Ah, I see, it must have come from the LensRentals Repair Data 3.0 post, but it says, "Two lenses (the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and the Sigma 100-300) have behaved so well they’ve dropped below the 10% repair rate cutoff."mackguyver said:
Upvote
0
Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
mackguyver said:
Correct. Lens rentals keeps track of how reliable their collection of 12,000 lenses are. Of the 700 models of lenses they have, the 50mm f/1.2L has been listed on their worst list, or just barley made it off the list depending on the year. The Sigma 35mm has had dead average reliability with lens rentals, which roughly translates to being 3 times more reliable.
Keep in mind the light reject by digital sensors at fast apertures is the same light that is responsible for additional background blur with a fast lens. So not only do you have a fraction of the low light performance you'd expect but you have a fraction of the additional background blur you'd expect.
For all intents and purposes there isn't a meaningful difference between the 50L @ f/1.2 and f/1.4:
f/1.4
f/1.2
Upvote
0
Those shots are from the 85mm f/1.2 II and I had already acknowledged that the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is small. While I don't think one set of photos that you keep posting is the definitive answer on this, I certainly don't expect a half stop do persuade anyone to buy the Canon over the Sigma. The same set of photos does show a noticeable difference between f/1.2 or 1.4 and f/2, however, which was the point I was making. If we're to follow DxO's essay, we're all idiots for buying fast lenses. If they got out of the lab more, they might realize that shallow DOF is the reason that fast lenses are still relevant.
I understand on the LensRentals data - their blog isn't tagged the best, but I see it come up when I Google it. I'm not sure how well rental durability translates to real life, but it's failure rate is still tiny compared to the worst offenders. The Sigma 50 A looks like it's built well and I'm sure that won't be a differentiator, either.
I understand on the LensRentals data - their blog isn't tagged the best, but I see it come up when I Google it. I'm not sure how well rental durability translates to real life, but it's failure rate is still tiny compared to the worst offenders. The Sigma 50 A looks like it's built well and I'm sure that won't be a differentiator, either.
Upvote
0
I know some of TDP's data has been discussed, but just today Bryan Carnathan put up some convenient head to heads in the 50mm range:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9491
Compares the 50 Art against a host of 50-55mm alternatives.
- A
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9491
Compares the 50 Art against a host of 50-55mm alternatives.
- A
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
There aren't any really obvious winners and losers here, just a personal choice of where you want your strengths and compromises to sit. I've used a 50L for many years and It's been a reliable work horse. I don't reach for it when i'm after critical sharpness. No, I reach for it when I want that certain creamy bokeh type of look. It's that kind of lens and it does it really well. It's contrast, colour fidelity, build and flare control are exceptional. I've not had any build issues with mine and neither has my 2nd photographer. But i have heard of some other pro's having issues with the front dust cap coming off with the hood. This I believe was due to a defective batch from Canon and were offered free repairs.
Has anyone else noticed the focal lens difference between the Canon and Sigma. The 50L is slightly long for a 50mm....closer to a 55mm to my eyes. The Sigma looks a little wide, maybe 45mm? Could be an issue if you are pairing it with a 35mm and not a 24mm.
I'm not a big 50mm user any more. I far prefer using a 35mm / 85mm combo on a pair of 5DIII's than a 24mm / 50mm option.
Has anyone else noticed the focal lens difference between the Canon and Sigma. The 50L is slightly long for a 50mm....closer to a 55mm to my eyes. The Sigma looks a little wide, maybe 45mm? Could be an issue if you are pairing it with a 35mm and not a 24mm.
I'm not a big 50mm user any more. I far prefer using a 35mm / 85mm combo on a pair of 5DIII's than a 24mm / 50mm option.
Upvote
0
preben said:
Correct, difference is minimal given everything I've seen thus far - unless you make a living shooting flat sharpness test charts.
The 50 f/1.2L was designed with uncorrected field curvature+spherical aberration with a priority on bokeh.
If you shoot flat test charts, that could be a problem. But since things we shoot generally are not a flat test chart and do have depth, real world performance in the shots I have seen appear to have minimal difference sharpness/CA. Wide open the Sigma does have a slight advantage in sharpness/CA real world use, but I expected that given the larger f/1.4 retrofocal design - at narrower apertures the Canon actually appears to pull ahead of the Sigma in sharpness (likely due to reduction of field curvature).
Field curvature does not make a lens subpar even though it will not perform as well on a test chart (just ask the $10k+ Leica Noctilux). In the end, the real world performance is what counts. And, some lenses will sacrifice some test chart sharpness/aberrations for superior bokeh and real world performance.
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:Congrats JDYou gonna LOVE this lens. Post some photos whenever you ready.
I took Neuro advice and bought B&W 3stop ND filter for this lens. Shooting wide open in day time is fun.
Thanks. That's not a bad idea re: the filter. I like my f/2.8 lenses... but there is just something fun about shooting at f/1.4 or f/1.8... and now I can push that to f/1.2.
Upvote
0
Congrats, you'll love it. It took me a long time to build up the nerve to buy it, but I had no regrets from the moment I saw the first photo. In fact, my wife will only let me shoot her with that lens because she loves how the photos turn out with it.jdramirez said:
Upvote
0
jdramirez said:Dylan777 said:Congrats JD
I took Neuro advice and bought B&W 3stop ND filter for this lens. Shooting wide open in day time is fun.
Thanks. That's not a bad idea re: the filter. I like my f/2.8 lenses... but there is just something fun about shooting at f/1.4 or f/1.8... and now I can push that to f/1.2.
You paid big $$$ for that f1.2, make sure you use it right ;D. This lens shines @ f1.2 - period.
Upvote
0
Btw there is almost no difference in performance between 50 1.4 Art and 85 1.4 HSM - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=756&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=941&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
So 50 1.4 Art is not so amazing, just the other 50mm are weak.
So 50 1.4 Art is not so amazing, just the other 50mm are weak.
Upvote
0
mackguyver said:
Thanks. I found that review to be somewhat helpful. The comparison could have been a little more thorough when comparing the two lenses at f/1.4, but as we all know the new Art 50mm is the better lens...but not enough so to make me run out and preorder it. I really like my original Sigma 50mm and the images I have made with it. ...plus, it's somewhat smaller and lighter. I am glad that Sigma has come up with this new improved offering...and that they have garnered a lot of attention and accolades with this new lens.
Upvote
0
preben said:
The Zeiss 50 f2.0 was the best 50 for Canon by a larger margin, before the Otus, which technically isn't a 50, but oh well. The Zeiss 50 f1.4 however is absolute rubbish. So if the Sigma is worse than that it would be demolished by the Otus in the same way the sf-s 55-250 gets destroyed by the 70-200 mk2.
I can't see how the Sigma can be only slightly better than the 50 L and still compete with the Otus, that just doesn't add up. I'm beginning to wonder if the 50 Art lenses tested are all preproduction with high copy variation when the results differentiate so much.. But in some cases the example shots are just done wrong.
I downloaded the Zip with the raws from the 50 Art and I wasn't impressed at all, and with the first images shot by the Otus they blew my mind, so either Sigma lied, plain and simple, or people can't shoot or it's very high degree of copy variation and or preproduction lenses. This also of course mean I have to buy one, and buy it new so I can exchange it 4-5 times until a good copy is found.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
