# Photozone finally joins the party on reviewing the Sigma 50 F/1.4 Art



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2014)

Hey all,

PZ finally got to testing the Sigma 50 Art, but for some odd reason their first review is on APS-C and not FF. I expect that to be remedied soon, but here are the crop results:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/875-sigma50f14art_eosapsc?start=1

Shockingly, they found it to not suck to a very high degree. Stellar resolution numbers on their test rig (a 50D, I believe).

They did flag a small focus shift when stopping down, though -- that's the first I've heard of this.

But FYI on another highly satisfied reviewer with the 50 Art.

- A


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 19, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Hey all,
> 
> PZ finally got to testing the Sigma 50 Art, but for some odd reason their first review is on APS-C and not FF. I expect that to be remedied soon, but here are the crop results:
> 
> ...


Very impressive results on APS-C - essentially no distortion or CA.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 19, 2014)

Glad they finally published a review. For a while I kept going back to that site but there was seldom any new reviews.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 19, 2014)

Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !



What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded. That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.

However, the Sigma Art seems purpose-built to wow the forum crowd. If you are a sharpness junkie (who needs AF), you've found your lens.

- A


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 19, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !
> ...


Well said


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Ironically, I want neither of the two. The Canon 50 F/nooneknows IS is likely to be the Canon F/1.4 II I've always wanted -- an 8 or 9 out of 10 at everything -- without being the size of a pickle jar.

- A


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 19, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Duh ! Now everyone's at it. When canon finally do bring out the 50 1.2L II they had better call it something else or no one will notice !


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...




Oh. Doh. My bad. Good catch.

- A


----------



## jebrady03 (Jun 19, 2014)

If you're on APS-C and you're going to shoot at f/2.8, don't bother with either of these 50's. Get the 60mm macro. Similar performance but more versatile. And substantially cheaper than the Sigma.

But, if you want to shoot at f/1.4, the Sigma is the obvious choice. The Canon 50/1.4 does decently well at f/2 - if that's enough of a distinction to warrant the purchase over the 60 macro.

1.4 (even on crop) is really thin so IMO, this isn't a lens for everyone.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 19, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Hey all,
> 
> PZ finally got to testing the Sigma 50 Art, but for some odd reason their first review is on APS-C and not FF. I expect that to be remedied soon, but here are the crop results:
> 
> ...



very bizarre that they test it on aps-c first (or perhaps even only???)
I will wait until they do it on FF.


----------



## TommyLee (Jun 19, 2014)

lens tip reported NO focus shift....so I wonder about this ...seeming....focus shift

just reporting here...

I stalled on this lens til the autofocus rumors fade..

my sigma 35 A is absolutely perfect.....

I actually like the 35mm angle better..
but I hate to miss a great lens... if only I used 50 more...

does not fit in here
14L II, 35 sig, 85L II, 135L ....


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 19, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> What the 50L does well doesn't have a metric that can be easily recorded. That lens is about color, draw, bokeh, etc. and less about meat and potatoes forum fodder like sharpness, chromatic aberrations, distortion, etc.



I'd say this goes for the Sigma f/1.4 EX as well, a lens that I absolutely love and whatever people have said about this lens, I must have an excellent copy or whatever, but it gives tack sharp results with a beautiful dreamy bokeh, good colors and contrast at all apertures. See attached photograph, taken at f/1.4.

I have been eyeing the new 50mm due to the regular GAS affliction but I'm worried it will draw too 'clinical', and besides that I think it's too big and bulky.

In reference to my 35mm A, that lens has a tendency to be clinical, but not overly so. For the 50mm I'm not so sure though...

FWIW This is what Photozone has to say about the 50mm Art:



> Bokeh
> 
> One of the primary usage scenarios for a large aperture lens is to separate the main subject from the background. In such an image the quality of the bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is of major significance.
> The quality of the general blur is a bit of a mixed bag. In the image foreground the bokeh is comparatively harsh with fairly distinctive contrast edges. The more critical background is, however, pretty smooth albeit not totally perfect.



There's just something about 50 mm's with the double Gauss design. I also prefer the chunky shape of the old EX version. So I'm sticking to it too


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 19, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Even photozone's at it now; comparing against the EF 50mm f1.2 L II !
> ...



There seem to be plenty of high-end pros who consider the ef 50mm 1.2 L too problematic to use for photojournalism, wedding photography, or portraiture. Sigma saw an opportunity to make money with a desired focal length that Canon has arguably botched. It doesn't matter what kind of spiritual, esoteric, phantom beauty you experience with a lens you got stuck with--if it can't consistently deliver money shots, it's a dog. 

Ok, I do personally know a young wedding photographer who loves the 1.2 L. Yet her portfolio is heavily weighted with hazy, back-lit shots that don't need Photoshop. Why? One, she can't or won't use any lights (rarely even a reflector), and, two, she hates using Photoshop. So, of course, even exhausted, middle aged brides don't need work when there is zero detail in their skin. So for this purpose, this niche, the 1.2 excels. And, for the "crowd" that likes misty, foggy, dreamy backlit shots for practically everything, she is a go-to in her area.

But if you DON'T own the 50mm 1.2 L, then why in the world are you boasting about it?

Yet because Sigma strives to produce a lens that is sharp and has good bokeh, color, and contrast, -A, you actually think the company sunk R&D and a production line into a lens designed for "the forum crowd," which you both are part of and disdain?

Somebody drank some bitter tea, it seems.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> There seem to be plenty of high-end pros who consider the ef 50mm 1.2 L too problematic to use for photojournalism, wedding photography, or portraiture. Sigma saw an opportunity to make money with a desired focal length that Canon has arguably botched. It doesn't matter what kind of spiritual, esoteric, phantom beauty you experience with a lens you got stuck with--if it can't consistently deliver money shots, it's a dog.
> 
> And if you DON'T own the 50mm 1.2 L, then why in the world are you boasting about it?
> 
> ...



First: Consider decaf. This is a place for pleasant discourse. 

Second: You've misread my statements. I am neither a Canon fanboy nor a Sigma believer. I only offer these points as a collective summary of what I've read and experienced. *I believe there is no best 50mm lens because we each have different needs.*

Some folks driven are by hard performance metrics -- they will likely choose the Sigma 50 Art. I've never shot it, but the reviews are overwhelmingly positive and performance data is stellar.

But some 50L proponents argue there is an unmeasurable 'something' about the shots it takes. Curious, I rented one and gave it a try. I didn't buy one because my evaluation of that lens was that it was a specialist small DOF tool for F/1.2 to F/2, apertures at which I rarely shoot. Stopped down, far cheaper 50mm lenses were sharper. And I agree with you, the 50L is a finnicky diva with AF I cannot count on. 

So I currently shoot the venerable Canon 50 F/1.4 and I'm waiting for something better that isn't as big as a standard L zoom. My money is on Canon 50 IS, which, if the 35mm F/2 IS is any indicator, will be 90% as sharp and half the weight of the Art lens at that focal length. That combination -- Size + Sharpness + IS -- is a winner for me, but it's likely not so for everyone else. Again, different folks have different needs.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 19, 2014)

dilbert said:


> So you're justifying the 50/1.2L by saying that it has some immeasurable quality to it that nobody else can beat? Do you understand how irrational that sounds?



It was so irrational that I had to rent one and try it. I learned:

1) It's not so magical. The color was nice, but it wasn't game changing by any stretch.
2) Good luck with the AF when shooting wider than F/2.
3) It's soft in the corners, even when stopped down a bit.

And I learned that lens wasn't for me, especially for that price.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 20, 2014)

Its too bad that lens reviewers are not able to test autofocus. I realize that testing it would open a can of worms, since its possibly different on every camera. Still, they could have canon calibrate their bodies, and determine a way to measure focus times and accuracy. FoCal does a good job of checking accuracy and consistency, and by using a standard setup, different lenses could be compared on the test camera. If a lens was acting up, it could be returned to the manufacturer for repair and retested.

I think that the results might open some eyes for all lens models. Lens autofocus can be pretty bad, and timing will vary all over the place depending on the distance, starting point, lighting, and even the subject. That's probably why no one does it.


----------



## zlatko (Jun 20, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Lenses have qualities that are not easily described with numbers, at least not in the measurements usually seen in online tests. Have you seen a numerical measurements for how a lens draws faces? I'm not talking about sharpness, but how it draws. Likewise, does any site publish numerical measurements of foreground and background bokeh with subjects at various distances and with foregrounds & backgrounds that have various degrees of detail and contrast? How about numerical measurements of a wide range of colors from various lenses? Probably not. And yet lenses produce all of these things. 

Renowned photojournalist David Burnett uses the 50/L. He says, "It's really great ... It's funny how you can look at pictures and know it that it was shot with this lens ... What's the look? And it has a look, and there's no doubt about it." See at 15:30 — https://vimeo.com/13036394


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 20, 2014)

zlatko said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Good interview. I especially like, at 16:15, when Burnett states, "If it isn't sharp, it isn't a picture."

And it is a good plug for the 50mm 1.2 L, though I'd also like to hear what he and other photojournalists (not just dedicated reviewers) say about the Sigma Art.

Glad somebody is making sense, as opposed to the contrarians who, slavishly following one website, have proclaimed that sharpness is irrelevant.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 20, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its too bad that lens reviewers are not able to test autofocus. I realize that testing it would open a can of worms, since its possibly different on every camera. Still, they could have canon calibrate their bodies, and determine a way to measure focus times and accuracy. FoCal does a good job of checking accuracy and consistency, and by using a standard setup, different lenses could be compared on the test camera. If a lens was acting up, it could be returned to the manufacturer for repair and retested.
> 
> I think that the results might open some eyes for all lens models. Lens autofocus can be pretty bad, and timing will vary all over the place depending on the distance, starting point, lighting, and even the subject. That's probably why no one does it.


I think dialing things in with AFMA in-camera or with Sigma's USB dock can address basic offset issues, but AF _consistency_ is rarely reported.

Bryan Carnathan at TDP did tackle this with his Sigma 50 Art review -- look for the butterfly mouseover interactive thingie he has set up here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx
(pan down about half way -- read text above and below the butterfly, be sure to mouseover numbers 1-10)

I'm not linking this to poke the Sigma so much as showing that some folks actually do 'review' AF in some fashion. But yes, I agree, we lack a gold standard for reviewing AF performance. There needs to be some kid of X-Men-like 'Danger Room' where photogs have a consistent battery of targets at different ranges and speeds and light levels to capture with the AF. Until then, we let pros buy the gear first and write about it. 

That's why I try to read the deeper bits of lens reviews that get into things you only learn from using the lens quite a bit, stuff like curved focal planes, focus shift, inconsistent AF, only works well on certain bodies for some reason, etc.

FWIW, Carnathan is a focus nut and spends a fair amount of time talking about it on some lenses. He also has a mountain of bodies to try a lens with if he finds an issue -- often reporting what he's learned in the process. It's hit or miss, but I'd consider him a first go-to if you are curious about a lens' AF performance. If it's not in the review, drop him a line and ask. He's been stellar at writing me back on all kinds of questions.

- A


----------



## NancyP (Jun 20, 2014)

ahsanford has it right - different lenses for different photographer needs. Right now I am testing out the 40mm f/2.8 as a lightweight landscape prime to use in a primes kit.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 20, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> very bizarre that they test it on aps-c first (or perhaps even only???)
> I will wait until they do it on FF.



Not "only" - they say there will be a FF review shortly and, in the conclusion portion of the review, give a more than subtle hint at their overall opinion of it on FF. But yes, it does seem odd to start with APS-C first.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 20, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its too bad that lens reviewers are not able to test autofocus. I realize that testing it would open a can of worms, since its possibly different on every camera. Still, they could have canon calibrate their bodies, and determine a way to measure focus times and accuracy. FoCal does a good job of checking accuracy and consistency, and by using a standard setup, different lenses could be compared on the test camera. If a lens was acting up, it could be returned to the manufacturer for repair and retested.
> 
> I think that the results might open some eyes for all lens models. Lens autofocus can be pretty bad, and timing will vary all over the place depending on the distance, starting point, lighting, and even the subject. That's probably why no one does it.



Some do, at least up to a point, such as lenstip:

http://www.lenstip.com/400.10-Lens_review-Sigma_A_50_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Autofocus.html

But it seems pretty clear that they don't cover the range of contexts you refer to in your second paragraph. I've no idea whether anyone else comes closer.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 20, 2014)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



He didn't say it has some immeasurable quality that nobody else can beat, only that it has distinctive qualities that can't readily be measured. That's neither irrational nor false (his statement as you reworded it may or may not be true, but it's not irrational). You may not care for those distinctive qualities or even notice them; and it may well be that they're related to various aspects of the lens that *can* be measured (if you like, one could say that it's desirable because of, not despite, its flaws). But simply to dismiss it, as you seem to want to do, because it fails in various ways that can be measured begs the question.

(And, in case this is necessary to add, none of that is to say anything at all negative about the Sigma or, for that matter, to say anything positive about the Canon.)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 20, 2014)

sdsr said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


 
There are indeed qualities that cannot be measured. There is no definition or agreement as to what they actually are. When someone refers to a lens giving a 3D effect, that is not even a defined term.

Measurement of Bokeh is another that has no way to give a numerical value, just a opinion. Usually though, Photozone does give examples of bokeh at various apertures, but its still subject to disagreement, because someone else feels that they would do it differently.

A lot of the undefined qualities are that way. Since different people see them differently, its pretty difficult to do more than look at the images and see if you agree.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 22, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A lot of the undefined qualities are that way. Since different people see them differently, its pretty difficult to do more than look at the images and see if you agree.



Exactly. I find reviews far more useful when they provide photos taken in various conditions with the lens under review and its older rivals, if any. You can sometimes find such comparisons, but not often enough. Simply providing a bunch of photos taken in isolation with a particular lens doesn't tell you much - they tend to all look much the same (which may tell us something more important, of course).


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 23, 2014)

And behold! The FF review is now posted:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/876-sigma50f14art?start=1

Compared to the 35 Art, the 50 Art is less sharp in the center on the wide open side of things, but it appears to have sharper corners when you stop it down to F/2.8, F/4, etc.

The pincushion distortion was a tad surprising in that FL, though. Thought we wouldn't see much.

- A


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 23, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> And behold! The FF review is now posted:
> 
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/876-sigma50f14art?start=1
> 
> ...



At 815g it's a monster lens!


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 23, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> At 815g it's a monster lens!



Yep. And it's as big as a 24-70 F/4 _zoom!_ It's a monster-sized standard prime. Almost as big as the Zeiss Otus.

- A


----------



## R1-7D (Jun 23, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Trying to talk sense to Dilbert is like trying to describe colours to a blind person. He likes his spec sheets and DxO scores. Nothing else matters


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 23, 2014)

Ok so photozone is using a 5d Mark II and praising AF. Any thoughts?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 23, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok so photozone is using a 5d Mark II and praising AF. Any thoughts?



Yeah, they are admittedly gear poor compared to TDP, DXO, Roger at LR, etc. 

But I love the concise, consistent format of the reviews -- specifically the resolution numbers vs. aperture vs. location in the frame. It's like reading baseball cards. 

- A


----------



## drjlo (Jun 23, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I didn't buy one because my evaluation of that lens was that it was a specialist small DOF tool for F/1.2 to F/2, apertures at which I rarely shoot.
> 
> My money is on Canon 50 IS, which, if the 35mm F/2 IS is any indicator, will be 90% as sharp and half the weight of the Art lens at that focal length. That combination -- Size + Sharpness + IS -- is a winner for me



Can't argue with the solid logic here.. I just hope Canon doesn't lose its mind and gives us 50 f/2.8 IS, as I am strongly hoping for at leaset f/2 IS, f/1.8 IS better yet. 

I myself cannot recall the last time I shot my 50L above F/2 and usually just leave it at f/1.8, which is my personal sweet spot for that lens for the purpose it's great for, e.g. shooting people shots who are not necessarily infant-skinned or model-makeup'd..


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 24, 2014)

drjlo said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't buy one because my evaluation of that lens was that it was a specialist small DOF tool for F/1.2 to F/2, apertures at which I rarely shoot.
> ...


I don't think that will happen. See this prior thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21377.msg406035#msg406035

In each instance, the non-L IS refresh lens did _*not*_ get slower with the addition of IS -- max aperture stayed the same.

Read the rest of that thread -- the only wildcard is if the 50/wehavenoidea IS will be replacing the nifty fifty or the 50 F/1.4. In either case, a 50 F/2.something IS isn't going to happen unless the 50 being obsoleted is the old 50 F/2.5 Macro that no one ever talks about. 

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 24, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so photozone is using a 5d Mark II and praising AF. Any thoughts?
> ...



The interesting point here being that photozone was getting good AF results with the older AF on the 5DII. Which, in my mind, confirms what Viggo and others were saying about outer points, cross-type or not, being problematic with this lens on the 5DIII.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jun 26, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



I had a pleasant surprise last weekend; 35mm Sigma 1.4 on the Mk II & Ai Servo AF - consistently excellent results with fast moving (near) subjects!!!


----------

