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

[iowapipe]

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

I'm in the same boat as you - being a bit newer to photography I figured/hoped that the 'old' problems with that lens would have been addressed in the intervening years. 19 months out and I have a lens that is pretty inconsistent past about 10 feet away. I'm not planning on sending it in for repair and spending nearly half the price of a new one for the privilege. I have a 40mm I'm quite pleased with. And I really only use the 50mm occasionally, not regularly.

 

[Radiating]

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.

If you've heard that then it probably originally came from me, or from the source I originally used.

What happened is that the first outside photographer that got to sample the 35mm f/1.4, was somewhat amateurish and used very weird clarity enhancing technique on his photos (no doubt to make the incredibly sharp lens look even sharper). This made the bokeh transitions look seriously bad, and because Sigma published their photos as the first official samples I and a few other people immediately pointed this out that the bokeh was defective. This was not the case and ever since everyone has praised the bokeh of this lens.

The 35 ART's bokeh is very similar to the 50mm f/1.2L, contrasty yet buttery. The 35L has bokeh that's closer to the 85 L II, which is very flat on the other hand.

The main problems with the Sigma are distortion and purple fringing.

 

[vscd]

<ironic>I think everyone can beat the OTUS or Sigma lenses with a Canon Lense, even the 50mm f1.8. Just patch your lense, today. It's soooooo easy</ironic>

 

[eml58]

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

Hi wicked, your right, Bokeh seems Ok, but I think you had too many of these BEFORE taking the shot, the Glass is leaning to the left, you needed to stand with your left foot on a box of matches so you could have the beer level, works for me.

 

[wickidwombat]

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

Hi wicked, your right, Bokeh seems Ok, but I think you had too many of these BEFORE taking the shot, the Glass is leaning to the left, you needed to stand with your left foot on a box of matches so you could have the beer level, works for me.

ROFL ;D yes indeed, glad you noticed it was also tilted so the bottom of the glass was oof
but the image was only to present the bokeh not my druken photographic ability...

 

[eml58]

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.

And this has been my own experience as well, I think the Art 35 is a sharper Lens, and seems to have a better focus set up, but I still go back to the 35L as to me, the Bokeh is just smoother.

I think perhaps there's a lot of unrealistic hope surrounding what Sigma can/are able to do with competing lenses, My thoughts are that they are doing a pretty good job with the Art Series, the 35 is good and compares very well with it's target Market, in particular the Canon 35f/1.4 L, I've heard the new 18-35 f/1.8 is pretty good as well, but in general can Sigma produce a Lens at less than half the price as good as an Otus 55, or even a Zeiss 15f/2.8 ?? I'm not convinced, but it would be wonderful to see it if they could, I just don't think they can or will.

Canon made a pretty good Lens in the 50f/1.2 L, not perfect for sure but pretty good, if Sigma can drop a 50 f/1.4 Art with AF into the Market that solves some of the issues that the 50f/1.2 L has, it will sell and sell well especially with the Canon users, but the "aiming at the Otus" hype from Sigma ?? it's just that, marketing hype.

 

[wickidwombat]

i'm hanging out to see zeiss make an otus 21mm....
one of my favourite focal lengths and dont mind MF this wide

 

[eml58]

but the image was only to present the bokeh not my druken photographic ability...

I know, it's 0700 here, just getting my Humour shots in early, at your expense, my apologies

 

[wickidwombat]

but the image was only to present the bokeh not my druken photographic ability...

I know, it's 0700 here, just getting my Humour shots in early, at your expense, my apologies

I got a laugh anyway so you're doing well

 

[jdramirez]

If you've heard that then it probably originally came from me, or from the source I originally used.

What happened is that the first outside photographer that got to sample the 35mm f/1.4, was somewhat amateurish and used very weird clarity enhancing technique on his photos (no doubt to make the incredibly sharp lens look even sharper). This made the bokeh transitions look seriously bad, and because Sigma published their photos as the first official samples I and a few other people immediately pointed this out that the bokeh was defective. This was not the case and ever since everyone has praised the bokeh of this lens.

The 35 ART's bokeh is very similar to the 50mm f/1.2L, contrasty yet buttery. The 35L has bokeh that's closer to the 85 L II, which is very flat on the other hand.

The main problems with the Sigma are distortion and purple fringing.

I haven't played with the 35 yet... so I'll hold echoing that opinion until I play with one. For what it is worth... I dont' think I originally heard it from you... It was in regards to a conversation I was having where I was complaining about the 50mm canon options. I said something like... the sigma 35 is sharp... why can't the the canon 50's be... and then someone said that the 35's bokeh was not smooth and delicious the way the 50mm L's is...

but that's a conversation for another day.

 

[Radiating]

In general can Sigma produce a Lens at less than half the price as good as an Otus 55, or even a Zeiss 15f/2.8 ?? I'm not convinced, but it would be wonderful to see it if they could, I just don't think they can or will.

Canon made a pretty good Lens in the 50f/1.2 L, not perfect for sure but pretty good, if Sigma can drop a 50 f/1.4 Art with AF into the Market that solves some of the issues that the 50f/1.2 L has, it will sell and sell well especially with the Canon users, but the "aiming at the Otus" hype from Sigma ?? it's just that, marketing hype.

You don't know much about this lens if you're saying that Sigma's claims are marketing hype. They're the opposite. Zeiss with the Otus pioneered a radical never before tried optical design, which results in performance that is 2-5 times better than any other fast SLR 50mm ever made. It solves the standard focal length softness problem that has plagued lens designers at the standard focal lengths for the last 70+ years. Fast prime SLR lens designs around 50mm have never been able to correctly focus light at high angles of incidence because the lens elements they required had to be inside the mirror box around 50mm, this made every single design ever released noticably soft. Zeiss designed a radical new formula to fix this problem and Sigma made a slightly simplified copy of the breakthrough design.

When Sigma says they are aiming for the Otus and ignoring the competition, they mean to say that their lens makes everything else that competes obsolete. The Sigma is 89% as good as the Zeiss, and both lenses are the only standard SLR fast primes that don't exhibit significant softness. Every other lens in their class ever made is noticeably soft.

We're comparing average MTF numbers @ f/1.4 around the low 800's and 900's, for the Sigma Art and Otus, versus numbers in the high 300's and 400's for literally everything else (Lens rentals did a test of 23 different standard primes in their great 50mm shootout, which is a great point of comparison). Comparing the Sigma to anything else is like comparing swords to guns. The difference between the Sigma Art in average resolution and the nearest non-otus competitor is greater than the difference between a Tamron 18-270mm, at it's worst setting and a Canon's super telephoto prime.

 

[cliffwang]

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

Hi wicked, your right, Bokeh seems Ok, but I think you had too many of these BEFORE taking the shot, the Glass is leaning to the left, you needed to stand with your left foot on a box of matches so you could have the beer level, works for me.

I think I cannot do better than him after couple glasses of beer.

 

[vparuchuru]

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.

ZEISS cannot incorporate AF due to patent issues, and that's why ZEISS offers AF for A-Mount (Sony).
http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissTouit/ZeissTouit-overview-optics.html

 

[mackguyver]

ZEISS cannot incorporate AF due to patent issues, and that's why ZEISS offers AF for A-Mount (Sony).
http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissTouit/ZeissTouit-overview-optics.html

I guess that's an ethical thing with Zeiss - to my knowledge Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina aren't licensed to use Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax AF, but have reverse engineered it. I guess Zeiss doesn't want to go that route. Then again, Zeiss might have agreed to make AF exclusively for Sony due to an agreement with them.

 

[slclick]

Forget DigitalRev, I found the real source for product facts

$790 listed retail on a Belarus website.

http://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsigma.by%2Fsigma-50mm-f1.4-art

 

[jdramirez]

Re: Forget DigitalRev, I found the real source for product facts

$790 listed retail on a Belarus website.

http://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsigma.by%2Fsigma-50mm-f1.4-art

Seriously... and to think I was willing to pay twice that.

 

[jdramirez]

I don't read mtf charts very well, but those don't seem impressive.

 

[vscd]

>I don't read mtf charts very well, but those don't seem impressive.

I fully agree and 12,5mm MTF-Charts don't show an actual FullFrame Circle. Actually if I draw the lines further, the edges will be really poor. But let's wait for it...

 

[drjlo]

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.

I love my 85L II to pieces, but it's too long for indoor shoots, and its longer focal requires faster shutter speeds in dim interior to avoid blur. If Canon can put IS on it without compromising IQ, I can sell a whole bunch of other lenses.

As far as 50L, there's no denying the unusually nice color and contrast compared to other Canon 50 offerings, but the sharpness "issue" is too overemphasized IMO. For example, the 50L is STILL the sharpest 50 mm in the world at f/1.2

Also, it may surprise many, but the 50L is even sharper than the vaunted Zeiss 50 f/2 at the same f/2.


50mm Shootout LensRental by drjlo2, on Flickr

For those who sigh over 50L's CA wide open (85L also for that matter), I strongly recommend you try Canon DPP's DLO (Digital Lens Optimizer), which IME produces MUCH better CA removal and sharpening compared to the usual Lens Correction. If you are bothered by the larger resulting RAW size, all you have to do is unclick the DLO function when you close/save RAW.

 

[mackguyver]

the sharpness "issue" is too overemphasized IMO.

I agree, and every lens has it's weaknesses, even the 300 f/2.8 IS II (arguably the sharpest Canon lens) and Otus 55 have some flaws. Softness happens to be the 50L's biggest weakness, but it's not so bad as to make it unusable. People get so hung up on sharpness, it's just sad. If it were a macro lens, I would understand, but it's marketed towards, "[w]edding and portrait photographers, as well as professional photojournalists."

If Sigma can come up with a reasonably priced AF lens that has excellent color, contrast, bokeh, AND sharpness, I'll be very happy, and I'm eager to pre-order one to test out.

In the meantime, however, I'll happily trade some sharpness for the rest of the things that the 50L does so well and if I need sharpness above all else, my 24-70 II will do just fine.