Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG Art Gets Tested for the First Time

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-art-gets-tested-for-the-first-time/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-art-gets-tested-for-the-first-time/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>The first image tests of the upcoming and highly anticipated Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART series lens have surfaced on <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Finfo.xitek.com%2Fxitekzl%2F201401%2F23-144292.html" target="_blank">Xitek</a>.</p>
<p>The lenses used for comparison are:</p>
<ul>
<li>311: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art</li>
<li>Sony: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/925829-REG/sony_sal50f14z_50mm_f_1_4_carl_zeiss.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">Sony Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZA SSM</a></li>
<li>Nikon: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1010026-REG/nikon_2210_af_s_nikkor_58mm_f_1_4g.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">Nikon AF-S 58mm f/1.4G</a></li>
<li>Otus: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1007600-REG/zeiss_2010_055_55mm_f_1_4_otus_lens.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus</a></li>
</ul>
<div id="attachment_15956" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-test-center.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15956" alt="Click for Larger" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-test-center-575x367.jpg" width="575" height="367" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for Larger</p></div>
<div id="attachment_15957" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-test-corner.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15957" alt="Click for Larger" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-test-corner-575x366.jpg" width="575" height="366" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for Larger</p></div>
<div id="attachment_15958" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-test-vignetting.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15958" alt="Click for Larger" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-test-vignetting-575x522.jpg" width="575" height="522" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for Larger</p></div>
<div id="attachment_15959" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-specs-comparison.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15959" alt="Click for Larger" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-specs-comparison-575x376.jpg" width="575" height="376" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for Larger</p></div>
<p>Sigma is boasting that their new 50mm lens will rival the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 for a fraction of the cost optically, and it’ll have autofocus to boot! Here’s hoping the claim is  true. Judging by this very small sampling of image quality, it’s quite possible it will be.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Finfo.xitek.com%2Fxitekzl%2F201401%2F23-144292.html" target="_blank">XT</a>] via [<a href="http://photorumors.com/2014/02/27/first-sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-test/" target="_blank">PR</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[mackguyver]

This looks intriguing, but the crops they posted have horrific sharpening artifacts, the exposure of the Sigma looks brighter and the top exposures are smaller than the lower, which makes me think it was shot on a different body. I can't get the site to load, either, so I'm not really sure you can make a valid comparison on anything other than what appears to be low CA from the new Sigma.

 

[rs]

No word on apertures or bodies used for the test, but judging by the different magnification, the Nikon and Zeiss were probably tested on a higher MP body than the Sony and the Sigma. Although having said that, both the Nikon and Zeiss are longer than 50mm.

I'm guessing the Nikon and Zeiss were on a D800, and the Sony was on a 24mp FF body. The Sigma looks to be tested on the same resolution too, but I'd have thought Sigma would make a Sony mount last, so possibly Canon mount on an A7?

Anyway, to me the Sigma appears slightly better than the Zeiss - but this doesn't reveal much - clearly different post processing, lower MP to hide problems, and no word on what aperture setting was used.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Wow! If the test conditions are equal, Sigma put Nikon and Sony out of the game. Chromatic aberration seems to be much better in Sigma. But why not compare with existing Canon 50mm?

 

[infared]

This is funny...this review is like a teaser-mystery-review from an iffy source....but does look promising and keeps it interestin. Check out the CA on the Sony ...and the Nikon is just an utter embarrassment for a lens costing over $1000.
I am hopeful that this Sigma is all that it can be...I always thought when I read the number or elements and the grouping in this lens when it was first announced that this would have to be a killer lens..why would you put all of that glass in there otherwise? This is also extremely embarrassing to Canon...as they are the biggest Camera manufacturer and for all of these years they have been serving up a plate of cr@p when it came to all 3 of there "normal" lenses. The "L" (not a "bad" lens, but overpriced for what it is) should have been a lens of this construction and caliber.
You go Sigma! I am not going to rush out and buy this lens..but I do eventually want it in my quiver.

 

[mackguyver]

Wow! If the test conditions are equal, Sigma put Nikon and Sony out of the game. Chromatic aberration seems to be much better in Sigma. But why not compare with existing Canon 50mm?

If you look at the photos and assume that everything is equal, the Sigma seems to put the Zeiss to shame. Unfortunately the only potential takeaway is low CA. I'll be pre-ordering one of these as soon as it goes up, but given my experience with the 50L, I'm going to be worried about the handling, bokeh, color, and contrast -- not the ability to score high on test charts.

 

[mkabi]

Wow! If the test conditions are equal, Sigma put Nikon and Sony out of the game. Chromatic aberration seems to be much better in Sigma. But why not compare with existing Canon 50mm?

If you look at the photos and assume that everything is equal, the Sigma seems to put the Zeiss to shame. Unfortunately the only potential takeaway is low CA. I'll be pre-ordering one of these as soon as it goes up, but given my experience with the 50L, I'm going to be worried about the handling, bokeh, color, and contrast -- not the ability to score high on test charts.

I don't know about putting Zeiss to shame... Its better in terms of sharpness, but there are vertical line artifacts. As you said, real world testing is more needed not scoring high on test charts.

 

[mackguyver]

Wow! If the test conditions are equal, Sigma put Nikon and Sony out of the game. Chromatic aberration seems to be much better in Sigma. But why not compare with existing Canon 50mm?

If you look at the photos and assume that everything is equal, the Sigma seems to put the Zeiss to shame. Unfortunately the only potential takeaway is low CA. I'll be pre-ordering one of these as soon as it goes up, but given my experience with the 50L, I'm going to be worried about the handling, bokeh, color, and contrast -- not the ability to score high on test charts.

I don't know about putting Zeiss to shame... Its better in terms of sharpness, but there are vertical line artifacts. As you said, real world testing is more needed not scoring high on test charts.

Exactly - you can't tell much from this test, but if you just ignore all of the defects, differences, and artifacts, the Sigma appears to have better contrast than the Zeiss. Of course this is likely not the case, but this test (or at least the test crops) is way too flawed to tell us much of anything.

 

[Viggo]

I doubt this comparison is COMPLETELY off, I think it will be very close to the Zeiss in a lot of ways, but perhaps not all, don't care. What people have to use today with 50mm's with AF I think we are in for a game changer.

 

[Eldar]

I don´t think we can read too much out of this. But it does seem to be good, so I´ll be waiting for the next and hopefully more comprehensive test and access to some full resolution raw images.

 

[Viggo]

And also I very much doubt Sigma will purposely destroy their new reputation by saying "oh, yeah it's just as good as the Zeiss" if they clearly know it's not. They won't get away with that as soon as ONE Sigma is sold and they were proven wrong. So when they say it's Zeiss good, I believe they know that for a fact.

 

[emag]

I'll wait for the REAL tests........brick walls and cats

 

[mackguyver]

Well I think it is clear that it will put the 50/1.2L to shame and depending on the price point, maybe even the 50/1.4.

I think that's a given in terms of sharpness, CA, and other metrics, but until I see the bokeh and the color saturation of my own shots with it, I'm not in any rush to sell my 50L.

And also I very much doubt Sigma will purposely destroy their new reputation by saying "oh, yeah it's just as good as the Zeiss" if they clearly know it's not. They won't get away with that as soon as ONE Sigma is sold and they were proven wrong. So when they say it's Zeiss good, I believe they know that for a fact.

True - and Japanese companies aren't generally known to make bold claims they can't back up.

 

[verysimplejason]

I hope they can improve the quality and consistency though. I've been disappointed once by Sigma (30mm) which when I tested in a shop immediately displayed problems in its AF. I've been waiting for a very good 50mm F1.4. I don't really like Canon's version (especially its build quality) and opted to just use the 50mm F1.8 II (cheap, easy to replace and sharp enough from F2.8) for the meantime.

 

[cayenne]

Well I think it is clear that it will put the 50/1.2L to shame and depending on the price point, maybe even the 50/1.4.

I think that's a given in terms of sharpness, CA, and other metrics, but until I see the bokeh and the color saturation of my own shots with it, I'm not in any rush to sell my 50L.

And also I very much doubt Sigma will purposely destroy their new reputation by saying "oh, yeah it's just as good as the Zeiss" if they clearly know it's not. They won't get away with that as soon as ONE Sigma is sold and they were proven wrong. So when they say it's Zeiss good, I believe they know that for a fact.

True - and Japanese companies aren't generally known to make bold claims they can't back up.

What's your opinions of the 50L?

I rented one awhile back and fell in love with it....I rented and used it mostly for shooting video , some was in extremely dark bars, and that baby made it look like I turned on a wall of lights.

I shot some stills with it too...anyway, I'm saving for one. I'm thinking that f/1.2 would be a bit more valuable to me than f/1.4 in low light video...? Not sure how much more so in still imagery....but what's your thoughts on this?

I'm likely to get the 50L...but when the sigma comes out...I might rent it and see how it is to play with....

thoughts?

cayenne

 

[mackguyver]

Well I think it is clear that it will put the 50/1.2L to shame and depending on the price point, maybe even the 50/1.4.

I think that's a given in terms of sharpness, CA, and other metrics, but until I see the bokeh and the color saturation of my own shots with it, I'm not in any rush to sell my 50L.

And also I very much doubt Sigma will purposely destroy their new reputation by saying "oh, yeah it's just as good as the Zeiss" if they clearly know it's not. They won't get away with that as soon as ONE Sigma is sold and they were proven wrong. So when they say it's Zeiss good, I believe they know that for a fact.

True - and Japanese companies aren't generally known to make bold claims they can't back up.

What's your opinions of the 50L?

I rented one awhile back and fell in love with it....I rented and used it mostly for shooting video , some was in extremely dark bars, and that baby made it look like I turned on a wall of lights.

I shot some stills with it too...anyway, I'm saving for one. I'm thinking that f/1.2 would be a bit more valuable to me than f/1.4 in low light video...? Not sure how much more so in still imagery....but what's your thoughts on this?

I'm likely to get the 50L...but when the sigma comes out...I might rent it and see how it is to play with....

thoughts?

cayenne

What's your opinions of the 50L?

I rented one awhile back and fell in love with it....I rented and used it mostly for shooting video , some was in extremely dark bars, and that baby made it look like I turned on a wall of lights.

I shot some stills with it too...anyway, I'm saving for one. I'm thinking that f/1.2 would be a bit more valuable to me than f/1.4 in low light video...? Not sure how much more so in still imagery....but what's your thoughts on this?

I'm likely to get the 50L...but when the sigma comes out...I might rent it and see how it is to play with....

thoughts?

cayenne

My opinion is that the 50L has incredible build quality, excellent AF, and produces amazing photos. It has color saturation and contrast that are as good as my 180 Macro and 300 2.8 IS II, resists flare beautifully and has the best bokeh of any lens I've used other than the 85 II. The bokeh is large, smooth, and melts away the background. It's not super sharp at f/1.2, but is plenty sharp for portraits. The DOF at f/1.2 is brutal and it has field curvature, so you can't focus and recompose until you get to at least f/2.8, and unfortunately the shallow DOF has more to do with the lens' reputation for being "soft" that anything else. If you use it for 3 days and can't get but a fraction of the shots in focus, it's "crap". If you realize that it's a tough lens and take the time to master it, you're rewarded with beautiful shots that no f/2.8 zoom can match. Also, it's one of the only lenses that I've been able to use to shoot outdoor events at night. I'd like it to be sharper at f/1.2, but the only real hang up I have with the lens is that it suffers from fairly excessive CA, at least compared to the 85.

I'm eager to try the Sigma, but sharp test charts don't mean much to me if the bokeh is ringed and contrasty, the contrast is low wide open, the AF sucks, it flares easily, or the colors have that cool tint to them that most of their older lenses have. Sigma has made huge strides in these areas, so I'm hopeful that this lens is all it's cracked up to be. Unfortunately this test doesn't really tell us much.

 

[Viggo]

I've owned the 50 L a number of times and I do agree that it's wonderful when it comes to
Color, contrast, bokeh, build and weather resistance .handling and AF is also superb, small size and nice
Weight .

The reason I keep selling it is because of sharpness , or lack of
It. It's good enough in the center, but I like to compose off center, and especially with the new 61 pt system and it's simply horrible off center, really bad wide open. It has nothing to do with it being a tricky lens to master. It's just extremely soft off center wide open, period.

I'm one of it's big fans, I really am, I love almost everything with it, but when you can't tell where you have focused when going off center it's pretty limiting.

I have the 85 L II and it's a completely different lens now with the 1dx and the new firmware and it's awesome and a really nice useful 1.2 lens , also in the far corners. For video though the manual focus ring is pretty bad.

 

[mackguyver]

It has nothing to do with it being a tricky lens to master. It's just extremely soft off center wide open, period.

I don't disagree, but I've had so many people (who aren't used to fast lenses) complain about the center sharpness of this lens, and 99% of the time it's been because they think they can shoot at f/1.2 with sloppy technique (focus & recompose or focus and move around a bit before pressing the shutter). When I pick up their camera and nail 3 or 4 shots at f/1.2 they look at me like I'm crazy until I explain what they're doing wrong. For the newbie or person who hasn't used a lens faster than f/2.8, I think it is a tough lens to use.

For experienced shooters, it's no different than any other fast lens, and yes, the off center sharpness drops off very quickly wide open and the corners are crap at f/1.2. I try to keep my subjects centered in the middle 1/3 of the frame or bump it to f/2 where things look much better.

 

[Viggo]

It has nothing to do with it being a tricky lens to master. It's just extremely soft off center wide open, period.

I don't disagree, but I've had so many people (who aren't used to fast lenses) complain about the center sharpness of this lens, and 99% of the time it's been because they think they can shoot at f/1.2 with sloppy technique (focus & recompose or focus and move around a bit before pressing the shutter). When I pick up their camera and nail 3 or 4 shots at f/1.2 they look at me like I'm crazy until I explain what they're doing wrong. For the newbie or person who hasn't used a lens faster than f/2.8, I think it is a tough lens to use.

For experienced shooters, it's no different than any other fast lens, and yes, the off center sharpness drops off very quickly wide open and the corners are crap at f/1.2. I try to keep my subjects centered in the middle 1/3 of the frame or bump it to f/2 where things look much better.

+1, if this is your first fast lens, it will not forgive any sloppy 2.8 technique, absolutely.

 

[MARKOE PHOTOE]

I think its obvious to all of us (most of us) that in this small sampling of images, the Sigma has definite potential. And yes, it is sharp! It may have been noted previously but there is more to a lens besides just sharpness and performance.

For me personally, I look for how it renders bokeh for those out of focus areas in relation to the sharp areas and edges. I use the Art 35mm f1.4 and 85mm 1.4 and like them both. The 35mm is great in all regards however I find the bokeh in the Sigma 85mm not as pleasing as the same, shot with my Canon 85mm f1.2L II. Performance wise, the Sigma smokes the Canon 85 but that is not the subject here.

For comparison, I also have Zeiss 35 f2.0, Zeiss 50 f2.0 and 100 f2.0. The color rendering and bokeh from these are wonderful IMHO. I had the Zeiss 85mm but it was not as 'great' as I thought it should be and sold it. I'm more than happy with the Sigma and Canon 85L.

Would I buy the new Sigma Art 50 when announced? Oh hell yes, and probably sell my Zeiss 50. I like the bigger filter size on the Sigma and the AF is a given.

Curious to see how the Sigma handles color compared to the Zeiss 55....