Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART vs Canon 50mm f/1.2 - Quick Comparison Photos

[rocksubculture]

I received the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART a few days ago (I pre-ordered on B&H on April 11th at noon; it shipped April 28th)

I haven't seen too many user photos so thought I would provide some comparisons with my Canon f/1.2 in the event that might be helpful to some looking at this lens.

I have all Canon-branded lenses currently, except the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, which I love. I have found it to be a good focal length for all around shooting and love it for low light. As such, I was interested in checking out the 50mm version, even though I've already got the Canon f/1.2 version (and I feel like I have a really great copy, as I had one prior to my current one and didn't get the same results/experience).

So I haven't really had a chance to use the new Sigma 50mm Art property, but I just quickly took some random pics in my house.

These are not meant to be great photos, but just provide some comparisons against Canon's f/1.2 version of the 50mm.

What I did was put each lens on its own Canon 5D Mk III (I have two) and took photos all at f/1.4 and at varying shutterspeeds (had on manual with Auto ISO). So the settings are more or less the same in each shot, one taken after another. So not scientific at all, but gives some comparison...

These are straight OOC JPEGS saved down to 1024 pixels for this forum... if you want any 100% crop of the originals for anything, let me know.

My biggest take-away is that there is more color and color contrast in the Sigma shots... and Canon blurs OOF lights more. Will have to experiment more with some night time / dark shots... Also, you can focus closer to the subject with the Sigma with autofocus. Sigma also has a quicker focus going from, say, across the room to something close up.

I know there's been talk about focusing issues... I was using single point autofocus, and didn't have any issues at all - it seemed to hit what I was focusing on pretty reliably. But again, these aren't great photos... just some quick snaps.

Currently, I'm really impressed with the Sigma. But am withholding judgment until I can take some portrait photos and put it through it's paces on that front...

In each photo below, the first example is the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and the second example is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART:

Jason

 

[drjlo]

Whoever said different brand lenses should not differ in color rendition? The colors I see from Sigma 50 is consistent with what I saw with my previous Sigma lenses, i.e. warmer colors with significant yellow push, making some scenes look better/more colorful but making others look overdone/cartoonish..IMHO.

 

[jyrbba]

I gotta say, I prefer the 50L, even when it's probably technically worse. The lack of contrast and subtle colors are more pleasing to me as I tend to use VSCO presets a lot with my wedding shoots. I usually never touch contrast too much, but looking at these images i'd gotta say I would have to lower it on Sigma.

 

[distant.star]

.
Thanks. I appreciate all the work. Very useful.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Thanks a lot- very informative.
I have 2 takeaways:
1. If I owned a 50L, I'd see no reason to change.
2. If I didn't own a 50L and wanted a high-quality 50mm, then image quality or sharpness will not be the determining factor for me. The trade-off between bokeh and cost will be.
In other words, the 50L holds its own very well.

Why do people complain so much about the 50L? Anyone has soft images from the lens to share?

 

[Eldar]

Thanks a lot- very informative.
I have 2 takeaways:
1. If I owned a 50L, I'd see no reason to change.
2. If I didn't own a 50L and wanted a high-quality 50mm, then image quality or sharpness will not be the determining factor for me. The trade-off between bokeh and cost will be.
In other words, the 50L holds its own very well.

Why do people complain so much about the 50L? Anyone has soft images from the lens to share?

+1
This lens is THE puzzle for me. It is murdered in technical reviews, but it still produces images of phenomenal quality.

And thanks for the impressive number of comparative images. Very interesting!

 

[Steve]

Why do people complain so much about the 50L? Anyone has soft images from the lens to share?

Uh, there's a whole bunch in the first post of this thread? Look at the Ms Mr cover shot. The Sigma clearly shows more detail and contrast and the colors are richer. The 50L definitely looks soft in comparison. In each of those samples above, the Sigma is distinctly sharper and resolves better. As for the bokeh, they are very similar - to my eye the 50L oof areas are a bit "bigger" but the Sigma fall off from focus to oof looks smoother.

If you already had a 50L, sure, no huge reason to change but if you didn't then the Sigma is pretty obviously the better optical performer. For less $$$'s it seems like a no brainer to me.

 

[CarlTN]

Jason, thanks for posting those, nice job! I do like the Sigma better from what I see here. Are you sure none of these via the Canon was not at f/1.2? Sorry if that's a dumb question...the one with the globe kind of looks like shallower DOF.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Why do people complain so much about the 50L? Anyone has soft images from the lens to share?

Uh, there's a whole bunch in the first post of this thread? Look at the Ms Mr cover shot. The Sigma clearly shows more detail and contrast and the colors are richer. The 50L definitely looks soft in comparison. In each of those samples above, the Sigma is distinctly sharper and resolves better. As for the bokeh, they are very similar - to my eye the 50L oof areas are a bit "bigger" but the Sigma fall off from focus to oof looks smoother.

If you already had a 50L, sure, no huge reason to change but if you didn't then the Sigma is pretty obviously the better optical performer. For less $$$'s it seems like a no brainer to me.

I agree the Sigma is sharper, but I don't think the 50L is unacceptably soft. Not enough to engender the hatred it enjoys.
Also, you are comparing bokeh at f/1.4. I am sure the 50L bokeh will improve slightly wide open (yes, it will also get a little softer).
I am not undermining the Sigma one bit- it is excellent. However, the rant against the 50L seems unreasonable. All the photos above are quite beautiful.

 

[docsmith]

Thanks for all the shots. I've probably scrolled through them a dozen times.

I think center sharpness is very similar, however, there are a couple of shots were I think the 50A clearly wins the off center sharpness. I am actually very happy with my 50 f/1.4 except for off center sharpness. I like to use 50 mm to frame my subjects off center, so this has been a problem at wider than f/2.8. It is for this reason I have preordered the 50A (still waiting).

However, I give consistent natural colors to the 50L. As drjlo noted, some reds and yellows in the 50A look unnatural/more saturated/cartoonish to me. Are others seeing this?

 

[Ruined]

Why do people complain so much about the 50L? Anyone has soft images from the lens to share?

The Sigma clearly shows more detail and contrast and the colors are richer.

In most of the pics the colors of the 50L are much more natural and lifelike IMO, the Sigma looks oversaturated in a bad way. (viewing on a color-calibrated monitor). Reds look garish on the Sigma.

And, while the Sigma does look slightly sharper at f/1.4, it can't do f/1.2 and can't get as thin DOF as the 50L; bokeh on the 50L appears superior. Yes, the Sigma is cheaper and while it does put up a good showing I'd rather have the 50L if price was not an issue; but, then again, if the 50L is not in the budget the Sigma is certainly a good substitute. Also, for the record some of the best shots I've ever taken were with the 50L. YMMV.

Also, off topic I'd advise that a buyer of either of these lenses pick up the Eg-S focusing screen to go with them for an accurate viewfinder as the stock Canon screen won't show DOF below approx f/2.8 equivalent.

 

[privatebydesign]

I once had a long thread run in with a medium format shooter who swore he could tell a MF B&W pic from a 135 format DSLR pic in an in line thread image at 1,000px, turns out he couldn't.

Anybody arguing the nuances of colour rendition, colour accuracy, micro contrast etc in a 1,000px in line image on the internet is talking nonsense. They are also missing the point of a half decent digital workflow.

When we shot a wedding on film and used different lenses the processors had to make a choice on how to render the colours, they were pros and good ones rarely threw us problems, but differences between lenses were often evident in the subtle renditions of colours, today we have the opportunity to work to a much higher level of accuracy and our personal "look" is the cornerstone of most high end shooters, and that surely is where most people aspire to be, even if not professionals, having the ability to shoot to the highest professional levels.

Well nowadays all lens differences in the colour and contrast characteristics are academic, with a robust digital workflow you can make anything look like anything else, from a colour and contrast point of view.

As for the Sigma 1.4 and Canon 1.2 comparison, who cares? Buy what you want and make no excuses for it, just don't try and justify your personal preference to others. I am extremely unlikely to ever buy a Sigma lens, even if the numbers and price say I should, not because I am a Canon fan but because I lived through the move from film to digital debacle that was Sigmas lens compatibility nightmare, the fact they dropped many customers in the can is something I don't let people do twice. For those that never lived through that and who like the numbers, get the Sigma, for thise who don't get the Canon, I don't care if you want the Canon over the Sigma because it has a red ring, or the Sigma over the Canon because it resolves a few more lppmm off center, and neither should you, it is your lens.

 

[RLPhoto]

The 50L looks better but the sigma is sharper, even at these small sizes.

 

[mackguyver]

Jason, thanks for the photos and I must say that you have a seriously well-trained dog! I can't believe how little movement there is between shots!

As for the differences, the Sigma has more contrast in the bokeh making it look a little less smooth and as shown by the LEDs in the last few photos, the larger physical aperture of the 50L gives somewhat larger bokeh shapes. The Sigma is definitely sharper, even downsized like this, but overall both lenses do a nice job.

I don't think you can go wrong with either lens, and my 50L isn't going anywhere

 

[thepancakeman]

Thanks for the work you put in!

However, I think a better use of these photos (or a new set!) would be a "pick which lens" in which we are not told which image was from which lens and see how consistent the "oversaturated" and "better bokeh" type comments are to each lens. ???

EDIT: Probably have to strip off the EXIF too to avoid cheaters.

 

[mackguyver]

Thanks for the work you put in!

However, I think a better use of these photos (or a new set!) would be a "pick which lens" in which we are not told which image was from which lens and see how consistent the "oversaturated" and "better bokeh" type comments are to each lens. ???

EDIT: Probably have to strip off the EXIF too to avoid cheaters.

That would just be cruel! I think it would be tough to tell them apart with the exception of the LED shots. Home Theater Magazine did this years ago (a double-blind test) comparing high end ($1,000) speaker cable vs. zip cord (cheap hardware store electrical wiring) and no one, audiophile or not, could tell the difference. It was pretty funny.

 

[Albi86]

Very interesting.

I honestly can't see any remarkable difference in bokeh between the two. In fact it seems that f/1.4 and f/1.2 produce similar DoF. But this could be an artifact of resizing.

The Sigma does look already a bit sharper though. One can see that in pictures involving fine details.

 

[privatebydesign]

Thanks for the work you put in!

However, I think a better use of these photos (or a new set!) would be a "pick which lens" in which we are not told which image was from which lens and see how consistent the "oversaturated" and "better bokeh" type comments are to each lens. ???

EDIT: Probably have to strip off the EXIF too to avoid cheaters.

That would just be cruel! I think it would be tough to tell them apart with the exception of the LED shots. Home Theater Magazine did this years ago (a double-blind test) comparing high end ($1,000) speaker cable vs. zip cord (cheap hardware store electrical wiring) and no one, audiophile or not, could tell the difference. It was pretty funny.

I have done stuff like that with comparative lenses, and formats, people can never see what they believe they will be able to see. Even the most strident.

 

[thepancakeman]

Thanks for the work you put in!

However, I think a better use of these photos (or a new set!) would be a "pick which lens" in which we are not told which image was from which lens and see how consistent the "oversaturated" and "better bokeh" type comments are to each lens. ???

EDIT: Probably have to strip off the EXIF too to avoid cheaters.

That would just be cruel! I think it would be tough to tell them apart with the exception of the LED shots. Home Theater Magazine did this years ago (a double-blind test) comparing high end ($1,000) speaker cable vs. zip cord (cheap hardware store electrical wiring) and no one, audiophile or not, could tell the difference. It was pretty funny.

I have done stuff like that with comparative lenses, and formats, people can never see what they believe they will be able to see. Even the most strident.

Yup, that was kind of my point--people will see what they want to see.

 

[privatebydesign]

Yup, that was kind of my point--people will see what they want to see.

I know, I was agreeing.

Nice cartoon too