# Canon 50 1.2 vs Sigma 50 art specifically for low light photos



## Kit Lens Jockey (Aug 5, 2017)

I'm curious to know hoe people feel about the Canon vs Sigma 50 specifically in reference to low light photos. I currently have the privilege to own both, but I feel kind of silly having two similar lenses, and I feel like one should go. I had the Sigma for a long time, but specifically in low light, I always felt like maybe I was missing something in not having the Canon. It's about a half stop faster, and has the advantage of being a first party lens, which might make a difference when you're pushing the autofocus system to its limits in low light.

I used both for a while last night in low light, and I'm not sure if I can make a conclusive judgment. It seems like the Canon was just a little more apt to lock on to focus in challenging conditions, which would make sense with the wider aperture and what I assume to be better communication between the camera and lens. The Canon is definitely not as sharp as the Sigma, but honestly this was kind of welcome in low light. With the Sigma, I am always obsessing over whether or not the lens was able to nail focus in low light. With the Canon, the whole lens is not all that sharp, so I feel like there's a little more margin for error as far as what's considered "nailing" focus. But, maybe that's more of a personal issue/preference rather than something I can fault the Sigma for. I can't legitimately call it out for being too sharp.

So, anyway, I'm still on the fence.


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 5, 2017)

I have had the Sigma 50 ART and chose the 50L over it. I never liked the results I got from the Sigma. It is the sharper lens, and with less chromatic aberration, but to me the Sigma photos lacked the depth and 3D-look I get from the 50L. 

I don't use my 50L much between f1.2 and f2. At f2 it produces very nice pictures, that is sharp enough. Bokeh from the 50L can be very pleasing, although not perfect in every situation. 

On my 1DXII and 5Ds, I find the AF of the 50L to be better, although not perfect. 

I own the Tamron 45 f1.8, but have put it up for sale. Optically, it is a bit better than the 50L, especially in the corners. My problem with the Tamron is that it consequently back focuses with the outer focusing points. With the center point it works fine. As far as I understand, I cannot correct this with Tamrons tap in console.


----------



## Khalai (Aug 5, 2017)

My 50/1.2L is my love/hate lens. I love the output, colours and contrast, could not care less about lesser sharpness than its peers (still acceptable). But I very rarely use it at f/1.2, in fact f/1.6-2.2 is my bread & butter settings for this lens. And surprisingly, on my 6D with its crude AF system, this lens seems to lock on quite nicely, even with outer points which are not even X-type.

But one thing I dislike about that lens is price for a new unit. I've got mine second hand for the same price as Sigma would sell new...


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 5, 2017)

Sigma 50 Art raw files are lacking contrast and vibrancy right out of camera. I was wondering for a while as well until acdently went on and cranked up vibrancy and contrast levels in raw editor past my usual limits for Canon glass and boy did tthat make a difference!
Sigma art first generation glass files are bit like well cooked steak that requires some extra spice and salt. That's my ART recepy.

P.s. Photo taken at ISO 6400 F1.4. 1/60 handheld . Low light situation indeed. 


Larsskv said:


> I have had the Sigma 50 ART and chose the 50L over it. I never liked the results I got from the Sigma. It is the sharper lens, and with less chromatic aberration, but to me the Sigma photos lacked the depth and 3D-look I get from the 50L.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Aug 9, 2017)

I think the 50L is looking better and better to me. I took it out last night to mess around with it and see how it would perform, and this one photo in particular really impressed me with regard to focusing ability. Here is the original photo with no corrections. This is at f1.2, 1/100 sec, ISO 5000. (ISO should have been higher, no doubt, but I had it on auto-ISO, and the bright backlights in this photo obviously dropped the ISO way lower than I wanted.

What I thought was pretty impressive was the lens/camera's ability to pretty much nail focus on the woman with the red hair's face, even with the well lit background just behind her. Normally it seems like I always end up focusing on the brighter object in these situations, but as soon as I put the focus point squarely on her face, after just a little hesitation, the lens locked on pretty admirably I think, given the conditions. I'm also attaching a 100% crop with the shadows pulled up, and no noise reduction. Again, not a good photo at all (she was in the middle of eating, doh!), but I was just really impressed with the way the focus locked onto her instead of the bright, contrasty background behind her.


----------



## Pookie (Aug 9, 2017)

You guys are going to get the wraith of the forum pros here on this site... many claim this lens (50L) is pure rubbish. Personally I've used this lens in my wedding business for many years, in the darkest churches. I own multiple copies for my second shooters and everyone is superb. Never once felt let down by this lens. I use it from 1.4-2.0 all day. At 1.2 it's just harder to nail focus otherwise I have no issues at all using it there. It never misses in the dark and I often use it with strobes (examples below)... where no modeling light can be used... still nails focus.

I bought the Sigma's when they were all that anyone talked about both the 35 and 50... they both were sold within 6 months. I had the Canon 1.0 and although a nice lenses the 1.2 is a hands down winner. 

2.0 (really dark groove and strobes far away)




1.2




1.8 (strobe - dark convention center with very poor lighting)




1.4


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Aug 9, 2017)

I will gladly take the wraith of the forum pros if they also include with it a recommendation for another EF mount 50mm that is at least 1.4, preferably 1.2, and has autofocus. Without that, how can you criticize me for using the only thing that's out there, the 50L? It's not perfect, but it's pretty much the only game in town. The Sigma isn't a bad lens, I just always felt like it struggled a little too much when the lighting got really poor, and I had always wondered if the first party lens was better. Seems like it is in that respect, at least from hat I can tell so far.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 9, 2017)

Pookie said:


> I bought the Sigma's when they were all that anyone talked about both the 35 and 50... they both were sold within 6 months. I had the Canon 1.0 and although a nice lenses the 1.2 is a hands down winner.



I have the 35 and 50 Arts and I like them a lot, but I do not think sharpness is everything and I am a big fan of many photos I see from the 50 1.2L. For my own use I'm not interested in paying the price for Canon L primes though, and I've never had an opportunity to borrow one, so I've never got to shoot with a 50 1.2L myself. So, simply out of curiosity, what made you sell the Sigma Arts? Just didn't like the results as much as the Canon Ls? AF issues? Something else?


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 9, 2017)

jd7 said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > I bought the Sigma's when they were all that anyone talked about both the 35 and 50... they both were sold within 6 months. I had the Canon 1.0 and although a nice lenses the 1.2 is a hands down winner.
> ...



I'm obviosly not Pookie, but.. I have owned and sold my Sigma 50 ART and kept the 50L. The Sigma was sharper and had a lot less chromatic aberrations at large apertures. Sharpness wise they are very close from f2, except in the far corners, where the 50L is a little soft till f5.6. The Sigma was impressive already from f1.4! Overall I found the Sigma's AF (on 1DXII og 5Ds) to be a bit worse than the 50L, but just about good enough to be acceptable.

I decided to keep the 50L and sell the 50ART after an evening, where I shot some friends of mine playing a game. I switched between the lenses that evening, taking about the same amount of pictures with both lenses. The camera, the light and everything else that matters were the same the whole evening. When sorting through the images afterwards, I did my standard selection in Lightroom. I starred the keepers - the in focus ones, and the pictures I liked the best/had the nicest look - and deleted the rest. Out of the 20 keepers I had, 3 were from the Sigma, and 17 were from the 50L. 

I have described this before, and many people dont seem to agree, but I really do find that the 50L pictures have more depth/3D-look in them, whereas the Sigma-pictures look "flat" and lifeless. This difference in look makes me strongly prefer the 50L.

Summarized, despite the 50L's "shortcomings" in terms of chromatic aberrations, corner sharpness, and some AF-issues, a relatively large proportion of my favorite pictures are taken with the 50L. Compared, I havent got 1 picture that I really care for, from the Sigma 50ART


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 9, 2017)

I'm limping by with 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.2 and, for 50mm, 24-70mm f/2.8, until the glorious day Canon releases a new 50mm L. Just don't want to deal with the focus shift within the 6 ft range at f/1.4 - 4, right where I would most want to use this lens.

But if somebody's style is to use 50mm for farther away, it does produce beautiful results. And maybe a few photographers have actually mastered adjusting where to focus so the final image is focused on the true target.

: : : 

As for the Sigma, tried two copies, AF was erratic as could be on both, most especially in low light. I watched for years and didn't see a firmware update, but that may have changed by now? And I'm NOT a Sigma basher. Have two other Sigma lenses that are great, and I'm considering the 14mm 1.8. Just don't get me started on the silly little gadget they push, that USB lens conditioner or whatever they call it.


----------



## Pookie (Aug 9, 2017)

jd7 said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > I bought the Sigma's when they were all that anyone talked about both the 35 and 50... they both were sold within 6 months. I had the Canon 1.0 and although a nice lenses the 1.2 is a hands down winner.
> ...



AF issues and weird shifts of focus between shots.. a lack of consistency that could not be fixed. I found I missed more on the 5D3 and 1DX than I ever did with the 50L's. I use the 50L quite a bit with wedding work and missing for unknown reasons with the Siggy's were major time (money) wasters. And yes I had a dock and tried in vain to fix the issue. I even sent the 50 back for service. You can only waste so much time with a lens when you know of a great one that always performs. 



YuengLinger said:


> I'm limping by with 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.2 and, for 50mm, 24-70mm f/2.8, until the glorious day Canon releases a new 50mm L. Just don't want to deal with the focus shift within the 6 ft range at f/1.4 - 4, right where I would most want to use this lens.



Again with this... read it many times from forum pros that it shifts like crazy. I have 3 copies and none exhibit this. Maybe the first early batches but the odds I found 3 perfect copies over a few years is pretty outstanding (maybe I should play the lottery). I even posted many images in this range here in response to your claim in a previous thread, not once has any of my copies exhibited this. But then again I here all types of people claim it's the lens, that they are limping by, that they need IS or blue goo... then only then they will be able to produce a great image. It's never the operator... always the equipment isn't it. Meanwhile, many great photographers use this lens with great success... between MFD and 6 feet... between 1.2-8.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 9, 2017)

I'm not sure why somebody would defend a lens with known focus-shift problems (I like subjects' eyes to be in focus, and I see some heavy-handed sharpening applied as correction in many 50mm 1.2L photos); however, I complain about the problem because I'm patiently waiting to spend my money on a new version with a floating element and AF in the same class as the 35mm 1.4L II.

What's the point of stressing out because some of us are discerning enough to wait for one that works BETTER?

As for "limping by," I'm sorry that friendly sarcasm wasn't obvious enough. I'm very happy with my current Canon lenses. Just wouldn't touch that 50mm 1.2L with a ten foot poll--or even somebody else's money! ;D


----------



## drjlo (Aug 10, 2017)

Pookie said:


> 2.0 (really dark groove and strobes far away)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think these photos nicely demonstrate 50L's nice contrast and color, which gives photos that 3-D "pop," and the sharpness is good enough for portraits. In fact, the more I shoot older folk, less biting sharpness is actually an asset.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Aug 10, 2017)

I wanted to thank Pookie for posting those excellent examples of the 3-D effect. I've been calling it "subject/background separation" but I kinda like "3-D effect" better.

I love my 50L for all of the reasons others have mentioned. I was a bit concerned about the close range focus shift, so when I first got the lens I did some focus experiments. My copy did show a slight focus point shift with aperture changes, but I felt like it was too small to be a problem in my style of shooting and that has held true for the last couple of years.

I rented the Sigma Art and found the focus accuracy inadequate for a large aperture lens.

I'd love to post some samples, but the ones I can think of right now are probably too naughty. Maybe later.

Oh wait, I found one. This was shot at ISO 1600, F/1.2, 1/160. It was outdoors at dusk in the shadow of a building. You can see my 5D3 nailed focus on the subject's left eye. Minimal processing with standard Lightroom settings and a slight crop at the top. It's not incredibly sharp, but when photographing lady's faces, I usually don't want incredible sharpness.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 10, 2017)

Pookie said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



Thanks Pookie - sorry to hear you didn't have any luck with the Sigma AF.

I feel like my copies have actually been pretty good - I do get a few misses, but I don't feel like they have given me more misses than my 35/2 IS, for example. Of course, I'm using a 6D so AF capability is limited anyway away from the centre!


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 10, 2017)

I recently purchased Canon 5D III camera to replace one of my 6D bodies and therefore had to re-calibrate all my Sigma glass to the new 5D III.
I never had an issue with Sigma Art AF performance on either of my 6D Bodies.
I was unpleasantly surprised to find out that for Sigma Art glass (*First generation Art lenses only*) attached to 5D III body situation is quite different.

to make long story short:

In relatively good light (7EV+ approx.) AF consistency is good on 6D and 5D III.
In low light (under 6EV) AF consistency on 5D III is poor.

My understanding is that the 6d centre AF point low light sensitivity (-3EV)is better than the same of the 5D III and this is likely the major cause of better Sigma 35 Art and 50 Art AF performance on 6D in low light.



jd7 said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 10, 2017)

Pookie posted some excellent photos in this thread, though I am seeing selective application of sharpening and tonal contrast to enhance the ''3D'' look. 

But the fact that apologists seem compelled to declare they manage to achieve focus using cameras with world class AF merely underscores the efforts involved. AF is never an issue with the 35mm 1.4 II, and though very slow on the 85 1.2 II, accurate even on outer points.

Why is it threatening to read pleas from photographers who simply want more accurate, quicker AF? Only if sales are down but demand for 50mm remains apparent will Canon release a better one. I think 50mm is important enough that photographers have been biting the bullet and buying the only L option available. Look how great the refresh of the 35mm L has been.

Reminds me of bitter debates over film vs digital, with film clingers fretting ''magic'' only happens with their cherished medium.

Canon will not steal your mojo with a better 50L!


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 10, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm not sure why somebody would defend a lens with known focus-shift problems (I like subjects' eyes to be in focus, and I see some heavy-handed sharpening applied as correction in many 50mm 1.2L photos); however, I complain about the problem because I'm patiently waiting to spend my money on a new version with a floating element and AF in the same class as the 35mm 1.4L II.
> 
> What's the point of stressing out because some of us are discerning enough to wait for one that works BETTER?
> 
> As for "limping by," I'm sorry that friendly sarcasm wasn't obvious enough. I'm very happy with my current Canon lenses. Just wouldn't touch that 50mm 1.2L with a ten foot poll--or even somebody else's money! ;D



I haven't noticed the supposedly focus shift issue on the 50L, with either my 1DXII and 5Ds, and as far as I am concerned, it doesn't excist. What I have noticed is the curved field of focus, which makes the 50L a pain to use if you rely on focus and recompose - which 6D and 5DII shooters often do. Maybe this effect adds to the myth of the focus shift issues?

With regards to the Sigma 35 and 50ART- those who claim their AF performance is good, often seem to be 6D users, who rely on the center point when focusing. Those who use the outer focusing points on a 5DIII, 5Ds/r, 1DX I/II seem to be more critical of the AF on the Sigma lenses.

As stated earlier, I didn't find the AF on my 50ART to be terrible or useless on my 1DXII, but it missed more than I like, and more often than what I am used to with my Canon lenses. The AF on the 50L isn't as reliable as the 24LII, 35L I/II and 85LII, but it is still what I consider as good, and certainly it is better than the AF on the Sigma 50ART.


----------



## Sarpedon (Aug 10, 2017)

I noticed a little focus shift on my copy, but it was never as bad as I thought it would be (i.e. usually not field relevant). 

I bought this lens after the Sigma came out. Tried them both and chose the Canon for a number of reasons. In roughly descending order of importance for me:

-Sigma exhibited erratic focusing (focus shift on the Canon was minor and predictable). Tried several copies.
-Sigma rendering left something to be desired. To me, the bokeh looked 'mushed,' like someone applied a blur filter. 
-Sigma was huge, while the Canon balanced much better on a full-frame DSLR. 
-Canon had better color.
-Sigma has no weather sealing, Canon does.
-Sigma doesn't hold value as well second-hand. 

Unfortunately all my gear was stolen last year and I haven't repurchased the 50L yet. I'm waiting for Canon's replacement but not to buy it. I have a feeling the 50L II is going to be a retrofocus, pickle-jar-type thing, and that's not what I'm looking for. Instead, when the 50L II arrives I'll probably grab the current model off of the refurbished store. In the mean time I'm having fun with a converted FL55 1.2.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 10, 2017)

I'm a user of the 50 1.2L for a number of years. I've always liked it. I've had no problems with focussing. Focus breathing I don't notice ( would have been unaware of its existence before joining here). I find it a very sharp lens that creates lovely photographs. I used to have the 1.4 which I also liked (atmospheric I thought). It wasn't sharp at 1.4 but people looked good. I feel no need for a new 50mm as the 1.2L still keeps me happy. I really like the 85mm 1.2 too but it is slow focusing (but beautiful when it's focussed). When Canon brings the new 50mm 1.2/1.4 the prices might drop. If you like portraits I'd personally recommend the current 50 1.2


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 10, 2017)

Sarpedon, I'm very sorry to hear about your gear. :-[

Hector1970, glad you are not frustrated with yours.

Together, you are persuasive about the 50 1.2, but for every few stories like yours, I hear too many negative experiences.

I was wrong, earlier, to say I wouldn't touch it "with other people's money." I'd borrow one from somebody who has a known good copy and give it a whirl, but still might hold out, as eventually Canon will release some kind of update. Maybe.


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 12, 2017)

YuengLinger said:


> Sarpedon, I'm very sorry to hear about your gear. :-[
> 
> Hector1970, glad you are not frustrated with yours.
> 
> ...



I think may of the negative stories come from those who shoot it mainly at f1.2, where it is soft and has lots of chromatic aberration. At f2, unless you pixel peep in the corners (which usually are blurry) sharpness is very decent, and bokeh, color, contrast is beautiful.


----------



## snoke (Aug 12, 2017)

SecureGSM said:


> ...
> to make long story short:
> 
> In relatively good light (7EV+ approx.) AF consistency is good on 6D and 5D III.
> ...



Summary: in low light, you want use lens but camera not good enough. Still everyone blame lens.


----------



## pixel8foto (Aug 22, 2017)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> I'm curious to know hoe people feel about the Canon vs Sigma 50 specifically in reference to low light photos. I currently have the privilege to own both, but I feel kind of silly having two similar lenses, and I feel like one should go. I had the Sigma for a long time, but specifically in low light, I always felt like maybe I was missing something in not having the Canon. It's about a half stop faster, and has the advantage of being a first party lens, which might make a difference when you're pushing the autofocus system to its limits in low light.
> 
> I used both for a while last night in low light, and I'm not sure if I can make a conclusive judgment. It seems like the Canon was just a little more apt to lock on to focus in challenging conditions, which would make sense with the wider aperture and what I assume to be better communication between the camera and lens. The Canon is definitely not as sharp as the Sigma, but honestly this was kind of welcome in low light. With the Sigma, I am always obsessing over whether or not the lens was able to nail focus in low light. With the Canon, the whole lens is not all that sharp, so I feel like there's a little more margin for error as far as what's considered "nailing" focus. But, maybe that's more of a personal issue/preference rather than something I can fault the Sigma for. I can't legitimately call it out for being too sharp.
> 
> So, anyway, I'm still on the fence.



In short, I agree with a lot of your experience, particularly your observation that the Canon's relative softness serves to paper over the cracks if focus is a bit out.

I do a fair bit of low-light work and have used both these lenses a lot. 

I started with the Sigma 50 1.4 Art then bought the Canon 50 1.2 in absolute frustration at the Sigma's wildly inconsistent focusing. It got so bad that I found myself overshooting and then editing to the most accurately focussed photos, rather than those with the best content.

For outright sharpness, lack of distortion, fidelity, the Sigma wins hands down and is great for getting in tight, what with its excellent close-focussing ability. But it is useless to me as it just does not hit even static subjects reliably, let alone tracking moving subjects well. It is particularly bad if the subject is loose in the frame, which (not a technical conclusion, just assumption through use), feels like a lens+camera communication issue. I mean I could point it at a static subject and focus with great care, it will indicate the area of the focus point has hit the subject bang on in the middle, yet still be nailing the wall several metres behind. This isn't a case of micro adjustment, it's just wild, all over the shop, totally inconsistent. I used it on a 6D, a 5D3 and a 1DX. Counter-intuitively it worked best on the 6D and then the 5D3 and worst on the 1DX. Again, I have no technical support for this statement but my gut feeling was the slower focussing speed and, what *felt* like more precise central focus point accuracy of the lower-end 6D, in particular, worked to overcome the limits of Sigma's reverse-engineered focus, when paired with the faster-focussing Canon bodies. Regardless, this experience applied in good and bad light with the obvious problem being it was harder to tell through the viewfinder if I was massively out in low light, compared to in bright light. I found the 35 Art similarly afflicted, again particularly if a subject is loose in a frame, while the 24 Art is more consistently accurate although, again, it worked better to focus more consistently on my 6D's centre point than on any focus point on my 5D3 or 1DX.

My suspicion is that, as each model has been released, Sigma have improved the autofocus performance in respect of the lens itself and also it's communication with the cameras - no idea if that's accurate, just how it's felt in use, over time. I no longer use my Sigma 50 and 35 at all, but their 24 is my go-to wide angle on a 5D4, every day.

So now, at 50mm, I use the Canon 1.2 - again, almost every day, frequently at f/1.2, (just because, why not) on a 5D4. I like it in part *because* of it's inadequacies compared to the Sigma - the heavy vignette, the weaker contrast and flare in direct light - I can predict the behaviour most of the time and play with it as a virtue, even though such distortions are, on paper, to the Canon's disadvantage. It suffers far more from fringing, which I don't like, but it focusses roughly right much more often than the Sigma and, as you point out, because of its relative softness wide open, it's not as obvious when it's a notch or two out compared to the ruthlessly sharp Sigma, so tolerable a lot more of the time and the results, because of its distortions, are prettier - and easily corrected if not desired.


----------



## aceflibble (Aug 27, 2017)

If low-light is going to be the only or vast-majority use for the lens, the answer is a simple question of centre exposure vs overall frame. 

The Sigma is t/1.8 and the Canon is t/1.5 for middle half transmission, with any given copy able to vary by +/-0.15 of a stop. Due to diminishing returns with light and digital sensors, this equates to 0.55 (+/-0.1) of a stop difference. If you're desperate for light, that roughly half-stop might make a huge difference.

However, the Sigma suffers from vignetting of roughly 1.5 stops in the corner quarters, while the Canon suffers vignetting of approximately 2.5 stops across the entire outer third. This means that although the Canon is getting more light to you in the centre a larger portion of the image is actually about half a stop darker than the Sigma.

So if all you care about is getting the cleanest image in the centre 1/3-1/2 of the image, go for Canon. If you want the overall frame to be more evenly clean, get the Sigma.


But that's _only_ thinking about the light gathering capabilities. Bear in mind too that the Sigma has _far_ less aberration and distortion and more precise manual focus, but also has _slightly_ slower autofocus and that AF has also proven to be a hair more unreliable. (Not that the Canon's is fantastic for AF, either; frankly they both need an AF overhaul.) The Sigma should, hypothetically, be less prone to flare as well as providing slightly smoother and rounder out-of-focus highlighting, though in my use of both I've not noticed a difference in those regards. Most importantly for anyone with a higher-resolution body (5DS, 5DS R, 5D4) the Sigma is _much_ sharper wide-open; the Canon only looks sharp at f/1.2 if you're using a lower-resolution body (in my experience, <16mp); for mid-resolution bodies (20-24mp, say) they're about even.
Finally, the Sigma is of course slightly bigger, heavier, and requires larger filters.

_Personally_, given the higher ISO performance of most cameras made in the last few years (including APS-C ones), I have preferred the Sigma. Bump up the ISO by 1/3rd of a stop and you won't really notice a difference in noise but your whole frame will be more consistently exposed, and of course aberration-free and flatter. When I used to use the Canon I was eternally battling to minimise that fringing and distortion, not to mention it's a much softer lens when used wide-open. (Hell, even some lucky copies of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 can be sharper wide-open than the 1.2L can be.)
I liked the Canon well enough back when I was using a 1Ds mkII (16mp and more limited in ISO and DR) but once I moved on to the 1Ds mkIII (21mp + the usual ISO and DR improvements) a year later, and the 5D mkIII after that, it really didn't seem so great any more. Its resolving capabilities didn't hold up to the potential of the new cameras unless it was stopped down to at least f/2.5. The lower noise of the new cameras helped mitigate that a little but then it became a question of why even bother; if you're shooting at f/2.5 then the cheaper Canon 50mms are identically as good and have faster AF, so you may as well use the f/1.4 or even f/1.8 if you're going to be stopping down anyway. Once I got the Sigma and used that for a week I sold the Canon f/1.2. Before companies like DxO had even confirmed my suspicions, it was immediately obvious the Sigma was all-round the better lens. It was sharper at f/1.4 than the Canon was at f/2 or faster and every other optical quality is better, too. The AF _is_ a fraction worse but not enough to make a practical difference, and personally I prefer the better manual focusing enough to compensate for fractionally worse AF. Similarly, I can't say the difference in size or weight bothers me. (Though I do wish it was a 72mm filter.)

So, for 9/10 people, I'd say the Sigma is going to be the hands-down best option. But if you're one of the few special cases where all you care about is getting as much light as possible in to the centre of the frame and you don't care what you have to trade off for that, then the Canon still does have value. I'd also say the Canon is still great if you use an older, lower-resolution body, where the other optical differences will basically be invisible.


_(For full disclosure: As it so happens, due to my preference for manual focus, I now relegate the Sigma 50mm only for faster-paced events where manually focusing may be too risky, and for all other times I use the Samyang 50mm f/1.4 [t/1.6] as I've found it to be optically even better than the Sigma and has a nicer focus ring, and I have a Mitakon 50mm f/0.95 [t/1.3] for the times when I really need absolutely all the light possible.)_


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 27, 2017)

I think in general you get a lot of negative comments from people whose poor technique and lack of patience and lack of skills in posing people is blamed on particular lens. Maybe some lens have a tolerance problem but in general if you can't take a good photography with a 50 1.2 you should take up something like fishing. 




YuengLinger said:


> Sarpedon, I'm very sorry to hear about your gear. :-[
> 
> Hector1970, glad you are not frustrated with yours.
> 
> ...


----------

