Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Gets Reviewed

[Eldar]

I have had the pleasure of having the Otus for 3.5 months. That is an awesome lens in every regard. I believe that lens is as close to perfect as we can expect to get with this focal length.

Still, I think the 50 Art is the most exciting lens at the moment, regardless of brand and focal length. It will change the game if it fulfills the hype, at a price tag <$1.500. I also believe we need to see a lot more image examples before we conclude how good it really is.

But the start is promising ...

 

[Rick]

Sigma's famous statement: it wasn't looking to surpass Nikon and Canon, but rather the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 has a way to go judging by the graph in the review. I would have expected the FF graph to look like the 7D graph based on this bragging. The Otus' whole thing is sharp corners at f1.4. That's expensive to achieve.

You don't seem to know how to read the graph or what a typical graph is. This lens actually has LESS falloff in resolution between the center and corners than the Zeiss Otus, and 3 times less falloff in corner resolution than a typical competitor. On top of that it's as sharp in the corners wide as most 50mm lenses are stopped down in average resolution at f/2.8. For all intents and purposes it's tack sharp on full frame in the corners wide open. All lenses have some sharpness falloff in the corners, the Otus has significant drop, but for both lenses we are talking about being ridiculously sharp in the center and nearly ridiculously sharp in the corners. The Sigma is 2-5 times sharper than any other 50mm prime with autofocus in terms of average resolution, so the whole image is very clear.


You're also missing the point of their quote. The Sigma 50 A is not competing with canon or nikon it's competing with zeiss and makes Canon and nikon obsolete. That's the point of the quote, and that's what they accomplished.

Dude, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Eldar]

Sigma's famous statement: it wasn't looking to surpass Nikon and Canon, but rather the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 has a way to go judging by the graph in the review. I would have expected the FF graph to look like the 7D graph based on this bragging. The Otus' whole thing is sharp corners at f1.4. That's expensive to achieve.

You don't seem to know how to read the graph or what a typical graph is. This lens actually has LESS falloff in resolution between the center and corners than the Zeiss Otus, and 3 times less falloff in corner resolution than a typical competitor. On top of that it's as sharp in the corners wide as most 50mm lenses are stopped down in average resolution at f/2.8. For all intents and purposes it's tack sharp on full frame in the corners wide open. All lenses have some sharpness falloff in the corners, the Otus has significant drop, but for both lenses we are talking about being ridiculously sharp in the center and nearly ridiculously sharp in the corners. The Sigma is 2-5 times sharper than any other 50mm prime with autofocus in terms of average resolution, so the whole image is very clear.


You're also missing the point of their quote. The Sigma 50 A is not competing with canon or nikon it's competing with zeiss and makes Canon and nikon obsolete. That's the point of the quote, and that's what they accomplished.

Dude, you are embarrassing yourself.

Gentlemen, it´s just a lens ... A lens we have only seen in pictures ... we have seen a few graphs and a couple of totally uninteresting images ... Let´s wait with the insults and bombastic conclusions until we have had a chance to try it out. Or at least until we have seen a couple of proper reviews. What we have seen so far are just preliminaries ... :

 

[Rick]

We don't have a true side by side test yet. Based on these results, I still expect the Otus to be sharper, corner to corner at f/1.4. To get anything close to a side by side test, the Sigma 50 A is similar at f/1.4 to the Sigma 35 A in the SLRgear test. I actually think the 50 A is a bit better.

But here is a link to the Otus vs the Sigma 35 A both at f/1.4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=917&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The Otus is clearly sharper corner to corner when compared to the Sigma.

So, yes, the Sigma is blasting Canon and Nikon. Excellent, IMO, but it likely is going to slide in slightly behind the Otus, which is nothing to sneeze at. Considering AF, price point, etc....the Sigma will likely end up in more bags than the Otus.

EDIT---just checked Lenstip.com. They have the Sigma 35 A and Otus 55 very similar at f/1.4.

If the Otus is better than the Sigma 50 A, I doubt it is by much. This review is a very good start for the Sigma 50 A.

Could you post a link to the lenstip.com comparison where you are getting your information? Sight unseen, I would bet the house the Sigma 35 is nowhere close to the Otus 55 in the corners @ f1.4 which is what my original point was and still is and is regarding the Otus @f1.4. SLRgear will confirm my assertion once they review the lens. However, comparing a 35mm to a 55mm lens dumps a disadvantage on the wider lens. Even a comparison of the 50mm ART and 55mm Otus will give a slight advantage to the 55mm lens (all other things being equal).

Stopped down a bit, the other competitors will catch up, then one has to decide if the other Zeiss characteristics are worth $4k.

 

[Rick]

Sigma's famous statement: it wasn't looking to surpass Nikon and Canon, but rather the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 has a way to go judging by the graph in the review. I would have expected the FF graph to look like the 7D graph based on this bragging. The Otus' whole thing is sharp corners at f1.4. That's expensive to achieve.

You don't seem to know how to read the graph or what a typical graph is. This lens actually has LESS falloff in resolution between the center and corners than the Zeiss Otus, and 3 times less falloff in corner resolution than a typical competitor.

SLRGear hasn't reviewed the Otus, your statements are baseless.

SLRGear brought up the Zeiss in their own comments.

 

[ecka]

Sigma's famous statement: it wasn't looking to surpass Nikon and Canon, but rather the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 has a way to go judging by the graph in the review. I would have expected the FF graph to look like the 7D graph based on this bragging. The Otus' whole thing is sharp corners at f1.4. That's expensive to achieve.

You don't seem to know how to read the graph or what a typical graph is. This lens actually has LESS falloff in resolution between the center and corners than the Zeiss Otus, and 3 times less falloff in corner resolution than a typical competitor. On top of that it's as sharp in the corners wide as most 50mm lenses are stopped down in average resolution at f/2.8. For all intents and purposes it's tack sharp on full frame in the corners wide open. All lenses have some sharpness falloff in the corners, the Otus has significant drop, but for both lenses we are talking about being ridiculously sharp in the center and nearly ridiculously sharp in the corners. The Sigma is 2-5 times sharper than any other 50mm prime with autofocus in terms of average resolution, so the whole image is very clear.


You're also missing the point of their quote. The Sigma 50 A is not competing with canon or nikon it's competing with zeiss and makes Canon and nikon obsolete. That's the point of the quote, and that's what they accomplished.

Dude, you are embarrassing yourself.

Gentlemen, it´s just a lens ... A lens we have only seen in pictures ... we have seen a few graphs and a couple of totally uninteresting images ... Let´s wait with the insults and bombastic conclusions until we have had a chance to try it out. Or at least until we have seen a couple of proper reviews. What we have seen so far are just preliminaries ... :

I actually prefer the old Sigma 50/1.4 EX DG HSM over any other fast 50 with AF. It's bokeh and sharpens wide open just wins. If the new one is meant to be a replacement for it, then it cannot cost more than $1000. IMHO, Sigma has already surpassed both Canon and Nikon 50/1.4, so now they are aiming for the crown (vs. the Zeiss). Otus optics may be better, but I'm sure that many will prefer Sigma for the price.

P.S. I hope Samyang will join the fast 50 competition soon.

 

[Dylan777]

I'm about to put my 50L on Ebay.... and it has nothing to do with this new 50mm Art.

I took my kids to Flower Field in Carlsbad yesterday. I carried A7r + FE 55mm. With Eye-focus feature in A7r, compose the shot is so easy. At wide open, I couldn't miss a shot. However, the Bokeh is not smooth as my 50L.

Bottom line is, I'm willing to trade that bokeh for light weight

 

[Radiating]

Sigma's famous statement: it wasn't looking to surpass Nikon and Canon, but rather the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 has a way to go judging by the graph in the review. I would have expected the FF graph to look like the 7D graph based on this bragging. The Otus' whole thing is sharp corners at f1.4. That's expensive to achieve.

You don't seem to know how to read the graph or what a typical graph is. This lens actually has LESS falloff in resolution between the center and corners than the Zeiss Otus, and 3 times less falloff in corner resolution than a typical competitor.

SLRGear hasn't reviewed the Otus, your statements are baseless.

Except SLRGEAR has reviewed hundreds of other lenses so it is incredibly easy to get a common lens to cross compare. You can do it with literrally dozens of lenses and get an direct comparison between the Otus and the Sigma. I've run the number and have comparison data between the two. There is a small margin of error due to testing methodology differences and copy variation, but this will strongly correlate to real world results.

Sigma's famous statement: it wasn't looking to surpass Nikon and Canon, but rather the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 has a way to go judging by the graph in the review. I would have expected the FF graph to look like the 7D graph based on this bragging. The Otus' whole thing is sharp corners at f1.4. That's expensive to achieve.

You don't seem to know how to read the graph or what a typical graph is. This lens actually has LESS falloff in resolution between the center and corners than the Zeiss Otus, and 3 times less falloff in corner resolution than a typical competitor. On top of that it's as sharp in the corners wide as most 50mm lenses are stopped down in average resolution at f/2.8. For all intents and purposes it's tack sharp on full frame in the corners wide open. All lenses have some sharpness falloff in the corners, the Otus has significant drop, but for both lenses we are talking about being ridiculously sharp in the center and nearly ridiculously sharp in the corners. The Sigma is 2-5 times sharper than any other 50mm prime with autofocus in terms of average resolution, so the whole image is very clear.


You're also missing the point of their quote. The Sigma 50 A is not competing with canon or nikon it's competing with zeiss and makes Canon and nikon obsolete. That's the point of the quote, and that's what they accomplished.

Dude, you are embarrassing yourself.

Honestly you sound ridicoulous. I've taken the time to very carefully get together data and make factual comparisons. You just put some random nonsense out there that has nothing to do with reality and is completely false. When I correct you it's embarassing?

Have you done any research or information gathering or number crunching related to this at all? Right. I didn't think so.

 

[l_d_allan]

P.S. I hope Samyang will join the fast 50 competition soon.

Partly agree ... that Samyang makes a 50mm prime.

However, I hope they produce a relatively slow f2.8 lens without the trade-offs required for f1.4 to f1.8.

I am very, very happy with my Samyang 14mm f2.8, even though it is fully manual. I have little interest in their faster 35mm and 85mm lenses with f1.4.

My "vote" would be for Samyang to have a full line-up of very affordable, very sharp, fully manual f2.8 prime lenses, such as 24mm, 50mm, and 100mm (about doubling each step from 14mm, and skipping "intermediates" like 20mm, 28mm, 35mm, and 85mm, which also would duplicate their existing FL's).

 

[l_d_allan]

How can anyone complain about the size and weight...oh well!

Well, how about ... "that big and that heavy and that expensive ... and no IS?"

 

[docsmith]

Could you post a link to the lenstip.com comparison where you are getting your information? Sight unseen, I would bet the house the Sigma 35 is nowhere close to the Otus 55 in the corners @ f1.4

The Otus:

http://www.lenstip.com/390.4-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Otus_55_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_Image_resolution.html

The Sigma 35 Art:

http://www.lenstip.com/359.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html

I would put the Sigma at ~39 lpmm center, 31 lpmm APS-C edge, and 28.5 lpmm FF edge. The Otus at ~38 lpmm center, 33 lpmm APS-C edge, and ~28 lpmm FF edge.

Both, very remarkable for f/1.4.

 

[SoullessPolack]

Also, I think the weight of this lens (and that of the 35 1.4 art) is a big deal-breaker for a lot of people. I personally would choose Canon's future (possible) new 50mm F1.8 or 2 IS over this one, and Canon's current 35mm F2IS over the Sigma 35 1.4, mostly because of the (potential) weight differences.

I think this last argument is a little weak, especially if you're referring to carrying it in a bag vs hand holding. To me, it reminds me of those backpackers who will cut the handle off an eating utensil to save 50 grams, when instead, exercising a little bit harder for two weeks prior would result in vastly more of a weight reduction. Many of my friends and I choose to hike with better optical quality lenses, or use them throughout the day, because we also work out and maintain a strength training regimen. I take a 17 TS-E, 24 TS-E, 16-35 II, 24-70 II, 70-200 2.8 II, and both TCs while backpacking because my training allows me to do so with ease. Putting in a little time in the gym allows me to achieve optimum optical quality without pain and suffering. I feel bad for fellow photographer who skip out on the best gear because they can't handle the weight of a superior lens throughout a day's shooting. If it's hand holding through a long day's shoot, then finger-/wrist-/forearm-specific exercises will do wonders on top of the other training.

Cost is a reasonable excuse, as we all aren't as financially successful. But this reason you listed is bullshit in most cases, and caused by laziness. Having said that, I realize that for a small percentage of the population, it is legitimate due to medical issues.

 

[drjlo]

I'm about to put my 50L on Ebay.... and it has nothing to do with this new 50mm Art.

I took my kids to Flower Field in Carlsbad yesterday. I carried A7r + FE 55mm. With Eye-focus feature in A7r, compose the shot is so easy. At wide open, I couldn't miss a shot. However, the Bokeh is not smooth as my 50L.

Bottom line is, I'm willing to trade that bokeh for light weight

It's a dichotomy, isn't it? Corner sharpness wins points for a lens in reviews, but for 50 or 85 mm being used for portraits, corner and bokeh sharpness often fights against that magic background separation.

 

[Lee Jay]

“The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is the most exciting lens we’re likely to review this year."

I got rid of all my 50s largely because they are so boring. If this is the most exciting lens they're likely to review this year, it's going to be a pretty rotten year.

They should review the Tamron 150-600. That lens has 10 times the excitement of yet another 50mm prime.

 

[Artifex]

P.S. I hope Samyang will join the fast 50 competition soon.

Partly agree ... that Samyang makes a 50mm prime.

However, I hope they produce a relatively slow f2.8 lens without the trade-offs required for f1.4 to f1.8.

I am very, very happy with my Samyang 14mm f2.8, even though it is fully manual. I have little interest in their faster 35mm and 85mm lenses with f1.4.

My "vote" would be for Samyang to have a full line-up of very affordable, very sharp, fully manual f2.8 prime lenses, such as 24mm, 50mm, and 100mm (about doubling each step from 14mm, and skipping "intermediates" like 20mm, 28mm, 35mm, and 85mm, which also would duplicate their existing FL's).

I have to say that I respectfully totally disagree with you!

For me, those kind of lens wouldn't have much of a market. I think it would be much more interesting for Samyang to produce very fast lens, for instance a 50mm f/1.2 or f/1. I personally can't find much use for a f/2.8 standard prime and even then, you can easily find old manual lens on eBay that are plenty sharp at f2.8 for less than 100$, sometime even less than 35$!

“The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is the most exciting lens we’re likely to review this year."

I got rid of all my 50s largely because they are so boring. If this is the most exciting lens they're likely to review this year, it's going to be a pretty rotten year.

They should review the Tamron 150-600. That lens has 10 times the excitement of yet another 50mm prime.

I also have to respectfully totally disagree with you!

I am sure that I am not the only one for whom the 50mm is a personnal favorite, and I would even go as far as saying that in is one of the most complex FL. You might dislike it, as any lens of any FL are just tools, I have no problem understanding this, but I would never qualify it as boring. Disliking a certain tool for your craft doesn't mean it is bad per se, but rather that it is not for you. I am sure a look at Henry Cartier-Bresson photographs would convince you.

 

[yeahyoung]

Also, I think the weight of this lens (and that of the 35 1.4 art) is a big deal-breaker for a lot of people. I personally would choose Canon's future (possible) new 50mm F1.8 or 2 IS over this one, and Canon's current 35mm F2IS over the Sigma 35 1.4, mostly because of the (potential) weight differences.

I think this last argument is a little weak, especially if you're referring to carrying it in a bag vs hand holding. To me, it reminds me of those backpackers who will cut the handle off an eating utensil to save 50 grams, when instead, exercising a little bit harder for two weeks prior would result in vastly more of a weight reduction. Many of my friends and I choose to hike with better optical quality lenses, or use them throughout the day, because we also work out and maintain a strength training regimen. I take a 17 TS-E, 24 TS-E, 16-35 II, 24-70 II, 70-200 2.8 II, and both TCs while backpacking because my training allows me to do so with ease. Putting in a little time in the gym allows me to achieve optimum optical quality without pain and suffering. I feel bad for fellow photographer who skip out on the best gear because they can't handle the weight of a superior lens throughout a day's shooting. If it's hand holding through a long day's shoot, then finger-/wrist-/forearm-specific exercises will do wonders on top of the other training.

Cost is a reasonable excuse, as we all aren't as financially successful. But this reason you listed is bullshit in most cases, and caused by laziness. Having said that, I realize that for a small percentage of the population, it is legitimate due to medical issues.

You attributed the need for lighter gear to laziness and lack of will power. That itself is a weak argument. Are you implying that the quality of photography is determined by the weight of gear one's carrying arround? Appears to me that you were just trying to justify your hard work-out sessions and heavy gears. And why do you want to justfy it, if you don't have a problem with it to begin with? Ever feel one of those lenses could be left at home so you can enjoy the field trip just a little bit more?

Every factor (including workout, will power, utility, and IQ) being equal, the lighter the better. Would you agree with that?

For street and everyday photography, IQ being similar, a light 50 1.8 beats a much much heavier 50 1.4. You can make the argument that the lens is for studio and landscape, but that's seriously limiting the usage of a standard lens.

 

[ecka]

P.S. I hope Samyang will join the fast 50 competition soon.

Partly agree ... that Samyang makes a 50mm prime.

However, I hope they produce a relatively slow f2.8 lens without the trade-offs required for f1.4 to f1.8.

I am very, very happy with my Samyang 14mm f2.8, even though it is fully manual. I have little interest in their faster 35mm and 85mm lenses with f1.4.

My "vote" would be for Samyang to have a full line-up of very affordable, very sharp, fully manual f2.8 prime lenses, such as 24mm, 50mm, and 100mm (about doubling each step from 14mm, and skipping "intermediates" like 20mm, 28mm, 35mm, and 85mm, which also would duplicate their existing FL's).

I have to say that I respectfully totally disagree with you!

For me, those kind of lens wouldn't have much of a market. I think it would be much more interesting for Samyang to produce very fast lens, for instance a 50mm f/1.2 or f/1. I personally can't find much use for a f/2.8 standard prime and even then, you can easily find old manual lens on eBay that are plenty sharp at f2.8 for less than 100$, sometime even less than 35$!

Yep. The shorty-forty is a very good 50 for 2.8+ , no need for more slow normal primes. However, manual 50/2 macro would be nice. 5 years ago I was wondering why Samyang doesn't make T-S and Macro lenses, for which manual-only focusing is not a problem. Now they are making T-S, so maybe Macros are coming too. 200/4 would be a good start

 

[Policar]

“The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is the most exciting lens we’re likely to review this year."

I got rid of all my 50s largely because they are so boring. If this is the most exciting lens they're likely to review this year, it's going to be a pretty rotten year.

They should review the Tamron 150-600. That lens has 10 times the excitement of yet another 50mm prime.

Are you on FF or APS-C? 50mm is kind of a no man's land on APS-C but IMO it is the most useful focal length on FF.

Agreed that the quest for perfection is a little boring when it comes at the cost of rendering, but if the Otus were affordable and had AF, it would not leave my camera.

My current 50mm f1.4 Sigma would be my favorite lens were it not for the dodgy AF.

 

[100]

Sigma's famous statement: it wasn't looking to surpass Nikon and Canon, but rather the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 has a way to go judging by the graph in the review. I would have expected the FF graph to look like the 7D graph based on this bragging. The Otus' whole thing is sharp corners at f1.4. That's expensive to achieve.

Are you referring to this statement?:
“When discussing their goals of image quality and sharpness for the lens, Sigma mentioned they're confident they'll surpass competitive products from Canon and Nikon and are instead gunning for Zeiss's new 55mm Otus lens.”
Source: http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/01/08/sigma-50mm-f-1.4-art-targets-zeiss-otus-ignores-canon-l-nikon-glass


It isn’t a direct quote by Sigma but a paraphrase and we don’t even know who (as in how high up in the Sigma organization) has been paraphrased here.
English is not my native tongue but to me being “confident they'll surpass competitive products from Canon and Nikon” is rather different from your “wasn't looking to surpass Nikon and Canon” and “gunning for Zeiss's new 55mm Otus lens” isn’t exactly the same as “looking to surpass Zeiss's new 55mm Otus lens”.
“Gunning for” to me is something like trying to achieve the standard set by the Zeiss Otus, but please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect.

As far as measurable data is concerned the review doesn’t contain any Zeiss data, so we don’t know. They do have Canon and Nikon data and it seems the Sigma outscores both. Image quality is not determent by measurable data alone but also by more subjective qualities as bokeh. We’ll have to see real world comparisons before we can conclude anything about those qualities and even then, it’s a matter of taste.

In the end the deciding factor for most of us will be price. You can probably buy the autofocus Sigma with a 5D Mark III attached to it for the same money as the manual focus only Zeiss lens without a camera.

 

[jdramirez]

So will this be sharper than my 100L? I love my 70-200 mkii, but my 100L blows it away in regards to sharpness and I love that I can get within a foot of my subject... but... while I really do like the focal length... I'm not sure I want to throw down $1200 if I'm not 100% sure I'm going to use it... hmmm... time to bust out a DOF calculator. And I do realize I get another 2 stops of light...

50mm at min focusing distance

Subject distance 1.5 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 1.49 ft
Far limit 1.51 ft
Total 0.02 ft

In front of subject 0.01 ft (50%)
Behind subject 0.01 ft (50%)

Hyperfocal distance 193.5 ft
Circle of confusion 0.03 mm

versus 100 with similar framing:

Subject distance 3 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 2.98 ft
Far limit 3.02 ft
Total 0.04 ft

In front of subject 0.02 ft (50%)
Behind subject 0.02 ft (50%)

Hyperfocal distance 387 ft
Circle of confusion 0.03 mm