Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art

[mackguyver]

Why does some people think that "portrait shooting" automatically means CENTER focus and HEADSHOT?

I'm not sure, but that's what the 85, 135 and 70-200 are for I use the 85 for everything from full length to head shots and my favorite "portrait" lens for broader shots is actually the 24 1.4 II, but the 50mm focal length has its place, too.

Do you center focus with full length?

It depends on the aperture, in the studio at f/11, yes, I'm usually lazy and do that because I have enough DOF. In other settings, I'll use larger apertures and focus on the eyes and do a focus/recompose as appropriate, or use an outer focus point.

It just depends on the aperture, where the subject is in the frame and how big they are in the frame. The only time I usually center a subject is for headshots or if there is a dominant element in the frame to the side of the person or some symmetrical element to frame the person.

 

[jdramirez]

Truce?

Also, Dylan, that's the same filter I have.

It's good to be passionate about something... And by George aren't we all.

Even though I don't have a dog in the fight anymore... I still do like order. I like simple equations that explain complicated truths like...

Canon 85<sigma 85< Canon 85L.

Simple... most people would agree if cost isn't considered... And I think for me I want to see

Canon 50 f1.8 < Canon f1.4 < Sigma f1.4 < Canon 50L < Sigma 50 art < otus.

But I understand it isn't that simple...

 

[ahsanford]

Simple... most people would agree if cost isn't considered... And I think for me I want to see

Canon 50 f1.8 < Canon f1.4 < Sigma f1.4 < Canon 50L < Sigma 50 art < otus.

But I understand it isn't that simple...

For me, and what I shoot (i.e rarely wider than F/2), your relationship chart is just about right.

Others who live in those crazy wide apertures will clearly debate where the L goes in that list.

- A

 

[mackguyver]

Simple... most people would agree if cost isn't considered... And I think for me I want to see

Canon 50 f1.8 < Canon f1.4 < Sigma f1.4 < Canon 50L < Sigma 50 art < otus.

But I understand it isn't that simple...

For me, and what I shoot (i.e rarely wider than F/2), your relationship chart is just about right.

Others who live in those crazy wide apertures will clearly debate where the L goes in that list.

- A

I think the list is right, but you could put the L on the left in terms of pure and full frame sharpness. In terms of the final image, that's up for infinite debate.

 

[ahsanford]

Continuing the > discussion, just speculating now, where will the long-rumored new Canon non-L 50mm F/nooneknows IS USM lens fall in that comparison?

For sharpness, I'd say:
Canon 50 f1.8 < Canon 50L < Canon f1.4 and Sigma f1.4 < New Canon 50 < Sigma 50 art < otus.
(I put that old Sigma and Canon 1.4 in the same sharpness bucket as many reports conflict on that.)

For the overall likelihood I'll use it, the 'math' changes for me:
Otus < Canon 50 f1.8 < Canon 50L < Canon f1.4 and Sigma f1.4 < Sigma 50 art < New Canon 50

I say that because...

(a) I'm an AF user at that length 100% of the time (sorry, Otus)
(b) IS and much lower weight/size are big upsides for the new Canon
(c) Given the nice (but not best in class) sharpness improvements seen in the 24/28/35 non-L IS refreshes, I'm fairly certain the Canon 50 IS will bridge some of the gap between the Canon 1.4 and the Sigma Art.
(d) As stated before, I rarely shoot wider than F/2

Curious to see everyone's thoughts on where their money is going between the new 50 Art and Canon's long-rumored non-L IS refresh.

- A

 

[Radiating]

The EF 50 f/1.2L and EF 85 f/1.2 excel at portraiture, where bokeh is king, and excessive sharpness just gets smoothed away in post production. People don't want portraits of their pores, they want portraits of their faces.

I do photo editing professionally, and work with many professional photographer's images. It is incredibly easy to make the Sigma 50mm ART look like the Canon 50mm L. Just turn sharpening to zero, and add some blur and chromatic aberration to the Sigma. You can always reduce the amount of detail in an image and make it softer. It is easy to destroy information, but you cannot create detail out of thin air.

 

[Loswr]

The EF 50 f/1.2L and EF 85 f/1.2 excel at portraiture, where bokeh is king, and excessive sharpness just gets smoothed away in post production. People don't want portraits of their pores, they want portraits of their faces.

I do photo editing professionally, and work with many professional photographer's images. It is incredibly easy to make the Sigma 50mm ART look like the Canon 50mm L. Just turn sharpening to zero, and add some blur and chromatic aberration to the Sigma. You can always reduce the amount of detail in an image and make it softer. It is easy to destroy information, but you cannot create detail out of thin air.

So, you can faithfully replicate the 50L's rendering of OOF areas in terms of aesthetic quality? Given that the number of aperture blades is an important factor in determining bokeh, what post-processing step/algorightm do you use to subtract one of the Sigma lens' 9 aperture blades so it has only the 8 blades of the Canon 50L? :

Bokeh ≠ 'adding some blur'.

 

[thepancakeman]

Simple... most people would agree if cost isn't considered... And I think for me I want to see

Canon 50 f1.8 < Canon f1.4 < Sigma f1.4 < Canon 50L < Sigma 50 art < otus.

But I understand it isn't that simple...

But it is that simple.

The only problem is you need a different list for each of: weight, weather sealing, CA, corner sharpness, center sharpness, bokeh, color rendition, AF performance, cost, size, flare control, microcontrast, etc., etc.

 

[Eldar]

I think it is a fair statement that Canon´s 50mm line up is getting a bit old. I have used the 50/1.2L for many years and I have been very happy with it. It adds a creamy and artistic dimension to images you don´t easily get from others.

But! It is quite clear that they need to upgrade these lenses to match what the competition is bringing out. The Otus is totally crushing every one of them, but at a very high price premium. The 50 Art is cheaper and even though it will not be as good as the Otus, it will still outperform every Canon lens by a significant margin. I have not seen enough to say that it will contest the bokeh of the 50/1.2L, but the 50/1.2L cannot contest the other qualities of the Sigma or Otus. It´s a bit like saying that a 16bit CD concept outperforms a 24 bit SACD concept (analogue part excluded). It does not.

I also believe that the 50 Art gave both Nikon and Canon something to chew on. They may well have planned the release of something a bit better than they have provided and probably add IS. But with the 50 Art out, they have to go back to the drawing board or alternatively risk losing the 50mm segment to someone else.

 

[Radiating]

The EF 50 f/1.2L and EF 85 f/1.2 excel at portraiture, where bokeh is king, and excessive sharpness just gets smoothed away in post production. People don't want portraits of their pores, they want portraits of their faces.

I do photo editing professionally, and work with many professional photographer's images. It is incredibly easy to make the Sigma 50mm ART look like the Canon 50mm L. Just turn sharpening to zero, and add some blur and chromatic aberration to the Sigma. You can always reduce the amount of detail in an image and make it softer. It is easy to destroy information, but you cannot create detail out of thin air.

So, you can faithfully replicate the 50L's rendering of OOF areas in terms of aesthetic quality? Given that the number of aperture blades is an important factor in determining bokeh, what post-processing step/algorightm do you use to subtract one of the Sigma lens' 9 aperture blades so it has only the 8 blades of the Canon 50L? :

Bokeh ≠ 'adding some blur'.

That comment was in regard to someone saying that the 50 Art may render the in-focus areas too sharply and show too many pores. It is very easy to make pores less apparent and in focus areas softer. The most inexperienced novice should have no trouble making the in-focus areas of the 50A appear like the 50L. It took me 2 minutes to create a preset that does that.

Bokeh is a whole other animal. I actually have created bokeh from scratch and also created detail by hand painting it from scratch. It's not cheap to have that kind of work done. In fact it's cheaper to just buy the correct equipment in the first place then to have your editor invent detail and background blur.

I don't think we can make the call quite yet on which has clearly better bokeh but the 50A's bokeh looks very close to the 50L's. It's a much smaller difference than say the Canon 50mm 1.4 USM and the 50L.

 

[Loswr]

...risk losing the 50mm segment to someone else.

The upper end of it, at any rate. I suspect that Canon will make more revenue annually from sales of the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 than Sigma and Zeiss will make from their new offerings combined. The design and tooling costs for those two lenses are long since paid for, which also means they have a high profit margin. I really don't think it would be too hard for Canon to sell eight of the 50/1.8 lenses for every Sigma 50/1.4 art that is sold... Heck, I spent 25 minutes at the Calumet going out of business sale, and they sold three of the 50/1.8's during that time (and probably would have sold more, but they only had three left when I got there).

 

[Loswr]

The EF 50 f/1.2L and EF 85 f/1.2 excel at portraiture, where bokeh is king, and excessive sharpness just gets smoothed away in post production. People don't want portraits of their pores, they want portraits of their faces.

I do photo editing professionally, and work with many professional photographer's images. It is incredibly easy to make the Sigma 50mm ART look like the Canon 50mm L. Just turn sharpening to zero, and add some blur and chromatic aberration to the Sigma. You can always reduce the amount of detail in an image and make it softer. It is easy to destroy information, but you cannot create detail out of thin air.

So, you can faithfully replicate the 50L's rendering of OOF areas in terms of aesthetic quality? Given that the number of aperture blades is an important factor in determining bokeh, what post-processing step/algorightm do you use to subtract one of the Sigma lens' 9 aperture blades so it has only the 8 blades of the Canon 50L? :

Bokeh ≠ 'adding some blur'.

That comment was in regard to someone saying that the 50 Art may render the in-focus areas too sharply and show too many pores. It is very easy to make pores less apparent and in focus areas softer. The most inexperienced novice should have no trouble making the in-focus areas of the 50A appear like the 50L. It took me 2 minutes to create a preset that does that.

Bokeh is a whole other animal...

Please read again the comment to which you were replying, paying particular attention to the part I highlighted in red above. NancyP mentioned bokeh before mentioning sharpness and pores.

 

[persiannight]

This is much the same as the 35L vs 35A debate..... If you want a sharper lens with harsher bokeh go with the Sigma Art Lenses... if you want an overall smoother rendered pic go with the Canon equivalent. Though the 35A is sharper (I owned it for a few months) the 35L rendered the better image to my eyes... Sharpness isn't everything.

 

[jdramirez]

This is much the same as the 35L vs 35A debate..... If you want a sharper lens with harsher bokeh go with the Sigma Art Lenses... if you want an overall smoother rendered pic go with the Canon equivalent. Though the 35A is sharper (I owned it for a few months) the 35L rendered the better image to my eyes... Sharpness isn't everything.

So you were a product tester? How exactly do you go about getting on that list?

 

[Radiating]

This is much the same as the 35L vs 35A debate..... If you want a sharper lens with harsher bokeh go with the Sigma Art Lenses... if you want an overall smoother rendered pic go with the Canon equivalent. Though the 35A is sharper (I owned it for a few months) the 35L rendered the better image to my eyes... Sharpness isn't everything.

I agree with your 35L vs 35A conclusion BUT honestly all this talk about the bokeh of the 50L being better seems like unfounded assumptions.

In every test I have seen the Sigma 50A outperforms the Canon 50L in bokeh. The Sigma lacks the aberrations and flaws, and business that the Canon shows while delivering the same punchy contrast in the background blur.

It's like somehow people have already decided that the Canon has better bokeh despite having evidence that seems to be to the contrary.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

This is much the same as the 35L vs 35A debate..... If you want a sharper lens with harsher bokeh go with the Sigma Art Lenses... if you want an overall smoother rendered pic go with the Canon equivalent. Though the 35A is sharper (I owned it for a few months) the 35L rendered the better image to my eyes... Sharpness isn't everything.

I agree with your 35L vs 35A conclusion BUT honestly all this talk about the bokeh of the 50L being better seems like unfounded assumptions.

In every test I have seen the Sigma 50A outperforms the Canon 50L in bokeh. The Sigma lacks the aberrations and flaws, and business that the Canon shows while delivering the same punchy contrast in the background blur.

It's like somehow people have already decided that the Canon has better bokeh despite having evidence that seems to be to the contrary.

Well, that's an opinion of other photographers on this forum which is probably best kept to your self. Unless you want to single out someone specifically and start a flame war.

I have used a 50L for many years. Taken countless professional weddings and a number of landscapes with it.
I found for landscape work, there are sharper options, especially when stopped down. Professionals aren't particularly bothered is Sigma makes a slightly better optic than Canon... pros buy Canon for several reasons, they are generally built to a far higher standard. In 7 years of wedding photography I've never had an L lens fail on me. I abandoned Sigma several years ago due to their comparable fragility, heavy weight, poor flare control and inconsistent AF. I've owned 6 sigma EX lenses over the years and sold them all. 5 of them went back to Sigma due to poor reliability.

Sure Sigma may have made their new 50 and 35 to better specs...but I'm done with them as a brand, I won't trust my photographic business to their products anymore. I bought a 120-300 OS to see if they had improved and found all the old issues. So I re-sold that particular lens and I'm not even going to bother with the new 35 and 50...why? Because I've had 7 years + of sterling service from my Canon 50 and 35...so why introduce a new risk? I'm happy with the results I see and my photos and services are selling. Your mileage might vary.

 

[persiannight]

This is much the same as the 35L vs 35A debate..... If you want a sharper lens with harsher bokeh go with the Sigma Art Lenses... if you want an overall smoother rendered pic go with the Canon equivalent. Though the 35A is sharper (I owned it for a few months) the 35L rendered the better image to my eyes... Sharpness isn't everything.

So you were a product tester? How exactly do you go about getting on that list?

:-*

 

[mackguyver]

Look at these photos on 500px if you think I'm crazy.

I just ran this search while being logged into 500px and the results are very different and definitely NSFW :-[.

I hope I didn't get anyone in trouble