Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Price leaked

[FlipperNYC]

Can't wait. Have the Sigma 35 Art love it. Refresh Canon Rumors everyday at least 5 times waiting to pre order. 1300 is more than I thought but will not stop me from pre ordering. Worst case its not worth it and send it back. Best case finally have and auto focus 50 prime better than my 24-70 II.

 

[dslrdummy]

$1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!? Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery. I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....

Hilarious! You do realize that this lens is the single greatest generational improvement in image quality in the history of pro Canon or Nikon autofocus lenses right? That's not an exaggeration. We are literally talking around double the performance of the nearest competitor, which run $1700 if you forgot.

Read this part of this thread if you want to know what makes this lens so special:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16643037&postcount=377

This isn't a lens isn't even remotely a question of value. You are getting performance that compares to a $4,000 Zeiss lens for less the the price of the nearest competitors from any brand.

Not sure where you get this all from. About the only description of performance we have so far is from Sigma. No exactly an unbiased view. If it's very good I'll probably buy it, but proof's in the pudding.

Actually Sigma hasn't said too much about the performance of the lens directly, the reason we know this lens is so good is because Sigma provided MTF charts of the lens's performance, block diagrams of their optical formula, and sample copies of the lens at shows.

This lens is a winner at any price point that has been rumored.

Now all that Sigma needs to do is keep up the momentum.

I'll grant you the charts are a good indicator, but diagrams of optical formula and sample copies at shows? Think I'll wait and see if it is a winner at that price point as you say.

 

[Zv]

Can't wait. Have the Sigma 35 Art love it. Refresh Canon Rumors everyday at least 5 times waiting to pre order. 1300 is more than I thought but will not stop me from pre ordering. Worst case its not worth it and send it back. Best case finally have and auto focus 50 prime better than my 24-70 II.

Haha that's a good point you've hit upon! Canon's best 50mm is the 24-70LII, as long as you don't need wider than f/2.8 it would make more sense to put that $1300 towards that. With a good rebate deal it was under $1800 wasn't it?

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

$1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!? Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery. I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....

You do realize that both Canon and Nikon's top pro 50mm lenses run $1700 right? This lens blows these competitors out of the water in every conceivable dimension and costs less. It is such an improvement over the top alternatives that is the single greatest generational improvement in image quality in the history of pro Canon or Nikon autofocus lenses. That's not an exaggeration. We are literally talking around double the performance of the nearest competitor, which again run $1700 if you forgot.

Read this part of this thread if you want to know what makes this lens so special:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16643037&postcount=377

You are getting performance that compares to a $4,000 Zeiss lens for 3/4 the the price of the nearest competitor.

I welcome the $1300 price tag, this lens deserves it.

Now lets not but the body ahead of the lens now. They are saying they're gunning for the otus, but, that may be more PR buzz. will it meet and exceed the current canon 50's? And, how will it stack against the new canon 50 Is when it comes out? Now those are things I wonder.

 

[Viggo]

I do think that using the Sigma 35mm as a reference is a little bit risky. I mean, if you have a great copy never sell it, but it doesn't talk google long to find lots and lots of people have inconsistent AF, and I was one of them. It's no point for a lens to have that fantastic IQ, which it really does have, when it can't deliver that IQ when you need it to. Not even certain if you take 8-10 shots. It should be possible to buy ten 35 lenses and have them perform VERY similar, that is not the case now.

The worst part is that it might be hard to tell the difference of a poor copy or if the Sigma just works like that. If you buy one and it doesn't seem right and you exchange for three-four others and they are the same with a bit too many missed shots, is it a design flaw or all poor copies, how can you tell? All the happy AF owner I read about can use one shot or Live view for all I know..

 

[flowers]

Can't wait. Have the Sigma 35 Art love it. Refresh Canon Rumors everyday at least 5 times waiting to pre order. 1300 is more than I thought but will not stop me from pre ordering. Worst case its not worth it and send it back. Best case finally have and auto focus 50 prime better than my 24-70 II.

I love mine too, it's my favorite lens! I said one of my favorite lenses but I thought about it and honestly it's my most favorite lens, I love it so much! Ha ha. I'm not even embarrassed to say it: I love my Sigma 35/1.4! I love it so much!

I do think that using the Sigma 35mm as a reference is a little bit risky. I mean, if you have a great copy never sell it, but it doesn't talk google long to find lots and lots of people have inconsistent AF, and I was one of them. It's no point for a lens to have that fantastic IQ, which it really does have, when it can't deliver that IQ when you need it to. Not even certain if you take 8-10 shots. It should be possible to buy ten 35 lenses and have them perform VERY similar, that is not the case now.

The worst part is that it might be hard to tell the difference of a poor copy or if the Sigma just works like that. If you buy one and it doesn't seem right and you exchange for three-four others and they are the same with a bit too many missed shots, is it a design flaw or all poor copies, how can you tell? All the happy AF owner I read about can use one shot or Live view for all I know..

I bought it at a store so I tested it before buying, I read all that stuff about AF problems so I was expecting something but honestly nothing! I got a perfect copy, as perfect as they come! It's so perfect that for a while I considered all the talk about AF problems a smear campaign against Sigma or just badmouthing from people who had had problems with the AF in Sigma's previous lenses. That's how good my 35/1.4 is. I got incredibly lucky because on top of it being a perfect copy I got it for a reduced price! Brand new. Thinking about the day I bought it still makes me smile. I'll never sell this lens! Ps. I use AI-Servo most of the time, tracks flawlessly. Every time I read about the AF problems in the bad copies I get a little happier, not because I hope for anyone to have a bad copy (I wish everyone had a perfect copy) but because I'm so lucky to have this copy.

If the good copies of 50/1.4 are as good as my 35/1.4, I'll buy it, even if it costs $1300. Honestly, it's worth it. Just test the lens in the store to see if you got a good copy. The store I go to lets you take the lenses out of the store too (and they let you go test it further down the street), you can test it thoroughly if the store near you lets you do that.

 

[Viggo]

Can't wait. Have the Sigma 35 Art love it. Refresh Canon Rumors everyday at least 5 times waiting to pre order. 1300 is more than I thought but will not stop me from pre ordering. Worst case its not worth it and send it back. Best case finally have and auto focus 50 prime better than my 24-70 II.

I love mine too, it's my favorite lens! I said one of my favorite lenses but I thought about it and honestly it's my most favorite lens, I love it so much! Ha ha. I'm not even embarrassed to say it: I love my Sigma 35/1.4! I love it so much!

I do think that using the Sigma 35mm as a reference is a little bit risky. I mean, if you have a great copy never sell it, but it doesn't talk google long to find lots and lots of people have inconsistent AF, and I was one of them. It's no point for a lens to have that fantastic IQ, which it really does have, when it can't deliver that IQ when you need it to. Not even certain if you take 8-10 shots. It should be possible to buy ten 35 lenses and have them perform VERY similar, that is not the case now.

The worst part is that it might be hard to tell the difference of a poor copy or if the Sigma just works like that. If you buy one and it doesn't seem right and you exchange for three-four others and they are the same with a bit too many missed shots, is it a design flaw or all poor copies, how can you tell? All the happy AF owner I read about can use one shot or Live view for all I know..

I bought it at a store so I tested it before buying, I read all that stuff about AF problems so I was expecting something but honestly nothing! I got a perfect copy, as perfect as they come! It's so perfect that for a while I considered all the talk about AF problems a smear campaign against Sigma or just badmouthing from people who had had problems with the AF in Sigma's previous lenses. That's how good my 35/1.4 is. I got incredibly lucky because on top of it being a perfect copy I got it for a reduced price! Brand new. Thinking about the day I bought it still makes me smile. I'll never sell this lens! Ps. I use AI-Servo most of the time, tracks flawlessly. Every time I read about the AF problems in the bad copies I get a little happier, not because I hope for anyone to have a bad copy (I wish everyone had a perfect copy) but because I'm so lucky to have this copy.

If the good copies of 50/1.4 are as good as my 35/1.4, I'll buy it, even if it costs $1300. Honestly, it's worth it. Just test the lens in the store to see if you got a good copy. The store I go to lets you take the lenses out of the store too (and they let you go test it further down the street), you can test it thoroughly if the store near you lets you do that.

Happy for you you have a great copy, but this is what I mean, what if you don't get a great copy of the 50?

And you can't test it thoroughly in the shop, because it needs to be calibrated first. What I'm gonna do is buy two 50's and see if they perform equally, then keep the best and buy another two elsewhere and test in the same way I did with the 35, that would make a better chance. The real problem is for people who can only buy one and don't know how good it's suppose to be. My 35 said almost 99% focus consistency in FoCal, but try shooting in my living room it was useless.

 

[flowers]

Happy for you you have a great copy, but this is what I mean, what if you don't get a great copy of the 50?

And you can't test it thoroughly in the shop, because it needs to be calibrated first. What I'm gonna do is buy two 50's and see if they perform equally, then keep the best and buy another two elsewhere and test in the same way I did with the 35, that would make a better chance. The real problem is for people who can only buy one and don't know how good it's suppose to be. My 35 said almost 99% focus consistency in FoCal, but try shooting in my living room it was useless.

Then I'd be really sad But I'd make sure that wouldn't be the case before buying the lens! The store I use throws your test images onto a screen as large as you like and you can zoom in and see if the lens really focused where it was supposed to focus, you can test as thoroughly as you want. I hope you understand if the lens has no focus issues, no calibration is needed! If it needs calibration you have AF microadjustment in-camera, you can do it or the store clerk can do it (they know how to do that in the store I go to but I've heard there are some stores where the clerks aren't that knowledgeable). I just manually tested focus consistency to a static object (3mm wide) and to a moving object (empty coke bottle mid-air that I threw with my free hand). Perfect consistency, perfect focus. The only inconstencies were when the AF point was not on target, those pictures were perfectly focused too: on the spot where the AF point was. No lens error, only user error. Lens did perfectly, I failed 2 times out of 30. I only tried it with AI-servo, I don't know if there' a difference when using One Shot mode.
I don't know about the software but I think many times when people say their lens has AF problems it's user error they have overlooked. Of course some lenses really have AF problems but I think the number is lower than claimed.

I think it might be hard to test a new sigma if you've never had a perfect copy of a new sigma lens, but after using my 35 I feel certain I would know right away if there was something wrong with the 50. After all, if you're coming from perfection then no flaw can go unnoticed because all flaws are different from what you're used to.

I did my tests in my living room under relatively dim CFLs and no light from outside. No focus problems!

 

[mackguyver]

It looks like that price includes tax (Goods and Services Tax [GST]) which Wikipedia says is 10%, so the lens is actually $1362.73 AUS (pre-tax) or $1219.92 US according to Google's conversion

 

[Viggo]

Happy for you you have a great copy, but this is what I mean, what if you don't get a great copy of the 50?

And you can't test it thoroughly in the shop, because it needs to be calibrated first. What I'm gonna do is buy two 50's and see if they perform equally, then keep the best and buy another two elsewhere and test in the same way I did with the 35, that would make a better chance. The real problem is for people who can only buy one and don't know how good it's suppose to be. My 35 said almost 99% focus consistency in FoCal, but try shooting in my living room it was useless.

Then I'd be really sad But I'd make sure that wouldn't be the case before buying the lens! The store I use throws your test images onto a screen as large as you like and you can zoom in and see if the lens really focused where it was supposed to focus, you can test as thoroughly as you want. I hope you understand if the lens has no focus issues, no calibration is needed! If it needs calibration you have AF microadjustment in-camera, you can do it or the store clerk can do it (they know how to do that in the store I go to but I've heard there are some stores where the clerks aren't that knowledgeable). I just manually tested focus consistency to a static object (3mm wide) and to a moving object (empty coke bottle mid-air that I threw with my free hand). Perfect consistency, perfect focus. The only inconstencies were when the AF point was not on target, those pictures were perfectly focused too: on the spot where the AF point was. No lens error, only user error. Lens did perfectly, I failed 2 times out of 30. I only tried it with AI-servo, I don't know if there' a difference when using One Shot mode.
I don't know about the software but I think many times when people say their lens has AF problems it's user error they have overlooked. Of course some lenses really have AF problems but I think the number is lower than claimed.

I think it might be hard to test a new sigma if you've never had a perfect copy of a new sigma lens, but after using my 35 I feel certain I would know right away if there was something wrong with the 50. After all, if you're coming from perfection then no flaw can go unnoticed because all flaws are different from what you're used to.

I did my tests in my living room under relatively dim CFLs and no light from outside. No focus problems!

On the go afma isn't good enough. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with a lens that needs to be calibrated. It's a matter of production tolerances. All my lenses have a -/+ afma value and they work perfect, at 0 they did not.

I am used to perfection from the 35 L, and that is what I compared to and it showed the Sigma useless, and trust me, that's not user error, I'm almost offended by that. Maybe you must look outside YOUR experience, and not defending the Sigma 35 as being perfect if you have only tested one. Other people may have , and they do, a different experience. That is my whole point, buying Sigma seems like a lottery still, and People who buy them even calls them self lucky to get a great copy, see what I mean? I want to know that a brand new lens actually works, and maybe it does, it just doesn't work better than the Canon equiv for AF. And to me that makes it a useless lens.

 

[rs]

It does say 'Pricing listed is anticipated only, where final price and ETA are to be announced'. This is nothing more than a placeholder to allow people to place preorders with them.

Just to re-iterate my point, that price is just a guess to allow for pre orders. Much like this other Australian retailers guess:

http://www.dirtcheapcameras.com.au/digital-camera-lenses/slr-lenses-by-brand/sigma-lenses/sigma-50mm-f-1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-for-canon-mount.html

$899

 

[pdirestajr]

How about people wait till the price is officially announced?

 

[jhaces]

How about people wait till the price is officially announced?

On a rumors site!?

 

[ahsanford]

How about people wait till the price is officially announced?

On a rumors site!?

Seriously. That's like asking us to actually use our cameras. Silly person.

- A

 

[cliffwang]

Just to re-iterate my point, that price is just a guess to allow for pre orders. Much like this other Australian retailers guess:

http://www.dirtcheapcameras.com.au/digital-camera-lenses/slr-lenses-by-brand/sigma-lenses/sigma-50mm-f-1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-for-canon-mount.html

$899

899 is good price. However, I feel that 35mm is more useful for me.

 

[flowers]

I am used to perfection from the 35 L, and that is what I compared to and it showed the Sigma useless, and trust me, that's not user error, I'm almost offended by that. Maybe you must look outside YOUR experience, and not defending the Sigma 35 as being perfect if you have only tested one. Other people may have , and they do, a different experience. That is my whole point, buying Sigma seems like a lottery still, and People who buy them even calls them self lucky to get a great copy, see what I mean? I want to know that a brand new lens actually works, and maybe it does, it just doesn't work better than the Canon equiv for AF. And to me that makes it a useless lens.

I call my self lucky because so many people keep telling me my sigma 35 shouldn't be working as well as it is! But I get your point. I'm sorry, I did not mean to offend, I only said it's possible it's a user error too. If you're sure it's not I believe you. Please don't be offended. I don't think all Sigmas are perfect, I'm just very surprised to read so many negative comments. If I'm that lucky, maybe I should play the real lottery! Ha ha.
I will take the Sigma QC problem more seriously. I don't think all the people who complain can all be complaining for nothing, I believe it's a real issue. It just seemed exaggerated from my POV. I hope you can understand. Maybe I will need to rethink about buying the 50 when it comes out. I will not buy it without testing it!

 

[flowers]

899 is good price. However, I feel that 35mm is more useful for me.

You don't have one yet? Please get one soon, you will be happy to own it. Please don't buy it used and test it well before buying, there seems to be too many bad copies out there, I don't know what's wrong. I hope you get a good copy!

 

[Viggo]

I am used to perfection from the 35 L, and that is what I compared to and it showed the Sigma useless, and trust me, that's not user error, I'm almost offended by that. Maybe you must look outside YOUR experience, and not defending the Sigma 35 as being perfect if you have only tested one. Other people may have , and they do, a different experience. That is my whole point, buying Sigma seems like a lottery still, and People who buy them even calls them self lucky to get a great copy, see what I mean? I want to know that a brand new lens actually works, and maybe it does, it just doesn't work better than the Canon equiv for AF. And to me that makes it a useless lens.

I call my self lucky because so many people keep telling me my sigma 35 shouldn't be working as well as it is! But I get your point. I'm sorry, I did not mean to offend, I only said it's possible it's a user error too. If you're sure it's not I believe you. Please don't be offended. I don't think all Sigmas are perfect, I'm just very surprised to read so many negative comments. If I'm that lucky, maybe I should play the real lottery! Ha ha.
I will take the Sigma QC problem more seriously. I don't think all the people who complain can all be complaining for nothing, I believe it's a real issue. It just seemed exaggerated from my POV. I hope you can understand. Maybe I will need to rethink about buying the 50 when it comes out. I will not buy it without testing it!

Thanks, appriciated ! And yeah! You should play the real lottery, lol ;D I do hope that Sigma can iron out the copy variation and keep up the great job they're doing so everybody who gives them a chance and buy their gear will be very happy, they certainly have taken a big step.

 

[flowers]

Thanks, appriciated ! And yeah! You should play the real lottery, lol ;D I do hope that Sigma can iron out the copy variation and keep up the great job they're doing so everybody who gives them a chance and buy their gear will be very happy, they certainly have taken a big step.

Yes I hope so too They need to work harder to make all their customers happy, not just some!

 

[Radiating]

$1300 for a 50mm f1.4?!?!?!? Maybe if it had Canon AF but that is waaaay too steep considering you have to play the sigma lottery. I was going to pre-order this lens if it was in the $800 range but for $1300 i'm out.....

You do realize that both Canon and Nikon's top pro 50mm lenses run $1700 right? This lens blows these competitors out of the water in every conceivable dimension and costs less. It is such an improvement over the top alternatives that is the single greatest generational improvement in image quality in the history of pro Canon or Nikon autofocus lenses. That's not an exaggeration. We are literally talking around double the performance of the nearest competitor, which again run $1700 if you forgot.

Read this part of this thread if you want to know what makes this lens so special:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=16643037&postcount=377

You are getting performance that compares to a $4,000 Zeiss lens for 3/4 the the price of the nearest competitor.

I welcome the $1300 price tag, this lens deserves it.

Now lets not but the body ahead of the lens now. They are saying they're gunning for the otus, but, that may be more PR buzz.

Did you read the link at all? The performance of this lens is not in question. The data has shown that they the performance will be as extreme as they claim.

will it meet and exceed the current canon 50's?

If by "meet or exceed" you mean 182% the average spacial resolution of the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and 178% of the Canon 50mm f/1.4, then yes. Basically at a given aperture you can expect slightly better performance in the extreme corners with this new Sigma than you will see in the center of Canon's other 50mm lenses.

We already have the data, and we already know how the performance will stack up.

And, how will it stack against the new canon 50 Is when it comes out? Now those are things I wonder.

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART is an incredibly complex and incredibly huge 50mm lens that uses a radical retrofocal optical formula pioneered by Zeiss with the Otus. It's fundamental design shift that is nothing like any other 50mm lens and requires a huge lens with tons of expensive glass.

There is basically zero chance of a small cheap consumer 50mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 receiving the radical design responsible for the doubling of performance relative to the competition.