# DP Review: Sig 50 Art wins highest score ever given (92%)



## ScottyP (May 31, 2014)

Even better than the Sig 35 Art, says they...

http://sigma-rumors.com/2014/05/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review-dpreview/


----------



## distant.star (Jun 1, 2014)

.
Let's hope this is the future -- and lots more lenses from all makers start getting 90+ ratings!


----------



## captainkanji (Jun 1, 2014)

I really want this lens. 8)


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 1, 2014)

I certainly read doubts about the AF, especially off the center point. 

However, the effusive praise, perhaps well deserved, won't light a fire under Sigma to address the AF problems.


----------



## distant.star (Jun 1, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> I certainly read doubts about the AF, especially off the center point.
> 
> However, the effusive praise, perhaps well deserved, won't light a fire under Sigma to address the AF problems.



I agree. If I book a room at the Waldorf or Ritz-Carlton, there's the off-chance the room phone won't work. That's why I always stay at Motel 6. I've never had a problem with the phones there.


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 1, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> I certainly read doubts about the AF, especially off the center point.
> 
> However, the effusive praise, perhaps well deserved, won't light a fire under Sigma to address the AF problems.



My experience with the lens is that the AF is rock solid on the 5D3, not quite as good but close to the consistency of the 24-70ii. On my 1D3 and 1Ds3 however the AF is complete and utter garbage.


----------



## Radiating (Jun 1, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> I certainly read doubts about the AF, especially off the center point.
> 
> However, the effusive praise, perhaps well deserved, won't light a fire under Sigma to address the AF problems.



The AF problems are isolated meaning some lenses are perfect some are junk. This is much better than all lenses being slightly off. I don't mind buying multiple copies from multiple retailers (to ensure they come from different batches) and connecting them with multiple bodies if it means I will get a perfect setup.


----------



## Shane1.4 (Jun 2, 2014)

Certainly deserved. My copy has been blowing my mind. Used it at two weddings now and the photos are like nothing I have seen.


----------



## Shane1.4 (Jun 2, 2014)

The AF on it is more reliable than any of my L lenses. I am starting to wonder if people made up the AF issues because that was the only possible attack on the lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 2, 2014)

Shane1.4 said:


> The AF on it is more reliable than any of my L lenses. I am starting to wonder if people made up the AF issues because that was the only possible attack on the lens.


It's not made up, but I also don't think it's a terrible issue.

Bryan Carnathan's thorough review speaks to the AF occasionally missing, and he demonstrates it:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx

See the Butterfly section -- it's an interactive mouseover tool -- and the text before and after it. In a controlled test, he got the AF to occasionally miss. He _does_ temper the finding with his real-world shooting experience being quite positive.

This is the one chink in the armor of a spectacularly well reviewed lens. If you need a 50-ish mm lens with AF, most reviewers would still say that this one is the best by a considerable margin.

- A


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 2, 2014)

Shane1.4 said:


> The AF on it is more reliable than any of my L lenses. I am starting to wonder if people made up the AF issues because that was the only possible attack on the lens.



Not made up. its not viggo or eldars style and viggo seems happy with his new lens and its not like its these guys first rodeo either so i expect they know what they are talking about

mine is still working great too


----------



## ScottyP (Jun 7, 2014)

Ok. So turn AF off completely. Claim it is such an incredibly sharp lens that you actually like manual focus better anyway. This line of reasoning works so well for Zeiss they get 4x as much money for their MF 55. 8)


----------



## nubu (Jun 8, 2014)

Some first Astrotests: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21218.0


----------



## sanj (Jun 8, 2014)

distant.star said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly read doubts about the AF, especially off the center point.
> ...


----------



## AlanF (Jun 8, 2014)

Radiating said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly read doubts about the AF, especially off the center point.
> ...



I bet the dealers mind your deliberately wasting their time and money.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 8, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Shane1.4 said:
> 
> 
> > The AF on it is more reliable than any of my L lenses. I am starting to wonder if people made up the AF issues because that was the only possible attack on the lens.
> ...




The issue is not people nitpicking problems with the lens since it's not Canon. Of course, that bias truly exists, but nowadays many people want Sigma to succeed.
The problem is Canon AF algorithms don't play well with third party ones very well. And Sigma is the only third party making fast primes, which are most susceptible to AF errors due to the shallow DoF.

Canon lenses have inconsistent AF too, but that is usually a calibration error that can be remedied. With Sigma it is a question of firmware incompatibility. Hopefully the Sigma dock will solve it completely, and I think it was a really great idea. 

I just got another copy of the Canon 50/1.4 and this one focuses fine. But it's pretty soft wide open to the point of unusable- so more power to Sigma!


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 8, 2014)

It is great lens and I look forward to using it a lot in the future.

Could never get myself to buy the 50L (which I have shot with a lot) due too its lack of a floating element and consequent focussing issues. That said all very wide aperture lenses are prone to hit-n-miss when used wide open if you shoot people which I do 99.9% of the time. 

With the Sigma 50 ART I usually take 2 and 1 will be "right". On par with the 35L, better than the 50L (mainly due to focus shift when taking portraits), a little less than the 135L (to be expected). That's approved for me.

Good pictures come out looking wonderful. Price is very reasonable for the quality you get. Highly recommended.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 8, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Shane1.4 said:
> 
> 
> > The AF on it is more reliable than any of my L lenses. I am starting to wonder if people made up the AF issues because that was the only possible attack on the lens.
> ...



Thanks! And yes, why would I ever buy a lens and trash it on purpose, I don't work for Canon, I have no interest in saying Canon has a better lens. In most cases they actually do, I still mean the AF of the 35 L on a 1-series is the best 1.4 AF lens ever. But as 50mm's go, the 50 Art destroys the L and all others in EVERY way. I'm thinking about selling the 85 now, because I use either the 50 or 200. Sigma has a gigant winner here, but there is still too poor quality control. Every lens should work when you buy new. Sometimes a lens is faulty, but I have experienced this with both the 35 Art and 50 Art and many others as well. It's absolutely worth to buy multiple copies and get a great one, because it's just untouchable...


----------

