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

[Viggo]

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....

The Zeiss 50 f2 is my absolute favorite 50 to date, only sold it because of lack AF, was very limiting. Epic bokeh and color, and corners are tack sharp wide open.

The Sigma 85 f1.4 having notorious AF issues makes it not worth the savings compared to the L, even if it's faster. 85 L has nicer bokeh and blurs more and better contrast, and I like the colors better. But the Sigma is half the price or something so that counts for some given the very nice IQ it has.

 

[jdramirez]

I'm not a dissenter, but I'm curious. If you shoot in raw... the images all look blah until you change the contrast, remove the vignetting... and fix the white balance. I also add a touch of saturation... shoo if a shot requires that much adjustment from the original raw.. how do y'all really know if it was the lens that didn't have good color, contrast, etc?

 

[cayenne]

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.

The Canon 85mm f/1.2 is on my lens list too....but like I'd mentioned, I will get the 50L first, for video as much as photography at this point in time.

I rented teh 85mm f/1.2 and loved it, and used it to shoot at Voodoo Fest in New Orleans here last year...it was fun, but I found I had some problem nailing focus on it...and I wasn't trying to recompose either.

However, I did like it and will get one, but it wouldn't work well for video with the way manual focus is handled on the 85L.

I'm gonna invest in FoCal too...especially when I get the 50L and the 85L. I'm of the thought that those lenses with such a narrow DOF, definitely need the micro adjustments to get the most out of them. Like was part of my problem of the 85L I rented....

C

 

[mackguyver]

I'm not a dissenter, but I'm curious. If you shoot in raw... the images all look blah until you change the contrast, remove the vignetting... and fix the white balance. I also add a touch of saturation... shoo if a shot requires that much adjustment from the original raw.. how do y'all really know if it was the lens that didn't have good color, contrast, etc?

Good questions, and white balance affects the entire image so it should be set first. Cool lenses, like many of the older Sigmas have a blue or yellow tint to them that remains even when you adjust white balance. Canon lenses are a bit warmer than neutral, which most of us are used to and like if we shoot Canon.

When you open the raw files, (in my case in PS or DxO), I can tell right away if I need to add saturation/vibrancy. I don't think I've ever added any saturation to my 180 Macro shots, vs. adding 30+ to my old 24-70 [MkI] or lenses that I use with the 2x extender. For contrast, my 50 1.4 looked faded and washed out at f/1.4, but had lots of contrast at f/2. In comparison, the 50 1.2 has as much contrast at f/1.2 as it does at f/4.

Lesser lenses require a boost in contrast, whereas lenses with amazing contrast (like the 300 2.8 IS II) require little to no boost. For a shot in soft light, if you add more than about +5 to +15 contrast, the image gets dark and mushy, whereas the old 24-70 would need around +30 to get the same look.

Adding color saturation and contrast seems simple, but in photos with wide dynamic range (lots of shadows) or highly saturated colors (like flowers), boosting them too much not only looks unnatural, but it "crushes" the blacks or saturated colors and you can lose a lot of detail.

As for the other artifacts, like CA and vignetting, if DxO can't get rid of the CA (like on my Sigma 12-24 II) that says something, and even DxO can't do much about Longitudinal CA (LoCA), which usually shows up in high contrast areas of lenses f/1.4 and faster. It's ugly green and purple lines and can be 4+ pixels wide so it's really noticeable. I usually desaturate the LoCA in PS as that's about all you can do.

Vignetting on lenses like the 50L and 24L II is horrible and with the 24L II, it is an issue when shooting landscapes and architecture in low light. You can expose to the right (as I do) but when you open the shadows in post, the corners have a lot more noise because they've been pushed several stops (via the vignette removal) vs. the center that has been pushed a lot less.

Maybe I'm a little too @n@l about these things, but when you start making big prints, you really start noticing this stuff. There's nothing worse than a client who wants a big print of a photo that looks great online but has lots of "technical" issues when you go to print it.

I'm gonna invest in FoCal too...especially when I get the 50L and the 85L. I'm of the thought that those lenses with such a narrow DOF, definitely need the micro adjustments to get the most out of them.

Yes, that is a HUGE help with the f/1.4 and faster lenses and the optimal adjustments after calibration have less CA, which is a nice bonus on top of the improved sharpness.

 

[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.

The Canon 85mm f/1.2 is on my lens list too....but like I'd mentioned, I will get the 50L first, for video as much as photography at this point in time.

I rented teh 85mm f/1.2 and loved it, and used it to shoot at Voodoo Fest in New Orleans here last year...it was fun, but I found I had some problem nailing focus on it...and I wasn't trying to recompose either.

However, I did like it and will get one, but it wouldn't work well for video with the way manual focus is handled on the 85L.

I'm gonna invest in FoCal too...especially when I get the 50L and the 85L. I'm of the thought that those lenses with such a narrow DOF, definitely need the micro adjustments to get the most out of them. Like was part of my problem of the 85L I rented....

C

+1 on FoCal. It's one of the smallest investments you can make in serious photography and yet, it's the most important of all. It's made my lenses perfect instead of, "yeah it's okay, but.."

 

[BLFPhoto]

I would take the results as proof that Sigma's new design, which closely aligns with the Otus design, provides significant improvement over the old standard double-guauss design such that there will be clear delineations between the older lens designs and these two new lenses. I would not take the results so far as to provide any argument for/against Sigma relative to Zeiss or anyone else who adopts the new retrofocus lens design for their 50mm-ish lenses.

In the meantime, until Canon, Nikon, Pentax and anyone else in the game field their own retrofocus 50s, the Sigma and Zeiss seem like they will provide a clear advantage. The real choice at the moment for any particular photographer seems to be autofocus vs apparent minor difference in image quality.

For my purposes, the AF will take that argument even if I felt like spending Otus type cash. Not to take away anything from the Otus or those who own it.

 

[RLPhoto]

I Like my 50L, but I'll probably buy this sigma sooner or later.

 

[Radiating]

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.

The good news for bokeh is that the 50 is basically a modified 35, so it should be a slightly better longer focal length version of that lens (very slightly sharper on average, less distortion, same bokeh in other words).

I actually went the opposite way with the 85mm Sigma though, the bokeh of the Sigma has a nice pop to it, with beautiful interesting OOF highlights, the Canon's is very very flat, which can be a good thing if that's what you like, but I liked the Sigma 85's better.

 

[rpiotr01]

I'm patiently awaiting some proper sample photos and a hands-on review, but it certainly looks VERY promising Not going to take away anything beyond that from these shots.

 

[jdramirez]

I've heard from a number of sources that the sigma 35's bokeh is blah.. and not as impressive as the Canon option.

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.

The good news for bokeh is that the 50 is basically a modified 35, so it should be a slightly better longer focal length version of that lens (very slightly sharper on average, less distortion, same bokeh in other words).

I actually went the opposite way with the 85mm Sigma though, the bokeh of the Sigma has a nice pop to it, with beautiful interesting OOF highlights, the Canon's is very very flat, which can be a good thing if that's what you like, but I liked the Sigma 85's better.

 

[Badger]

Just swallowed my big grains of salt.

I'm calling it here. I think those tests are fake! If you can get your hands on the Otus AND this Sigma lens that no one else seems to be able to get a hold of, I would think the the test shots would have been more professional. I have seen better fake iPhone 6 pictures!

 

[Aglet]

check the 5th paragraph

www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4

yes, we need to see some real tests but I think Sigma's likely got a lens they can be proud of.

... as I continue to cuss the inconsistent AF of a new, but past warranty EF 50/1.4

 

[slclick]

As much as I love my 2 ART lenses I just don't use the 50 I already have that much. Not due to the quality or lack of wit the 1.4 but the FL. I truly hope they have a great lens at a decent price but I think I'll be passing no matter what it comes out at.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

One word: Impressed.

From this initial testing, this can be a real competitor to the Zeiss Otus. If I had to replace my Zeiss 50mm with something else, I would consider the Zeiss 50mm f2, then the Sigma or Zeiss Otus. But if the Sigma is that good???

 

[BLFPhoto]

I've heard from a number of sources that the sigma 35's bokeh is blah.. and not as impressive as the Canon option.

I would not say that and I own both. They are certainly different, but both have very nice qualities.

 

[ScottyP]

I have the Sigma Art 35, and I honestly love it. Sharp, bright, and lovely bokeh and colors. I do believe this lens will be, if not totally equal to the $4k+ Zeiss lens in sharpness, etc., then at least 95% there, based on the fact Sigma seems to be vouching the lens will be even better than the 35.

I also think the only reason Zeiss does not put AF on their nice lenses, which even the cheap-o kit lenses everyone else makes do include, is that they only have the ability to make so-so AF. They only put it on a few cheap-o Sony lenses, and it is only cheap-o AF. They make MF lenses with glass that works like a decent precision microscope, but they simply have nothing special to offer in the area of AF (OR I.S.), so they shy away from trying, so they don't catch the flak for slow/inaccurate/mediocre AF that would tarnish the reputation of their optics.

 

[wickidwombat]

I've heard from a number of sources that the sigma 35's bokeh is blah.. and not as impressive as the Canon option.

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.

The good news for bokeh is that the 50 is basically a modified 35, so it should be a slightly better longer focal length version of that lens (very slightly sharper on average, less distortion, same bokeh in other words).

I actually went the opposite way with the 85mm Sigma though, the bokeh of the Sigma has a nice pop to it, with beautiful interesting OOF highlights, the Canon's is very very flat, which can be a good thing if that's what you like, but I liked the Sigma 85's better.

I don't see anything wrong with the bokeh on the sigma 35
here is an example @ 1.4

 

[Viggo]

I also had both, and I think that the difference is often not a big deal, but I like the 35 L better, it seems smoother.

 

[9VIII]

I have a feeling choosing between this and the Fuji 56f1.2 isn't going to be much of a contest.

 

[infared]

check the 5th paragraph

www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4

yes, we need to see some real tests but I think Sigma's likely got a lens they can be proud of.

... as I continue to cuss the inconsistent AF of a new, but past warranty EF 50/1.4

Aglet...Thanks for the link to IR ...THAT was VERY informative and really helped me to understand what I am looking at with these rather primitive Chinese test images. If these are legitament test images, even though they we shot on different camera bodies...the tests are still telling a story, and since it is the only info we have at this point it appears that Sigma has a real winner on its hands here. I really like the way the story of this lens is developing! Can't wait to find out more.