Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16344"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16344">Tweet</a></div>
<p>A <a href="http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/04/12/review-sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-usm-art/" target="_blank">review of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art series lens has appeared on ThePhoblographer</a>.</p>
<p>The lens receives pretty good marks in the review, though a few things such as the lack of weather sealing, size and microcontrast. Though the lens is remarkably sharp and the autofocus works well.</p>
<p><strong>Says ThePhoblographer

</strong><em>“<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1045458-REG/sigma_311101_50mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Sigma’s 50mm f1.4 Art DG HSM</a> is an exceptional lens. Starting with the design, it very much is in line with the company’s 35mm f1.4 Art optic. The outside feels and looks like something that Hasselblad might make. It feels just so great in your hands that you’d never want to let it go. In fact, if you’re a big fan of the 50mm field of view you might never want to give it up.”</em></p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1045458-REG/sigma_311101_50mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/SG5014REOS.html?KBID=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[infared]

"Pretty large for a 50mm f1.4"

Well it does have 13 elements, (that do wonderful things!).

 

[jdramirez]

It isn’t as contrasty as its 35mm f1.4 Art cousin and therefore doesn’t have as great colors in our opinion, but it is still quite good. Additionally, modern software lets you do almost anything with the color depth of modern sensors and lenses. So you really shouldn’t worry about it so much.

nother great review... I haven't heard the term micro contrast in relation to any other lenses. But I'm used to post production... so I'm curious what lens has a comparable micro contrast.

Per these guys, the color in the 35mm is better, but there might be too much color for human skin... so I'm a touch confused... maybe I need to read it again.

 

[tianxiaozhang]

Would the price come down a bit if I wait for a few months?

 

[cellomaster27]

Would the price come down a bit if I wait for a few months?

Would be nice but I wouldn't count on it due to supply and demand. The sigma 35 and 18-35 hasn't come down.. Those are still selling real well. Maybe in a couple years? Haha

 

[Dylan777]

Would the price come down a bit if I wait for a few months?

Sigma 50mm ART production lines are in high gear. I bet 10cents that the price will not drop within few months. If you in need for 50mm, I say go for it. Just enjoy the best from Sigma.

 

[Rudeofus]

Interesting review, which covers many aspects that would be of interest to potential buyers of this lens. One line didn't make much sense, though: "Additionally, we feel that the saturation is a bit too strong for skin tones when shooting portraits despite Sigma’s attempts to not saturate the orange channel too much–at least that’s what we feel in our color tests."

A lens can't saturate colors beyond what's coming in through the front element. If the image looks too saturated, check and adjust your post processing settings and don't blame the lens for doing its job as intended.

 

[jdramirez]

Would the price come down a bit if I wait for a few months?

Last December there was a deal on the 35 art for 699. That's the best I've seen for new... but you can find used ones (returns) for around $800... and you can get a refurbished one from Sigma for 680.

The lens came out in September 2012. So if you can wait that long.

 

[jdramirez]

Interesting review, which covers many aspects that would be of interest to potential buyers of this lens. One line didn't make much sense, though: "Additionally, we feel that the saturation is a bit too strong for skin tones when shooting portraits despite Sigma’s attempts to not saturate the orange channel too much–at least that’s what we feel in our color tests."

A lens can't saturate colors beyond what's coming in through the front element. If the image looks too saturated, check and adjust your post processing settings and don't blame the lens for doing its job as intended.

I read that too... So the 35 has better contrast and better color... but the 50 has too much color... which suggests that the 35 has way too much color.

I might be using the transitive property inappropriately... but da fuh?

 

[Chaitanya]

f-stoppers also have posted a video review of this new lens. even they seem to be impressed with this lens.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A-fl1aS6eXk&ctp=CAIQpDAYASITCIuzwLD13b0CFReCqgod21oA0w%3D%3D&hl=en-GB&guid=&client=mv-google&gl=IN

 

[drjlo]

Per these guys, the color in the 35mm is better, but there might be too much color for human skin... so I'm a touch confused... maybe I need to read it again.

I'm not sure what these reviewers are doing (or not doing) with post-processing, but I think pretty much all of the human shots I saw on The Phoglographer and f-stoppers reviews look horrible with skin tones. Skin tones look just too stark and cold with peaky orange/magenta bias to my eyes. The best photo's were the black & whites IMO.

 

[jdramirez]

Per these guys, the color in the 35mm is better, but there might be too much color for human skin... so I'm a touch confused... maybe I need to read it again.

I'm not sure what these reviewers are doing (or not doing) with post-processing, but I think pretty much all of the human shots I saw on The Phoglographer and f-stoppers reviews look horrible with skin tones. Skin tones look just too stark and cold with peaky orange/magenta bias to my eyes. The best photo's were the black & whites IMO.

One of the reviews, they said they were doing minimal post production because they didn't want to give a misrepresentation of the contrast about the lens. As for what I saw... I didn't think the color was that far off... but maybe I wasn't looking that hard.

Ok... I went back and looked... I didn't like the photos... or the models... but I tried to look past that and more about what the lens brings to the table. Expensive gear doesn't fix boring subjects...

 

[adhocphotographer]

Nice review, I was interested to see how it did...

I'm still rocking my 50 1.8, and have been in the market for a new lens, but am in no rush and will wait to see what problems arise from it!

 

[beetle]

I´m really curious to see how it performs against 35 Art. I have seen a couple of reviews but it seems no one compares these two. Still waiting for the first user reports and then I´ll decide. I would prefer 35 before 50 focal length for my 5D3. But if this new 50 is optically better then I´ll probably change my decision. Only optical performance matters for me, I do not care about weight or size. Sharpness, CA, micro contrast, this is important for me.

 

[wickidwombat]

Would the price come down a bit if I wait for a few months?

Sigma 50mm ART production lines are in high gear. I bet 10cents that the price will not drop within few months. If you in need for 50mm, I say go for it. Just enjoy the best from Sigma.

they wont even clear the backorders in a few months...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

"Pretty large for a 50mm f1.4"

Well it does have 13 elements, (that do wonderful things!).

I wonder how it handles flare and direct sunlight as a consequence? The 50 f1.2 L is pretty amazing in this regard. I used to have a Sigma 100-300 EX DG f4 and a 70-200 f2.8 EX DG and they were both pretty hopeless with flare and direct sunlight. Contre-Jour was impossible with those two lenses...so i wonder how the new 50 f1.4 art fares in this regards. My old Sigma 12-24mm lens (an amazing optic, with with an odd balance of benefits, features and issues) was pretty good with flare, although not a patch on the Canon 16-35IIL

 

[Rudeofus]

I´m really curious to see how it performs against 35 Art. I have seen a couple of reviews but it seems no one compares these two. Still waiting for the first user reports and then I´ll decide. I would prefer 35 before 50 focal length for my 5D3. But if this new 50 is optically better then I´ll probably change my decision. Only optical performance matters for me, I do not care about weight or size. Sharpness, CA, micro contrast, this is important for me.

I think Neuroanatomist explained this in some recent thread: most 35s use retrofocal design, whereas most 50s in the market (until recently) use a double gauss design. The double gauss design is simpler and more compact, but allows for fewer corrections and as a result gave lenses that were less than stellar in performance, especially wide open. Zeiss, and now Sigma, changed that by offering 50s as retrofocal designs, and as a result they now have 50s that blow the competition out of the water. But that means only the 50mm competition, other 35mm lenses always used retrofocal design and always had the opportunity to be decent performers.

So what do we have now: we have an outdated 35L that gets outclassed by a very modern 35A, but only by so much, the 35L wasn't all that bad after all. And we have a new 50A that makes its competitors look really old. That doesn't mean the 50A is going to be that much sharper/better than the 35A or the 35L. What the 50A does is give you the option to pick between a decent 50 and a decent 35. The final decision should (and can now) be made based on what focal length you want, not by some 2% difference in MTF ratings.

 

[tatsu]

Would the price come down a bit if I wait for a few months?

Sigma 50mm ART production lines are in high gear. I bet 10cents that the price will not drop within few months. If you in need for 50mm, I say go for it. Just enjoy the best from Sigma.

I've got the 35A and love it so pulling the trigger on the 50A pre-order was a no brainer after the first review.

Definitely time for me to move on from the Canon 50mm 1.4 which was the first lens I ever bought.

 

[beetle]

I´m really curious to see how it performs against 35 Art. I have seen a couple of reviews but it seems no one compares these two. Still waiting for the first user reports and then I´ll decide. I would prefer 35 before 50 focal length for my 5D3. But if this new 50 is optically better then I´ll probably change my decision. Only optical performance matters for me, I do not care about weight or size. Sharpness, CA, micro contrast, this is important for me.

I think Neuroanatomist explained this in some recent thread: most 35s use retrofocal design, whereas most 50s in the market (until recently) use a double gauss design. The double gauss design is simpler and more compact, but allows for fewer corrections and as a result gave lenses that were less than stellar in performance, especially wide open. Zeiss, and now Sigma, changed that by offering 50s as retrofocal designs, and as a result they now have 50s that blow the competition out of the water. But that means only the 50mm competition, other 35mm lenses always used retrofocal design and always had the opportunity to be decent performers.

So what do we have now: we have an outdated 35L that gets outclassed by a very modern 35A, but only by so much, the 35L wasn't all that bad after all. And we have a new 50A that makes its competitors look really old. That doesn't mean the 50A is going to be that much sharper/better than the 35A or the 35L. What the 50A does is give you the option to pick between a decent 50 and a decent 35. The final decision should (and can now) be made based on what focal length you want, not by some 2% difference in MTF ratings.

I agree, I do not expect big differences between 50A and 35A. Differences in optical performance will be most probably negligible. But you know, it would be nice to see a comparison from somebody, who had a chance to play with both of them. Fortunately I´m not forced to make the decision right now. I´ll most probably compare both personally before I make my final decision.

 

[mackguyver]

Here's what I've been waiting for - a 50L to 50A comparison from SLR Lounge

I think it's enough to convince me to cancel my pre-order. The Sigma is sharper, but not shockingly so, and the Canon's bokeh is slightly better (IMHO). The Canon also appears to have ever-so-slightly better contrast, while the Sigma has better CA control, but again, only by a hair.

The other thing I've learned is that you'll have buy the USB dock to enable full time manual focus (which I guess isn't standard for Sigmas). That's crappy.

The 50L has killer build quality and USM in a much smaller package and I don't think the Sigma is worth 950 of my dollars for such subtle differences at f/1.4 in what for me, is a portrait lens.

I guess I can't cancel it till the 24th, so I'll keep my mind open until then, but I think I'm going to cancel and resume the 50L II vigil