Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More

[jabbott]

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

Further, you are dead on -- I see pros still using the old Canon 50 F/1.4 at weddings, concerts, etc. because the 1.2 lens isn't for them. It's dreamy and arty, but it's not particularly sharp and I've read people having fits nailing the focus. I've shot both, and I think the hunt-y AF of my 50 F/1.4 is slower to target but ultimately more reliably on target.

Count me as one of those... I used a 50mm f/1.4 on a 5D3 at a wedding recently (non-professionally) and the focusing performance while using AF Servo mode was absolutely appalling. Usually the 5D3 focuses on the nearest object and stays nicely locked in, but with the 50mm it was consistently focusing further out. The subjects were a few feet away so there should have been no issue. I've had much better luck with other lenses. If the price is right with this Sigma 50, and the AF performance is good, I'm in!

 

[Radiating]

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

When I said Canon has been sleeping "here"...I was referring to 50mm focal length. This is the NORMAL focal length for FF and the Canon offerings have been in my mind disrespectful of photography. I think Canon should be offering something solid, reliable and competent in this BASIC staple. The do not, as far as I am concerned. I bought the old Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (not without its own problems...but apparently I bought a good copy), because the canon offerings were so anemic...and the price on the L lens for what it offers is embarrassing. Also, if they ever do come to bat on this situation, (a 50mm f/2.0 IS is NOT addressing this BASIC issue) you can bet the pricing will suck the air out of the room. Whatever is going on over at Sigma Corp. I for one hope that they keep sending lots of it our way. Hope this new Sigma busts the 50mm situation wide open. We will see. (fingers crossed).

Canon offers five flavors of standard lens (40/2.8, 50/2.5, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.2). Four of them are very affordable. I would not call that "disrespectful of photography". Each of them offers some advantages, and each has found many buyers, and each has made many fine photos. Your old Sigma 50/1.4 is about $500 or about 25% more than Canon's 50/1.4, so it should be better at least in some way. Now Sigma offers a $900 version of a 50mm, which is much less affordable than four of Canon's offerings. And it's not weather-sealed. Should Canon have offered a $900 large-sized non-weather-sealed 50mm lens? That would be nice, but can you really blame Canon for not filling every possible price niche. And I disagree about a 50mm f/2 IS. That would be a "basic staple". A 50/2 has been a basic staple in the photography world for generations. Adding IS would make it even more attractive, especially for video.

I think you're mistaking releasing a bunch of gimmicky lenses for actually having a good set of lenses.

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.

It's understandable how Canon let this lens stay the way it was without an update.

However, as Nikon with their 58mm f/1.4 and Zeiss with their 55mm Otus have shown that there are new ways to make a 50mm lens, and I think Sigma took notice, but Canon is lagging way behind, as this sample shows:

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

The f1.2 did not replace the f1.0, Canon have made 50 and 55 f1.2's for a long long time.

 

[zlatko]

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.

The f1.2 did not replace the f1.0, Canon have made 50 and 55 f1.2's for a long long time.

The dog photo is an official Zeiss sample image from their new $4,000 Otus 55mm lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/10203490974/#in/set-72157635236491881
It may be hard to tell in the small version, but it shows phenomenal sharpness and fantastic bokeh. That shot was made at f/1.4 against the sunlight and yet it is amazingly free of the usual lens faults. No $90 50/1.8 lens can make that photo.

If you check out the full sized original, you'll see that it is a pretty special lens, probably the best 50 ever:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/10203490974/#sizes/o/in/set-72157635236491881/

However, showing a photo from a $4,000 50mm lens hardly proves anything about Canon lagging way behind, unless the point is that Canon should make a $4,000 50mm lens. Canon's 50mm lenses, especially the 50/1.2L, have been used for a tremendous amount of professional work even if some people throw all sorts of criticism at them.

 

[zlatko]

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.

 

[zlatko]

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

Really.

Canon 50mm f1.4 currently a $299 lens, I only had a horribly back light f1.8 example to show as a comparison to the dog. No processing of any merit, no issues with the backiight and individual hairs are pin sharp, bokeh is pretty darn smooth too..........

So illuminate me on where the additional $3,701 would be going?

First full image, second 100% crop.

I agree that the Canon 50/1.4 is a fine lens for $299. I didn't bring up the dog image sample, so I won't try to persuade you that the Otus is worth $4,000, although I'm pretty sure it will test better than any 50 ever. I'm not sure why that lens is being used as an example of why Canon is "lagging way behind".

Edited to add: your shot is at f/1.8 and the Canon 50/1.4 sharpens up nicely with every click that you stop down. Even 1.8 is improved over 1.4. By f/2.8 or f/4 it is great. But it is not that sharp at f/1.4 where it tends to show halos. And it is not that sharp out to the edges. And it wouldn't be as sharp on a 36mp Nikon D800 (which they used with the Otus for the dog shot). There are some test images online (not sure where I saw them) from the Otus that show fantastic sharpness to the edges even at f/1.4. That said, I'm not sure I would want carry the Otus, or manually focus it, or pay $4k for it! The Canon 50/1.4 offers great value for $299.

 

[Dylan777]

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

When I said Canon has been sleeping "here"...I was referring to 50mm focal length. This is the NORMAL focal length for FF and the Canon offerings have been in my mind disrespectful of photography. I think Canon should be offering something solid, reliable and competent in this BASIC staple. The do not, as far as I am concerned. I bought the old Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (not without its own problems...but apparently I bought a good copy), because the canon offerings were so anemic...and the price on the L lens for what it offers is embarrassing. Also, if they ever do come to bat on this situation, (a 50mm f/2.0 IS is NOT addressing this BASIC issue) you can bet the pricing will suck the air out of the room. Whatever is going on over at Sigma Corp. I for one hope that they keep sending lots of it our way. Hope this new Sigma busts the 50mm situation wide open. We will see. (fingers crossed).

Canon offers five flavors of standard lens (40/2.8, 50/2.5, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.2). Four of them are very affordable. I would not call that "disrespectful of photography". Each of them offers some advantages, and each has found many buyers, and each has made many fine photos. Your old Sigma 50/1.4 is about $500 or about 25% more than Canon's 50/1.4, so it should be better at least in some way. Now Sigma offers a $900 version of a 50mm, which is much less affordable than four of Canon's offerings. And it's not weather-sealed. Should Canon have offered a $900 large-sized non-weather-sealed 50mm lens? That would be nice, but can you really blame Canon for not filling every possible price niche. And I disagree about a 50mm f/2 IS. That would be a "basic staple". A 50/2 has been a basic staple in the photography world for generations. Adding IS would make it even more attractive, especially for video.

I think you're mistaking releasing a bunch of gimmicky lenses for actually having a good set of lenses.

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.

It's understandable how Canon let this lens stay the way it was without an update.

However, as Nikon with their 58mm f/1.4 and Zeiss with their 55mm Otus have shown that there are new ways to make a 50mm lens, and I think Sigma took notice, but Canon is lagging way behind, as this sample shows:

@ f1.2, I can see a "donkey" through my 50L 8) blahhh-blahhh-blahhh

How often do you hear "my f1.4 prime is so dam good from f2.8 to smaller?"

 

[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.

 

[mackguyver]

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

The 50mm f/1.2L is one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period.

LOL, really? Have you ever used this lens? I guess build quality and the final photo don't matter much if it can't break any resolution records and have perfect coma for astrophotography. It's a portrait lens, not a macro lens, not a astro lens, etc., and if you look at actual photos, the lens can be pretty damned amazing in the right hands.

Then again, take a look at some of the photos taken with the 50 1.8 or even the horrible 28 1.8 or 35 2 - even the "worst" lenses can make incredible photos in the right hands and when used for their intended purpose.

I hesitated to buy the 50 1.2 for many years based on test charts and comments like yours, but then I used it and was blown away by the photos I could take with it. The upcoming Sigma may test better, but until I use it and see the results on actual photos, I'll withhold judgement. In the meantime, I'll go back to shooting with, "One of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period." ;D.

 

[ecka]

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.

 

[Eldar]

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

The 50mm f/1.2L is one of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period.

LOL, really? Have you ever used this lens? I guess build quality and the final photo don't matter much if it can't break any resolution records and have perfect coma for astrophotography. It's a portrait lens, not a macro lens, not a astro lens, etc., and if you look at actual photos, the lens can be pretty damned amazing in the right hands.

Then again, take a look at some of the photos taken with the 50 1.8 or even the horrible 28 1.8 or 35 2 - even the "worst" lenses can make incredible photos in the right hands and when used for their intended purpose.

I hesitated to buy the 50 1.2 for many years based on test charts and comments like yours, but then I used it and was blown away by the photos I could take with it. The upcoming Sigma may test better, but until I use it and see the results on actual photos, I'll withhold judgement. In the meantime, I'll go back to shooting with, "One of the worst lenses made by any manufacturer period." ;D.

+1
There are some pixel peeping, chart readers, apparently without a clue on what a lens is supposed to do. Both the 50 f1.2L and the 35 f1.4L is being beaten up on various forums, this one included. At the same time, photographers who are actually using these lenses produce phenomenal images with them.

 

[candyman]

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

I'm very happy with my current f/1.4 Sigma - but did anyone notice the maximum magnification ratio of 1:5.6? The MMR of the current model is only 1:7.4, something I stumble into when I do museums with this lens.

I used to own the 50mm f/1.4 and used it on a 550D and 7D. Great lens for museums.
Africa Museum - very little light inside
550D iso3200 and f1.4(of course) - there is some noise here

It's a fabulous lens for this application; only the small displays could use a little more magnification though (on full frame) but I don't consider 1:5.6 vs 1:7.4 max magnification to be enough of a difference to justify getting the new Sigma for this feature only

I visited a museum for ethnic sciences, they have some African stuff too
http://www.mrsfotografie.nl/musea/museum-volkenkunde

Sample below: Canon EOS 5D Mark II ,1/50 sec, f/2.8 iso 2000, -0,67 EV

I must admit, I did not like the sigma 50 on my 5d MKIII. I sold it but I am awaiting the new sigma. First I would like to see some reviews with field examples using a FF camera

What didn't you like, specifically? I'm actually having even more fun with this lens on the MkIII than on the MkII although it's harder to check critical sharpness on the Mk III at wide apertures (my Mk II has a precision matte focusing screen). On the Mk II I use manual override to tweak the sharpness at wide apertures, on the Mk III I've set AFMA +8 for this lens.

Of course it is a personal opinion based on the combination of my camera and the specific lens but I found it less sharp it the center and especially corners (though I did run Focal to set AFMA)
Considering the praise on the Sigma 35mm I have high expectation of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art
I truly hope the price will be more in the 600 euro range rather than 800 to 900. The current 50mm of Sigma is around 440 euro. The 35mm Art went down to around 730 euro.

 

[zlatko]

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

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

Where are you seeing this? How does the $1,283 Zeiss beat the Canon 50/1.4? Here are the numbers at f/2 according to LensRentals:
Canon 50/1.4 = 790 center, 660 average
Zeiss 50/2 = 760 center, 620 average
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

They are close, but the Canon 50/1.4 scored higher. The Zeiss is arguably better according to charts over at The-Digital-Picture, but again they are close. Of course, the Zeiss should be better, being 3X or 4X more expensive.

 

[ahsanford]

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


Initial hands-on with the new Sigma 50mm here:

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

- A

 

[RLPhoto]

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

Really.

Canon 50mm f1.4 currently a $299 lens, I only had a horribly back light f1.8 example to show as a comparison to the dog. No processing of any merit, no issues with the backiight and individual hairs are pin sharp, bokeh is pretty darn smooth too..........

So illuminate me on where the additional $3,701 would be going?

First full image, second 100% crop.

Wow. A photo. I hope this trend continues.

I love the 50mm Focal length. I'll probably give a swing at this new sigma, being that the first sigma 50mm was a horrid back focusing-front focusing monstrosity. I'm also one of those who quite like the 50L and haven't found a suitor to surpass it for my needs.

 

[mrsfotografie]

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

I truly hope the price will be more in the 600 euro range rather than 800 to 900. The current 50mm of Sigma is around 440 euro. The 35mm Art went down to around 730 euro.

That would be good, but knowing myself I will sooner or later be tempted by this new offering, especially of the price drops below that of the 35

 

[Albi86]

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

Sharpness seems to be very similar to the 35mm. Probably better bokeh.

 

[vlad]

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

What didn't you like, specifically? I'm actually having even more fun with this lens on the MkIII than on the MkII although it's harder to check critical sharpness on the Mk III at wide apertures (my Mk II has a precision matte focusing screen). On the Mk II I use manual override to tweak the sharpness at wide apertures, on the Mk III I've set AFMA +8 for this lens.

FYI, I got a matte focusing screen for my MKIII from this site and it works great:
http://www.focusingscreen.com/product_info.php?cPath=21_134&products_id=1193

Thanks for the link! I've bookmarked it for reference if I decide to go that direction. How does your 5D Mk III meter with this screen?

I haven't noticed any metering abnormalities. I usually shoot in Av with evaluative metering and occasionally bump to +1/3 EV to expose to the right, which is pretty much what I was doing before on a 5Dc with Canon's matte EE-S screen.

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

 

[mrsfotografie]

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

What didn't you like, specifically? I'm actually having even more fun with this lens on the MkIII than on the MkII although it's harder to check critical sharpness on the Mk III at wide apertures (my Mk II has a precision matte focusing screen). On the Mk II I use manual override to tweak the sharpness at wide apertures, on the Mk III I've set AFMA +8 for this lens.

FYI, I got a matte focusing screen for my MKIII from this site and it works great:
http://www.focusingscreen.com/product_info.php?cPath=21_134&products_id=1193

Thanks for the link! I've bookmarked it for reference if I decide to go that direction. How does your 5D Mk III meter with this screen?

I haven't noticed any metering abnormalities. I usually shoot in Av with evaluative metering and occasionally bump to +1/3 EV to expose to the right, which is pretty much what I was doing before on a 5Dc with Canon's matte EE-S screen.

Thank you

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

+1!!!

 

[Artifex]

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

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

Where are you seeing this? How does the $1,283 Zeiss beat the Canon 50/1.4? Here are the numbers at f/2 according to LensRentals:
Canon 50/1.4 = 790 center, 660 average
Zeiss 50/2 = 760 center, 620 average
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

They are close, but the Canon 50/1.4 scored higher. The Zeiss is arguably better according to charts over at The-Digital-Picture, but again they are close. Of course, the Zeiss should be better, being 3X or 4X more expensive.

I am seeing this on the MTF graphs and reviews of lenstip and photozone. They are, from my expirence at least, trusted sources. Also, the fact that it is more expensive doesn't affect the fact that it is, according to the graphs, sharper; I haven't talked about value, but only image quality.