# 50 mm Can't make up my mind!



## crasher8 (Oct 25, 2012)

It's between the Sigma 50 1.4 and the Canon 1.4

I've had the Canon in the past on a crop and wasn't that impressed by the micro motor. The DoF wide open was nice but not THAT good and the price is right. I believe on a FF it will shine a bit brighter. 
I hate the dicey risk you take with Sigmas. I have had decent luck with them but I know it's hit or miss. 

Is the Sigma THAT much better that it's worth it to try 2 or 3 attempts at a good one? 

(On a 5D3 and Elan 7)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 25, 2012)

Sigma is better on a crop, Canon is better on FF.
Thats assuming you do not have the AF issues with Sigma that many complain of.
I'm suprised that AF speed is a issue with anyone. Once the AF gets into the range of the subject, its virtually instant to refocus if the subject moves a little.
Checking AF speed by going from mfd to infinity does not represent many real world situations.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 25, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> It's between the Sigma 50 1.4 and the Canon 1.4
> 
> I've had the Canon in the past on a crop and wasn't that impressed by the micro motor. The DoF wide open was nice but not THAT good and the price is right. I believe on a FF it will shine a bit brighter.
> I hate the dicey risk you take with Sigmas. I have had decent luck with them but I know it's hit or miss.
> ...



I liked the canon 1.4. The sigma seemed Dicey on its focus and felt I couldn't fully trust it.

Eventually I bought the 50L and never desired another 50mm.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Oct 25, 2012)

I owned the 50mm 1.4 before on my crop 500D and was very satisfied, but back then I was more of a beginner, now after using higher quality lenses with my 5D3 I didn't fancy it that much anymore on FF. Quality really suffers at 1.4 but well tell me one lens where it doesn't on such a high aperture.


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 25, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Sigma is better on a crop, Canon is better on FF.
> Thats assuming you do not have the AF issues with Sigma that many complain of.
> I'm suprised that AF speed is a issue with anyone. Once the AF gets into the range of the subject, its virtually instant to refocus if the subject moves a little.
> Checking AF speed by going from mfd to infinity does not represent many real world situations.



I'd love some elaboration about the Sigma being better on a crop. Is this in regards to corner sharpness?


----------



## sandymandy (Oct 25, 2012)

florianbieler.de said:


> Quality really suffers at 1.4 but well tell me one lens where it doesn't on such a high aperture.



Lenses that are even wider? Noctilux f/0.95 is not bad at 1.4


----------



## extremeinstability (Oct 25, 2012)

I got the canon 50 F1.4 recently for a 5D II. The corner softness and lack of contrast was rather huge towards the more wide open end. I upgraded to the sigma 50 F1.4. It blew the doors off the Canon more wide open. Upon stopping down though the Canon passes it in sharpness. In the end I'm not sure that difference more wide open was worth it. I'd been happy with the 50 F1.8 if it had a real focus ring on it, sigh. I never use auto-focus in that range so clueless there. 

http://www.lenstip.com/216.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_50_mm_f_1.4_USM_Image_resolution.html

Look at the 3 image comparison down a bit. I didn't believe that till I went through both lenses. The Canon 1.4 I had was at least that much worse than the Sigma I now have in that more wide open range. Some white pvc tubes for venting on top of the house show white "shadows" about the same width as them...the contrast open is so bad. But again, stop down F4 they are probably even and by F5.6 the canon is passing the Sigma in sharpness. So depend on what you want it for. 

I guess when I was testing things I did do a couple autofocus tries that at least one of which was way off on the Sigma in bright daylight.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 25, 2012)

Sigma 50 1.4 any day of the week. Wide open it's comparable to the Canon 50 1.2L.


----------



## nicku (Oct 25, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> It's between the Sigma 50 1.4 and the Canon 1.4
> 
> I've had the Canon in the past on a crop and wasn't that impressed by the micro motor. The DoF wide open was nice but not THAT good and the price is right. I believe on a FF it will shine a bit brighter.
> I hate the dicey risk you take with Sigmas. I have had decent luck with them but I know it's hit or miss.
> ...



The answer is YES... the sigma is that much better.

I had the same dilemma 2 mounts ago... i opted firs for Canon. the vignette under f/3.5 - 3.2 is quite visible , the sharpness is good but not impressive under f/3.2 . at f/5.6 an above no vignetting and sharp.

After i attached a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX HSM on my everything changed.... MUCH sharper wide open, almost no vignetting at all apertures ( due to the aspehrical element) good colors better construction,better contrast, lens hood included... I returned the canon lens to the dealer immediately and kept the sigma.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 25, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Sigma is better on a crop, Canon is better on FF.



How so?

vs. Canon 50mm 1.2L on FF
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=473&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

vs. Canon 50mm 1.4 on FF
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=473&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Though the tests above do not show this, the bokeh of the Sigma is as good as the L.


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 25, 2012)

nicku said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > It's between the Sigma 50 1.4 and the Canon 1.4
> ...


+1
I used to use Canon 50mm F/1.4. Once Beach Camera had great deal for Sigma 50mm F/1.4 and I decided to give it a try. In a week, I decided to keep Sigma 50mm F/1.4.
crasher8,
I always think the best way is trying those lenses out by yourself and deciding which one you want to keep. Many stores(local and online) allow you return lenses without charge in 30 days. Why don't you just order both Canon and Sigma 50mm F/1.4 and decide which one you want to keep/return?


----------



## ghstark (Oct 26, 2012)

Never used the sigma but have the Canon used it for over a year as main lens for group Photos at weddings it's very sharp lens and sharper than my 24-105f4L as expected.


----------



## Axilrod (Oct 26, 2012)

Based on resolution tests the Canon 50 1.4 and Sigma 50 1.4 are both similar in the center but the Canon is much sharper in the corners.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 26, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Based on resolution tests the Canon 50 1.4 and Sigma 50 1.4 are both similar in the center but the Canon is much sharper in the corners.



They must have had a bad copy. All other reviews report the Sigma being much sharper wide open, as it was designed to be.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 26, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > Based on resolution tests the Canon 50 1.4 and Sigma 50 1.4 are both similar in the center but the Canon is much sharper in the corners.
> ...



Hmm... don't know about that. LensRentals also noted that the Sigma had softer edges/corners.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout


----------



## picturesbyme (Oct 26, 2012)

+1 for the Sigma.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 26, 2012)

I like my Canon 50mm f/1.4... I really do, but it doesn't spend much time on my body unless I really need to push the issue with lack of light. I think it is because of my assortment of lenses. I use a 24-105 often when I need versitility, I use a 100mm f/2.8L macro when I want to do some candid portraiture, or maybe some action sport shots. And I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM which I may or may not keep. So the 50mm just takes a back seat, which is a real shame.

Strangely enough, when I had a 50mm f/1.8 in my bag, that was the sharpest lens I had at the time so it spent the most time on my body. Strange how things work out.


----------



## benherman (Oct 26, 2012)

Canon is built to break, build quality of sigma is superior. There's a better feel to the image from the sigma, I find it to be sharper too, not towards the outside, but def in centre. Autofocus for both very similar, not great for either in poor light. Just think I paid about 500 for the canon, was gonna cost 250 to fix and it would likely break again even though I took care of my lens the motor/ focusing mechanisms broke. Sigma doesn't have front focusing element which protrudes its all internal. I love my sigma much more than the old canon. Would never consider getting that poorly designed lens again.


----------



## pwp (Oct 26, 2012)

I have a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 up for sale. (PM me if you live in Sydney). I bought it to replace an EF 50mm f/1.4. Both were mildly erratic in the AF department with the Sigma coming off slightly more erratic. Both were for emergency use only at f/1.4, both looked GREAT at f/2 all the way through to f/8. But it was largely a wasted exercise, I should have kept the Canon and just got on with taking photos. All the Sigma does is take up more room in my bag. It's MUCH bigger. Now the little 40mm pancake has lightened my load. It's a bit of a novelty item, admittedly great value and very good in the centre wide open, & consistent AF results.

50mm is not a focal length I tend to use much...I tended to keep a 50 f/1.4 just for emergency unexpected low light requirements. The astounding high iso performance of the 5D3 has made this largely redundant for me. 

The next lens is the new 24-70 f/2.8II

-PW


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 26, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > Axilrod said:
> ...


I have read that weeks ago. That's totally different with my experience. Actually you will see many people here have same feeling Sigma 50mm F/1.4 is much better than Canon 50mm F/1.4. My suggestion for people cannot make decision between the two lenses is that first get both of them at the same time. And then keep the one you like and return another one.


----------



## Luke (Oct 26, 2012)

I like my Sigma on the 5D III.
It had a focus problem, and had a MAF of -19 out of the box...
I took it and my canon to the Sigma repair center (here in Canada), and had it back that afternoon with a firmware update and the problem fixed...


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 26, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > dtaylor said:
> ...



DPReview found the Sigma was sharper wide open except in the extreme corners. And you can see the results at TDP. I don't discount the two reviews that show otherwise, but against the body of user reports I think they show production issues / variability.



> My suggestion for people cannot make decision between the two lenses is that first get both of them at the same time. And then keep the one you like and return another one.



Good advice. This might also be a lens that warrants cherry picking at a local store.

Regarding AF: I did some tripod mounted tests with the Sigma 50 1.4, Canon 50 1.4 and 1.8, and Canon 85 1.8. I repeatedly manually unfocused, then auto focused each. All of the above showed some variability shot to shot. The Canon 85 was the most consistent, followed by the Sigma, and trailed by the two Canon 50's. It should be noted that AF performance can vary unit to unit as well.

Why did I do this? At first I felt like I was missing more shots with the Sigma. Then it dawned on me that I was also using it wide open far more often then I ever did the Canons. I never really considered them usable wide open except in an emergency. I won't hesitate to use the Sigma at 1.4.

The Canon 50's are gone, though I kept the Canon 85 (great crop portrait and indoor sports lens).


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 26, 2012)

I really wish that Sigma made the 50 as reliable as their 85. I really want a low light lens as all I have right now are 2.8's and higher but maybe I'll just keep using the pancake for my near normal as the 5D3 does so well with higher ISO's that a 2.8 isn't as slow as it used to be. It's just that I'm doing more low key lately. Hmmmm…...


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 26, 2012)

I've never used the Sigma but my Canon is simply brilliant. I love using it wide open. It has great bokeh and produces beautiful shots on APS-C and full frame. It just gives me shots I can't do on any other lens. I'd give it a very strong endorsement.


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 27, 2012)

I am really wanting Canon to do a refresh on the 50 line. Something along the lines of what they did to the 24/28 would be great. 

I'll put off on a 50 for now, keep shooting with my flapjack and get the 28 2.8 IS for my wide low light low key shots.


----------



## rj79in (Oct 27, 2012)

The Canon 50mm 1.4 is good enough for me (with the hood permanently on) ... though the "USM" autofocus is a bit of a joke! 

Have tried two copies of the Sigma but both lenses were bad copies (soft corners) and were duly returned - got the Canon 50mm in the net result.

A friend of mine has a very good copy of the Sigma. Just try out the copy of the lens before committing to it!


----------



## EOBeav (Oct 27, 2012)

Caveat: I have never used a Sigma 50 f/1.4, so I can't say anything about it. I do use the Canon 50mm F/1.4, though, and it suits my needs just fine. I've had to learn a few things about it through trial and error, and so will anybody who uses it for any length of time. Although many beginners start out with it (it's a cheap-ish prime with excellent IQ), many of them also get frustrated with it because of it's finnicky nature. Learn how it autofocuses. Know that sharpness is ok-but-not-great at f/1.4, but gets really, really good when you get into the f/2-f/8 range. Microadjust if you have the ability to, and learn how it responds to you and your camera body. Once you do that, I think you won't want another 50 (unless it's the 50L, of course). It's by far the lens that I own that has the biggest bang-for-the-buck value, and I own two L lenses.


----------

