- Status
kirillica said:with ugly CAdtaylor said:btw Sigma's bokeh is nothing compare to Russian Helios M40-2 analogue. If you prefer excellent bokeh - buy Russian stuff.
Sorry, I don't care for the bokeh of the M40-2. It's unique for sure, and I've seen it put to good use in some shots. But it's very distracting and 'nervous' for most shots. I much prefer the smooth, diffused backgrounds of the Sigma.
Needless to say the M40-2 is a specialty lens (manual focus / stopped down metering / adapter required). On top of that, it's the wrong focal length for this discussion, it's not nearly as sharp wide open, and it does not have nearly the contrast as any of the 50mm lenses being discussed. Again, it has a unique look and that can be put to good use at times, but it's not a substitute for the lenses being discussed.
As for CA: the Sigma is worse than the Canon f/1.4, but much better than the f/1.2L. At any rate CA is pretty much a non issue on digital where it's easily corrected. And with the typical subject matter for these lenses you often won't even need correction. In fact, now that I think about it, I don't think I've used CA correction on more than 1 or 2 shots from my Sigma.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
He also only tested one copy
I should note that I don't see any where near a 70% throw away rate. Some shots will get tossed, but no more than with my 85 f/1.8.This one interests me more because I imagine he has seen/tested more than one copy.
But again, this guy is going shopping, not ordering online. He can cherry pick to get one with decent AF characteristics.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
dtaylor said:
Lateral CA - the red-blue tangential fringing away from the center of the frame - is easily corrected, automatically by most RAW converters including DPP. Longitudinal CA - the purple-green fringing throughout the frame - which is the bane of wide aperture primes, is not easily corrected, and in many cases, impossible to correct satisfactorily. At high-contrast transitions, the Sigma 50/1.4 suffers from some, but not much. The 50/1.2L is a lot worse - see the example in the PZ review of the 50/1.2L on APS-C.
dtaylor said:
For himself, sure. But he also has to deal with the bitching of people who are unhappy with the rental, which is why he warns potential renters up front.
Upvote
0
My trick with this lens is to half-press the shutter until it achieves focus lock and then release and repeat a couple of times until the lens doesn't refocus each time to achieve focus lock. Obviously, this doesn't work with any moving subject or when you only have a second to get a shot off.
From a image quality perspective, I love mine.
From a image quality perspective, I love mine.
Upvote
0
W
willrobb
Guest
So we went out and played with 50mm lenses today:
canon 50mm f1.4
Sigma 50mm f1.4
Zeiss 50mm
(canon 50mm 1.8 was dismissed on build and canon 50mm 1.2L were dismissed on poor build quality/cost.)
The Zeiss was dismissed on non AF grounds, even though IQ looked very good. I have to say the AF of the Sigma we tried was possibly the worst I have ever tried. It was a display copy, I realise it's probably had a lot of use and isn't as good as a lot of people have, but it really was all over the place and as a result the Sigma was passed over.
The canon f1.4 really suited my friend, the AF was great, the image quality awesome,he picked up an immaculate 2nd hand copy for a great price, we went out and tested it more and he was over the moon.
Thanks for the input everyone, I really appreciated it. We tested out as much as possible based on what I heard and my friend based his decision on what we tried. Had it been a better Sigma or a not so good canon it could have been a very different result, but with what we tried it was was it was.
canon 50mm f1.4
Sigma 50mm f1.4
Zeiss 50mm
(canon 50mm 1.8 was dismissed on build and canon 50mm 1.2L were dismissed on poor build quality/cost.)
The Zeiss was dismissed on non AF grounds, even though IQ looked very good. I have to say the AF of the Sigma we tried was possibly the worst I have ever tried. It was a display copy, I realise it's probably had a lot of use and isn't as good as a lot of people have, but it really was all over the place and as a result the Sigma was passed over.
The canon f1.4 really suited my friend, the AF was great, the image quality awesome,he picked up an immaculate 2nd hand copy for a great price, we went out and tested it more and he was over the moon.
Thanks for the input everyone, I really appreciated it. We tested out as much as possible based on what I heard and my friend based his decision on what we tried. Had it been a better Sigma or a not so good canon it could have been a very different result, but with what we tried it was was it was.
Upvote
0
B
brandsteve
Guest
The canon 1.2 was too much for our budget. We tried out the Canon 1.4 and with the 7D found the autofocus to be rather slow. It was a frustrating lens to use. We then tried the Sigma 1.4 and wow what a lens.
I've heard the stop down issues with the Sigma 1.4 are mostly an issue on full frame cameras. We've had great results with ours. My wife has put her L zooms in the drawer and rarely takes them out now.
I've heard the stop down issues with the Sigma 1.4 are mostly an issue on full frame cameras. We've had great results with ours. My wife has put her L zooms in the drawer and rarely takes them out now.
Upvote
0
drmikeinpdx
Celebrating 20 years of model photography!
While I am certain that some lenses focus more reliably or faster than others, I feel that the whole DSLR autofocus system that is currently in use is loaded with potential problems and really needs to be replaced with something that will inherently compensate for the imperfect tolerances of both lenses and cameras.
My main camera is a 5D classic, which had a severe front focus problem when I bought it used. Canon fixed it for $200 and it worked fine with Canon lenses most of the time. After about a year, I upgraded from a Nifty Fifty to a Sigma 50mm 1.4 lens.
I found that the Sigma would front focus about 3-4 inches at full body portrait distance, but I liked the image quality enough that I learned to compensate by focusing on the model's ear instead of the eye. No micro-adjust on the 5D classic of course. The Sigma was my main lens for about a year.
Several months ago I bought a 7D and tried the Sigma on it, thinking that I would just dial in some micro-adjust. Doing some really precise testing, I did notice the focus shift with aperture changes, but it wasn't terrible. I decided to set the micro-adjust for the very slight back focus at f1.4 and ended up with only -1 compensation. Not bad, but obviously different than what I was used to with my 5D.
I put the Sigma away around that time, because both the 5D and 7D were now sporting zoom lenses. (Crazy focus stories on those lenses as well.)
Last week, while at a group glamour photoshoot, we were going to shoot with available light and I thought f1.4 would be perfect. I got out my Sigma and did some test shots with the 5D to see where it was focusing so that I could compensate.
I used a chess set in a "sun room" with large windows as my target and focused on the top of the white King. Magnifying the image on the LCD screen as much as possible, I was surprised to see that the Sigma was now focusing perfectly at f1.4. I shot two more times to verify and got the same results. I'll post one of these shots with a crop of the chess set. These are almost direct from RAW and my software applies minimal sharpening. Normally you would add a lot more.
If I had it to do over again, I'd probably buy the Canon 1.4 which at the time was $150 less, but I have enjoyed the looks I get from other photographers when they see that huge Sigma!
But my real point here is that focus performance is almost completely unpredictable due to the trouble prone system currently in use. It makes perfect sense to me that people on forums like this disagree vehemently about how well a particular lens or camera focuses. I think the system must have been designed in an era when it seemed that small aperture zooms would completely take over the SLR world. Those of us who choose large aperture primes are stuck with a lot of frustration.
Mike in Portland, OR
My main camera is a 5D classic, which had a severe front focus problem when I bought it used. Canon fixed it for $200 and it worked fine with Canon lenses most of the time. After about a year, I upgraded from a Nifty Fifty to a Sigma 50mm 1.4 lens.
I found that the Sigma would front focus about 3-4 inches at full body portrait distance, but I liked the image quality enough that I learned to compensate by focusing on the model's ear instead of the eye. No micro-adjust on the 5D classic of course. The Sigma was my main lens for about a year.
Several months ago I bought a 7D and tried the Sigma on it, thinking that I would just dial in some micro-adjust. Doing some really precise testing, I did notice the focus shift with aperture changes, but it wasn't terrible. I decided to set the micro-adjust for the very slight back focus at f1.4 and ended up with only -1 compensation. Not bad, but obviously different than what I was used to with my 5D.
I put the Sigma away around that time, because both the 5D and 7D were now sporting zoom lenses. (Crazy focus stories on those lenses as well.)
Last week, while at a group glamour photoshoot, we were going to shoot with available light and I thought f1.4 would be perfect. I got out my Sigma and did some test shots with the 5D to see where it was focusing so that I could compensate.
I used a chess set in a "sun room" with large windows as my target and focused on the top of the white King. Magnifying the image on the LCD screen as much as possible, I was surprised to see that the Sigma was now focusing perfectly at f1.4. I shot two more times to verify and got the same results. I'll post one of these shots with a crop of the chess set. These are almost direct from RAW and my software applies minimal sharpening. Normally you would add a lot more.
If I had it to do over again, I'd probably buy the Canon 1.4 which at the time was $150 less, but I have enjoyed the looks I get from other photographers when they see that huge Sigma!
But my real point here is that focus performance is almost completely unpredictable due to the trouble prone system currently in use. It makes perfect sense to me that people on forums like this disagree vehemently about how well a particular lens or camera focuses. I think the system must have been designed in an era when it seemed that small aperture zooms would completely take over the SLR world. Those of us who choose large aperture primes are stuck with a lot of frustration.
Mike in Portland, OR
Attachments
Upvote
0
Might be a bit late to join the party here, but my brand new Sigma 50mm 1.4 is currently "in the shop". I had to take it over to Gentec International for calibration. Turns out they are located in Markham, Ontario about 10 mins away from my house, I don't think they get very many drop-ins but were very nice and immediately confirmed my front focusing issue on their own rebel body. I hope to get it back by the end of the week.
Upvote
0
Since you mentioned that he has a 5D MK II, I'd say go Canon. The Sigma is a tad sharper on a crop, but the Canon is better on Full frame.
A lot of responders have crop cameras, and will like it better.
A lot of responders have crop cameras, and will like it better.
Upvote
0
I've had two of the Sigma 50 1.4 and almost sent the second back as well. But then I tried shooting it without the B+H MRC UV and it focused just fine. So been using it ever since with no filter. The hit rate is not as good as my 100 L, but it hits in the low 90%s for me. Getting some very nice shots with it and glad I kept the second one. Very little focus shift on mine and that was the first thing I checked since it's all you see on the net about this lens.
Upvote
0
C
carlc
Guest
I have the Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSM on a Canon 7D and love it. A little more expensive than the Canon f1.4 but it is built like a tank. Great balance on a 7D, fast and accurate focus for me. I would buy another one if anything happens to this one. I am still learning some of the vast capabilities of this lens but it just kills low light challenges. Also own a Canon 24-105 and 10-22. Just waiting for the new 24-70 (if it has IS I will purchase). Also rented the new (II) Canon 70-200 and it is on my wish list right behind the 24-70.
I should note that I never used the Canon f1.4, just went with the Sigma f1.4 based on reviews and I don't regret it for a second. It will be on my 7D throughout Christmas.
I should note that I never used the Canon f1.4, just went with the Sigma f1.4 based on reviews and I don't regret it for a second. It will be on my 7D throughout Christmas.
Upvote
0
Craig Richardson said:
Just a quick update, my Sigma was reprogrammed by Gentec and it is nailing focus now from a few quick tests I have run at close range.
EDIT: I was still having unpredictable focus shift problems until I read Skitron's post and removed my B+H UV filter and now close focus is good again. I really hope the far focus is fixed too because it was back focusing today at a distance.
EDIT 2: Lens is completely unpredictable, would not recommend at this point.
Upvote
0
Craig Richardson said:
One thing I noticed about mine was if the camera is not steady (i.e. good handhold technique) I will often get both motion blur and OOF. It's as if the AF can't deal with much camera motion and still do its job. Only an issue at low aperture values.
Another thing I'm going to try even though I'm having good luck with this lens is shooting in AI servo mode when at low aperture values due to the very thin DOF. Several folks are recommending this in the Canon vs Sigma 85mm thread and it makes alot of sense. May be worth a try for you.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
