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

[Bruce Photography]

+1 on Thank You for your comparison shots. I know that was a lot of work and many people enjoyed seeing your efforts. I have the Canon 1.2 L so I've decided not to order the Sigma 50mm 1.4 in a Canon mount. I'm still waiting for my Nikon mount to arrive. I guess sometime this summer. Thanks again for your efforts.

 

[docsmith]

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

I know, I was agreeing.

Nice cartoon too

So, do we have confirmatory bias about the lenses....or do you have confirmatory bias about people trying to assess a lens? ;D

I can tell you for myself, I am interested in the 50A (have it on preorder) and am just trying to learn as much about it as I can.

 

[mackguyver]

I have been following the 50A since it was announced and here's the differences that I'm aware of big & small:

Canon = more expensive / Sigma = less expensive
Canon = a Canon [and red ring] - important to some / Sigma = a 3rd party lens (with the USB dock, not a big concern)
Canon = weather sealed / Sigma = not
Canon = small & stubby / Sigma = big & heavier (24-70 Mk I size)
Canon = USM, but some backfocus at MDF / Sigma = the jury is still out, but the USB dock and AFMA are recommended
Canon = center IQ good, corners soft (on test charts) / Sigma = Zeiss Otus 55 sharp
Canon = field curvature wide open, low distortion / Sigma = flat field, nearly zero distortion
Canon = you like vignetting, right? / Sigma = medium vignetting
Canon = great color / Sigma = great color
Canon = good contrast / Sigma = more contrast
Canon & Sigma = good flare resistance
Canon = CA not great / Sigma = good but not perfect CA control
Canon = LoCA ugly / Sigma = LoCA not Otus, but pretty good
Canon = a bit less contrast in bokeh / Sigma contrasty bokeh
Canon = larger physical aperture for bigger OOF elements / Sigma = no slouch, but slightly smaller OOF blobs
Canon = 72mm filters / Sigma 77mm filters

Summary: both are great lenses and it's a good time to shoot 50mm

The key differences are price, size, weather sealing, and requirements for edge-to-edge sharpness. AF accuracy may be added to the list, but it's too soon to tell.

For me, the 50L's small size is a big plus and since I use it for portraits 99% of the time, edge-to-edge sharpness isn't critical. If I were in the market for a 50mm lens, now, though, I'm not sure what I'd do

 

[privatebydesign]

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

I know, I was agreeing.

Nice cartoon too

So, do we have confirmatory bias about the lenses....or do you have confirmatory bias about people trying to assess a lens? ;D

I can confirm my empirical non standard testing has proven, beyond doubt, that people claim to be able to make differentiations that they can't actually make. I find this amusing because even when they fail the "test" they continue to make reasoned excuses as to why the particular comparison is not valid.

I would also point out that I have personally taken similar tests, and when I express that I believe I can tell a difference (knowing that sometimes there isn't one) I have got it right, normally to the chagrin or complete unacceptance of the poster.

I believe people spend too much time reading forum opinions, tests, reviews etc, and their buying decisions are influenced by that reading. I believe people are sold something on subtleties and nuances that they themselves can't actually see or appreciate and to "justify" that purchase, when no justification is needed, they will make silly claims about minutia.

There is currently a ridiculous thread about lens cleaning techniques, we are being told, most sincerely, that we should never wash a lens cloth in with our regular washing because of microscopic chemical residue, if I could be bothered to challenge these well meaning assertions for any proof of these ideas, not a chemical analysis of the cloth, but an actual damaged lens element, I would be attacked personally, the thread would go off at a complete tangent and nobody would be happy. But nobody will ever post a picture of a camera lens element that was damaged by the chemicals from using a regular washing washed lens cloth.

I don't care what people buy, I won't buy Sigma because of their historical unreliability and customer service, does that make me a Canon fanatic? Many would say so, to that I would say go buy 5 lenses that won't work on your next camera and are not supported by the manufacturer and come back and tell me the same thing. USB dock be damned, if Canon want to drop Sigma in the sh!t it has been shown that they can, personally I value reliability and guaranteed future compatibility far more than a slightly sharper image in the corners, but I equally well respect people who value cheaper price and a slightly sharper image more. But you don't need to justify that decision to me or anybody else, apart from maybe your partner if it is a hobby

 

[docsmith]

EDIT-originally followed Mackguyver's post.

I think that is a very fair assessment. Of course, I own the 50 f/1.4, so for me the list is a little different, but this thread is about the 50L vs 50A. Of course, I would expect to learn a lot more as the 50A as more people get their hands on production models.

I also think there is a lot of benefit in things that may be subtle to others. For example, the dock is likely necessary from the start. I had told myself I didn't need the dock until Canon did something to prevent the Sigma lens from working. Having read more, it looks like it would be good to have the dock from the start to better tune the AFMA at different distances.

I do "get" the concern that reaction in threads like this can give lenses a bad reputation, potentially undeserved. With the 50A, potentially with AF issues or maybe color. But, to me, it is more subtle. As for the color, I see a difference. I may prefer the 50L, but what it really means is that I'll develop a color profile for the 50A to see if that addresses the issue. But it doesn't change the fact that everything I've seen to date says that this is a very good lens.

The AF issue is the main one I am interested in seeing if it proves out. But, hopefully I'll have my own lens soon to assess.

 

[AudioGlenn]

thanks for all the work you put into this for us =)

 

[privatebydesign]

I think that is a very fair assessment. Of course, I own the 50 f/1.4, so for me the list is a little different, but this thread is about the 50L vs 50A. Of course, I would expect to learn a lot more as the 50A as more people get their hands on production models.

I also think there is a lot of benefit in things that may be subtle to others. For example, the dock is likely necessary from the start. I had told myself I didn't need the dock until Canon did something to prevent the Sigma lens from working. Having read more, it looks like it would be good to have the dock from the start to better tune the AFMA at different distances.

I do "get" the concern that reaction in threads like this can give lenses a bad reputation, potentially undeserved. With the 50A, potentially with AF issues or maybe color. But, to me, it is more subtle. As for the color, I see a difference. I may prefer the 50L, but what it really means is that I'll develop a color profile for the 50A to see if that addresses the issue. But it doesn't change the fact that everything I've seen to date says that this is a very good lens.

The AF issue is the main one I am interested in seeing if it proves out. But, hopefully I'll have my own lens soon to assess.

Absolutely they are good lenses, all of them, even the modest Canon 50 f1.4, which I have. They are all better lenses than all of us actually, and the quality of our images is not because we own this version or that version.

Now so many lenses are so good it is much more about the psychology of the ownership, do you take great images because you have a great lens, or does owning a great lens free your mind to take great images? Just look at the countless world class creative images shot with the 50 f1.8 (doesn't matter if it is the one with the metal or the plastic mount) on Flickr, normally by Eastern Europeans, that blows away any cat image shot by an Otis owner.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Just look at the countless world class creative images shot with the 50 f1.8 (doesn't matter if it is the one with the metal or the plastic mount) on Flickr, normally by Eastern Europeans, that blows away any cat image shot by an Otis owner.

Like this, you mean?

 

[docsmith]

I would also point out that I have personally taken similar tests, and when I express that I believe I can tell a difference (knowing that sometimes there isn't one) I have got it right, normally to the chagrin or complete unacceptance of the poster.

I believe people spend too much time reading forum opinions, tests, reviews etc, and their buying decisions are influenced by that reading. I believe people are sold something on subtleties and nuances that they themselves can't actually see or appreciate and to "justify" that purchase, when no justification is needed, they will make silly claims about minutia.

I've taken a few of the online tests. I am usually right ~70% of the time, so there is a little something to it, but, ultimately, sometimes I can't tell the difference.

On your second point, I absolutely have seen some people spend too much time reading and basing too much of their opinion in details only analytical tests are able to discern. I am sure I've done it myself. That said, I think we are in the phase where we are getting to know not only the 50A but the Sigma Art series. Sigma did something very interesting. But it will be over the next year or two where there is enough use out there to really know what that means. Are there AF issues? Does the dock fix the AF issues? Do Sigma Art lenses develop issues with time? Does Sigma Art have a "unique" color to them? Etc.

Just because there is the potential for over analysis doesn't mean you do not do any analysis. Which is why I really appreciate a side by side comparison performed here at the start of this thread.

 

[mackguyver]

They are all better lenses than all of us actually, and the quality of our images is not because we own this version or that version.

Truest statement I've seen here in a long while!

 

[privatebydesign]

Just look at the countless world class creative images shot with the 50 f1.8 (doesn't matter if it is the one with the metal or the plastic mount) on Flickr, normally by Eastern Europeans, that blows away any cat image shot by an Otus owner.

Like this, you mean?

Or this http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18169.msg364512#msg364512
this http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18169.msg363431#msg363431
this http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-Otus-55f1_4.html
this https://www.flickr.com/photos/hugo_l/12221207084

And I am not putting any of those image makers down, just pointing out that magic bullets are not magic.

 

[rocksubculture]

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.

All the EXIF data should be in the images - I checked the globe one and it is f/1.4. I just checked my files and all show f/1.4...

Jason

 

[zlatko]

Thanks very much for putting together this comparison! I'm very happy with the 50L, but that Sigma looks really, really good. I believe this thread is going to help sell some Sigma 50mm lenses!

The color difference is striking. I have to wonder wether something was set differently between your two 5DIII cameras — saturation, contrast, color space, etc.? There are so many settings on these cameras that it's easy to forget something hidden in a menu. Perhaps you double checked everything already.

 

[rocksubculture]

Thanks very much for putting together this comparison! I'm very happy with the 50L, but that Sigma looks really, really good. I believe this thread is going to help sell some Sigma 50mm lenses!

The color difference is striking. I have to wonder wether something was set differently between your two 5DIII cameras — saturation, contrast, color space, etc.? There are so many settings on these cameras that it's easy to forget something hidden in a menu. Perhaps you double checked everything already.

All of these images are straight OOC JPEGS, apart from the resizing. I have C1 custom setting on both my Canon 5D Mk IIIs set the same, as I do concert photography and use four bodies (these two plus two 6Ds) at the same time and keep the settings the same across all four so I don't have to pay attention to which lens I put on which body.

Apart from changing from shooting RAW to shooting JPEG, I left all other settings the same (and are on default for exposure compensation, WB shift, etc.). The only variable was I had each on Auto ISO for these shots, so could be some variance there...

Jason

Jason

 

[Eldar]

Now so many lenses are so good it is much more about the psychology of the ownership, do you take great images because you have a great lens, or does owning a great lens free your mind to take great images? Just look at the countless world class creative images shot with the 50 f1.8 (doesn't matter if it is the one with the metal or the plastic mount) on Flickr, normally by Eastern Europeans, that blows away any cat image shot by an Otis owner.

Well, that is a melon an plum comparison isn´t it. The images posted here by Otus owner, or any other lens owner for that matter, when they are just released, are probably (only) to show off what the lens can do and not sell images or win awards for the photographer, or what?

I actually believe a lens like the Otus makes you a better photographer, simply because it requires special attention, it takes time and the rewards when you do it right is great.

There is an other saying, bought cheap, treated cheaply, which is a potential problem with a plastic lens.

Great photographers will be great, regardless of equipment.

 

[zlatko]

Thanks, Jason. That is helpful. In that case, the color differences are quite interesting. I am tempted to buy the Sigma.

 

[privatebydesign]

Just look at the countless world class creative images shot with the 50 f1.8 (doesn't matter if it is the one with the metal or the plastic mount) on Flickr, normally by Eastern Europeans, that blows away any cat image shot by an Otus owner.

Like this, you mean?

Or this http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18169.msg364512#msg364512
this http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18169.msg363431#msg363431
this http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-Otus-55f1_4.html
this https://www.flickr.com/photos/hugo_l/12221207084

And I am not putting any of those image makers down, just pointing out that magic bullets are not magic.

Yes you are. Posting arrogant statements like that put you in a box with a couple of others, where I don´t believe you want to be. Writes a lot, shows nothing.

It may be that you should consider that those images are posted to show off a lens and not to win awards for the photographer.

I read a lot of posts from you with expert photography advice, post processing advice etc. everything verbal and most probably correct and good advice. Maybe you should backup your expertise and advice with images, to show off that it is not just in your mouth and it would also make your posts a bit more interesting to the rest of us!

No I am not. You can misconstrue the comment if you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that none of the cat images are compelling images, my point is the lens is not a magic bullet, that is, using the lens does not make an image compelling in and of itself, and as the minutiae is endlessly argued that simple and obvious point is often overlooked, and isn't made clear to more impressionable and less experienced readers. You don't need an Otus/Sigma Art/Canon f1.2 to make compelling 50mm images, and having one doesn't guarantee it.

On a personal level the compelling images you do take, and you have shown many, particularly your wildlife shots, were not possible because of the lens you used alone, be that the 200-400 the 600 MkII or the Otus, they were possible because of the lens/camera and you combination. As for my posting images, I have posted literally hundreds of images on this site, and a couple of videos, though few of them could be considered compelling, most, like the cat images, are purely illustrative. I live in my own box, not the one you might try and push me into. I don't respect money or badges, I respect my eyes, physics, but most of all empirical results.

 

[privatebydesign]

Now so many lenses are so good it is much more about the psychology of the ownership, do you take great images because you have a great lens, or does owning a great lens free your mind to take great images? Just look at the countless world class creative images shot with the 50 f1.8 (doesn't matter if it is the one with the metal or the plastic mount) on Flickr, normally by Eastern Europeans, that blows away any cat image shot by an Otis owner.

Well, that is a melon an plum comparison isn´t it. The images posted here by Otus owner, or any other lens owner for that matter, when they are just released, are probably (only) to show off what the lens can do and not sell images or win awards for the photographer, or what?

I actually believe a lens like the Otus makes you a better photographer, simply because it requires special attention, it takes time and the rewards when you do it right is great.

There is an other saying, bought cheap, treated cheaply, which is a potential problem with a plastic lens.

Great photographers will be great, regardless of equipment.

That is my point, not to say gear never matters, but worrying about the tiniest differences between this lens characteristic or that one misses the point of camera gear. I am not against collectors, but if we thread readers and contributors are going to be image makers, we need to cut through a lot of bull---- and look at the images with an honest eye, realise what makes a difference and what doesn't; and the answer is normally the control of the light, nothing to do with lenses.

 

[rocksubculture]

I uploaded the native (non-resized) files to DropBox right now... so if you are interested in comparing the full res files, I'll leave them up here for a while:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xnwbr96r2pwxqlt/ZAscIoEa9k

Jason

 

[Eldar]

Maybe we should get this thread back to what it ought to be.