I just hope Canon doesn't lose its mind and gives us 50 f/2.8 IS, as I am strongly hoping for at leaset f/2 IS, f/1.8 IS better yet.

I myself cannot recall the last time I shot my 50L above F/2 and usually just leave it at f/1.8, which is my personal sweet spot for that lens for the purpose it's great for, e.g. shooting people shots who are not necessarily infant-skinned or model-makeup'd..

 

[ahsanford]

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.

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

Can't argue with the solid logic here.. I just hope Canon doesn't lose its mind and gives us 50 f/2.8 IS, as I am strongly hoping for at leaset f/2 IS, f/1.8 IS better yet.

I myself cannot recall the last time I shot my 50L above F/2 and usually just leave it at f/1.8, which is my personal sweet spot for that lens for the purpose it's great for, e.g. shooting people shots who are not necessarily infant-skinned or model-makeup'd..

I don't think that will happen. See this prior thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21377.msg406035#msg406035

In each instance, the non-L IS refresh lens did not get slower with the addition of IS -- max aperture stayed the same.

Read the rest of that thread -- the only wildcard is if the 50/wehavenoidea IS will be replacing the nifty fifty or the 50 F/1.4. In either case, a 50 F/2.something IS isn't going to happen unless the 50 being obsoleted is the old 50 F/2.5 Macro that no one ever talks about.

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

Ok so photozone is using a 5d Mark II and praising AF. Any thoughts?

Yeah, they are admittedly gear poor compared to TDP, DXO, Roger at LR, etc.

But I love the concise, consistent format of the reviews -- specifically the resolution numbers vs. aperture vs. location in the frame. It's like reading baseball cards.

- A

The interesting point here being that photozone was getting good AF results with the older AF on the 5DII. Which, in my mind, confirms what Viggo and others were saying about outer points, cross-type or not, being problematic with this lens on the 5DIII.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Ok so photozone is using a 5d Mark II and praising AF. Any thoughts?

Yeah, they are admittedly gear poor compared to TDP, DXO, Roger at LR, etc.

But I love the concise, consistent format of the reviews -- specifically the resolution numbers vs. aperture vs. location in the frame. It's like reading baseball cards.

- A

The interesting point here being that photozone was getting good AF results with the older AF on the 5DII. Which, in my mind, confirms what Viggo and others were saying about outer points, cross-type or not, being problematic with this lens on the 5DIII.

I had a pleasant surprise last weekend; 35mm Sigma 1.4 on the Mk II & Ai Servo AF - consistently excellent results with fast moving (near) subjects!!!