# Sigma 50 1.4 Art NOT bokehlicious?



## Phenix205 (Jul 26, 2014)

Kai at digitalrev published his hands-on review video. Lack of beautiful bokeh at 1.4 seems to be a weak point of this lens, based on Kai. I was wondering what other users think of it.
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/sigma-50mm-f-1-4/MjQ3MTQwNjA2


----------



## Viggo (Jul 26, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> Kai at digitalrev published his hands-on review video. Lack of beautiful bokeh at 1.4 seems to be a weak point of this lens, based on Kai. I was wondering what other users think of it.
> http://www.digitalrev.com/article/sigma-50mm-f-1-4/MjQ3MTQwNjA2



I think he's very wrong. And he's also wrong about build quality.


----------



## Terrierist (Jul 26, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I think he's very wrong. And he's also wrong about build quality.



+1 
I'm loving mine.


----------



## candyman (Jul 26, 2014)

The only reason for me watching his videos is entertainment. I take his reviews with a grain of salt.
I also think he is wrong about both bokeh and build quality. I love the results of the 50A


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 27, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Phenix205 said:
> 
> 
> > Kai at digitalrev published his hands-on review video. Lack of beautiful bokeh at 1.4 seems to be a weak point of this lens, based on Kai. I was wondering what other users think of it.
> ...



yeah he needs to step away from the crack pipe on this review...


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 27, 2014)

I like digrevtv... I find them to be entertaining... though I'm not entirely sure I would build my entire collection based on what he says. 

In regard the 50 art... I don't have one yet... but it seems a little strange that he attacked build quality and bokeh more than auto focus consistency... which seems like it is the only poison pill for the lens... 

I can accept the 50L has better bokeh... but from the images I've seen from a myriad of sources, the bokeh seems more than adequate and in fact, quite decent... but his images... were blah... so I guess I can agree that his images were blah and consequently the bokeh... and that's not an attack on him images... because he normally does a fine job making the mundane appear interesting. 

As for the 58... don't most people hate that lens @ that price? Something about not being sharp and having a ton of CA... but I guess that doesn't matter in the comparison...

or even what the art does REALLY well, which is a near complete lack of distortion.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 27, 2014)

Technically it makes sense for it not to have the best bokeh. Generally in order to have great bokeh, classic lens design indicates you need to leave some spherical aberration uncorrected - but this is contrary to the design focus of this lens which piles up the elements in attempt to remove all aberrations and get the maximum sharpness.

As everything works with lenses, no lens cannot be strong somewhere without being weak somewhere else.

Also, recall that Kai's definition of Bokehlicious is a lot different than the average person's. From what I can see in his videos, two 50mm bokehlicious lens he approves of appear to be the Leica Noctilux 50mm f/0.95, with the Canon 50mm f/1.2L being another (though not as good as the Noctilux):
Canon 50mm f/1.2 L vs Leica Noctilux f/0.95 (Battle of Bokeh)

Also, yes his videos are primarily entertainment.


----------



## Mika (Jul 27, 2014)

Here I'll have to disagree. 50/1.4 A is yet to leave me down on the bokeh department.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 27, 2014)

"As everything works with lenses, no lens cannot be strong somewhere without being weak somewhere else."

Want to borrow my 200? 8)


----------



## infared (Jul 27, 2014)

Wow...I am considering the new Sigma Art...I am not worried about all of the obsessive insanity on this site about the AF capabilities....I am sure if I get a bad copy...I will just send it back.....
but after looking at Kai's comparison of the bokeh of the three lenses (Nikon 58mm & Canon 50L) with the popsicles....I am amazed at how much the bokeh suffers on the Art lens at the expense of incredible sharpness.
(kindof reminiscent of my Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II...its so sharp...I don't care... I rely on some primes like my old 50mm Sigma and my Canon 85mm f/1.5L when I really want to smear things up!!!)
I currently have an excellent copy original 50mm Sigma f/1.4 which I think is far superior in performance and build to the pathetic Canon 50mm f/1.8 and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lenses. I think that for the price, the lens I have is a real winner....
From everything I have read about the new Sigma Art while researching it online...Kai seems a bit off in his opinion on a number of statements.
Everything I have read says the build quality on the Sigma is quite good. I also think he understates the the level of sharpness that the new Art lens has over the Canon L and he does not even mention the superior contrast. I also think his dismissal of the Sigma Lens Dock is also ignorant as it is a very handy tool, I have at the very least updated the firmware on my 35mm Art lens. For the cost of it ...I think it is a great little accessory with a great potential for tweaks and updates.
This bokeh report and the size of the new Sigma does give me some pause as I do have a very decent, already-paid-for 50mm with great bokeh and very good sharpness in the center.....hmmm..guess you just cannot have it all.
Does anyone know of a more "respected" review of the new Sigma where the bokeh is compared to some other lenses??
I keep waiting for Dustin Abbott's review of the Sigma Art where I believe he promised some comparison with other lenses, like maybe the old Sigma and the new Otus??? not sure what he said..can't quite remember....but maybe he is having trouble getting his hands on one of the new Art lenses or something...... as they are a bit hard to get a hold on.... I am in no hurry... looking into this is all a bit of fun!!!!!


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 27, 2014)

Also, why compare a 58mm lens to a 50mm lens? The longer one will have more OOF blur taking the same shot at the same distance.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 27, 2014)

Ugh.

DigitalRev reviews have no purpose beyond entertainment. 

What amazes me most are the number of posts on the forum lately scrutinizing the Sigma 50 1.4 beyond belief. Apart from the Otus, it's the best FF 50mm ever made from an optics standpoint. Let's stop discussing preferences about bokeh, rendering, etc. as if they are objective fact.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 27, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Ugh.
> 
> DigitalRev reviews have no purpose beyond entertainment.
> 
> What amazes me most are the number of posts on the forum lately scrutinizing the Sigma 50 1.4 beyond belief. Apart from the Otus, it's the best FF 50mm ever made from an optics standpoint. Let's stop discussing preferences about bokeh, rendering, etc. as if they are objective fact.



Yep. According to nearly every review, too. Everyone take a step back and breathe then answer honestly. 

If Canon had released this lens with a red ring on it: People would be singing the praises of its sharpness and color, contrast, and maybe some would swear that they can detect a certain undefinable something; something which can't be put into words, something which stirs the soul, etc... And the price would be double or more.

If Zeiss had released this lens: There would be no autofocus at all, and people would scoff at those lesser shooters that depend on such a pedestrian crutch as autofocus. People would marvel at its sharpness and color rendering. The images would send viewers into spasms of joy due to their sublime, yet undefinable other-worldly quality. And the price would be four times what it is now.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 27, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ugh.
> ...



EXACTLY.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 27, 2014)

Bokeh is great. AF can be awful, but some are finding it adequate. 

Does that sound like "obsessive insanity"? If you like to play the good copy game, have fun! Or, wait for the firmware upgrade. 

I too was hoping that some of the most dependable, articulate posters here at CR were wrong about the AF. They weren't. I'll wait until next year before trying again with this one.


----------



## Perio (Jul 28, 2014)

candyman said:


> The only reason for me watching his videos is entertainment. I take his reviews with a grain of salt.
> I also think he is wrong about both bokeh and build quality. I love the results of the 50A



I never found his reviews to be entertaining. He seems to be an arrogant guy to me.


----------



## distant.star (Jul 28, 2014)

.
The first mistake is calling anything this guy does a "review." I don't believe he's qualified in any way to competently review photo equipment. I consider him a buffoon who creates ridiculous videos in order to drive traffic to his marketing site.

If you're going to consider his opinion on photo equipment purchases, I suggest you start asking your friendly supermarket check-out person for fine dining recommendations. Equally valid and irrelevant.


----------



## infared (Jul 28, 2014)

Touchy subject, eh??? LOL!


----------



## anthonyd (Jul 28, 2014)

Viggo said:


> "As everything works with lenses, no lens cannot be strong somewhere without being weak somewhere else."
> 
> Want to borrow my 200? 8)



Your 200 is weak at zooming, but I'd borrow it anyway


----------



## Viggo (Jul 28, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > "As everything works with lenses, no lens cannot be strong somewhere without being weak somewhere else."
> ...



Lol, well, it's also weak at surfing the internet on


----------



## Lightmaster (Jul 28, 2014)

KAI, KEN.... see a pattern?

like the dreaded ken r. these "reviews" are just to lure gullible to their websites.


----------



## Snodge (Jul 30, 2014)

It's perhaps worth pointing out that the review Kai did was with a Nikon body - I don't know if they are supposed to have the same sort of autofocus issues as the Canon bodies with the Sigma lens...


----------

