Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
Here's the thing. Up until 2013 50mm lenses were made almost exclusively with the double gauss design. There is no such thing as a good double gauss fast lens. They are all horrible wide open. And I don't mean horrible in the sense of "wow this lens is 3.2153% worse than this other lens it's horrible".
I mean to say that double gauss f/1.4 or faster lenses have image quality that is so incredibly bad that it's off the scale.
Compared to 85mm or 35mm primes @ f/1.4 double gauss normal lenses have:
10 times less spacial resolution
5 times more chromatic aberration
4 times more purple fringing
4 times as much hazing
How do you make something 5-10 TIMES worse in every metric and have it considered anything but incredibly terrible? You can't. It's not a subjective matter that 50mm lenses are horrible, and I think you an other photographers make the mistake of thinking that just because you can take good photos with a lens that has a lot of bokeh that it's a good lens. For every good photo taken with these lenses there are thousands that are mushy, burry and full of artifacts and lacking contrast.
50mm lenses other than the Otus are objectively terrible. It's a fact and it's not limited to the 50mm f/1.2, the f/1.2 is just a lens that happens to add insult to injury, it's a lens that takes an already weak segment and says "let's compromise this even more". Again there is very little to advantage to f/1.2 over f/1.4 due to the way digital sensors absorb light from fast lenses, you certainly can't really see a major difference in bokeh as the samples on the last page showed, so basically the 50mm L means that Canon ignored making a 50mm f/1.4 L that had good contrast color and bokeh. That is a tragedy.
A double gauss lens has no business having a compromised design.
I actually thought we were talking about Leica R lenses which are a different design and can be adapted to Canon. The shorter focus distance of the rangefinder gives the M design more room for corrective elements. Photozone tested the Leica 50mm R f/1.4 using the Leica R to Canon adapter and found it to be slightly inferior to the 50mm f/1.4, having an MTF score 100 lower in the center and 200 lower at the borders @ f/2.0, although wide open the Leica is better:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/206-leica-summilux-r-50mm-f14-via-adapter-on-canon-eos-review--test-report?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/159-canon-ef-50mm-f14-usm-test-report--review?start=1
Basically all double gauss design 50mm lenses are horrible. I've personally owned pretty much every single one I could get my hands on in a quest to find one with anything but terrible image quality wide open.
zlatko said:
Here's the thing. Up until 2013 50mm lenses were made almost exclusively with the double gauss design. There is no such thing as a good double gauss fast lens. They are all horrible wide open. And I don't mean horrible in the sense of "wow this lens is 3.2153% worse than this other lens it's horrible".
I mean to say that double gauss f/1.4 or faster lenses have image quality that is so incredibly bad that it's off the scale.
Compared to 85mm or 35mm primes @ f/1.4 double gauss normal lenses have:
10 times less spacial resolution
5 times more chromatic aberration
4 times more purple fringing
4 times as much hazing
How do you make something 5-10 TIMES worse in every metric and have it considered anything but incredibly terrible? You can't. It's not a subjective matter that 50mm lenses are horrible, and I think you an other photographers make the mistake of thinking that just because you can take good photos with a lens that has a lot of bokeh that it's a good lens. For every good photo taken with these lenses there are thousands that are mushy, burry and full of artifacts and lacking contrast.
50mm lenses other than the Otus are objectively terrible. It's a fact and it's not limited to the 50mm f/1.2, the f/1.2 is just a lens that happens to add insult to injury, it's a lens that takes an already weak segment and says "let's compromise this even more". Again there is very little to advantage to f/1.2 over f/1.4 due to the way digital sensors absorb light from fast lenses, you certainly can't really see a major difference in bokeh as the samples on the last page showed, so basically the 50mm L means that Canon ignored making a 50mm f/1.4 L that had good contrast color and bokeh. That is a tragedy.
A double gauss lens has no business having a compromised design.
I actually thought we were talking about Leica R lenses which are a different design and can be adapted to Canon. The shorter focus distance of the rangefinder gives the M design more room for corrective elements. Photozone tested the Leica 50mm R f/1.4 using the Leica R to Canon adapter and found it to be slightly inferior to the 50mm f/1.4, having an MTF score 100 lower in the center and 200 lower at the borders @ f/2.0, although wide open the Leica is better:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/206-leica-summilux-r-50mm-f14-via-adapter-on-canon-eos-review--test-report?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/159-canon-ef-50mm-f14-usm-test-report--review?start=1
Basically all double gauss design 50mm lenses are horrible. I've personally owned pretty much every single one I could get my hands on in a quest to find one with anything but terrible image quality wide open.
Upvote
0
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
1.4 for shallower DOF, 1.8 IS for low light handheld photography and smaller size + weight.
Ricku said:
1.4 for shallower DOF, 1.8 IS for low light handheld photography and smaller size + weight.
Upvote
0
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
Nevertheless, ...
Even though you say it's a fact that 50mm lenses are "horrible", it's also fact that many photographers buy, use, enjoy and often prefer 50mm lenses. That says the photograph is what matters, not the metrics.
Even though a lens may be "just right" for some photographers, it won't & can't please everyone. A manufacturer can't make a lens that pleases everyone, or the variety of lenses that would be needed to please everyone. So whatever they make, someone will be unhappy that their personal goals for a new lens weren't met.
It appears that Nikon designed their new 58/1.4 with similar goals — it offers a very nice look, similar to the 50/1.2L based on what I've seen online. It's not surprising that Ming Thein recently wrote about the Nikon 58/1.4: "No intention of buying one since the demos I tried in Japan a couple of weeks ago were pretty soft and ‘glowy’ at f1.4 ..." It's not his kind of lens — so he bought the Otus instead.
With the 50/1.2L Canon delivered a lens that some photographers very much wanted and that measured very well in the 50mm ecosystem of its time. It doesn't please everyone, but it pleases some photographers very much. The fact that the Otus raises the bar is great, but not so relevant for the many photographers who are simply not interested in a $4k manual focus non-weather-sealed lens, even one as good as that.
Now we eagerly wait to see what Sigma brings to the table ...
Radiating said:
Nevertheless, ...
- As of 2012, the 50/1.2L tested better for resolution than any 50mm from Nikon, Zeiss or Sigma on LensRentals' shootout. That's a success.
- The 50/1.2L stopped down delivers a wonderful look that is not accounted for in those tests but that is known to photographers. The advantage of the lens is not the slight extra bit of light going from f/1.4 to f/1.2 — this is less important than ever in the digital era. And it's not the bokeh at f/1.2 — that's not a useful aperture for a lot of what a 50mm is used for. Instead, the advantage is the overall look, especially for portraits, and especially stopped down 1, 2 or 3 stops. That look is why some photographers describe it as their favorite lens. In that regard too, it's a success.
Even though you say it's a fact that 50mm lenses are "horrible", it's also fact that many photographers buy, use, enjoy and often prefer 50mm lenses. That says the photograph is what matters, not the metrics.
Even though a lens may be "just right" for some photographers, it won't & can't please everyone. A manufacturer can't make a lens that pleases everyone, or the variety of lenses that would be needed to please everyone. So whatever they make, someone will be unhappy that their personal goals for a new lens weren't met.
It appears that Nikon designed their new 58/1.4 with similar goals — it offers a very nice look, similar to the 50/1.2L based on what I've seen online. It's not surprising that Ming Thein recently wrote about the Nikon 58/1.4: "No intention of buying one since the demos I tried in Japan a couple of weeks ago were pretty soft and ‘glowy’ at f1.4 ..." It's not his kind of lens — so he bought the Otus instead.
With the 50/1.2L Canon delivered a lens that some photographers very much wanted and that measured very well in the 50mm ecosystem of its time. It doesn't please everyone, but it pleases some photographers very much. The fact that the Otus raises the bar is great, but not so relevant for the many photographers who are simply not interested in a $4k manual focus non-weather-sealed lens, even one as good as that.
Now we eagerly wait to see what Sigma brings to the table ...
Upvote
0
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
Many, many threads have weighed the answer to that question. I'll take a crack at it here, but understand that the physics majors and the working pros on this thread probably see this argument quite differently.
Why Slower with IS is better
With some exceptions, a narrower max aperture lens like a F/1.8 or F/2 should be smaller and lighter than a F/1.4 lens. That absolutely will be the case with Canon's 50 F/whatever IS -- expect it to be about as big as the recently 35mm F/2 IS, as the non-L IS refreshes seem to be paired housing/size-wise.
For comparison's sake, the new Sigma F/1.4's dimensions are very close to the Canon 24-70 F/4 zoom when closed/at 24mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=823&LensComp2=0&LensComp=824
(mouseover the 'Select View' below the pictures and you can make the hoods disappear for a truer read on size.)
Probably more important for the shooters on this forum, presuming (for the sake of example) it's a 4-stop IS system, provided the subject is not moving, you have a lens that is 3-ish stops better for handholding in low light. That advantage can be used a few different ways:
I shoot a fair amount in low-light, handheld, and without a flash. So IS is a big help for me.
Why Faster without IS is better
You can generate a smaller DOF, which is awesome in some compositions.
If you have quickly moving subjects (and you aren't gunning for a blurry one), the upside of IS effectively lost. IS helps with longer shutters and unsteady hands, but it can't freeze (for example) a five year old with happy feet. So if your subject is moving, take the aperture over the IS.
Some folks really rave about the color and draw of the really big F/1.4, F/1.2 and F/1.0 lenses. Quite simply, you are letting more of the light in and it shows. Folks often claim such large aperture work has a 'magical' feel or tone to it. On my F/1.4, when I shoot it wide open, I note richer colors + healthy vignetting on my FF rig that simply looks more memorable at first glance. You can't/shouldn't shoot wide open all the time, but it's a killer look for some shots.
So there are two schools on this. There are a good (I'd guess) half the people in this forum that would take the speed of the F/1.4 without IS at this focal length. For what I shoot, I wouldn't -- I'd probably take the IS.
- A
Ricku said:
Many, many threads have weighed the answer to that question. I'll take a crack at it here, but understand that the physics majors and the working pros on this thread probably see this argument quite differently.
Why Slower with IS is better
With some exceptions, a narrower max aperture lens like a F/1.8 or F/2 should be smaller and lighter than a F/1.4 lens. That absolutely will be the case with Canon's 50 F/whatever IS -- expect it to be about as big as the recently 35mm F/2 IS, as the non-L IS refreshes seem to be paired housing/size-wise.
For comparison's sake, the new Sigma F/1.4's dimensions are very close to the Canon 24-70 F/4 zoom when closed/at 24mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=823&LensComp2=0&LensComp=824
(mouseover the 'Select View' below the pictures and you can make the hoods disappear for a truer read on size.)
Probably more important for the shooters on this forum, presuming (for the sake of example) it's a 4-stop IS system, provided the subject is not moving, you have a lens that is 3-ish stops better for handholding in low light. That advantage can be used a few different ways:
- For a given shot that the non-IS lens would make (assuming it's not right at F/1.4), you can get the same shot while still moving your ISO back down to a more reasonable level, and minimize noise.
- Or, you can stop down the lens to gain sharper image and/or more working DOF. Keep in mind that an F/1.4 non-IS lens in a dimly lit room may have to be slammed fully open to net a low-light shot without cranking the ISO too high, and that can be a fairly limiting DOF to work with, plus no lens is anywhere near being sharp corner to corner at F/1.4.
I shoot a fair amount in low-light, handheld, and without a flash. So IS is a big help for me.
Why Faster without IS is better
You can generate a smaller DOF, which is awesome in some compositions.
If you have quickly moving subjects (and you aren't gunning for a blurry one), the upside of IS effectively lost. IS helps with longer shutters and unsteady hands, but it can't freeze (for example) a five year old with happy feet. So if your subject is moving, take the aperture over the IS.
Some folks really rave about the color and draw of the really big F/1.4, F/1.2 and F/1.0 lenses. Quite simply, you are letting more of the light in and it shows. Folks often claim such large aperture work has a 'magical' feel or tone to it. On my F/1.4, when I shoot it wide open, I note richer colors + healthy vignetting on my FF rig that simply looks more memorable at first glance. You can't/shouldn't shoot wide open all the time, but it's a killer look for some shots.
So there are two schools on this. There are a good (I'd guess) half the people in this forum that would take the speed of the F/1.4 without IS at this focal length. For what I shoot, I wouldn't -- I'd probably take the IS.
- A
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
I agree, I have all of the Canon fast primes from the 24IIL up to the 135L and I have to say that the 50 f1.2L is the weakest and softest performer in terms of optics of all the primes. Its a shame but true, its a good lens but not a great one. It pales next to the 85mm f1.2 II L and 35mm f1.4 L in just about every respect. But sadly, it's still the best performing 50mm available on the Canon ef mount when shooting wide open. I'm just waiting for a 50mm f1.2 II L to come along and rock my world....
ahsanford said:
I agree, I have all of the Canon fast primes from the 24IIL up to the 135L and I have to say that the 50 f1.2L is the weakest and softest performer in terms of optics of all the primes. Its a shame but true, its a good lens but not a great one. It pales next to the 85mm f1.2 II L and 35mm f1.4 L in just about every respect. But sadly, it's still the best performing 50mm available on the Canon ef mount when shooting wide open. I'm just waiting for a 50mm f1.2 II L to come along and rock my world....
Upvote
0
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
Thanks for the answer. It all makes sense!ahsanford said:Ricku said:
Many, many threads have weighed the answer to that question. I'll take a crack at it here, but understand that the physics majors and the working pros on this thread probably see this argument quite differently.
Why Slower with IS is better
With some exceptions, a narrower max aperture lens like a F/1.8 or F/2 should be smaller and lighter than a F/1.4 lens. That absolutely will be the case with Canon's 50 F/whatever IS -- expect it to be about as big as the recently 35mm F/2 IS, as the non-L IS refreshes seem to be paired housing/size-wise.
For comparison's sake, the new Sigma F/1.4's dimensions are very close to the Canon 24-70 F/4 zoom when closed/at 24mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=823&LensComp2=0&LensComp=824
(mouseover the 'Select View' below the pictures and you can make the hoods disappear for a truer read on size.)
Probably more important for the shooters on this forum, presuming (for the sake of example) it's a 4-stop IS system, provided the subject is not moving, you have a lens that is 3-ish stops better for handholding in low light. That advantage can be used a few different ways:
- For a given shot that the non-IS lens would make (assuming it's not right at F/1.4), you can get the same shot while still moving your ISO back down to a more reasonable level, and minimize noise.
- Or, you can stop down the lens to gain sharper image and/or more working DOF. Keep in mind that an F/1.4 non-IS lens in a dimly lit room may have to be slammed fully open to net a low-light shot without cranking the ISO too high, and that can be a fairly limiting DOF to work with, plus no lens is anywhere near being sharp corner to corner at F/1.4.
I shoot a fair amount in low-light, handheld, and without a flash. So IS is a big help for me.
Why Faster without IS is better
You can generate a smaller DOF, which is awesome in some compositions.
If you have quickly moving subjects (and you aren't gunning for a blurry one), the upside of IS effectively lost. IS helps with longer shutters and unsteady hands, but it can't freeze (for example) a five year old with happy feet. So if your subject is moving, take the aperture over the IS.
Some folks really rave about the color and draw of the really big F/1.4, F/1.2 and F/1.0 lenses. Quite simply, you are letting more of the light in and it shows. Folks often claim such large aperture work has a 'magical' feel or tone to it. On my F/1.4, when I shoot it wide open, I note richer colors + healthy vignetting on my FF rig that simply looks more memorable at first glance. You can't/shouldn't shoot wide open all the time, but it's a killer look for some shots.
So there are two schools on this. There are a good (I'd guess) half the people in this forum that would take the speed of the F/1.4 without IS at this focal length. For what I shoot, I wouldn't -- I'd probably take the IS.
- A
Upvote
0
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
+1 - Like you, I have owned all of them (and still own most of them), and the 50L is the weakest of the L primes, and that's why I sold mine a few months ago. I soon realized that for it's purposes (portraits at f/1.2-2) and general shooting at f/8-f/16, it's a great lens. the 24-70 f/2.8 II is sharper and performs better in tests, but when I look at the final image, the 50L is just better in my eyes, and f/2.8 is a poor substitute for f/2 or larger apertures when it comes to portraits. I'm mighty interested in the Sigma and a future 50L II, but for now, I've realized that the 50L gives me great results even if it's not as great as its siblings.GMCPhotographics said:
Upvote
0
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
Good answer, I agree. I would add that:Ricku said:Thanks for the answer. It all makes sense!
- Videographers are likely to shoot at slowish shutter speeds, like 1/50th or 1/60th (because it looks better), so they're less likely to need f/1.4. With moving subjects, they may prefer the combination of a smaller aperture (to more easily get the subject in focus) + image stabilization (to get smoother motion).
- Likewise, photojournalists are more likely to shoot stopped down a bit. F/1.4 is great for artistic / romantic interpretation with lots of blur, but photojournalism often aims for a more realistic portrayal of the subject. Photojournalists who carry their gear all day also benefit from smaller lenses in the bag. They may have just one fast aperture lens (just in case) and several others of slower apertures.
Upvote
0
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
In both cases, the lenses need to be perfectly usable at their maximum aperture. The current 1.4 (at least my copy) wasn't.
mrsfotografie said:
In both cases, the lenses need to be perfectly usable at their maximum aperture. The current 1.4 (at least my copy) wasn't.
Upvote
0
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
You do have a meaningful point here, basically:
Canon 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2
Center Resolution: 4/10
Average Resolution: 0/10
Lack of Chromatic Aberration: 3/10
Lack of Purple Fringing: 3/10
Lack of Glowiness/Hazing: 2/10
Bokeh Transition Quality: 8/10
Lack of Bokeh Artifacts: 10/10
Contrast & Color: 10/10
Lack of Onion Bokeh: 8/10
Lack of Ugly Distortion: 8/10
The Canon f/1.2 L is one of the worst lenses in a few categories, and one of the best in others. Personally I like a well balanced lens.
I actually switched from using a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, to a Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC because of this idea of balance because it has much better bokeh transitions, lacks bokeh artifacts, and has much better color and contrast than the Canon II, which is 3 times more expensive. Which to most people would be a hugely sacrilegious switch, considering the advantages in resolution and the fact that the Canon is an APO lens, which is mind blowing. But after using both the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I, and II, and the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 vc, I stuck with the Tamron. The Canon 24-70mm II just has a look that is way too clinical, it makes things look ugly and lacks color and contrast, and the bokeh of the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I just looks busy. I also tried the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G and it was actually between the Tamron and the Canon I 24-70mm in almost every way. The Nikon had some business in the background but was a little better controlled than the Canon.
Simply put the Tamron 24-70mm VC takes the best all around photos out of any of the Canon or Nikon compatible 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses (You can also adapt Nikon lenses to Canon and manual focus). Go figure, though I still keep a spare in case I run into onion bokeh issues, which is the lenses only major flaw.
I also don't like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 because it takes too much away from other categories to achieve it's resolution. After owning the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (the best one I found out of several copies) I sold it and went back to the Canon 35mm f/1.4, because it has much less purple fringing, lacks that weird mustache distortion, and has slightly nicer bokeh.
I used to be very obsessed with resolution, but experience has taught me that a well balanced lens takes better photos.
The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is not a well balanced lens though. At resolutions above 1024 pixels on the short side, it really shows a lack of detail, and even at resolutions below that you have to basically walk on eggshells to get it to create a sharp image wide open. There is no room for error. It also has a painfully high level of purple fringing.
At f/1.4 I like the Canon 1.2 over the 1.4 though because the 1.4 has very busy bokeh which is very noticeable at that aperture, even though the 1.4 has more resolution at that aperture. However I think that the Sigma 1.4 is better than either Canon at 1.4. It basically combines the strengths of both Canon lenses into one, and you can't beat that. The Nikon 58mm is basically a lot like the Sigma 1.4 wide open, except the Nikon is super sharp. It's a shame then that the other main difference is that it has so much purple fringing.
In conclusion, excluding the Otus due to price:
Canon 1.4 @ f/2.0 = best
Sigma 1.4 @ f/1.4 = best
Nikon 58mm 1.4 @ f/1.4 = too much purple fringing
Canon 1.2 @ f/1.4 (or f/1.2) = Capable of great images in the right hands but only up to web sized wide open, due to extreme softness.
Also @ f/1.4 Zeiss 50mm Sumi = Sigma 50mm = Nikon 50mm G f/1.4 (for the most part they deliver basically the same images)
I wouldn't shoot with any 50mm other than the Otus wide open though as the image quality of the double gauss design wide open is just really unacceptable.
If Sigma is releasing a new 50mm though that means that they have probably made huge improvements in image quality. Lets just hope there are no downsides.
zlatko said:
You do have a meaningful point here, basically:
Canon 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2
Center Resolution: 4/10
Average Resolution: 0/10
Lack of Chromatic Aberration: 3/10
Lack of Purple Fringing: 3/10
Lack of Glowiness/Hazing: 2/10
Bokeh Transition Quality: 8/10
Lack of Bokeh Artifacts: 10/10
Contrast & Color: 10/10
Lack of Onion Bokeh: 8/10
Lack of Ugly Distortion: 8/10
The Canon f/1.2 L is one of the worst lenses in a few categories, and one of the best in others. Personally I like a well balanced lens.
I actually switched from using a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, to a Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC because of this idea of balance because it has much better bokeh transitions, lacks bokeh artifacts, and has much better color and contrast than the Canon II, which is 3 times more expensive. Which to most people would be a hugely sacrilegious switch, considering the advantages in resolution and the fact that the Canon is an APO lens, which is mind blowing. But after using both the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I, and II, and the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 vc, I stuck with the Tamron. The Canon 24-70mm II just has a look that is way too clinical, it makes things look ugly and lacks color and contrast, and the bokeh of the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 I just looks busy. I also tried the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G and it was actually between the Tamron and the Canon I 24-70mm in almost every way. The Nikon had some business in the background but was a little better controlled than the Canon.
Simply put the Tamron 24-70mm VC takes the best all around photos out of any of the Canon or Nikon compatible 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses (You can also adapt Nikon lenses to Canon and manual focus). Go figure, though I still keep a spare in case I run into onion bokeh issues, which is the lenses only major flaw.
I also don't like the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 because it takes too much away from other categories to achieve it's resolution. After owning the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (the best one I found out of several copies) I sold it and went back to the Canon 35mm f/1.4, because it has much less purple fringing, lacks that weird mustache distortion, and has slightly nicer bokeh.
I used to be very obsessed with resolution, but experience has taught me that a well balanced lens takes better photos.
The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is not a well balanced lens though. At resolutions above 1024 pixels on the short side, it really shows a lack of detail, and even at resolutions below that you have to basically walk on eggshells to get it to create a sharp image wide open. There is no room for error. It also has a painfully high level of purple fringing.
At f/1.4 I like the Canon 1.2 over the 1.4 though because the 1.4 has very busy bokeh which is very noticeable at that aperture, even though the 1.4 has more resolution at that aperture. However I think that the Sigma 1.4 is better than either Canon at 1.4. It basically combines the strengths of both Canon lenses into one, and you can't beat that. The Nikon 58mm is basically a lot like the Sigma 1.4 wide open, except the Nikon is super sharp. It's a shame then that the other main difference is that it has so much purple fringing.
In conclusion, excluding the Otus due to price:
Canon 1.4 @ f/2.0 = best
Sigma 1.4 @ f/1.4 = best
Nikon 58mm 1.4 @ f/1.4 = too much purple fringing
Canon 1.2 @ f/1.4 (or f/1.2) = Capable of great images in the right hands but only up to web sized wide open, due to extreme softness.
Also @ f/1.4 Zeiss 50mm Sumi = Sigma 50mm = Nikon 50mm G f/1.4 (for the most part they deliver basically the same images)
I wouldn't shoot with any 50mm other than the Otus wide open though as the image quality of the double gauss design wide open is just really unacceptable.
If Sigma is releasing a new 50mm though that means that they have probably made huge improvements in image quality. Lets just hope there are no downsides.
Upvote
0
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
The Zeiss Otus is nearly 10 inches long, which seems to be what you need to avoid the double gauss design. The new Sigma is an inch longer than the last one, at 4 inches so I highly doubt that it will be any other design, but we don't know for sure.
However, and this is important, the new Sigma has 50% more elements than any double gauss design lens ever made, and it is an inch longer than any double gauss normal lens I am aware of. What this means is that the lens has more corrective elements and more room to do correction than any other full frame normal lens on the planet. If this lens is not the best non-otus normal lens available, then I would be shocked. Sigma obviously is doing something very special with the design of this lens and that alone indicates that it must be good.
The question is really going to be: does it have any weird drawbacks? Will the bokeh transitions be smooth? Will it have crazy CA or PF? etc.
All I know is that i want to order this lens and test it now.
dilbert said:
The Zeiss Otus is nearly 10 inches long, which seems to be what you need to avoid the double gauss design. The new Sigma is an inch longer than the last one, at 4 inches so I highly doubt that it will be any other design, but we don't know for sure.
However, and this is important, the new Sigma has 50% more elements than any double gauss design lens ever made, and it is an inch longer than any double gauss normal lens I am aware of. What this means is that the lens has more corrective elements and more room to do correction than any other full frame normal lens on the planet. If this lens is not the best non-otus normal lens available, then I would be shocked. Sigma obviously is doing something very special with the design of this lens and that alone indicates that it must be good.
The question is really going to be: does it have any weird drawbacks? Will the bokeh transitions be smooth? Will it have crazy CA or PF? etc.
All I know is that i want to order this lens and test it now.
Upvote
0
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
Thanks for sharing that. I think the wildcard in any assessment of the Canon F/1.2L and F/1.4 is copy to copy variation. My 50 F/1.4 @ 1.4 is solid in the center but is problematic away from it. I relegate most shots to F/2 or narrower because of this.
Roger at LR has posted at length about the scatter seen in his stable of lenses. Some copies are stellar while others are weak.
Thankfully, the newer Canon non-L IS refreshes have really tightened up the performance to where most new lenses are loosely equivalent in performance. Hopefully this new Sigma will also have a small copy to copy variation as well.
- A
mrsfotografie said:sagittariansrock said:
The current 1.4 at f/1.4, 1/60sec, iso 1600, handheld :
Thanks for sharing that. I think the wildcard in any assessment of the Canon F/1.2L and F/1.4 is copy to copy variation. My 50 F/1.4 @ 1.4 is solid in the center but is problematic away from it. I relegate most shots to F/2 or narrower because of this.
Roger at LR has posted at length about the scatter seen in his stable of lenses. Some copies are stellar while others are weak.
Thankfully, the newer Canon non-L IS refreshes have really tightened up the performance to where most new lenses are loosely equivalent in performance. Hopefully this new Sigma will also have a small copy to copy variation as well.
- A
Upvote
0
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
Just to be sure, that image I posted was made with the Sigma 1.4
ahsanford said:mrsfotografie said:sagittariansrock said:
The current 1.4 at f/1.4, 1/60sec, iso 1600, handheld :
Thanks for sharing that. I think the wildcard in any assessment of the Canon F/1.2L and F/1.4 is copy to copy variation. My 50 F/1.4 @ 1.4 is solid in the center but is problematic away from it. I relegate most shots to F/2 or narrower because of this.
Roger at LR has posted at length about the scatter seen in his stable of lenses. Some copies are stellar while others are weak.
Thankfully, the newer Canon non-L IS refreshes have really tightened up the performance to where most new lenses are loosely equivalent in performance. Hopefully this new Sigma will also have a small copy to copy variation as well.
- A
Just to be sure, that image I posted was made with the Sigma 1.4
Upvote
0
Re: Sigma Announces the 50 f/1.4 Art Lens & More
Bought my EF 50mm 1.4 USM on January 2nd 2014 and returned it today in anticipation of this lens. Thank god it was still within the return policy. B&H is great sometimes. Can anyone give a good prediction on when this lens will be available for pre-order? I hope it gets released within a month or two. I could be totally wrong but I hope I'm not!
Bought my EF 50mm 1.4 USM on January 2nd 2014 and returned it today in anticipation of this lens. Thank god it was still within the return policy. B&H is great sometimes. Can anyone give a good prediction on when this lens will be available for pre-order? I hope it gets released within a month or two. I could be totally wrong but I hope I'm not!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
