Testing the Sigma 50mm Art lens in my style of photography

drmikeinpdx

Celebrating 20 years of model photography!
Oct 19, 2011
659
39
11,283
Portland Oregon USA
www.beyondboudoirphoto.com
I've been really curious about the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM, aka: the 50 Art lens. I've read a lot of reports about autofocus problems, but wanted to check it out for myself.

I rented a copy of the Sigma 50 Art from LensRentals.com. Before I ordered, I emailed their customer service to ask if they used the USB dock to do any kind of calibration with the lens. They replied that they take every 50 Art that comes back into the shop, put in on the USB dock and reset it to the default values. That sounded good to me, as I planned to use the microfocus adjust feature on my 5D3 to make any needed changes. I was planning to do an outdoor photoshoot where my models would always be roughly ten feet from the camera, so I did not feel like I'd need the USB dock to adjust the focus for different distances.

Upon receiving the lens, I did my usual autofocus calibration. This time only at ten feet. Using the center focus point, the Art lens was pretty consistent on my 5D3. I settled on +3 MFA value and was pretty pleased with the stable focus from shot to shot.

Then I tried using other focus points. I found that as you move away from the center point, the lens will front focus more and more. Using the outermost horizontal points, the front focus was about two feet or a 20% error. The next pair in toward the center front focused about one foot or 10%. Using the top and bottom points, the front focus error was about 1 foot or 10%.

When the lens was in focus, it was very sharp, so I went ahead and did the planned outdoor photoshoot. I used mostly the center point, but occasionally moved the focus two spots left or right. Used within this restriction, I was very happy with the sharpness, bokeh and autofocus accuracy.

I did a few shots with my old Sigma 50 Classic, which was autofocusing pretty well that day, since I fed it a shot of cheap gin before leaving the house and said some magic words over it. The Art lens was definitely sharper, but not stunningly better. They both created very nice bokeh of the distant trees when used wide open.

Here is a shot with the Art lens at F/2.0:

p285293459-5.jpg


Here's a shot with the Sigma 50 Classic at F/1.4:

p214670674-5.jpg


These are just fun shots to give you an idea of what kind of photoshoot I was doing, they don't really prove anything.

One thing I learned on this shoot was that the DOF at 1.4 is even more shallow than I thought. Shooting two models standing side by side you have to make sure they are both exactly the same distance from the camera. Unfortunately couples naturally want to move around. I had a lot of shots where one model was in perfect focus and the other was slightly out of focus. I was kind of expecting that and shifted focus back and forth between the two models, so I got plenty of usable photos.

In the future, if I'm not going for the absolute maximum bokeh, I plan to use my Sigma 50 Classic primarily at F/2 on these kinds of photoshoots.

One more item... Before sending back the Art lens, I attached it to my old 7D backup body and ran it through my usual autofocus test. It was difficult to come up with a precise AFMA number because the focus was not very consistent. I settled on +12. I tried the outer focus points to see if the 7D showed the same error pattern as the 5D3. It did not, but the general accuracy and repeatability was poor enough that I would not venture a guess as to what the real pattern is. Basically, I would not want to use the Art lens on my 7D unless I stopped it down to about F/4 or so. As a control, I put my 40 pancake lens on the 7D. It focused better than the Art lens, but still not as well as I wished. I don't know about your 7D, but mine has never had a very accurate AF system, which is one reason I rarely use it now that I have a 5D3.

As a result of my experience, I have decided not to buy a new 50mm lens. I will keep using my Sigma 50 Classic and wait and see if Canon comes out with a new 50mm lens in the 1.8 to 2.0 range. If it is sharp wide open, it would be the perfect lens for me.

Update: I turned this photoshoot into a blog post that includes some additional photos taken with the 50 Art lens. Some are mildly naughty, so consider yourself warned. :)

Check it out here:

http://www.beyondboudoirphoto.com/blog/2014/10/outdoor-photoshoot-for-a-portland-couple
 
The reason to buy an f/1.4 lens is to shoot at f/1.4. If f/2 is better for your work, then a nice small image-stabilized 50 from Canon, should they ever get off their duff and produce one, would be The Ticket.
 
Upvote 0
drmikeinpdx, I rented the 50A from LensRentals earlier this week and my experience with it was identical to yours.

Out in the field I was a little disappointed by the autofocus accuracy, but not surprised. I did several studio shoots using live view zoomed focus and the results were great.

I'd say the 50A's sharpness was equivilant to my 24-70ii, 1-2 stops sooner. I wasn't exactly impressed with the 50A at 1.4 but it certainly beats the Canon 1.4 wide open all day long. IMO, the 50A really comes into its own at f2. I did most of my shooting there and love the results.

I would love to go all in on Sigma's Art line but I'm not sure if I can get there right now. I'm thinking about trying out the 50L and 85L next. I'm glad I got LensRentals HD...
 
Upvote 0
drmikeinpdx said:
NancyP, I really liked Canon's 35mm stabilized lens when I rented one, but I need it in a 50.

Since there is no sign of one on the horizon, I may start researching the 50L lens.

Thanks for your useful post. I too would like a nice compact Canon 50mm to match Canon's 35/2 IS. In the meantime, the 50L does the trick for me. It is not the perfect lens, but it delivers some wonderful images — it is easily one of my favorite lenses.

I haven't tried the 50A, but those problems with the 50A would turn me away from it too. Sharpness is nice, but the entire lens is important. Being 20% or 2-feet off on the outer AF points is pretty bad.

By the way, the 50L doesn't seem to AF very accurately on APS-C cameras either, at least the ones I've tried it with.
 
Upvote 0
A month ago, I have both 50mm F1.4, Canon and Sigma Art. Indeed, using focus points outside the center there is a discrepancy. I marvel at the sharpness of the Sigma Art wide open, while the Canon needs to be stopped down to F2.8 to achieve sharpness and contrast similar to Sigma. :o

In fact, it is not very reliable for tracking moving objects. But it works wonderfully in live view, and I look forward to use in a body with Dual Pixel AF. 8)

Whereas if you use the center focus point or live view, Sigma Art puts Canon 50L with shame in the aspect of sharpness wide open. Excuse me for heresy, but I have to say I prefer the bokeh of the Sigma too. :-X ??? ::)
 
Upvote 0
Ripley said:
NancyP said:
The reason to buy an f/1.4 lens is to shoot at f/1.4.

This is not entirely true. Maximum aperture is an option, not a mandate.

But it makes common sense.

If you do not shot fast lenses wide open you are paying a lot for mostly no improved picture quality (with primes). Even with some zooms like the 70-200/f4 IS L and 70-200/f2.8 IS L there is no difference @f/4 (except the bokeh is actually better on the f/4-lens).

I need the fastest lenses I can get - but if I could get along with f/4.0 and f/5.6 my hobby would be a lot cheaper and my pictures just as good.
 
Upvote 0
A few weeks back, I shot the 2nd annual New Orleans Bridal Crawl....it is for charity and involves a bar hop after the initial gathering. Its a fun party.<P>
I was shooting video on my 5D3 as I did last year. This year, I rented both the Sigma Art 50 1.4 and the Canon 50L 1.2.<P>
I shot stills with both...and what I gathered for my experience of the two...if I were buying ONLY for stills, I might lean towards the Sigma. Felt more solid and was sharp.

However, from what I've read and saw in person, the extra special coatings on the Sigma, actually seem to make it a bit slower than 1.4. It almost seemed that it was about 3/4 of a full stop slower than the Canon.

I'm still wavering, but at this point, I'm leaning towards the 50L 1.2. I was able to shoot some MIGHTY dark bars with this and no additional lights with the 1.2 wide open.

So for when you need very low light...at this point, I'm leaning towards getting the canon 50L 1.2.

HTH,

cayenne
 
Upvote 0
The lens is quirky ...but awesome!
I had to send my first lens back...but the second one seems to be very good.
 

Attachments

  • Forgotten.jpg
    Forgotten.jpg
    137.9 KB · Views: 314
  • Race of Gentlemen #30.jpg
    Race of Gentlemen #30.jpg
    211.1 KB · Views: 261
Upvote 0
Generally lens of the same focal length but bigger max aperture (50mm f/1.2 vs f/1.8) will be of better make and glass, thus producing superior image quality in contrast, sharpness, etc. No one would believe that a picture taken at f/2.0 with the 50mm f/1.2 would look the same as the f/1.8 lens. How many people actually shoot portraits at f/1.4? (I mean that as a serious question, not a rhetorical challenge.)

I think f/2.8 is the "magic number" in terms of what people will buy a lens to use at wide-open. Sports shooters need big aperture to keep up the shutter speed, while f/2.8 is a deep enough DOF to keep most of the athlete in focus. I don't think I've ever heard of a sports shooter buying the 135mm f/2 because he needs to shoot at f/2. The DOF would be too shallow and would make a lot of pictures useless.
 
Upvote 0
dash2k8 said:
Generally lens of the same focal length but bigger max aperture (50mm f/1.2 vs f/1.8) will be of better make and glass, thus producing superior image quality in contrast, sharpness, etc. No one would believe that a picture taken at f/2.0 with the 50mm f/1.2 would look the same as the f/1.8 lens. How many people actually shoot portraits at f/1.4? (I mean that as a serious question, not a rhetorical challenge.)

I think f/2.8 is the "magic number" in terms of what people will buy a lens to use at wide-open. Sports shooters need big aperture to keep up the shutter speed, while f/2.8 is a deep enough DOF to keep most of the athlete in focus. I don't think I've ever heard of a sports shooter buying the 135mm f/2 because he needs to shoot at f/2. The DOF would be too shallow and would make a lot of pictures useless.

Well, if you shoot indoor sports, you definitely shoot wide open with the 135 and 200 f2 - all sports require many frame captures to get a few great shoots - and not just b/c the DOF is shallow. Also, take a look at the posts on the 200 f2 - beautiful portraits, wide open (IMO, to each his own).
 
Upvote 0
I own the 200 f2 and it's my go-to lens for sports, the core of my business and many other photographic assignments. I've not experienced any AF lens, owned or rented, that surpasses it. Having said that, I would only shoot at f 2.0 if I absolutely had to given just how shallow the DOF is. Stopped down to f3.5 is my sweet spot for my core sport cycling and backgrounds are still smooth as silk.

I just purchased the Sigma 50mm Art and without question it's a fantastic lens. It doesn't have the AF response of the 200 f2 but AF is great and the lens is exceptionally sharp. I'm just back from the Hebrides, and a landscape change of pace, where the Sigma 50 performed terrifically... including in portrait orientation with a RRS pano tripod setup for some really nice stitches.

For general photography on both FF and 1.3 crop (my bodies) the Sigma 50mm Art offers superb IQ and performance. I'll admit to having no interest in pixel peeping, the lens just works beautifully. Good purchase IMO.
 
Upvote 0
Maiaibing said:
Ripley said:
NancyP said:
The reason to buy an f/1.4 lens is to shoot at f/1.4.

This is not entirely true. Maximum aperture is an option, not a mandate.

But it makes common sense.

If you do not shot fast lenses wide open you are paying a lot for mostly no improved picture quality (with primes). Even with some zooms like the 70-200/f4 IS L and 70-200/f2.8 IS L there is no difference @f/4 (except the bokeh is actually better on the f/4-lens).

I need the fastest lenses I can get - but if I could get along with f/4.0 and f/5.6 my hobby would be a lot cheaper and my pictures just as good.

There's a lot more to a lens than maximum aperture. Those other attributes can warrant using a lens without using it wide open.

For example, I rented the 50A and shot it most of the week at f2 because I wanted the increased sharpness, didn't need the extra stop of light, and didn't want the decreased depth of field.
 
Upvote 0
VeloDramatic said:
I just purchased the Sigma 50mm Art and without question it's a fantastic lens. It doesn't have the AF response of the 200 f2 but AF is great and the lens is exceptionally sharp. I'm just back from the Hebrides, and a landscape change of pace, where the Sigma 50 performed terrifically... including in portrait orientation with a RRS pano tripod setup for some really nice stitches.

It sounds like a great lens for landscape where you likely stopped down. But did you also try using it at or near its widest aperture? If so, was the autofocus good and accurate most of the time? I'm also curious which camera body you used with the 50 Art and whether the outer AF points performed OK. Thanks in advance.
 
Upvote 0
drmikeinpdx said:
Infrared and VeloDramatic... Glad you are having good luck with the 50 Art lens.

What body are you using your 50 Art on?

Do you use the outer focus points or mainly the center point?

5DIII single focus point...but move it around on the screen to where I want focus. It is a WOW lens...and I totally disagree with those that are saying I must use it at f/1.4... That is just foolish. I use it at varying f stops to get in focus what I want in focus in a particular image...could be f/1.4...or it could be f/3.5...whatever...and it is still sharper than all 3 of Canon's lens offerings as far as I am concerned.
 
Upvote 0
cayenne said:
However, from what I've read and saw in person, the extra special coatings on the Sigma, actually seem to make it a bit slower than 1.4. It almost seemed that it was about 3/4 of a full stop slower than the Canon.
I'm still wavering, but at this point, I'm leaning towards the 50L 1.2. I was able to shoot some MIGHTY dark bars with this and no additional lights with the 1.2 wide open.
So for when you need very low light...at this point, I'm leaning towards getting the canon 50L 1.2.
There are some topics relating experiences with F1.4 lens in Canon digital cameras, I did not find now, but the conclusion is surprising:

A member of CR did a test with an F1.4 lens (at F1.4) mounted on a Canon DSLR camera with all manual settings, and photographed a target with controlled lighting. Then he repeated the shot with everything the same, except that he put duct tape on the electrical contacts of the lens, so the camera could not identify which lens was being used.

He found that the picture looked darker when the camera could not identify which lens was being used. Neuro then gave a simple explanation and terrifying:

Digital cameras (unlike film) do not capture well the light that hits the sensor at a very tilted angle. How F1.4 lenses (and more luminous) many light rays arrive at quite tilted sensor, and do not penetrate well into the photodiodes. To circumvent this problem, Canon pushes the ISO (in secret) to simulate the use of light rays that exists in the film. Ie. When you select ISO100, the camera secretly push the ISO up to 153 (for example) and compensates for the lower utilization of light rays.

If you select ISO 1600, the camera pushes secretly up to ISO 2129 (for example), and compensates for the lower utilization of light rays. In this case, the noise will be larger than an ISO 1600 "true".

If the lens is not manufactured by Canon itself, ISO not be pushed secret, and the lens will appear darker than a Canon lens that had the ISO pushed.
 
Upvote 0