# Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG Art Gets Tested for the First Time



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 28, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-art-gets-tested-for-the-first-time/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/02/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-art-gets-tested-for-the-first-time/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>The first image tests of the upcoming and highly anticipated Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART series lens have surfaced on <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Finfo.xitek.com%2Fxitekzl%2F201401%2F23-144292.html" target="_blank">Xitek</a>.</p>
<p>The lenses used for comparison are:</p>
<ul>
<li>311: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art</li>
<li>Sony: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/925829-REG/sony_sal50f14z_50mm_f_1_4_carl_zeiss.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">Sony Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZA SSM</a></li>
<li>Nikon: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1010026-REG/nikon_2210_af_s_nikkor_58mm_f_1_4g.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">Nikon AF-S 58mm f/1.4G</a></li>
<li>Otus: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1007600-REG/zeiss_2010_055_55mm_f_1_4_otus_lens.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus</a></li>
</ul>
<div id="attachment_15956" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-test-center.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15956" alt="Click for Larger" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-test-center-575x367.jpg" width="575" height="367" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for Larger</p></div>
<div id="attachment_15957" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-test-corner.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15957" alt="Click for Larger" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-test-corner-575x366.jpg" width="575" height="366" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for Larger</p></div>
<div id="attachment_15958" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-test-vignetting.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15958" alt="Click for Larger" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-test-vignetting-575x522.jpg" width="575" height="522" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for Larger</p></div>
<div id="attachment_15959" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-specs-comparison.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15959" alt="Click for Larger" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sigma-50mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Art-lens-specs-comparison-575x376.jpg" width="575" height="376" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Click for Larger</p></div>
<p>Sigma is boasting that their new 50mm lens will rival the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 for a fraction of the cost optically, and it’ll have autofocus to boot! Here’s hoping the claim is  true. Judging by this very small sampling of image quality, it’s quite possible it will be.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Finfo.xitek.com%2Fxitekzl%2F201401%2F23-144292.html" target="_blank">XT</a>] via [<a href="http://photorumors.com/2014/02/27/first-sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-test/" target="_blank">PR</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

This looks intriguing, but the crops they posted have horrific sharpening artifacts, the exposure of the Sigma looks brighter and the top exposures are smaller than the lower, which makes me think it was shot on a different body. I can't get the site to load, either, so I'm not really sure you can make a valid comparison on anything other than what appears to be low CA from the new Sigma.


----------



## rs (Feb 28, 2014)

No word on apertures or bodies used for the test, but judging by the different magnification, the Nikon and Zeiss were probably tested on a higher MP body than the Sony and the Sigma. Although having said that, both the Nikon and Zeiss are longer than 50mm.

I'm guessing the Nikon and Zeiss were on a D800, and the Sony was on a 24mp FF body. The Sigma looks to be tested on the same resolution too, but I'd have thought Sigma would make a Sony mount last, so possibly Canon mount on an A7?

Anyway, to me the Sigma appears slightly better than the Zeiss - but this doesn't reveal much - clearly different post processing, lower MP to hide problems, and no word on what aperture setting was used.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 28, 2014)

Wow! If the test conditions are equal, Sigma put Nikon and Sony out of the game. Chromatic aberration seems to be much better in Sigma. But why not compare with existing Canon 50mm?


----------



## infared (Feb 28, 2014)

This is funny...this review is like a teaser-mystery-review from an iffy source....but does look promising and keeps it interestin. Check out the CA on the Sony ...and the Nikon is just an utter embarrassment for a lens costing over $1000.
I am hopeful that this Sigma is all that it can be...I always thought when I read the number or elements and the grouping in this lens when it was first announced that this would have to be a killer lens..why would you put all of that glass in there otherwise? This is also extremely embarrassing to Canon...as they are the biggest Camera manufacturer and for all of these years they have been serving up a plate of [email protected] when it came to all 3 of there "normal" lenses. The "L" (not a "bad" lens, but overpriced for what it is) should have been a lens of this construction and caliber. 
You go Sigma! I am not going to rush out and buy this lens..but I do eventually want it in my quiver.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Wow! If the test conditions are equal, Sigma put Nikon and Sony out of the game. Chromatic aberration seems to be much better in Sigma. But why not compare with existing Canon 50mm?


If you look at the photos and *assume* that everything is equal, the Sigma seems to put the Zeiss to shame. Unfortunately the only potential takeaway is low CA. I'll be pre-ordering one of these as soon as it goes up, but given my experience with the 50L, I'm going to be worried about the handling, bokeh, color, and contrast -- not the ability to score high on test charts.


----------



## mkabi (Feb 28, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! If the test conditions are equal, Sigma put Nikon and Sony out of the game. Chromatic aberration seems to be much better in Sigma. But why not compare with existing Canon 50mm?
> ...



I don't know about putting Zeiss to shame... Its better in terms of sharpness, but there are vertical line artifacts. As you said, real world testing is more needed not scoring high on test charts.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

mkabi said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...


Exactly - you can't tell much from this test, but if you just ignore all of the defects, differences, and artifacts, the Sigma *appears* to have better contrast than the Zeiss. Of course this is likely not the case, but this test (or at least the test crops) is way too flawed to tell us much of anything.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 28, 2014)

I doubt this comparison is COMPLETELY off, I think it will be very close to the Zeiss in a lot of ways, but perhaps not all, don't care. What people have to use today with 50mm's with AF I think we are in for a game changer.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 28, 2014)

I don´t think we can read too much out of this. But it does seem to be good, so I´ll be waiting for the next and hopefully more comprehensive test and access to some full resolution raw images.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 28, 2014)

And also I very much doubt Sigma will purposely destroy their new reputation by saying "oh, yeah it's just as good as the Zeiss" if they clearly know it's not. They won't get away with that as soon as ONE Sigma is sold and they were proven wrong. So when they say it's Zeiss good, I believe they know that for a fact.


----------



## emag (Feb 28, 2014)

I'll wait for the REAL tests........brick walls and cats


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Well I think it is clear that it will put the 50/1.2L to shame and depending on the price point, maybe even the 50/1.4.


I think that's a given in terms of sharpness, CA, and other metrics, but until I see the bokeh and the color saturation of my own shots with it, I'm not in any rush to sell my 50L. 



Viggo said:


> And also I very much doubt Sigma will purposely destroy their new reputation by saying "oh, yeah it's just as good as the Zeiss" if they clearly know it's not. They won't get away with that as soon as ONE Sigma is sold and they were proven wrong. So when they say it's Zeiss good, I believe they know that for a fact.


True - and Japanese companies aren't generally known to make bold claims they can't back up.


----------



## verysimplejason (Feb 28, 2014)

I hope they can improve the quality and consistency though. I've been disappointed once by Sigma (30mm) which when I tested in a shop immediately displayed problems in its AF. I've been waiting for a very good 50mm F1.4. I don't really like Canon's version (especially its build quality) and opted to just use the 50mm F1.8 II (cheap, easy to replace and sharp enough from F2.8) for the meantime.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 28, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Well I think it is clear that it will put the 50/1.2L to shame and depending on the price point, maybe even the 50/1.4.
> ...



What's your opinions of the 50L?

I rented one awhile back and fell in love with it....I rented and used it mostly for shooting video , some was in extremely dark bars, and that baby made it look like I turned on a wall of lights.

I shot some stills with it too...anyway, I'm saving for one. I'm thinking that f/1.2 would be a bit more valuable to me than f/1.4 in low light video...? Not sure how much more so in still imagery....but what's your thoughts on this?

I'm likely to get the 50L...but when the sigma comes out...I might rent it and see how it is to play with....

thoughts?

cayenne


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

cayenne said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...





cayenne said:


> What's your opinions of the 50L?
> 
> I rented one awhile back and fell in love with it....I rented and used it mostly for shooting video , some was in extremely dark bars, and that baby made it look like I turned on a wall of lights.
> 
> ...


My opinion is that the 50L has incredible build quality, excellent AF, and produces amazing photos. It has color saturation and contrast that are as good as my 180 Macro and 300 2.8 IS II, resists flare beautifully and has the best bokeh of any lens I've used other than the 85 II. The bokeh is large, smooth, and melts away the background. It's not super sharp at f/1.2, but is plenty sharp for portraits. The DOF at f/1.2 is brutal and it has field curvature, so you can't focus and recompose until you get to at least f/2.8, and unfortunately the shallow DOF has more to do with the lens' reputation for being "soft" that anything else. If you use it for 3 days and can't get but a fraction of the shots in focus, it's "crap". If you realize that it's a tough lens and take the time to master it, you're rewarded with beautiful shots that no f/2.8 zoom can match. Also, it's one of the only lenses that I've been able to use to shoot outdoor events at night. I'd like it to be sharper at f/1.2, but the only real hang up I have with the lens is that it suffers from fairly excessive CA, at least compared to the 85.

I'm eager to try the Sigma, but sharp test charts don't mean much to me if the bokeh is ringed and contrasty, the contrast is low wide open, the AF sucks, it flares easily, or the colors have that cool tint to them that most of their older lenses have. Sigma has made huge strides in these areas, so I'm hopeful that this lens is all it's cracked up to be. Unfortunately this test doesn't really tell us much.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 28, 2014)

I've owned the 50 L a number of times and I do agree that it's wonderful when it comes to
Color, contrast, bokeh, build and weather resistance .handling and AF is also superb, small size and nice
Weight .

The reason I keep selling it is because of sharpness , or lack of
It. It's good enough in the center, but I like to compose off center, and especially with the new 61 pt system and it's simply horrible off center, really bad wide open. It has nothing to do with it being a tricky lens to master. It's just extremely soft off center wide open, period.

I'm one of it's big fans, I really am, I love almost everything with it, but when you can't tell where you have focused when going off center it's pretty limiting.

I have the 85 L II and it's a completely different lens now with the 1dx and the new firmware and it's awesome and a really nice useful 1.2 lens , also in the far corners. For video though the manual focus ring is pretty bad.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

Viggo said:


> It has nothing to do with it being a tricky lens to master. It's just extremely soft off center wide open, period.


I don't disagree, but I've had so many people (who aren't used to fast lenses) complain about the center sharpness of this lens, and 99% of the time it's been because they think they can shoot at f/1.2 with sloppy technique (focus & recompose or focus and move around a bit before pressing the shutter). When I pick up their camera and nail 3 or 4 shots at f/1.2 they look at me like I'm crazy until I explain what they're doing wrong. For the newbie or person who hasn't used a lens faster than f/2.8, I think it is a tough lens to use. 

For experienced shooters, it's no different than any other fast lens, and yes, the off center sharpness drops off very quickly wide open and the corners are crap at f/1.2. I try to keep my subjects centered in the middle 1/3 of the frame or bump it to f/2 where things look much better.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 28, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > It has nothing to do with it being a tricky lens to master. It's just extremely soft off center wide open, period.
> ...



+1, if this is your first fast lens, it will not forgive any sloppy 2.8 technique, absolutely.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Feb 28, 2014)

I think its obvious to all of us (most of us) that in this small sampling of images, the Sigma has definite potential. And yes, it is sharp! It may have been noted previously but there is more to a lens besides just sharpness and performance. 

For me personally, I look for how it renders bokeh for those out of focus areas in relation to the sharp areas and edges. I use the Art 35mm f1.4 and 85mm 1.4 and like them both. The 35mm is great in all regards however I find the bokeh in the Sigma 85mm not as pleasing as the same, shot with my Canon 85mm f1.2L II. Performance wise, the Sigma smokes the Canon 85 but that is not the subject here. 

For comparison, I also have Zeiss 35 f2.0, Zeiss 50 f2.0 and 100 f2.0. The color rendering and bokeh from these are wonderful IMHO. I had the Zeiss 85mm but it was not as 'great' as I thought it should be and sold it. I'm more than happy with the Sigma and Canon 85L.

Would I buy the new Sigma Art 50 when announced? Oh hell yes, and probably sell my Zeiss 50. I like the bigger filter size on the Sigma and the AF is a given. 

Curious to see how the Sigma handles color compared to the Zeiss 55....


----------



## Viggo (Feb 28, 2014)

MARKOE PHOTOE said:


> I think its obvious to all of us (most of us) that in this small sampling of images, the Sigma has definite potential. And yes, it is sharp! It may have been noted previously but there is more to a lens besides just sharpness and performance.
> 
> For me personally, I look for how it renders bokeh for those out of focus areas in relation to the sharp areas and edges. I use the Art 35mm f1.4 and 85mm 1.4 and like them both. The 35mm is great in all regards however I find the bokeh in the Sigma 85mm not as pleasing as the same, shot with my Canon 85mm f1.2L II. Performance wise, the Sigma smokes the Canon 85 but that is not the subject here.
> 
> ...



The Zeiss 50 f2 is my absolute favorite 50 to date, only sold it because of lack AF, was very limiting. Epic bokeh and color, and corners are tack sharp wide open.

The Sigma 85 f1.4 having notorious AF issues makes it not worth the savings compared to the L, even if it's faster. 85 L has nicer bokeh and blurs more and better contrast, and I like the colors better. But the Sigma is half the price or something so that counts for some given the very nice IQ it has.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 28, 2014)

I'm not a dissenter, but I'm curious. If you shoot in raw... the images all look blah until you change the contrast, remove the vignetting... and fix the white balance. I also add a touch of saturation... shoo if a shot requires that much adjustment from the original raw.. how do y'all really know if it was the lens that didn't have good color, contrast, etc?


----------



## cayenne (Feb 28, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I've owned the 50 L a number of times and I do agree that it's wonderful when it comes to
> Color, contrast, bokeh, build and weather resistance .handling and AF is also superb, small size and nice
> Weight .
> 
> ...



The Canon 85mm f/1.2 is on my lens list too....but like I'd mentioned, I will get the 50L first, for video as much as photography at this point in time. 

I rented teh 85mm f/1.2 and loved it, and used it to shoot at Voodoo Fest in New Orleans here last year...it was fun, but I found I had some problem nailing focus on it...and I wasn't trying to recompose either.

However, I did like it and will get one, but it wouldn't work well for video with the way manual focus is handled on the 85L. 

I'm gonna invest in FoCal too...especially when I get the 50L and the 85L. I'm of the thought that those lenses with such a narrow DOF, definitely need the micro adjustments to get the most out of them. Like was part of my problem of the 85L I rented....

C


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 28, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'm not a dissenter, but I'm curious. If you shoot in raw... the images all look blah until you change the contrast, remove the vignetting... and fix the white balance. I also add a touch of saturation... shoo if a shot requires that much adjustment from the original raw.. how do y'all really know if it was the lens that didn't have good color, contrast, etc?


Good questions, and white balance affects the entire image so it should be set first. Cool lenses, like many of the older Sigmas have a blue or yellow tint to them that remains even when you adjust white balance. Canon lenses are a bit warmer than neutral, which most of us are used to and like if we shoot Canon.

When you open the raw files, (in my case in PS or DxO), I can tell right away if I need to add saturation/vibrancy. I don't think I've ever added any saturation to my 180 Macro shots, vs. adding 30+ to my old 24-70 [MkI] or lenses that I use with the 2x extender. For contrast, my 50 1.4 looked faded and washed out at f/1.4, but had lots of contrast at f/2. In comparison, the 50 1.2 has as much contrast at f/1.2 as it does at f/4. 

Lesser lenses require a boost in contrast, whereas lenses with amazing contrast (like the 300 2.8 IS II) require little to no boost. For a shot in soft light, if you add more than about +5 to +15 contrast, the image gets dark and mushy, whereas the old 24-70 would need around +30 to get the same look.

Adding color saturation and contrast seems simple, but in photos with wide dynamic range (lots of shadows) or highly saturated colors (like flowers), boosting them too much not only looks unnatural, but it "crushes" the blacks or saturated colors and you can lose a lot of detail.

As for the other artifacts, like CA and vignetting, if DxO can't get rid of the CA (like on my Sigma 12-24 II) that says something, and even DxO can't do much about Longitudinal CA (LoCA), which usually shows up in high contrast areas of lenses f/1.4 and faster. It's ugly green and purple lines and can be 4+ pixels wide so it's really noticeable. I usually desaturate the LoCA in PS as that's about all you can do. 

Vignetting on lenses like the 50L and 24L II is horrible and with the 24L II, it is an issue when shooting landscapes and architecture in low light. You can expose to the right (as I do) but when you open the shadows in post, the corners have a lot more noise because they've been pushed several stops (via the vignette removal) vs. the center that has been pushed a lot less. 

Maybe I'm a little too @[email protected] about these things, but when you start making big prints, you really start noticing this stuff. There's nothing worse than a client who wants a big print of a photo that looks great online but has lots of "technical" issues when you go to print it. 



cayenne said:


> I'm gonna invest in FoCal too...especially when I get the 50L and the 85L. I'm of the thought that those lenses with such a narrow DOF, definitely need the micro adjustments to get the most out of them.


Yes, that is a HUGE help with the f/1.4 and faster lenses and the optimal adjustments after calibration have less CA, which is a nice bonus on top of the improved sharpness.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 28, 2014)

cayenne said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I've owned the 50 L a number of times and I do agree that it's wonderful when it comes to
> ...



+1 on FoCal. It's one of the smallest investments you can make in serious photography and yet, it's the most important of all. It's made my lenses perfect instead of, "yeah it's okay, but.."


----------



## BLFPhoto (Feb 28, 2014)

I would take the results as proof that Sigma's new design, which closely aligns with the Otus design, provides significant improvement over the old standard double-guauss design such that there will be clear delineations between the older lens designs and these two new lenses. I would not take the results so far as to provide any argument for/against Sigma relative to Zeiss or anyone else who adopts the new retrofocus lens design for their 50mm-ish lenses. 

In the meantime, until Canon, Nikon, Pentax and anyone else in the game field their own retrofocus 50s, the Sigma and Zeiss seem like they will provide a clear advantage. The real choice at the moment for any particular photographer seems to be autofocus vs apparent minor difference in image quality. 

For my purposes, the AF will take that argument even if I felt like spending Otus type cash. Not to take away anything from the Otus or those who own it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 28, 2014)

I Like my 50L, but I'll probably buy this sigma sooner or later.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 28, 2014)

MARKOE PHOTOE said:


> I find the bokeh in the Sigma 85mm not as pleasing as the same, shot with my Canon 85mm f1.2L II. Performance wise, the Sigma smokes the Canon 85 but that is not the subject here.



The good news for bokeh is that the 50 is basically a modified 35, so it should be a slightly better longer focal length version of that lens (very slightly sharper on average, less distortion, same bokeh in other words).

I actually went the opposite way with the 85mm Sigma though, the bokeh of the Sigma has a nice pop to it, with beautiful interesting OOF highlights, the Canon's is very very flat, which can be a good thing if that's what you like, but I liked the Sigma 85's better.


----------



## rpiotr01 (Feb 28, 2014)

I'm patiently awaiting some proper sample photos and a hands-on review, but it certainly looks VERY promising  Not going to take away anything beyond that from these shots.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 28, 2014)

I've heard from a number of sources that the sigma 35's bokeh is blah.. and not as impressive as the Canon option.



Radiating said:


> MARKOE PHOTOE said:
> 
> 
> > I find the bokeh in the Sigma 85mm not as pleasing as the same, shot with my Canon 85mm f1.2L II. Performance wise, the Sigma smokes the Canon 85 but that is not the subject here.
> ...


----------



## Badger (Feb 28, 2014)

Just swallowed my big grains of salt. 

I'm calling it here. I think those tests are fake! If you can get your hands on the Otus AND this Sigma lens that no one else seems to be able to get a hold of, I would think the the test shots would have been more professional. I have seen better fake iPhone 6 pictures!


----------



## Aglet (Mar 1, 2014)

check the 5th paragraph

www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4

yes, we need to see some real tests but I think Sigma's likely got a lens they can be proud of.

... as I continue to cuss the inconsistent AF of a new, but past warranty EF 50/1.4


----------



## slclick (Mar 1, 2014)

As much as I love my 2 ART lenses I just don't use the 50 I already have that much. Not due to the quality or lack of wit the 1.4 but the FL. I truly hope they have a great lens at a decent price but I think I'll be passing no matter what it comes out at.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Mar 1, 2014)

One word: Impressed.

From this initial testing, this can be a real competitor to the Zeiss Otus. If I had to replace my Zeiss 50mm with something else, I would consider the Zeiss 50mm f2, then the Sigma or Zeiss Otus. But if the Sigma is that good???


----------



## BLFPhoto (Mar 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I've heard from a number of sources that the sigma 35's bokeh is blah.. and not as impressive as the Canon option.



I would not say that and I own both. They are certainly different, but both have very nice qualities.


----------



## ScottyP (Mar 1, 2014)

I have the Sigma Art 35, and I honestly love it. Sharp, bright, and lovely bokeh and colors. I do believe this lens will be, if not totally equal to the $4k+ Zeiss lens in sharpness, etc., then at least 95% there, based on the fact Sigma seems to be vouching the lens will be even better than the 35. 

I also think the only reason Zeiss does not put AF on their nice lenses, which even the cheap-o kit lenses everyone else makes do include, is that they only have the ability to make so-so AF. They only put it on a few cheap-o Sony lenses, and it is only cheap-o AF. They make MF lenses with glass that works like a decent precision microscope, but they simply have nothing special to offer in the area of AF (OR I.S.), so they shy away from trying, so they don't catch the flak for slow/inaccurate/mediocre AF that would tarnish the reputation of their optics.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I've heard from a number of sources that the sigma 35's bokeh is blah.. and not as impressive as the Canon option.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't see anything wrong with the bokeh on the sigma 35
here is an example @ 1.4


----------



## Viggo (Mar 1, 2014)

I also had both, and I think that the difference is often not a big deal, but I like the 35 L better, it seems smoother.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 1, 2014)

I have a feeling choosing between this and the Fuji 56f1.2 isn't going to be much of a contest.


----------



## infared (Mar 1, 2014)

Aglet said:


> check the 5th paragraph
> 
> www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4
> 
> ...




Aglet...Thanks for the link to IR ...THAT was VERY informative and really helped me to understand what I am looking at with these rather primitive Chinese test images. If these are legitament test images, even though they we shot on different camera bodies...the tests are still telling a story, and since it is the only info we have at this point it appears that Sigma has a real winner on its hands here. I really like the way the story of this lens is developing! Can't wait to find out more.


----------



## iowapipe (Mar 1, 2014)

Aglet said:


> check the 5th paragraph
> 
> www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4
> 
> ...



I'm in the same boat as you - being a bit newer to photography I figured/hoped that the 'old' problems with that lens would have been addressed in the intervening years. 19 months out and I have a lens that is pretty inconsistent past about 10 feet away. I'm not planning on sending it in for repair and spending nearly half the price of a new one for the privilege. I have a 40mm I'm quite pleased with. And I really only use the 50mm occasionally, not regularly.


----------



## Radiating (Mar 3, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I've heard from a number of sources that the sigma 35's bokeh is blah.. and not as impressive as the Canon option.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you've heard that then it probably originally came from me, or from the source I originally used.

What happened is that the first outside photographer that got to sample the 35mm f/1.4, was somewhat amateurish and used very weird clarity enhancing technique on his photos (no doubt to make the incredibly sharp lens look even sharper). This made the bokeh transitions look seriously bad, and because Sigma published their photos as the first official samples I and a few other people immediately pointed this out that the bokeh was defective. This was not the case and ever since everyone has praised the bokeh of this lens.

The 35 ART's bokeh is very similar to the 50mm f/1.2L, contrasty yet buttery. The 35L has bokeh that's closer to the 85 L II, which is very flat on the other hand.

The main problems with the Sigma are distortion and purple fringing.


----------



## vscd (Mar 3, 2014)

<ironic>I think everyone can beat the OTUS or Sigma lenses with a Canon Lense, even the 50mm f1.8. Just patch your lense, today. It's soooooo easy</ironic>


----------



## eml58 (Mar 3, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> I don't see anything wrong with the bokeh on the sigma 35
> here is an example @ 1.4



Hi wicked, your right, Bokeh seems Ok, but I think you had too many of these BEFORE taking the shot, the Glass is leaning to the left, you needed to stand with your left foot on a box of matches so you could have the beer level, works for me.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 3, 2014)

eml58 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see anything wrong with the bokeh on the sigma 35
> ...



ROFL ;D yes indeed, glad you noticed it was also tilted so the bottom of the glass was oof 
but the image was only to present the bokeh not my druken photographic ability...


----------



## eml58 (Mar 4, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I also had both, and I think that the difference is often not a big deal, but I like the 35 L better, it seems smoother.



And this has been my own experience as well, I think the Art 35 is a sharper Lens, and seems to have a better focus set up, but I still go back to the 35L as to me, the Bokeh is just smoother.

I think perhaps there's a lot of unrealistic hope surrounding what Sigma can/are able to do with competing lenses, My thoughts are that they are doing a pretty good job with the Art Series, the 35 is good and compares very well with it's target Market, in particular the Canon 35f/1.4 L, I've heard the new 18-35 f/1.8 is pretty good as well, but in general can Sigma produce a Lens at less than half the price as good as an Otus 55, or even a Zeiss 15f/2.8 ?? I'm not convinced, but it would be wonderful to see it if they could, I just don't think they can or will.

Canon made a pretty good Lens in the 50f/1.2 L, not perfect for sure but pretty good, if Sigma can drop a 50 f/1.4 Art with AF into the Market that solves some of the issues that the 50f/1.2 L has, it will sell and sell well especially with the Canon users, but the "aiming at the Otus" hype from Sigma ?? it's just that, marketing hype.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 4, 2014)

i'm hanging out to see zeiss make an otus 21mm....
one of my favourite focal lengths and dont mind MF this wide


----------



## eml58 (Mar 4, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> but the image was only to present the bokeh not my druken photographic ability...


I know, it's 0700 here, just getting my Humour shots in early, at your expense, my apologies


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 4, 2014)

eml58 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > but the image was only to present the bokeh not my druken photographic ability...
> ...



I got a laugh anyway so you're doing well


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 4, 2014)

Radiating said:


> If you've heard that then it probably originally came from me, or from the source I originally used.
> 
> What happened is that the first outside photographer that got to sample the 35mm f/1.4, was somewhat amateurish and used very weird clarity enhancing technique on his photos (no doubt to make the incredibly sharp lens look even sharper). This made the bokeh transitions look seriously bad, and because Sigma published their photos as the first official samples I and a few other people immediately pointed this out that the bokeh was defective. This was not the case and ever since everyone has praised the bokeh of this lens.
> 
> ...



I haven't played with the 35 yet... so I'll hold echoing that opinion until I play with one. For what it is worth... I dont' think I originally heard it from you... It was in regards to a conversation I was having where I was complaining about the 50mm canon options. I said something like... the sigma 35 is sharp... why can't the the canon 50's be... and then someone said that the 35's bokeh was not smooth and delicious the way the 50mm L's is... 

but that's a conversation for another day.


----------



## Radiating (Mar 4, 2014)

eml58 said:


> In general can Sigma produce a Lens at less than half the price as good as an Otus 55, or even a Zeiss 15f/2.8 ?? I'm not convinced, but it would be wonderful to see it if they could, I just don't think they can or will.
> 
> Canon made a pretty good Lens in the 50f/1.2 L, not perfect for sure but pretty good, if Sigma can drop a 50 f/1.4 Art with AF into the Market that solves some of the issues that the 50f/1.2 L has, it will sell and sell well especially with the Canon users, but the "aiming at the Otus" hype from Sigma ?? it's just that, marketing hype.



You don't know much about this lens if you're saying that Sigma's claims are marketing hype. They're the opposite. Zeiss with the Otus pioneered a radical never before tried optical design, which results in performance that is 2-5 times better than any other fast SLR 50mm *ever* made. It solves the standard focal length softness problem that has plagued lens designers at the standard focal lengths for the last 70+ years. Fast prime SLR lens designs around 50mm have never been able to correctly focus light at high angles of incidence because the lens elements they required had to be inside the mirror box around 50mm, this made every single design ever released noticably soft. Zeiss designed a radical new formula to fix this problem and Sigma made a slightly simplified copy of the breakthrough design.

When Sigma says they are aiming for the Otus and ignoring the competition, they mean to say that their lens makes everything else that competes obsolete. The Sigma is 89% as good as the Zeiss, and both lenses are the only standard SLR fast primes that don't exhibit significant softness. Every other lens in their class ever made is noticeably soft. 

We're comparing average MTF numbers @ f/1.4 around the low 800's and 900's, for the Sigma Art and Otus, versus numbers in the high 300's and 400's for literally everything else (Lens rentals did a test of 23 different standard primes in their great 50mm shootout, which is a great point of comparison). Comparing the Sigma to anything else is like comparing swords to guns. The difference between the Sigma Art in average resolution and the nearest non-otus competitor is greater than the difference between a Tamron 18-270mm, at it's worst setting and a Canon's super telephoto prime.


----------



## cliffwang (Mar 4, 2014)

eml58 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see anything wrong with the bokeh on the sigma 35
> ...



I think I cannot do better than him after couple glasses of beer.


----------



## vparuchuru (Mar 4, 2014)

ScottyP said:


> I have the Sigma Art 35, and I honestly love it. Sharp, bright, and lovely bokeh and colors. I do believe this lens will be, if not totally equal to the $4k+ Zeiss lens in sharpness, etc., then at least 95% there, based on the fact Sigma seems to be vouching the lens will be even better than the 35.
> 
> I also think the only reason Zeiss does not put AF on their nice lenses, which even the cheap-o kit lenses everyone else makes do include, is that they only have the ability to make so-so AF. They only put it on a few cheap-o Sony lenses, and it is only cheap-o AF. They make MF lenses with glass that works like a decent precision microscope, but they simply have nothing special to offer in the area of AF (OR I.S.), so they shy away from trying, so they don't catch the flak for slow/inaccurate/mediocre AF that would tarnish the reputation of their optics.



ZEISS cannot incorporate AF due to patent issues, and that's why ZEISS offers AF for A-Mount (Sony).
http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissTouit/ZeissTouit-overview-optics.html


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 4, 2014)

vparuchuru said:


> ZEISS cannot incorporate AF due to patent issues, and that's why ZEISS offers AF for A-Mount (Sony).
> http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissTouit/ZeissTouit-overview-optics.html


I guess that's an ethical thing with Zeiss - to my knowledge Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina aren't licensed to use Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax AF, but have reverse engineered it. I guess Zeiss doesn't want to go that route. Then again, Zeiss might have agreed to make AF exclusively for Sony due to an agreement with them.


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2014)

*Forget DigitalRev, I found the real source for product facts*

$790 listed retail on a Belarus website.

http://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsigma.by%2Fsigma-50mm-f1.4-art


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 18, 2014)

*Re: Forget DigitalRev, I found the real source for product facts*



slclick said:


> $790 listed retail on a Belarus website.
> 
> http://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsigma.by%2Fsigma-50mm-f1.4-art



Seriously... and to think I was willing to pay twice that.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 18, 2014)

I don't read mtf charts very well, but those don't seem impressive.


----------



## vscd (Mar 20, 2014)

>I don't read mtf charts very well, but those don't seem impressive.

I fully agree and 12,5mm MTF-Charts don't show an actual FullFrame Circle. Actually if I draw the lines further, the edges will be really poor. But let's wait for it...


----------



## drjlo (Mar 20, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> It has color saturation and contrast that are as good as my 180 Macro and 300 2.8 IS II, resists flare beautifully and has the best bokeh of any lens I've used other than the 85 II.



I love my 85L II to pieces, but it's too long for indoor shoots, and its longer focal requires faster shutter speeds in dim interior to avoid blur. If Canon can put IS on it without compromising IQ, I can sell a whole bunch of other lenses. 

As far as 50L, there's no denying the unusually nice color and contrast compared to other Canon 50 offerings, but the sharpness "issue" is too overemphasized IMO. For example, the 50L is STILL the sharpest 50 mm in the world at f/1.2  

Also, it may surprise many, but the 50L is even sharper than the vaunted Zeiss 50 f/2 at the same f/2.




50mm Shootout LensRental by drjlo2, on Flickr

For those who sigh over 50L's CA wide open (85L also for that matter), I strongly recommend you try Canon DPP's DLO (Digital Lens Optimizer), which IME produces MUCH better CA removal and sharpening compared to the usual Lens Correction. If you are bothered by the larger resulting RAW size, all you have to do is unclick the DLO function when you close/save RAW.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 20, 2014)

drjlo said:


> the sharpness "issue" is too overemphasized IMO.


I agree, and every lens has it's weaknesses, even the 300 f/2.8 IS II (arguably the sharpest Canon lens) and Otus 55 have some flaws. Softness happens to be the 50L's biggest weakness, but it's not so bad as to make it unusable. People get so hung up on sharpness, it's just sad. If it were a macro lens, I would understand, but it's marketed towards, "[w]edding and portrait photographers, as well as professional photojournalists." 

If Sigma can come up with a reasonably priced AF lens that has excellent color, contrast, bokeh, AND sharpness, I'll be very happy, and I'm eager to pre-order one to test out.

In the meantime, however, I'll happily trade some sharpness for the rest of the things that the 50L does so well and if I need sharpness above all else, my 24-70 II will do just fine.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 21, 2014)

The thing I take from those tables is how damn good the Canon 50 f1.4 is, especially in the center, maybe that is why I am happy with mine and can think of far better things to spend >$1-4,000 on. 

But hey, i am a live and let live guy, you buy what you feel will work for you.


----------



## Lawliet (Mar 21, 2014)

drjlo said:


> but the sharpness "issue" is too overemphasized IMO.



Some people seem to forget that close to wide open the areas affected by lens defects tend to be out of focus anyway. And once you stop down to apertures that result in sufficient DoF the lens is at its sweet spot again.
Now reliable focusing , as well as more subtle rendering characteristics, are more relevant topics, at least away from shooting charts or similar.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> The thing I take from those tables is how damn good the Canon 50 f1.4 is, especially in the center, maybe that is why I am happy with mine and can think of far better things to spend >$1-4,000 on.
> 
> But hey, i am a live and let live guy, you buy what you feel will work for you.


The 50 1.4 is an excellent lens, no doubt about it. It was my first prime on a *D*SLR and what made me fall in love with photography all over again.


----------



## drjlo (Mar 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> The 50 1.4 is an excellent lens, no doubt about it. It was my first prime on a *D*SLR and what made me fall in love with photography all over again.



You guys started with luxury. My first DSLR prime was the Canon 50 f/1.8 II for around $100, and it was a mini revelation ;D Then I went through the 50 f1.4 (great lens), even FL 50 f/1.2, then 50L, with stops along the way with Sigma 50 f/1.4. What amazes me is how Canon still has not updated the non-L 50 f/1.4. One would think a little tweak in the optics, with more/rounded blades for better bokeh, with updated USM AF system would produce an excellent 50 f1.4 II.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 21, 2014)

drjlo said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > The 50 1.4 is an excellent lens, no doubt about it. It was my first prime on a *D*SLR and what made me fall in love with photography all over again.
> ...


That's quite a 50mm journey! Rumor has it that the 50 f/1.4 is one of Canon's best selling lenses and if you're selling something that successfully and at that volume using a long ago paid for assembly line, you're probably making a TON of profit. R&D plus the cost for new tooling and assembly line would put quite a dent in their profits for a while so I doubt there's a lot of motivation for them to release a new lens. 

If the new Sigma is fantastic and priced well, it might put a dent in Canon's 50 f/1.4 sales and finally put pressure on them to update the lens. If it comes in around $1,000 (and again, is fantastic), it will probably eat the 50L sales and then we'll likely see a new 50L while they keep churning out yet more 50 f/1.4s.


----------



## moreorless (Mar 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> If the new Sigma is fantastic and priced well, it might put a dent in Canon's 50 f/1.4 sales and finally put pressure on them to update the lens. If it comes in around $1,000 (and again, is fantastic), it will probably eat the 50L sales and then we'll likely see a new 50L while they keep churning out yet more 50 f/1.4s.



The size of the Sigma for me makes it seem likely it'll be aiming for a very different market to the 50mm 1.4/1.8's from Canon and Nikon which get alot of sale based on their size and extreme cheapness.

The 50mm 1.2 and the new Nikon 58mm 1.4 might suffer a bit more but only if the Sigma offers similar rendering rather than just more sharpness.


----------



## vscd (Mar 22, 2014)

I myself think that the old 50mm formula isn't as much beloved as back in the 90's. Back then, the 50mm lense was the "normal" view of nearly every SLR-Cam. While the digital cameras went up, the full frame was very expensive and until the 5D or the D700 (Nikon) came out... so most of the people went to APS-C.

Today APS-C seems so be the *largest *market for camera-makers. So, if you do a brilliant 35mm 1.4 you can sell it to both cameraowners. Giving the usual 50mm look for the APS-C and a (small) wide angle for the FF-Users. 

So, in the last years there came up a lot of fantastic 35mm lenses but not tooo much new 50mm lenses, at least not from Canon. Nikon updated just recently, but more pushed because of Sigma or Samyang I think.

In my very humble opinion the 50mm range isn't too desired anymore. For cropping, the 35mm has more reserve (and more DOF) and for potraits you normally choose the more flatten look of a 85mm. So I think the 50mm from Sigma is a result of a good sold 35mm ART. And if the Sigma beats the Canon 50mm f1.4, canon will release a new 50mm f1.8 IS... which is already designed, I think. They will just release it under pressure to save the old one (for the moment) until it hurts 8)


----------

