Sigma 50mm 1.4 vs Canon 50mm 1.2L vs Canon 50mm 1.4

[LearningCameras]

I did a sharpness test between these 3 lenses and shared some of my impressions of the 3 lenses after using them side by side. I will say that I don't think my copy of the 1.2 was that good but I made the images available to download if you would like. The Sigma 50mm is a sweet lens.
http://youtu.be/ImXEdBrHbsk

 

[jdramirez]

What I really want to see is a review comparing the 50 art with the 85L mkii. I don't need the 1/2 (1/4) stop of additional light, but I do use auto focus... so that would help, bokeh of the 85L should be better than the art, at least from what I can decipher, 50art bokeh < 50L < 85L mkii.

I'm such a wreck.

 

[jyrbba]

Very close to my findings also, both lenses shot at @ 1.4. Sigma on the left, 50L on the right.

 

[Hector1970]

I bought the 85mm 1.2 II because of its ability to shoot @ 1.2.
This allows me to take very creative portraits. It's a heavy and slow focusing lens (relatively speaking).
I personally don't understand comparing 1.2 lens to anything else but 1.2 lens.
Stopping down to 1.4 and comparing at 1.4 to the sigma art doesn't make sense to me.
I have a Canon 50 1.4 (and had a 50 1.8). I would consider it a fair comparison to compare it to the Sigma 1.4.
I quite like the Canon. It's not the sharpest at 1.4 but it has a lovely vignette and creates a nice look.
If I were buying a canon 1.2 it would only be for its shallow depth of field @1.2. If I was going to mainly be stopping down Id buy the 1.4 or 1.8 which are much lighter.
I love all these types of discussions and comparisons because I always want to know which is the best.
But I am also experienced enough to know a bad workman blames his tools..
A 50 1.2 might be better than a 50 1.4 but I like 99% of the members of Canon Rumors are not good enough to show this in real world photos.
I got up at 05:00 yesterday morning and took out of focus photographs of a beautiful sunrise over the sea with a 24mm TS-E II. It wasn't the lens wasn't sharp.
It was the brain of the photographer .
But it was a wonderful privilege to witness the sun rising. That memory will last a lot longer than the out of focus photographs.
Drop the charts for a while and try it for yourself.
But keep these discussions going because they are enjoyable too

 

[PureShot]

Few week ago i test the new sigma ! you can dowload raw file in page 50
its a french magazine but i take image in english ;D
Here http://magazine-mode.ca/magazine/ete-2014/#n1/page1

 

[jdramirez]

I bought the 85mm 1.2 II because of its ability to shoot @ 1.2.
This allows me to take very creative portraits. It's a heavy and slow focusing lens (relatively speaking).
I personally don't understand comparing 1.2 lens to anything else but 1.2 lens.
Stopping down to 1.4 and comparing at 1.4 to the sigma art doesn't make sense to me.
I have a Canon 50 1.4 (and had a 50 1.8). I would consider it a fair comparison to compare it to the Sigma 1.4.
I quite like the Canon. It's not the sharpest at 1.4 but it has a lovely vignette and creates a nice look.
If I were buying a canon 1.2 it would only be for its shallow depth of field @1.2. If I was going to mainly be stopping down Id buy the 1.4 or 1.8 which are much lighter.
I love all these types of discussions and comparisons because I always want to know which is the best.
But I am also experienced enough to know a bad workman blames his tools..
A 50 1.2 might be better than a 50 1.4 but I like 99% of the members of Canon Rumors are not good enough to show this in real world photos.
I got up at 05:00 yesterday morning and took out of focus photographs of a beautiful sunrise over the sea with a 24mm TS-E II. It wasn't the lens wasn't sharp.
It was the brain of the photographer .
But it was a wonderful privilege to witness the sun rising. That memory will last a lot longer than the out of focus photographs.
Drop the charts for a while and try it for yourself.
But keep these discussions going because they are enjoyable too

I compare the two because I have a finite amount of dollars and I know there are give and takes between the two lenses. AF of the art is hit or miss with peripheral AF points... but the 85L is slow to focus, so it isn't good for fast movement (barring the 1dx). The bokeh of the 85 is magic, but the 50's is very nice and also $1000ish less.

I've bought the 85L 5x... but each time the deal went sour.

I have a discounted 50 art in my Amazon account (Saving around $50, so not a big discount).

So then there what I have now... a 24-105, a 100L, a 70-200mm f/2.8L mkii, so the 50art fits better into my needs... because I can use the 50 indoors, and while it isn't a wide angle, it is wide enough to use...

So it is a mess... a giant mess.

 

[Hector1970]

If I were you I'd buy a 50 1.8 and see how often you actually use it.
It's a fine lens. So is the 85 1.8.
The 70-200 is an excellent portrait lens.
I use the 70-200 F2.8 II a lot for portraits handheld. The image stabilisation is great and people look great
The 85 1.2 is good in a studio on a tripod. It's harder to use in the fly. At 1.2 there isn't much forgiveness in depth of field and you need an ND filter in sunlight.
The 40 2.8 Is an option I don't use it enough but is also quite a nice lens.
I can see you are going for quality over quantity on you lenses which is quite sensible.
With your buying pattern I'd say the Sigma art is the best choice for you.
Best of luck with your search

 

[jdramirez]

If I were you I'd buy a 50 1.8 and see how often you actually use it.

I had the 50 f/1.8 when I only had an 18-55mm and a 75-300 (and eventually the 55-250mm). But the lens is soft from f/1.8 and sharpens up around f/2.8... which is where I mostly shot with it. I eventually upgraded to a canon 50mm f/1.4, but at that time I had a 24-105mm and I think a 100L... so by comparison, the 50 wasn't really that good. Not enough reach (on my crop 60D), and not wide enough to use indoors. So even though the f/1.4 is an overall better lens, it was my least used.

It's a fine lens. So is the 85 1.8.

I had the 85 f/1.8 and I liked it. I took a bunch of photos of my new born... but the minimum focusing distance (and I realize the 85L mkii also has a mfd of 3ft) was annoying... and I sold my 100L after getting the 70-200mm f/2.8L mkii, thinking it was redundant... it wasn't. I missed the 100L's MFD and just dramatic sharpness... So I sold the 85 f/1.8 and I bought the 100L again.

The 85 1.2 is good in a studio on a tripod. It's harder to use in the fly. At 1.2 there isn't much forgiveness in depth of field and you need an ND filter in sunlight.

I was using a depth of field calculator and the 100L @ 12 inches away has a SIGNIFICANTLY thinner depth of field than the 85L at f/1.2 and 36 inches away. It can be a challenge working at thin dof's... but not impossible... and if I can get a decent amount of hits with the 100L... the 85L doesn't scare me...

The 40 2.8 Is an option I don't use it enough but is also quite a nice lens.

I bought one for my daughter... she doesn't use the camera or the lens... but it's an option there. F2.8 is fine... but I do want something with a wide aperture for situations like last night... we were at an amusement park and it was dark save for the lights off the rides and lamp posts... but I wanted a wider aperture to increase shutter speed/lower the iso... Funny thing... that's why I got the 85mm, for campfires and the like... but evidently I forgot that I need a wider aperture lens when I sold it.
I can see you are going for quality over quantity on you lenses which is quite sensible.

With your buying pattern I'd say the Sigma art is the best choice for you.

I want the 50 art... and I'm willing to only use the center AF point and only use manual focus... I was comparing the 50 art to the 55 otus (test charts) and the otus is impressive from center to corner, but I can be content just having a really good performance and great performance compared to the rest of the 50's.