Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART vs Canon 50mm f/1.2 - Quick Comparison Photos
- Thread starter rocksubculture
- Start date
Thanks Jason, pretty well what I had hoped to do myself, and the results you came up with are interesting.
Both your work here & Eldar's work on the Otus thread are appreciated, certainly from my own perspective it assists in making decisions.
Based on the current comparisons I see here, for myself, I don't really see myself preferring the 50Art over my 50f/1.2 L, I just prefer the Image rendition from the Canon 50 over the Sigma 50, softer more subtle colouring but the Sigma is certainly sharper.
I think as has been mentioned, if you already own the 50f/1.2 L the need for the Sigma 50f/1.4 Art is less compelling, either Lens will produce good Images.
I may yet cancel my 50Art based on this, the only benefit I had hoped for with the 50 Art was much faster/better AF than the 50f/1.2 L, I may just live for the moment with the tardy AF of the Canon.
On Cats & the Otus.
The work Eldar has done re the Otus Lens & Posted on different threads for the general benefit of all CR readers should be applauded, not derided, well, maybe the candle/electric lights/onion rings was a little, I say a little, intense.
Personally I feel Eldar's Cat is awesomely compelling, drop him into the Serengeti and I'm sure he could hold his own.
Both your work here & Eldar's work on the Otus thread are appreciated, certainly from my own perspective it assists in making decisions.
Based on the current comparisons I see here, for myself, I don't really see myself preferring the 50Art over my 50f/1.2 L, I just prefer the Image rendition from the Canon 50 over the Sigma 50, softer more subtle colouring but the Sigma is certainly sharper.
I think as has been mentioned, if you already own the 50f/1.2 L the need for the Sigma 50f/1.4 Art is less compelling, either Lens will produce good Images.
I may yet cancel my 50Art based on this, the only benefit I had hoped for with the 50 Art was much faster/better AF than the 50f/1.2 L, I may just live for the moment with the tardy AF of the Canon.
On Cats & the Otus.
The work Eldar has done re the Otus Lens & Posted on different threads for the general benefit of all CR readers should be applauded, not derided, well, maybe the candle/electric lights/onion rings was a little, I say a little, intense.
Personally I feel Eldar's Cat is awesomely compelling, drop him into the Serengeti and I'm sure he could hold his own.
Upvote
0
eml58 said:
Is mackguyver really the only one here who got the point?
You guys are so sensitive to comments you automatically jump to the defense, why? I wasn't deriding any individual or their images, I was deriding everybody who believes having an Art, or an Otus, or even an L over the other will make a serious difference to their images. Only THEY can make a difference to their images. A class in posing, lighting, methodology etc would be far better spent than the cost to swap. Practical things like AF speed, size and weight etc are far more compelling reasons to choose between these lenses.
I once saw a lecture by a very cool photographer who pointed out the backgrounds of many really good photographers, every one of them had a more expensive, in time or money, education on image creation than they did in equipment value.
Upvote
0
I dont care about what lens makes better pictures, theres a big threadjack going on here because nobody ever suggested one would make you a better photographer, the title of the thread is not "which will make you a better photographer" and the entire debate is just stupid lets move on.
I came here for the advertised comparison photos. The OP delivered in spades. I like how they are almost identical photos so you can actually see the differences. If you cant see a pretty distinct difference between them, you are blind or something. Thank you for posting such a thorough comparison, and sorry these jackasses had to invade your excellent comparison thread.
I think its blatantly obvious that these are quick snaps around the house (apartment?) showing a variety of objects, colours, contrast levels etc. For someone to point out that they are not fine art photos is kind of facile.
Thank you again to the OP for taking the time to do a thorough comparison with no analytical nonsense, just everyday photos that any of us would be taking with a 50mm lens. I am looking for an upgrade to my 50 1.4 and the first post in this thread is very informative.
I came here for the advertised comparison photos. The OP delivered in spades. I like how they are almost identical photos so you can actually see the differences. If you cant see a pretty distinct difference between them, you are blind or something. Thank you for posting such a thorough comparison, and sorry these jackasses had to invade your excellent comparison thread.
I think its blatantly obvious that these are quick snaps around the house (apartment?) showing a variety of objects, colours, contrast levels etc. For someone to point out that they are not fine art photos is kind of facile.
Thank you again to the OP for taking the time to do a thorough comparison with no analytical nonsense, just everyday photos that any of us would be taking with a 50mm lens. I am looking for an upgrade to my 50 1.4 and the first post in this thread is very informative.
Upvote
0
Logan said:
I agree, I would like to see a few 100% crops from the OP too as having to downsize images to post here will balance out alot of variation but some 100% crops will show a greater difference
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Private, I really do think we all got the point you are making, really, we do, and I'm pretty sure we mostly agree, gear matters yes, but gear alone won't produce a compelling Image, we all get it.
What a few of us take exception to is throw away comments used to reinforce your view, i.e., the comment about Otus owners and their un-compelling Cat Images.
The only person I've seen on CR that owns an Otus & a Cat and has posted those Images, has been Eldar, so it's a reasonable assumption (I know, dangerous ground) that it was Eldar you were referring to, he didn't post the Cat Images because they were compelling images, he posted them because it was probable snowing outside & he was testing his new Otus Lens and posting the images so we could possibly benefit from the knowledge & experience, he could just have easily posted some un-compelling Images of light sources, Oh !!, that's right, he did.
Everything you've said in your Posts on this thread has been reasonable, except the comment above, just not necessary is my Point, it's not about sensitivity, I spent 16 Years in the Army, personal sensitivity is long gone.
As Eldar commented, time to get things back on track.
Upvote
0
Logan said:
Yes Logan, and my first point was if you think 1,000px in line images are going to show you what you need from this caliber of lens, you don't know what you need.
Seriously, are we talking about comparative colours and contrast on 1,000px images that have been crucified by forum algorithms? Colour and contrast that makes zero difference anyway if you have the slightest idea how to post process?
Now link to RAW files, or post the RAW files on Dropbox, which I have done several times for people, and the images might have some value, but 1,000px in line images, give me a break.
Upvote
0
eml58 said:
But I linked to four images of cats with an Otus, each from a different photographer, two here on CR, two not here on CR! I WAS NOT belittling Eldar, his wolf images are amazing. It wasn't even about Otus owners, for any lens release you can find countless early adopters and their in line low res images of their cats. I was belittling anybody that thinks they will get anything useful from a 1,000px in line image when talking about lenses of this caliber with nuances as subtle as they have.
Upvote
0
I don't really care about 100% crops, I care about how the pictures look. I really don't care about your opinion you don't even own a camera as far as i can see, because you haven't posted any pictures. As for disparaging eldar, which you are now trying to backpedal on even though we can all read, 50mm is an excellent cat portrait focal length, and cat photos are another great comparison, i for one take 50mm pictures of my cat and appreciate them. If you can't, keep it to yourself. If you insist on replying to me please us PM so as not to further distract from this thread. I'd rather you didn't though!
Upvote
0
Logan said:
Copy and paste the words where I disparaged Eldar personally.
I am not saying cat pictures are not useful, I said there are a lot of people shooting with a 50 f1.8 that make far more compelling images than any cat photo taken with an Otus, I have also consistently said 1,000px in line images are not useful for this kind of comparison. If you want to see reams and reams of cat test pictures go to any Leica forum. I take 50mm images of my cat too, but I don't expect to do serious lens evaluations after I reduce the images to 1,000px and post them through forum IQ mashups.
P.S. I am not replying to you, I am replying to your comments, I have no interest in a private discourse. If you don't want me to post don't misrepresent what I actually said.
Upvote
0
For me personally I find the 50L unacceptably soft. If you can see a clear improvement in sharpness in 1024 px in uncropped frames like I can then there is a huge difference. I really don't know what else to say. You can also make the sigma images look just like the Canons @f/1.4 in the in focus areas, just by softening the sigma up, literally there are light room settings that make both indistinguishable for in focus areas but you can't create detail that was never recorded with the Canon. Logically speaking if you get a good copy and ignore the very minor difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 the Sigma is better in every measurable and conceivable factor. I really don't get why this is so contentious.
Upvote
0
Yep, no doubt there is a big difference if it's visible in 1024px photos. The Sigma wins for sharpness at f/1.4 and for richer color, and for that it's going to attract a lot of photographers. The difference is certainly visible in the full-res uploaded to Dropbox (Thank you Jason for that).Radiating said:
However, while sharpness and detail are important, they aren't everything there is to know about a lens. The 50L adds a beauty factor in how it draws a picture. It just looks pretty, especially for portraits. Maybe the 50L's slight softness is an advantage for some photos and for some photographers. I'm eager to see some portrait comparisons with the Sigma 50/1.4. I'm sure the Sigma will compare well, but it will be interesting to see any differences.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
The 50L is what it is. It's not going to get any sharper (unless you stop down). So whether I want it to be sharper is neither here nor there. The Sigma looks great and I may buy it. But I also love the look of the 50L, wide open and stopped down. Lenses are sometimes chosen for their look, not just for sharpness and detail.
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
At what cost? With the 50/1.2L, Canon tried to replicate the 'look' of the 50/1.0L (in addition to getting the lead out, along with a few other toxic elements), improved the sharpness, lost some of the creaminess and half a stop of light.
Upvote
0
zlatko said:
Forums like these tend to attract hard-core photographers whose thought process goes like this:
"Too sharp for portraits? Non-sense and lazy. I will capture every single pore and blemish on the face since one can never recover detail that wasn't captured. I will use multiple large strobes in my studio to perfectly light everything on the skin with the perfectly sharp lens, then I will proceed to spend hours in post-processing to remove the pores, soften the skin tones, beautify blemishes in order to prevent the subject from complaining photo's don't look flattering. Color differences? Doesn't matter because I will create and apply X-Rite color profile."
It's all great and I do that, too, but we often forget that probably the majority of people photo's taken out there do not undergo TLC like this, and many are even straight ooc jpegs :-[ Oh, the horror..
Upvote
0
drmikeinpdx
Celebrating 20 years of model photography!
At the risk of being considered rude, my comment is one of suspicion. The author said that he put the two lenses on two different 5D3s and took casual snapshots around his home. So how is it that in each pair of shots, the composition and focus are so identical? And how the heck did he get the dog to stay absolutely perfectly still while he switched cameras?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
