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

[metacove]

And how the heck did he get the dog to stay absolutely perfectly still while he switched cameras?

I have a dog that is often a focus test subject for my lenses ;-) It's very easy to catch them in one spot for several minutes. I have a standard poodle which are known for being active and agile yet I still notice my dog is plenty lazy ;-)

Thank you so much for these pictures. If only my pre-order would ship......

 

[jeffabbyben]

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?

I bet he is a secret agent for sigma hell bent on single handedly destroying canon.

 

[rocksubculture]

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?

LOL

My dog is camera shy and kind of freezes up and looks away. I just had one camera in each hand and would pay attention to the composition in the corners of each shot and duplicate, as well as kind of brace my shots in the same position. I really just tried to get a variety of shots to see how the lenses might differ.

Jason

 

[infared]

rocksubculture....thanks for posting the images....no incessant "measurebating, focal...blah..blah..blah.."
In real life (I tended toward the Sigma as I have the 35mm which I love) I can see that both lenses offer there very special signature which with each has its own pluses and minuses. Well done.
I was hell-bent on buying the Sigma Art...but I think I am just going to hold on to my Sigma 50mm DG and enjoy its own rendering for a while longer. I have a friend who is dying to buy the lens from me as he KNOWS the new Sigma is giving me serious G.A.S. ...especially since I just bought the Sigma lens dock....
I think I need to step away from this..go make some pictures and come back to the prospect with a clearer head.
I actually like all three lenses...what is a poh boy to do!!!!!!! LOL!

 

[drmikeinpdx]

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?

LOL

My dog is camera shy and kind of freezes up and looks away. I just had one camera in each hand and would pay attention to the composition in the corners of each shot and duplicate, as well as kind of brace my shots in the same position. I really just tried to get a variety of shots to see how the lenses might differ.

Jason

Well, you did an amazingly good job! And your dog even keeps his tongue in the same position from shot to shot. It just seems kind of odd and not typical of the casual test shots we usually see posted. I always try to be just a bit sceptical when I see stuff posted on the net.

 

[Quasimodo]

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

Thanks for the comparisons Jason!

To be totally honest, I have a hard time seeing any difference at all (watching this from a crappy laptop screen). If I strain my eyes, I might agree that there might be some slight color renditions. This bodes well for the Sigma, as I love the 50L, but could not afford it.

Btw: Love to see others who value good knives Six Kai Shun.. I love mine.

 

[candc]

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?

LOL

My dog is camera shy and kind of freezes up and looks away. I just had one camera in each hand and would pay attention to the composition in the corners of each shot and duplicate, as well as kind of brace my shots in the same position. I really just tried to get a variety of shots to see how the lenses might differ.

Jason

Thanks for doing the comparison. I am looking at getting one of these 2 lenses. I have some sigma lenses and am generally happy with them. I know the new sigma is supposed to be really sharp but the canon shots look really good too.I just really like the way the canon looks on a camera. Its got a unique extra fat stubby look that makes me want to buy it just for that reason.

 

[Jemlnlx]

Thanks for the review. I have the original 50mm Sigma 1.4, which I like but am looking into an upgrade. I have rented the 50mm 1.2 and liked it as well....decisions...decisions? $950 pricepoint is tempting...

 

[eml58]

Thank you so much for these photos. If I had to buy either of the two lenses I would buy the Sigma as I prefer better contrast.

If you do decide to buy the Sigma 50Art, have a good read here first Sanj.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20627.210

I had the 50 Art on Order, but cancelled after reading the issues regards AF that seem quite consistent, not what I was expecting after having owned & used the 35Art for around 9 Months now, the 35 Art has some issues in dim light, but otherwise performs exceptionally well.

The Otus 55f/1.4 is just exceptional, and any focus issues remain the Photographers, the only real issue I've ever found with my 50f/1.2 L has been slow to focus, it's perhaps not as sharp as what I'm seeing from others on the 50 Art, but the 50f/1.2 L doesn't have an inconsistent AF issue (at least mine doesn't), the AF issues I'm seeing with the Sigma 50 Art are a deal breaker for me.

 

[privatebydesign]

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?

Check the EXIF, it is from two 5D MkIII's.

I was actually putting a comparison selection together, with adjusted colours and contrast, even at 100% the images are identical, but the focus points are very different in each pair so it falls down a bit.

To be sure, anybody can make the colour and contrast of these two lenses identical, even with just jpegs. The most strikingly different pair, the stereo/cable box (?) lights are focused on completely different planes so the blur comparison is fatally flawed there too.

 

[Ruined]

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.

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).

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.

So does that mean that you don't want the 50L to be sharper than the Sigma 50 Art?

If sharpness is your only concern, you shouldn't buy either of these lenses and instead get a 50mm f/1.8 and shoot at f/8, which I'll be much sharper than both of these at 1.4.

sigma is a little sharper at f/1.4 but can't do f/1.2 at all, can't get quite as thin DOF as the 50L, has less realistic color and less pleasing boke. Personally no, I would not trade off those things for a.little more sharpness; I have a ton of sharp lenses but very few look quite like the 50l.

 

[infared]

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.

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).

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.

So does that mean that you don't want the 50L to be sharper than the Sigma 50 Art?

If sharpness is your only concern, you shouldn't buy either of these lenses and instead get a 50mm f/1.8 and shoot at f/8, which I'll be much sharper than both of these at 1.4.

sigma is a little sharper at f/1.4 but can't do f/1.2 at all, can't get quite as thin DOF as the 50L, has less realistic color and less pleasing boke. Personally no, I would not trade off those things for a.little more sharpness; I have a ton of sharp lenses but very few look quite like the 50l.

Um...no bokeh?

 

[infared]

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?

I see what you are saying but, to me I can clearly see that the rendering is different for each shot exactly the way I would expect it to be for each lens. Plus others have checked Jason's exif data and said it proves him true. Perhaps his dog is a professional model and Jason is just being modest?

 

[Ruined]

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.

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).

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.

So does that mean that you don't want the 50L to be sharper than the Sigma 50 Art?

If sharpness is your only concern, you shouldn't buy either of these lenses and instead get a 50mm f/1.8 and shoot at f/8, which I'll be much sharper than both of these at 1.4.

sigma is a little sharper at f/1.4 but can't do f/1.2 at all, can't get quite as thin DOF as the 50L, has less realistic color and less pleasing boke. Personally no, I would not trade off those things for a.little more sharpness; I have a ton of sharp lenses but very few look quite like the 50l.

Um...no bokeh?

Ah, well if bokeh becomes a factor, there is no doubt that the 50L offers thinner depth of field and hence can render more out of focus. This is not subjective, but rather a fact of f/1.2 vs f/1.4. I also like the rendering better, though that is subjective. But that is the whole point, one can crow about sharpness all they like but that is a very one dimensional and frankly inaccurate summation of a lens.

 

[infared]

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.

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).

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.

So does that mean that you don't want the 50L to be sharper than the Sigma 50 Art?

If sharpness is your only concern, you shouldn't buy either of these lenses and instead get a 50mm f/1.8 and shoot at f/8, which I'll be much sharper than both of these at 1.4.

sigma is a little sharper at f/1.4 but can't do f/1.2 at all, can't get quite as thin DOF as the 50L, has less realistic color and less pleasing boke. Personally no, I would not trade off those things for a.little more sharpness; I have a ton of sharp lenses but very few look quite like the 50l.

Um...no bokeh?

Ah, well if bokeh becomes a factor, there is no doubt that the 50L offers thinner depth of field and hence can render more out of focus. This is not subjective, but rather a fact of f/1.2 vs f/1.4. I also like the rendering better, though that is subjective. But that is the whole point, one can crow about sharpness all they like but that is a very one dimensional and frankly inaccurate summation of a lens.

Well...I think the whole point is sharpness (wide open) and nice bokeh. So many wide lenses are not even close to sharp wide open... I agree tho. I think that both of these lenses (and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG) all have good sharpness wide open and they all have different renderings. I can totally see where someone would like the Canon, as it is clearly no slouch and does have the superior softness in the rendering of the bokeh, but I also feel that the sharpness and contrast is superior in the Sigma (and the price) so I can see it is personal like or dislike for each look. (and I am not even going to touch the AF discussion...it is so complicated...arrrrgggghhh..LOL).
I think all three of the lenses I am mentioning are great for different reasons. Makes buying just one kind of tough...but then if you have a REALLY good shot...is anyone going to notice which lens it was??? LOL. That is a whole other discussion too!!!!

 

[Ruined]

Ah, well if bokeh becomes a factor, there is no doubt that the 50L offers thinner depth of field and hence can render more out of focus. This is not subjective, but rather a fact of f/1.2 vs f/1.4. I also like the rendering better, though that is subjective. But that is the whole point, one can crow about sharpness all they like but that is a very one dimensional and frankly inaccurate summation of a lens.

Well...I think the whole point is sharpness (wide open) and nice bokeh. So many wide lenses are not even close to sharp wide open... I agree tho. I think that both of these lenses (and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG) all have good sharpness wide open and they all have different renderings. I can totally see where someone would like the Canon, as it is clearly no slouch and does have the superior softness in the rendering of the bokeh, but I also feel that the sharpness and contrast is superior in the Sigma (and the price) so I can see it is personal like or dislike for each look. (and I am not even going to touch the AF discussion...it is so complicated...arrrrgggghhh..LOL).
I think all three of the lenses I am mentioning are great for different reasons. Makes buying just one kind of tough...but then if you have a REALLY good shot...is anyone going to notice which lens it was??? LOL. That is a whole other discussion too!!!!

Sure, and this is the type of intellectual discussion that is more befitting of this type of equipment. In photography, there is no such thing as 'the perfect lens,' everything has tradeoffs. Whether it is sharpness, flare, bokeh, aperture, autofocus, cost, weight, size, etc - everything has a tradeoff. For example - even a big, heavy, metal-encased, recently redesigned, highly praised, and expensive lens like the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L (which I own) has more flare and less sharpness at narrow landscape apertures than the much more modest Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS.

Your discussion is where I am going, in that everyone has a preference and desire, with many factors that go into this. A lot of it factors into what you will be shooting. I shoot people mainly, so bokeh is huge and sharpness is less important. People actually tend to dislike sharpness as it exposes skin flaws. I do have the Canon EF 100m f/2.8L Macro if I want to go razor sharp, as that lens is as sharp as it gets corner to corner and the boke level at f/2.8 is somewhat similar to 50mm @ 1.4 (50/1.4=35.7, 100/2.8=35.7). But, people tend to dislike that skin-pore exposing effect and I get very positive feedback to the 'look' of the 50L. Whether it is being a bit softer, or having more smooth boke, either way the 50L makes my customers happy. For others, it might be a total fail.

On the same token, preferences like color as you mentioned above can differ as well. I use dual Dell u2413 monitors (1xlandscape, 1xportrait) hardware calibrated at 6.5k/120 (not Eizos but pretty decent), and to me the sigma shots look oversaturated. The wood in the shot with the wood knife block for instance just looks oversaturated and less realistic than the Canon shot. The flowers look too contrasty, for me to the point of being caroonish. But, someone else might like that contrasty look. Yes, all of this can be adjusted in post (as others mentioned), but at the price points of these lenses post compensation should not be a factor. Besides, if you bring all the stuff you can do in post into the discussion, there is little point in discussing the lens differences in the first place

You also bring up a good point about autofocus. The 50L has focus shift when stopped down (design tradeoff, most evident at f/2 close range) including current builds. I have heard the autofocus on the Sigma 50 1.4 is even more erratic, though that may also be a case of focus shift - hard to tell when first released based on reviews. Either way, though, one should consider a high precision focus screen such as the Eg-S with either of these lenses so one can actually see what is truly in focus & manual focus when needed - the stock screen won't cut it with these ultra fast lenses!

 

[rocksubculture]

Since some have found my original files useful, I was shooting some for my own comparison (this time paying more attention to focus accuracy) and thought I would share.

As with before, these are just random "walking around snaps" - not meant to be artful photos, but to compare these lenses against one another in different scenarios.

I paid more attention to focus this time, and found that there are instances in which both lenses "miss". I used center (1 PT AF) in all instances, and generally framed my shots so that the focus point was pretty much dead center. I just took one to two shots of each subject/scene each time, so it wasn't a matter of picking "the best", but just making sure focus was complete (red flash box) and shot.

All shots were at f/1.4 except for a couple of the exterior shots (landscape) - see EXIF for those.

A few were shot in a very dark utility room (the water timer and hanging keys) and some in medium light.

This time I shot in RAW, and I will put all of the original, OOC RAW files on DropBox shortly.

Again, I had the Canon 50mm f/1.2L on one Canon 5D Mark III and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART on another Canon 5D Mark III. And again, I manually adjusted shutterspeed but had both set on Auto ISO.

I have not adjusted/micro adjusted either lens to any of my bodies - just at default settings.

These are the versions saved down to 1024 wide in Lightroom (otherwise as shot OOC)...

One observation... when I shot in camera as JPEGs, the Sigma was much more vibrant. This is true as RAWs too, but... looking at the images saved as JPEGS, looking at the second set below (the bowl of blood oranges), the Canon looks much more vibrant than the Sigma, so they don't translate into JPEG (via Lightroom) in the same way they do when shot in camera, if that makes any sense. As I scrolled my preview for this post, I thought maybe I had misordered them, but it is Canon on top and Sigma below... If you pull my RAW originals off Dropbox (link soon), you'll see what I'm talking about.

In each case, CANON is the top image and SIGMA is the lower image in each set:

Jason

 

[metacove]

These are fantastic. Thanks for the extra pictures. Unfortunately they only make me want my lens that much more. This preorder wait is brutal.

 

[privatebydesign]

Thanks very much, that is a far more valuable comparison, interesting that the much talked about colour and contrast difference isn't actually there, also the bokeh, especially on the lights on the TIVO (?) are so similar this time with the same AF point.

In truth it seems the differences are miniscule, as I tried to point out before. Where I would expect to see a usable difference would be 1; at f1.2, obviously the Sigma doesn't do that. 2; off center focus, I would think you could be much more creative with focus and composition with the Sigma.

Thanks again, I will be downloading the RAW's ASAP, as I said before I tried to do a close comparison with your other full sized jpegs but the focus was all over the place so it didn't work, these are perfect. Also very interesting that ypu had similar focus inconsistencies with both lenses, one more thing to not push a decision one way or the other.

 

[rocksubculture]

The RAWs are still uploading on my end - I'll post a link once they are all up.

Yeah, I found both lenses to be inconsistent on focusing, especially if shooting something small, single-point, from say six feet away. But even some closer ones were off - like the Sigma with the pear-shaped candles it missed the tag I focused on and IIRC the first TiVo emblem shot missed also. But similar results with the Canon on other shots.

I did experiment with some shots in near darkness (not posted here), with the Canon at f/1.2 and Sigma at f/1.4 - the Canon was less noisy at the high ISO and found the single point focus better (but still struggled - had to find a true point of contrast). So that is a small edge to the Canon on that front. But it was so dark both sets of images looked bad, just wanted to push to the limits to see what they would do.

I hope to have a chance to experiment with some portraits over the next week or so, as well as nighttime shots with small lights to compare the OOF bokeh on them and bokeh effects overall.

Jason