Review: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art

[tatsu]

If I had a 50L I probably wouldn't sell, but since I don't, I'm still super excited about my preorder

That's where I'm at too. Especially since any upcoming 50L MkII is going to be priced sky high.

 

[mackguyver]

+1 for the 85 L, it makes a snapshot of your trashcan look like a pro commercial shot ;D

I know Canon has another lens that can make this trash can looks even BETTER.... take a guess ;D

Thanks Viggo

Say 200mm f/2 IS and you're done!

Here's a more scientific comparison of sharpness. Seems the Sigma vs Canon L decision is really sharpness vs. bokeh, respectfully. If I had a 50L I probably wouldn't sell, but since I don't, I'm still super excited about my preorder

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

Cool to see this, but still still won't change my 50L love 8) I'll stay off in la la land and pretend a sharper 50mm (or two) don't exist

In all seriousness, the 50L a great lens for my uses (portraits and walkaround, but I'm sure the new Sigma will be quite a lens.

 

[Radiating]

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

Here's a more scientific comparison of sharpness. Seems the Sigma vs Canon L decision is really sharpness vs. bokeh, respectfully. If I had a 50L I probably wouldn't sell, but since I don't, I'm still super excited about my preorder

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

I think the slr lounge images really do not show what the difference between these two lenses is really like, they have low contrast and are far too smooth subjects. The images from the digital picture are much more staggering.

 

[brad-man]

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

Here's a more scientific comparison of sharpness. Seems the Sigma vs Canon L decision is really sharpness vs. bokeh, respectfully. If I had a 50L I probably wouldn't sell, but since I don't, I'm still super excited about my preorder

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

Wow. Just wow. What a lens. I can't imagine that anyone other than brand loyalists will opt for the 50L after seeing this comparison. I have and love the 35A, and while I do want to upgrade my 50/1.4, I think I'll wait and see what Canon's new IS version is like. I'd like to have some primes that are more travel-friendly and inconspicuous. Although when Sigma releases the 85A, all bets are off...

 

[Viggo]

+1 for the 85 L, it makes a snapshot of your trashcan look like a pro commercial shot ;D

I know Canon has another lens that can make this trash can looks even BETTER.... take a guess ;D

Thanks Viggo

Say 200mm f/2 IS and you're done!

Here's a more scientific comparison of sharpness. Seems the Sigma vs Canon L decision is really sharpness vs. bokeh, respectfully. If I had a 50L I probably wouldn't sell, but since I don't, I'm still super excited about my preorder

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

Cool to see this, but still still won't change my 50L love 8) I'll stay off in la la land and pretend a sharper 50mm (or two) don't exist

In all seriousness, the 50L a great lens for my uses (portraits and walkaround, but I'm sure the new Sigma will be quite a lens.

Lol! That was (not surprisingly) going to be my next guess. I'll have to wait and see more from the 50 art, but I downloaded the Zip and checked out the raw's. It seems the 50 L is brighter at same exif, which I like, and the samples are not in very controlled setting, the light has changed and it's much harder to tell, but I thought it would be MUCH better. Maybe he has a dud?

 

[Viggo]

Apologize if this has already been posted, but to me this has been the most useful comparison and breakdown yet:

http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-50mm-f14-dg-hsm-Art-Review

 

[candyman]

Apologize if this has already been posted, but to me this has been the most useful comparison and breakdown yet:

http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-50mm-f14-dg-hsm-Art-Review

I agree.
btw it was already posted

 

[Viggo]

Apologize if this has already been posted, but to me this has been the most useful comparison and breakdown yet:

http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-50mm-f14-dg-hsm-Art-Review

I agree.
btw it was already posted

Okay, thanks!

I see a few other sites that do sample images but they front or back focus and overexpose and do NO editing, and to me that misrepresents what one could actually get. IF they want to post samples that are untouched, they should at least focus properly and provide the original raw's for us to play with.

 

[Ruined]

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

This is exactly what I expected. Sigma very slightly sharper, Canon better bokeh.

IMO no comparison if price not an issue, the Canon f/1.2L is the better lens. Although I got my Canon for $1200 during the rebate season.

Reasons:

* Minimal difference in sharpness/CA
* Canon has better bokeh
* My bet is on Canon for faster autofocus
* Canon does f/1.2, sigma does not
* Canon is much smaller, and probably built better

 

[beetle]

A short comparison between 35 Art and 50 Art. Conclusion as expected: almost the same optical quality.

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/04/14/one-sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art/#.U00P5Sfrpf8

 

[candyman]

Apologize if this has already been posted, but to me this has been the most useful comparison and breakdown yet:

http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-50mm-f14-dg-hsm-Art-Review

I agree.
btw it was already posted

Okay, thanks!

I see a few other sites that do sample images but they front or back focus and overexpose and do NO editing, and to me that misrepresents what one could actually get. IF they want to post samples that are untouched, they should at least focus properly and provide the original raw's for us to play with.

100% correct. I guess this is showing what sites do proper review and therefor are relevant source

 

[jdramirez]

What happened to this 240% better than any existing 50mm except for the otus. I'd 240 a made up number or is it simply not that consequential?

@ruined... none of us have had the lens in hand. I remember jumping g the gun in the 6d thinking it was basically the 5dmkii in a poly carbonate frame... I was wrong and the 6d has a nice little niche. I am holding judgement until I have one in hand... maybe at the b&h super store.

I really don't want to have to compose ALL my shots in the center where the lens is acceptably sharp. And I think discussing auto focus and build quality is way too premature.

I guess I don't feel like declaring a winner before the race has even been run.

 

[jdramirez]

When I saw the one sample shot where the coin or what ever it was was in different lighting than the other... I was annoyed. I was a science major in college and it seems pretty obvious that a variable you want to control for is lighting.

Apologize if this has already been posted, but to me this has been the most useful comparison and breakdown yet:

http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-50mm-f14-dg-hsm-Art-Review

I agree.
btw it was already posted

Okay, thanks!

I see a few other sites that do sample images but they front or back focus and overexpose and do NO editing, and to me that misrepresents what one could actually get. IF they want to post samples that are untouched, they should at least focus properly and provide the original raw's for us to play with.

100% correct. I guess this is showing what sites do proper review and therefor are relevant source

 

[aznable]

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

This is exactly what I expected. Sigma very slightly sharper, Canon better bokeh.

IMO no comparison if price not an issue, the Canon f/1.2L is the better lens. Although I got my Canon for $1200 during the rebate season.

Reasons:

* Minimal difference in sharpness/CA
* Canon has better bokeh
* My bet is on Canon for faster autofocus
* Canon does f/1.2, sigma does not
* Canon is much smaller, and probably built better

you can take a look to a more scientific review

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30

the canon 1.2L is destroied on sharpness in the corners

The Sigma 50/1.4 Art's sharpness holds up very well against the sub-$2,000 competition, as well. At ƒ/1.4 and on a full-frame camera, it pretty well blows all of the others out of the water. The Canon 50/1.2L is pretty sharp in the center, but the corners are extremely soft.

 

[infared]

hmmmmm....I am a huge fan of my Sigma 35mm Art on my 5DIII....LOVE that lens. I have to say...after seeing the comparison to the 50L I can actually see some photogarphers preferring the rendition of the 50L...especially for portraiture, perhaps. You better REALLY love it though as it comes at a hefty price premium. (If I REALLY need background smearing I go to the 85L, when possible). ..I own the original Sigma 50mm f/1.4, and I have really been happy with my copy from the stand point of build, size, weight, price and general image quality. Couldn't see paying for the 50L at the time (as I have the 85L)....and would not go near the other Canon 50mm's...but I would love to see a comparison of the new Sigma 50mm vs. the old Sigma 50mm. I know the new one should totally kill it in the corners.... I will probably buy the new one when all the hoopala dies down....and maybe save $50.
This sure is fun.

 

[mackguyver]

...but I would love to see a comparison of the new Sigma 50mm vs. the old Sigma 50mm. I know
This sure is fun.

Here's a brief one from the Phoblographer: Which One? Sigma 50mm f1.4 I vs Sigma 50mm f1.4 II Art
Read

the canon 1.2L is destroied on sharpness in the corners

Agreed, but there is another factor - the 50L has field curvature (not a good thing), but it's why it performs so poorly on test charts, and yet doesn't translate to being that soft in actual shots. It looks like the Sigma has much better correction for field curvature, and while the 50L is a pain to deal with (focus and recompose at f/1.2 is all but impossible), real-world subjects aren't flat. With a good body that has AFMA, if you use a cross-type point and lock focus, the results are much better than what you see on the charts.

I'm not going to defend the 50L as it has plenty of weaknesses (field curvature being the biggest, followed by CA), but what you see in the flat test charts and real photos aren't 1:1. I'm concerned with results and from what I've seen so far, I don't think the Sigma is going to be a significant improvement over the 50L unless you're putting important subjects in the corners of the frame or shooting flat subjects.

 

[Radiating]

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

This is exactly what I expected. Sigma very slightly sharper, Canon better bokeh.

IMO no comparison if price not an issue, the Canon f/1.2L is the better lens. Although I got my Canon for $1200 during the rebate season.

Reasons:

* Minimal difference in sharpness/CA
* Canon has better bokeh
* My bet is on Canon for faster autofocus
* Canon does f/1.2, sigma does not
* Canon is much smaller, and probably built better

You really are taking the wrong conclusion from this. There is a huge difference in sharpness and CA.

The SLRlounge comparison is to be frank one of the worst comparison between two lenses that I have ever seen published. Not only are the compositions all different, all the shots were hand held, not on a tripod and have different subject sizes, but the only 100% comparison is from the absolute center of the lens on a subject with little contrast. The rest are ultra small thumbnails that do not show any detail.

Here's something a little more revealing. I took the liberty of downloading the SLR lounge images, and applying a typical lightroom preset I like to use to both (increased clarity and contrast and sharpness), I then played with the color correction independently, as the Canon delivered 200k difference in temperature)

I cropped both images to half the frame, to show detail better, and actually the Sigma required 10% tighter cropping, because again images from that review were not framed the same. So keep in mind this comparison actually has the Sigma at a 10% disadvantage. Despite that the Sigma is way way sharper. (both are at f/1.4)

I also recommend opening up these images in separate tabs and switching back and forth:

http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/14116952/img/Picture-Box/20140413-IMG-3159.jpg

http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/14117183/img/Picture-Box/20140413-IMG-3156.jpg

Keep in mind these are not a 100% crop. This is a normal image at web resolution with only a half frame crop, like you'd get from turning a waist up shot into a chest up shot.

The difference is about as subtle as a lightning strike. I have no idea how anyone would conclude that they are remotely close. You can't even see the detail in the brick wall with the Canon, and the haziness and red glow of the Canon is very visible especially on contrasty corners like on that cement wall edge. And this is something you see obviously at web resolution.

Here's a more professional comparison between the L and the ART from Bryan at the digital picture:

It's night and day, I don't know how else to say that.

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART is as sharp WIDE OPEN as the 50mm f/1.2L is at f/4.0

Sigma @f/1.4:

Canon @ f/4.0:

Bokeh is subjective so I won't address that, but technical tests have shown that the Canon 50mm f/1.2L has bokeh that isn't as smooth as the new Sigma. Some people like that, some people don't.

F/1.2 on a digital camera isn't really f/1.2 though. All digital sensors unlike film ignore the majority of the additional light that arrives at the lens after f/2.0, because they absorb instead of capture light at high angles of incidence which is where the additional light at fast apertures comes from. So the body simply raise the ISO in the background to compensate so your exposure calculations are the same.

There is also some rounding up that goes on with the Canon's f number, and with the Sigma they are actually rounding down the f number, so they are much closer than they seem aperture wise, though the Canon will have less vignette. The 50mm f/1.2L only lets around 10% more light hit the sensor than the 50mm f/1.4 ART, for all intents and purposes there is no difference.

The Canon also probably isn't built better, historical the 50L f/1.2 has been 3 times less reliable than the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, which is pretty bad.

 

[mackguyver]

The Canon also probably isn't built better, it's 3 times less reliable than the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, which is pretty bad.

Radiating, those are mostly good and valid points, but where did you get this last stat?

While digital sensors may let less of the oblique light hit the sensor, for you to say that f/1.2 "on a digital camera is a lie" is simply false and a one-dimensional interpretation. The DxO 'fast lenses are for idiots' essay has one major flaw - depth of field. That's why fast lenses are still relevant and why Sigma & co. are still making fast lenses in a time when the 200-400 1.4x is being used to cover indoor sports.

I'm not saying f/1.2 and f/1.4 are far apart, but f/1.2 and f/2 sure are, even if they are letting the same amount of light reach the sensor. It probably needs to be updated, too, as microlenses and other factors may have changed things somewhat, at least if we're to believe some of the manufacturer's (Panasonic & Leica) literature.

Finally, science, graphs, test chart shots, and lousy comparisons aside, what really matters is the photo. We can spend our entire lives measurebating, but that's just a sad way to live.

I'm going to hold onto my 50L because it takes beautiful portraits and if I need sharper photos, I have plenty of lenses for that. I'm positive the Sigma will be an excellent lens and take beautiful portraits as well.

 

[jdramirez]

Finally, science, graphs, test chart shots, and lousy comparisons aside, what really matters is the photo. We can spend our entire lives measurebating, but that's just a sad way to live.

Measure bating... nice.

The 50L brings out such passion in people... I haven't liked it since I read that the 50 usm is as sharp. So I've been biased a while... but I'm trying to not let that cloud my judgement one way or another. I'd like a 50, but I don't need a fifty... so this is just a luxury purchase... but the article was so antithetical to everything that has come out or been rumored.

It felt biased... from the moment they were photographing a dandelion outdoors. A slight gust of wind will change the location of the subject... not to mention, the dandelion is so blurry to begin with that it is hard to tell exactly where they were focusing. And if they did hand hold, that is just irresponsible. Neither lens has is and while the photographer may be competent... I trust a good tripod more.

 

[mackguyver]

I trust a good tripod more.

That's the only real way to get the sharpest of shots! I agree about the passion / hate for the 50L and the only issue I have with the haters are that many of them have never used the lens or if they have it's been in passing. Others have used the lens and just don't like, and that's fine, we're all entitled to our own opinions. I don't like the sacred 35L, but I've seen mind-blowing photos taken with it. My gear list is different than just about anyone else's just as my photos are different than anyone else's.