Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

[Artifex]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

The f/2.5mm is a Macro lens it is not a general purpose lens. The 40mm f/2.8 was Canon's entry into a super cheap STM prime for their STM initiative, the 50mm f/1.8 was just a super cheap lens to promote entry level photography with primes, and the 50mm L prime is horrible. The last version was so bad at f/1.0 that they dropped the entire idea, and the new version is equally horrible. At f/1.2 it has lower picture resolution than an iPhone 5. It also has image quality that has to be compared to lensbaby, a plastic lens made to be extremely horrible on purpose for visual effects. The 50mm f/1.2L is one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period.

Canon's only non-gimicky 50mm is the 50mm f/1.4. And actually it's a pretty decent 50mm, it actually has more resolution at f/2 than any other 50mm lens in the world released, prior to 2013. It is extremely hard to make a 50mm lens that is fast and most deliver extremely poor image quality. The Canon 50mm 1.4 actually beat out every other 50mm lens on the market at f/2, delivering what I would consider the fastest 50mm aperture with an average resolution of 2400 LPPH or more (which is the minimum resolution I consider acceptable), but it was disappointing to see such a poor focusing mechanism and such poor coatings because it wasn't updated for an extremely long time.

Just because you don't personally use or like a lens doesn't make it "gimmicky".

The original 50/1.0 lens, which you call "horrible", was almost unique in its time and still makes beautiful photos at f/1.0: http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263

The 50/2.5 macro is for any purpose you want to use it, not just macro. It's cheap and sharp, though it has the old buzzy AF motor. Cheap + sharp + 1:2 macro = a good combination.

The 40/2.8 is a wonderful pancake lens and is a cheap way of shrinking your big dslr and still having really sharp photos. Brilliant and a joy to use. Cheap + sharp + very small = a good combination

You're right, the 50/1.8 is "just" a super cheap lens to promote entry level photography with primes. But wait, that's a good thing. What's wrong with that? That actually makes some people very happy.

The "horrible" 50/1.2L which you compare to a plastic Lensbaby has been used for a tremendous amount of professional work. It is good enough for David Burnett, Sebastiao Salgado and Mario Sorrenti, but not good enough for you? And this guy seems to make decent photos with it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/petezelewski/ ... not bad for using what you say is "one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period."

As for the Canon 50mm f/1.4 having more resolution at f/2 than any other 50mm lens in the world released prior to 2013 ... not exactly. That would easily have been the Leica 50/1.4 Summilux: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

In the Lensrentals "Great 50mm Shootout", you'll note that both Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L scored higher in resolution than any of the 50's from Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss. That's pretty good for lenses you consider gimmicky or not good. Leica scored higher, but Leica is in a much higher price category.

Moreover, just looking at lens in EF-mount, the Zeiss 50mm f/2 clearly beats the EF 50mm f/1.4 at f/2.

... which is a $1200 manual focus f/2 macro lens. Lensrentals clearly shows that Nikkor 50/1.4 beats all of it's price category rivals and Sigma is the sharpest in the center, while the good old plastic-fantastic 50/1.8II would put all them to shame, for the price that is .
I'm not a pixel-peeper, but I do prefer sharp-cropping over soft-zooming. Any decent lens can produce perfectly good and sharp snapshots. Actually, you don't need a DSLR for that (or anything with a big sensor, you can make bokeh in photoshop these days ). 50L is not my dream fifty, nor is the 50/1.4USM. If the new Sigma 50/1.4 is anything like their 35Art, then I'm getting one, but for now - nothing beats my 40.

Of course, I haven't talked about value, but only sharpness. Of course, the Ef f/1.4 is faster, cheaper and have AF, while the Zeiss 50 f/2 MP is sharper, have 1:2 magnification and have a much better build quality and focus ring for MF. They are very diffent produces for different needs and different photographers.

I can only agree with you though; if the Sigma 50mm Art is anything like the 35mm Art, I am also getting one! ;D

 

[Eldar]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

And lest anyone consider this off-topic, in my opinion, an upgraded focusing screen is pretty much a requirement if you plan on doing manual focusing with the fast 50's being discussed

I can confirm that. My manual focus experience since I got the 5D (back in the dark ages) was almost exclusively limited to tripod mounted tilt&shift with live view (and some macro), until I got the Otus 55. With my eyesight, which is not great anymore, but far from blind, it is absolutely paramount to have a better focusing screen to get sharp shots at f1.4. It would really be a shame if I only used this lens at f4 and upwards, because I was not able to focus.

So Canon; Please listen; Make us happy and give us the proper focusing screens for the 1DX and all its unborn relatives.

 

[mackguyver]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

And lest anyone consider this off-topic, in my opinion, an upgraded focusing screen is pretty much a requirement if you plan on doing manual focusing with the fast 50's being discussed

I can confirm that. My manual focus experience since I got the 5D (back in the dark ages) was almost exclusively limited to tripod mounted tilt&shift with live view (and some macro), until I got the Otus 55. With my eyesight, which is not great anymore, but far from blind, it is absolutely paramount to have a better focusing screen to get sharp shots at f1.4. It would really be a shame if I only used this lens at f4 and upwards, because I was not able to focus.

So Canon; Please listen; Make us happy and give us the proper focusing screens for the 1DX and all its unborn relatives.

+1 this is exactly why I hold onto my 5DII with super precision matte focusing screen. This despite LiveView and AF...I like to SEE that my lens is in focus, especially with the f/1.2 lenses

 

[mrsfotografie]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

And lest anyone consider this off-topic, in my opinion, an upgraded focusing screen is pretty much a requirement if you plan on doing manual focusing with the fast 50's being discussed

I can confirm that. My manual focus experience since I got the 5D (back in the dark ages) was almost exclusively limited to tripod mounted tilt&shift with live view (and some macro), until I got the Otus 55. With my eyesight, which is not great anymore, but far from blind, it is absolutely paramount to have a better focusing screen to get sharp shots at f1.4. It would really be a shame if I only used this lens at f4 and upwards, because I was not able to focus.

So Canon; Please listen; Make us happy and give us the proper focusing screens for the 1DX and all its unborn relatives.

+1 this is exactly why I hold onto my 5DII with super precision matte focusing screen. This despite LiveView and AF...I like to SEE that my lens is in focus, especially with the f/1.2 lenses

+1, I'm holding onto my 5DII with super precision matte focusing screen as well

 

[DJL329]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

What I do love about this anouncement is the audacity! Sigma is shameless. They should be content with their inferior position in the market place, but no, - for the couple of last years they have gone hunting It reminds me of a classic ad for a US car rental company in the eighties... "We know we are number two, therefore we try harder"

Good one! And let's not forget that Canon used to be number two, to Nikon. It was their audacious move to the auto-focus EF mount that catapulted them to number one.

 

[Albi86]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

What I do love about this anouncement is the audacity! Sigma is shameless. They should be content with their inferior position in the market place, but no, - for the couple of last years they have gone hunting It reminds me of a classic ad for a US car rental company in the eighties... "We know we are number two, therefore we try harder"

Good one! And let's not forget that Canon used to be number two, to Nikon. It was their audacious move to the auto-focus EF mount that catapulted them to number one.

That, the fluorite elements and being cheaper (though it seems hard to believe today).

 

[mhlas7]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

All the rumors are pointing to Canon releasing a 50mm f/1.8 IS to replace the current 50mm f/1.4. I have no interest in image stabalization at the 50mm focal length so I am inclined to go with the Sigma and if it is as good as the Sigma 35mm, it may have better IQ than the new Canon 50mm.

I think Sigma scored a home run with this lens

 

[captainkanji]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

I love the 50 1.4 when it doesn't miss focus and it's at f/2 or higher. If the Sigma is better and priced at around $600-700 (or less) I would seriously consider it. It can't be less durable than a Canons 50 1.4. I've had to get it repaired once and always use a lens hood since (I set my bag down too hard and knocked something loose). I'm just glad there is some competition.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

All the rumors are pointing to Canon releasing a 50mm f/1.8 IS to replace the current 50mm f/1.4. I have no interest in image stabalization at the 50mm focal length so I am inclined to go with the Sigma and if it is as good as the Sigma 35mm, it may have better IQ than the new Canon 50mm.

I think Sigma scored a home run with this lens

You are not wrong. As beaten to death earlier in this thread, some folks value IS and others value speed.

I think Canon and Sigma's new 50mm lenses will be both be hits... just with different groups of people.

- A

 

[Bennymiata]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

Sharpness, MTF curves - these are not the most important things for a 50mm lens.
Colour, contrast and clarity are far more important.
This is why the 50mm 1.2L is so loved by those that use it often.
If you can't get sharp photos with a 1.2L, then YOUR technique is not right for this lens.

I'd love to try this new Sigma lens, as the recent Sigma's I've bought are really very good indeed and should give a bit of a hurry up to Canon and Nikon.

 

[Radiating]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

What, exactly, is that example supposed to show? For the life of me I can't see why you couldn't shoot it with a $90 50mm f1.8. Certainly at this size it shows no unique quality.

No, even at that size there is an extreme and obvious difference, but without a back to back comparison most people don't appreciate quality. A 50mm f/1.8, would not have the same buttery smooth transition between in and out of focus. It would not have incredible sharpness without any processing, it would not be free of extreme purple fringing, it would not have the insane reduction of lens flare, and it would not be free from hazing over the entire frame. That image has no added contrast or sharpness, yet it looks like a processed image.

Here's a back to back comparison:

It is a night and day difference.

The f/2.5mm is a Macro lens it is not a general purpose lens. The 40mm f/2.8 was Canon's entry into a super cheap STM prime for their STM initiative, the 50mm f/1.8 was just a super cheap lens to promote entry level photography with primes, and the 50mm L prime is horrible. The last version was so bad at f/1.0 that they dropped the entire idea, and the new version is equally horrible. At f/1.2 it has lower picture resolution than an iPhone 5. It also has image quality that has to be compared to lensbaby, a plastic lens made to be extremely horrible on purpose for visual effects. The 50mm f/1.2L is one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period.

Canon's only non-gimicky 50mm is the 50mm f/1.4. And actually it's a pretty decent 50mm, it actually has more resolution at f/2 than any other 50mm lens in the world released, prior to 2013. It is extremely hard to make a 50mm lens that is fast and most deliver extremely poor image quality. The Canon 50mm 1.4 actually beat out every other 50mm lens on the market at f/2, delivering what I would consider the fastest 50mm aperture with an average resolution of 2400 LPPH or more (which is the minimum resolution I consider acceptable), but it was disappointing to see such a poor focusing mechanism and such poor coatings because it wasn't updated for an extremely long time.

Just because you don't personally use or like a lens doesn't make it "gimmicky".

The original 50/1.0 lens, which you call "horrible", was almost unique in its time and still makes beautiful photos at f/1.0: http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263

The 50/2.5 macro is for any purpose you want to use it, not just macro. It's cheap and sharp, though it has the old buzzy AF motor. Cheap + sharp + 1:2 macro = a good combination.

The 40/2.8 is a wonderful pancake lens and is a cheap way of shrinking your big dslr and still having really sharp photos. Brilliant and a joy to use. Cheap + sharp + very small = a good combination

You're right, the 50/1.8 is "just" a super cheap lens to promote entry level photography with primes. But wait, that's a good thing. What's wrong with that? That actually makes some people very happy.

The "horrible" 50/1.2L which you compare to a plastic Lensbaby has been used for a tremendous amount of professional work. It is good enough for David Burnett, Sebastiao Salgado and Mario Sorrenti, but not good enough for you? And this guy seems to make decent photos with it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/petezelewski/ ... not bad for using what you say is "one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period."

- The 50/1.0 has more spherical aberration and was discontinued for a reason. I don't think those photos you used as examples look good because you can see the poor image quality of the lens in most of them.

- There is nothing special about the glass in the 50mm Macro The only reason people buy this lens is because of the number on the price tag.

- I own the 40mm STM, there is nothing special about the glass in it, it is a lens that is sold for something other than it's image quality. Which is why it is a niche lens.

- There's nothing wrong with the 50mm 1.8 being cheap, the problem is Canon ignoring pros.

- The 50mm f/1.2 can be used to make excellent photos if you know all of it's weaknesses and compensate for them. It has good center resolution, good color and good contrast. BUT here is what is really annoying. It makes good photos DESPITE these flaws, not because of them. Nobody sits around saying "man I wish this lens had less sharpness, and really bright purple fringing that makes hair look like it's made of alien tentacles" or "this photo could have been better if the focus was slower".

As for the Canon 50mm f/1.4 having more resolution at f/2 than any other 50mm lens in the world released prior to 2013 ... not exactly. That would easily have been the Leica 50/1.4 Summilux: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

In the Lensrentals "Great 50mm Shootout", you'll note that both Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L scored higher in resolution than any of the 50's from Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss. That's pretty good for lenses you consider gimmicky or not good. Leica scored higher, but Leica is in a much higher price category.

You're making the mistake of looking at center resolution. Center resolution is about as relevant to comparing resolution as income on Fridays is to comparing income. That's not how you compare overall performance.

The Canon 50mm f/1.4 has the highest average resolution of any 50mm lens in that test, 640 at f/2.0 average resolution. The Leica lenses do show a higher resolution, but they were tested on a camera without an anti aliasing filter, the Leica M9. When those same lenses are mounted on a 5D II, the Canon bests the Leica F/2 and equals the Leica f/1.4 depending more on copy variation than anyting.

So yes the Canon 50mm f/1.4 has the best f/2 resolution of any 50mm lens, prior to the 58mm Nikon and the 55mm Zeiss, and more importantly had the fastest aperture of any 50mm focal length lens with a minimum of around 2400 lpph average resolution.

 

[Radiating]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

It's also annoying to see people come in here and talk about how the 50mm f/1.2 delivers such a unique look. The 50mm f/1.2 doesn't actually deliver f/1.2 on a digital sensor because at apertures that are that high, the light actually has such a high angle of incidence (that is what high aperture is allowing light at a higher angle of incidence into the lens), that the majority of the addition light from the faster aperture is absorbed or bounces off the walls of each pixel. That's why Canon has to boost ISO in the background on every lens that's faster than f/2.8. You can see almost a stop more noise at f/1.4 1/200th than f/2.8 1/50th. The bokeh at f/1.2 looks mostly like the bokeh at f/1.4 because the extra light doesn't make it to the pixels on a digital camera, only on film.

Here's the difference the "unique look" of f/1.2 makes to the bokeh:

f/1.4

f/1.2

Here is the difference between a Zeiss Otus 50mm and a Canon 50mm @ f/1.4:

I think most people can figure out which is more noticeable without looking twice.

 

[zlatko]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

It's also annoying to see people come in here and talk about how the 50mm f/1.2 delivers such a unique look. The 50mm f/1.2 doesn't actually deliver f/1.2 on a digital sensor because at apertures that are that high, the light actually has such a high angle of incidence (that is what high aperture is allowing light at a higher angle of incidence into the lens), that the majority of the addition light from the faster aperture is absorbed or bounces off the walls of each pixel. That's why Canon has to boost ISO in the background on every lens that's faster than f/2.8. You can see almost a stop more noise at f/1.4 1/200th than f/2.8 1/50th. The bokeh at f/1.2 looks mostly like the bokeh at f/1.4 because the extra light doesn't make it to the pixels on a digital camera, only on film.

Here's the difference the "unique look" of f/1.2 makes to the bokeh:
....

Here is the difference between a Zeiss Otus 50mm and a Canon 50mm @ f/1.4:

I think most people can figure out which is more noticeable without looking twice.

The point about the 50/1.2L not delivering f/1.2 on a digital sensor is not really relevant because the lens delivers a lovely look anyway, no matter how you measure the light at f/1.2.

Sure, there's little difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4, but that's NOT the unique look that photographers talk about. The lens draws beautifully at various apertures. The lens is especially beautiful when stopped down a bit. Notice that most of the photos by Peter Zelewski (linked above) are at f/2. Many photographers appreciate the lens for the especially lovely look it delivers stopped down 1 or 2 or 3 stops, and use f/1.2 only for limited purposes, if at all. It's not that f/1.2 is unusable, but that the DOF is insufficient for their purposes.

By the way, how do you know that the photo on the right is from the Canon 50/1.4? It sure does look like it, but I don't know that Zeiss identified it in their samples.

 

[that1guyy]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

Wonderful news! Let's wait for some time when tests are performed and price drops a bit I really expect that Sigma 50 mm 1.4 will be much better than (20 years!!!! old) Canon 50 mm 1.4. I am really disappointed regarding Canon's approach to lenses. Canon's new lenses are superb quality (e.g. 24-70), however, their price tag is too high for average customers. From another side, Sigma & Tamron is able to manufacture and offer to customers PRO line lenses, which are really affordable.

I am really surprised that Canon was sleeping for 20 years and has not updated its 50 mm 1.4. Despite the fact tah Sigma's equivalent is 2x expensive I will sell my Canon 50 mm 1.4 and will by Sigma. Canon is starting to loose quite significant market to Sigma and Tamron. Canon users are not Apple users, they think! Accordingly, I would expect that many people will by Sigma 50 1.4, which is based on new technology, excells Canon, quality is Similar to Zeiss (I really expect that ) but price is affordable.

Canon should be ashamed to offer (in the future) non-L 50 mm 1.8 IS....

I am a happy user of both Sigma and Tamron lenses, and am using a Macbook pro to write this reply. I think quite a lot before buying things.

 

[zlatko]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

....
So yes the Canon 50mm f/1.4 has the best f/2 resolution of any 50mm lens, prior to the 58mm Nikon and the 55mm Zeiss, and more importantly had the fastest aperture of any 50mm focal length lens with a minimum of around 2400 lpph average resolution.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the current 50/1.2L having "extreme flaws" or being a "special purpose lens" or being "one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer". Goodness, it beat Nikon, Zeiss and Sigma (all also good performers) in the LensRentals 50mm Shootout in 2012.

The lens I referred to as highest resolving before 2013 is the 50/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH introduced in 2004. It can't be mounted on a 5DII. Nor can the 50/2 Summicron-M. So I don't know where you're getting this idea that they don't perform as well when mounted on a 5DII — that can't even be done. Back in the film era, Photodo.com tested the current 50/2 Summicron-M and the current Canon 50/1.4 and found the Leica 50/2 was sharper at f/2 through f/8, although the difference was slight by f/4. (By the time the current Leica 50/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH was introduced, they had stopped testing.)
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Leica-SummicronM-50mm-f20-874
http://www.photodo.com/lens/Canon-EF-50mm-f14-USM-22
You can't blame the AA filter on that.

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

- The 50/1.0 has more spherical aberration and was discontinued for a reason. I don't think those photos you used as examples look good because you can see the poor image quality of the lens in most of them.

Yes it was discontinued for a reason, and that had nothing to do with the aberrations, it was, I vaguely recall, because of the lead content in some of the glass, just like the 200 f1.8. Don't think for one second Canon couldn't make a 50 f1 with a completely different character. Canon, so the rumour mill said before the gossip days of the internet, are supposed to have lost money on every 200 f1.8 and 50 f1.0 they made.

But you clearly are not one to let facts get in the way of your opinion.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

If you can't get sharp photos with a 1.2L, then YOUR technique is not right for this lens.

That L lens is lovely but has limitations that many on this thread want nothing to do with -- it is not the sharpest lens and has rather inconsistent focusing (and not just at wide apertures), as has been spoken to numerous times on this thread.

But implying we are using it wrong is probably not the kindest thing to say.

Maybe you could put things a bit more softly: "Perhaps another 50mm lens is a better choice for some of us."

It certainly is for me.

- A

 

[skybraun]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

When do you guys think we will see reviews and and price announcement?

 

[wickidwombat]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

All the rumors are pointing to Canon releasing a 50mm f/1.8 IS to replace the current 50mm f/1.4. I have no interest in image stabalization at the 50mm focal length so I am inclined to go with the Sigma and if it is as good as the Sigma 35mm, it may have better IQ than the new Canon 50mm.

I think Sigma scored a home run with this lens

for this lens i'm the opposite, i'm gonna wait for the canon IS version and compare if the IQ is close i would more likely take the IS lens at 1.8 over the non is 1.4

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

When do you guys think we will see reviews and and price announcement?

I have only seen one first impressions / hands-on sort of posts, like this:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/01/08/first-impressions-sigma-50mm-f1-4-ii/

http://www.tested.com/tech/photography/459686-ces-2014-impressions-sigmas-new-50mm-f14-lens/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/01/09/ces-2014-sigma-stand-report/5
(...photos 6 and 7 are of it as well)

The first is clearly the best read to date. Those guys, like DPReview, get lenses early for eval, so they'll be following up soon.

I haven't seen price yet.

- A