# DXOMark Compares the Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art to Zeiss 55 f/1.4 Otus



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 17, 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/2014/04/dxomark-compares-sigma-50-f1-4-art-to-otus/"></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/2014/04/dxomark-compares-sigma-50-f1-4-art-to-otus/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>DXOMark has completed their review of the Sigma 50 f/1.4 DG HSM Art series lens and put it in direct competition with the Zeiss 55 f/1.4 Otus lens. The Sigma holds up very well. However, as expected, the Zeiss does look to be a better lens optically, as it should be at 4 times the price.</p>
<p><strong>When compared to the Otus</strong>

<em>“At f2 the Sigma is almost on a par with the Zeiss, only it can’t quite match the Zeiss in the corners – though the difference in real world terms is trivial. The new Sigma can boast of slightly better control of vignetting and, arguably, chromatic aberration at maximum aperture, though there’s some fringing evident in the extreme corners. The Zeiss has remarkable transmission but, at close to $4,000, nothing short of exceptional performance is expected.”</em></p>
<p><strong>DXOMark Conclusion

</strong><em>“As part of the company’s new Global Vision Sigma’s reimagining of their premium lenses is reaping dividends. The 50mm f1.4 DG HSM A is every bit as good as the earlier 35mm f1.4 model, in fact it’s slightly better in outright sharpness and uniformity. If there’s a downside it’s that lenses built with few compromises are generally large and heavy, but at least Sigma isn’t making you pay through your wallet. At $949, the new lens isn’t much more expensive than the firm’s high-speed 35mm, and is similarly competitive when compared to rival offerings from the big-brands.”<strong>

</strong></em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-F1.4-DG-HSM-A-Canon-lens-review-Art-for-Art-s-sake" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1045458-REG/sigma_311101_50mm_f_1_4_dg_hsm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Preorder the Sigma 50 f/1.4 DG Art</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## jrista (Apr 17, 2014)

*Sigh*

DXOs Lens test results are so useless. They rate it less than the Otus, as they should, however all of the measures they choose to exhibit would otherwise indicate that the new Sigma 50 should be the better lens. Comparatively, it has the same resolution, better transmission, less distortion, and less CA than the Otus. Only in a footnote do you actually learn why DXO rates the Otus higher: It has sharper corners. 

Bleh. DXO. Bleh. It's like they just barf up test results and let the chunks & giblets remain where they plop. 

I think the world would be well-served if DXO just gave up on lens tests alltogether, nuked their lens tests database, and just stuck with sensor tests. (And furthermore, I think the world would be better served if DXO did away with scalar test "scores"...just as useless as the chunks and giblets that is their lens tests.)


----------



## Viggo (Apr 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> Comparatively, it has the same resolution, better transmission, less distortion, and less CA than the Otus.



Sigma is 1.7 T stop vs Otus at 1.5 T stop.


----------



## jrista (Apr 17, 2014)

Viggo said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > *Sigh*
> ...



Ah, you are right. 

Regardless, the Sigma looks like an excellent lens, and at only a quarter the cost of the Otus.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 17, 2014)

At least we have more gas to put on the fire... it will keep us busy until the damn lens is released... and then we get to be excited or disappointed based on our own experiences.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 17, 2014)

jrista said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I agree completely, this could be a really epic winner.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, when they go all in, it's always a success.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Apr 17, 2014)

I submitted my preorder on B&H 3 hours after they started taking them (so at like 3am EST). Think my spot in line is good enough to be fulfilled with the first shipment? I would think so, but I don't have any previous experience with preorders.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 17, 2014)

Well, there's around a 13 month separation between the game-changing release of the 35A and the equally game-changing release of the 50A _(relevancy?)_. So which lens is slated for next year? I'm hoping for the 85, though I suspect it will be a 24. 135 f/2 anyone?

Who would have thought just a few short years ago, that Sigma would become the preeminent AF lens manufacturer? Certainly not me...


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Apr 18, 2014)

brad-man said:


> Well, there's around a 13 month separation between the game-changing release of the 35A and the equally game-changing release of the 50A _(relevancy?)_. So which lens is slated for next year? I'm hoping for the 85, though I suspect it will be a 24. 135 f/2 anyone?
> 
> Who would have thought just a few short years ago, that Sigma would become the preeminent AF lens manufacturer? Certainly not me...



24mm f/1.4 next please. Not impressed with the SamRokin 24mm, and the Canon is ungodly expensive.

Wouldn't this be a nice Sigma Roadmap ;D

35mm f/1.4 Art - $899
50mm f/1.4 Art - $950
24mm f/1.4 Art - $950
85mm f/1.4 Art - $799
135mm f/1.8 OS Art - $950

At the current rate, my bag will have nothing but Sigma primes and Tamron Zooms lol. Although if a 24mm & 85mm continue on Sigma's new level of quality, by the time a stabilized 135mm f/1.8 is released it should be priced at $2,000. Not that I want to pay that much (and probably wouldn't), but I'd like to see the new Sigma quality truly recognized, if that make sense.


----------



## Radiating (Apr 18, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Well, there's around a 13 month separation between the game-changing release of the 35A and the equally game-changing release of the 50A _(relevancy?)_. So which lens is slated for next year? I'm hoping for the 85, though I suspect it will be a 24. 135 f/2 anyone?
> ...



Honestly I'm really wishing for this to happen, a whole line of world beating primes, would make me amazingly happy to have in my bag. 

Plus the rumors of the 24-70mm f/2.0 and Sigma wide angle zoom have me even more excited. If Sigma is fast enough to the game, photographers in a few years might just shoot with their favorites first party bodies and nothing but Sigma lenses...


----------



## yeahyoung (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> DXOs Lens test results are so useless. They rate it less than the Otus, as they should, however all of the measures they choose to exhibit would otherwise indicate that the new Sigma 50 should be the better lens. Comparatively, it has the same resolution, better transmission, less distortion, and less CA than the Otus. Only in a footnote do you actually learn why DXO rates the Otus higher: It has sharper corners.
> 
> ...



Sigma's scores were based on measures at F2, Otus F1.4.


----------



## SoullessPolack (Apr 18, 2014)

Why does everyone seem to think they're going to make a 135mm f/1.8? And why does everyone think it's going to be a f/1.8 instead of f2?


----------



## verysimplejason (Apr 18, 2014)

This will be my first 50mm upgrade if reviews would find AF to be fine on 6D.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Apr 18, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Why does everyone seem to think they're going to make a 135mm f/1.8? And why does everyone think it's going to be a f/1.8 instead of f2?



Just cause there have been rumors about one in the past. Plus, with the fact that Sigma is the only company with a f/1.8 zoom in the market it would seem appropriate. But f/1.8 or f/2, I doesn't really matter that much to me; marginal difference to the final photo. I think a f2 OS is more likely all things considered. And $950 would be perfect for the sub-$1k theme Sigma might be starting.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 18, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > Why does everyone seem to think they're going to make a 135mm f/1.8? And why does everyone think it's going to be a f/1.8 instead of f2?
> ...



Works for me. As much as I'd love a fantastic 24, I would use an 85 and probably even a 135 more often. OS would definitely be more desired than the difference between 1.8 and 2.0. I am more than satisfied with my Tamron SP24-70, but of coarse if Siggy really wants to give me GAS, they seem to have the wherewithal to do so.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> I'm surprised that so far nobody has said DxO's results are meaningless because they don't represent bokeh in their tests results anywhere! But at least the first post on this thread doesn't disappoint with the expected putting down of DxO.



I'm waiting to be dismissive of the Ken Rockwell review. Till then I'll save up my indignance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Compared to the 50/1.2L
> 
> 
> NameCanon 50/1.2LSigma 50/1.4ASharpness1421Transmission1.4TStop1.7TStopDistortion0.4%0.1%Vignetting-2.4EV-1.5EVChr Aberration20µm6µm



Not that it will help the 50L much, but you might want to report the data for the two lenses tested on the same camera, instead of different cameras. Either drop the Sigma to 18 P-Mpix for the 1DsIII, or raise the 50L to 16 P-Mpix for the 5DIII. Or just leave it alone if you'd prefer to artificially bias the data in favor of the point you're making.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Wonder if this lens will be eligible for Sigma's "mount conversion" service?
> 
> I'm surprised that so far nobody has said DxO's results are meaningless because they don't represent bokeh in their tests results anywhere! But at least the first post on this thread doesn't disappoint with the expected putting down of DxO.
> 
> ...



Wow, that's about as cherry picked and biased a comparison as I've ever seen. Do you _even try_ to be objective?

Here is a more reasonable comparison:







However, this is highly skewed, because DXO uses their T-stops "measure" to determine what the "best" aperture is...and they chose f/1.2 on the 50mm as it's "best". That is about as close to the WORST aperture the 50/1.2 has...it gets far sharper and eliminates a ton of CA and vignetting when you stop down a bit. I would have chosen f/1.4 or f/1.8, both of which are definitely better than f/1.2 on the 50L, however in all their great and wonderful BIAS, DXO has conveniently not offered those as options.

When I choose f/2.8 for the Sigma, Otus, and 50L, the sharpness plots norm up quite nicely. The falloff in the corners of the 50L is due to the spherical aberration...the same spherical aberration that Canon EXPLICITLY LEFT IN BY DESIGN, for aesthetic purposes. Ironically, at f/2.8, the Sigma beats the Otus corner to corner...you can see a bit of falloff on the Otus at f/2.8 and f/4, where as the Sigma is sharp through and through:






Similarly, stop down the lenses a bit, and the vignetting issues clear right up as well. The 50L actually has better vignetting than the new Art 50 at f/2.8:






I would share the CA fields maps, however again, DXO, in all their biased wisdom, only seems to have produced CA data for the maximum aperture. CA DEFINITELY drops in the corners as you stop down, since the narrower aperture is blocking light from the periphery of the lens where the most CA occurs. As such, it is only possible to compare the wide open performance, where, once again, the 50L is at it's worst (although again, much of it's wide open performance is explicitly by design, in order to achieve a specific aesthetically pleasing result.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Not that it will help the 50L much, but you might want to report the data for the two lenses tested on the same camera, instead of different cameras. Either drop the Sigma to 18 P-Mpix for the 1DsIII, or raise the 50L to 16 P-Mpix for the 5DIII. Or just leave it alone if you'd prefer to artificially bias the data in favor of the point you're making.
> ...



You'd think DxO could code the site so the same camera was selected by default. But no...


----------



## drjlo (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> However, this is highly skewed, because DXO uses their T-stops "measure" to determine what the "best" aperture is...and they chose f/1.2 on the 50mm as it's "best". That is about as close to the WORST aperture the 50/1.2 has...



Wow, I never even realized DxO did this  Looks like DxO chose f/2.0 for Sigma 50 and f/1.2 for 50L as "best" for their ratings. What the heck?


----------



## sanj (Apr 18, 2014)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20498.0


----------



## chromophore (Apr 18, 2014)

DxO is full of s***. End of story. Their summaries are nonsensical, so why should I trust their ability to accurately measure the properties of a lens? If they're too stupid to present a proper apples-to-apples comparison and meaningful analyses, why should I believe that they can do the measurements correctly? It is *not* a trivial thing to measure lens performance--there are numerous variables and interactions, and it requires very accurate and controlled testing conditions.

There exist plenty of other review sites that test lenses. Why keep looking at DxO? You might as well read science fiction. At least sites like LensTip and The Digital Picture will show you actual images.

That said--and ignoring DxO BS completely--the Sigma looks like a great lens. The thing I appreciate the most about it, though, is that I hope it will light a fire under Canon's lazy a**. If they think they can continue cranking out sub-par optical designs and slap a red ring on the barrel to justify selling products at grossly inflated prices, this is a wake-up call. What is the point of having f/1.2 if it's full of chromatic and spherical aberration, and can't focus properly? What's the point of paying a few hundred dollars more for that red ring? I've been a staunch defender of Canon's EF lens lineup in the past, but they've grown complacent. Companies like Sigma are proving that it is possible to design well-corrected, fast-aperture lenses at a competitive price. That the 50/1.4 Art is being compared to the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 speaks volumes about where Canon's lenses SHOULD be but are NOT, considering that Canon has far more resources (read: money and expertise) to create something this good. And that should make us Canon shooters angry, because it means that the big names (Canon and Nikon) have been holding back because they haven't had real competition in this area until relatively recently. I encourage people to vote with their wallets. I hope the Sigma sells like crazy.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Apr 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Lol. I was definitely thinking earlier, "Does this neuroanatomist guy do anything besides disparage and critique?" There's definitely a theme with him.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 18, 2014)

drjlo said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > However, this is highly skewed, because DXO uses their T-stops "measure" to determine what the "best" aperture is...and they chose f/1.2 on the 50mm as it's "best". That is about as close to the WORST aperture the 50/1.2 has...
> ...



+100, man why do they even bother?


----------



## Eldar (Apr 18, 2014)

I am really looking forward to getting my hands on this lens. 

If what I have read so far, I may end up selling the Otus, because I get the same performance from a 1/4 priced lens, with AF ... That would be something


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> DXOs Lens test results are so useless. They rate it less than the Otus, as they should, however all of the measures they choose to exhibit would otherwise indicate that the new Sigma 50 should be the better lens. Comparatively, it has the same resolution, better transmission, less distortion, and less CA than the Otus. Only in a footnote do you actually learn why DXO rates the Otus higher: It has sharper corners.
> 
> ...



Probably because they also rate lenses only by their single best focal length+f-stop combination, which really makes no sense either. Especially when you consider what they mean by best f-stop and focal length, what they use to chose that MAKES ZERO SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!! And you get utter absurdity where they end up claiming best is often wide open for many lenses even though many of those lenses peform WORST there! EVEN FAR WORSE they will end up 'evenly' comparing one lens wide open at f/1.4 and another stopped down to f/2 and another at f/2.8 and another at f/1.8 even when they are all f/1.4 lenses. WTH!?! It's beyond a joke.

I mean can you get any more misleading! Look at the rankings for sharpness in this case and they compare the sigma stopped all the way down to f/2!!! TO the Zeiss and Canon at WIDE OPEN! WTH!

Plus I don't really trust them after their old claims that the 70-200 2.8 IS II is the least sharp of all the 70-200s at 200mm f/2.8 and that the 70-300 non-L from Canon is sharper at 300mm than the L (and I think they may have even put it above the f/4 primes) oh and how they said the 16-35 f/2.8 II peaked at FF far edge sharpness at wide open I think. I think they may have redone all of their tests since then though, not sure. But the way they present the info and scores is still so absurd I haven't been bothered to even look.

Other review sites so far all show the Otus to be sharper across the entire frame at f/1.4 and some samples hint at much less PF/LoCA at f/1.4 for the Otus.

OTOH, this DOES NOT mean that their sensor ratings are junk, since they seem to be pretty solid (at least if you look at the individual plots, any overall score is always a dicey business since once person may care most about low ISO DR and another about high ISO SNR and another about fine color gradations, etc. or you may care about all of those and one number mushing it together tells you nothing).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> I think the world would be well-served if DXO just gave up on lens tests alltogether, nuked their lens tests database, and just stuck with sensor tests. (And furthermore, I think the world would be better served if DXO did away with scalar test "scores"...just as useless as the chunks and giblets that is their lens tests.)



+1

I mean comparing one lens at f/1.4 another at f/1.2 another at f/2 another at f/2.8? WTH?
And then for zooms they someone turn a zoom with a ton of different focal lengths and apertures into a SINGLE NUMBER for resolution?!? And it's not even a constant at wide open, or averaged over wide open, it's a single focal length and aperture, which they chose as best (even though their criteria for best, makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER AT ALL IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM), so you might have say the 24-70 II compared at 24mm f/2.8 to the 24-105 compared at 50mm f/5.6 to the 17-40L compared at 17mm f/4 to the 24-70 f/4 IS at 70mm f/4 (I'm just making those numbers up, but you get the point, didn't feel like bothering to go back and check what they exactly used) and then rating them each as so and so relative to one another based on that? WTH??


----------



## sdsr (Apr 18, 2014)

chromophore said:


> There exist plenty of other review sites that test lenses. Why keep looking at DxO? You might as well read science fiction. At least sites like LensTip and The Digital Picture will show you actual images.



Lenstip's review is now up:

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=400


----------



## Solar Eagle (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> DXOs Lens test results are so useless. They rate it less than the Otus, as they should, however all of the measures they choose to exhibit would otherwise indicate that the new Sigma 50 should be the better lens. Comparatively, it has the same resolution, better transmission, less distortion, and less CA than the Otus. Only in a footnote do you actually learn why DXO rates the Otus higher: It has sharper corners.
> 
> ...



Um... I'm pretty sure DxO scores are based on a specific "best" setting, where the "best" setting represents the highest achievable score on a given lens. The sigma score is based on f/2, and the Otus f/1.4. They both acheive similar sharpness at that setting, however that gives the Otus a full stop advatage on toward the score. You should maybe figure out how they score before trying to put down their scoring method......


----------



## Viggo (Apr 18, 2014)

Solar Eagle said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > *Sigh*
> ...



Is the "best setting" for the Canon 50 , f1.2?


----------



## Solar Eagle (Apr 18, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Is the "best setting" for the Canon 50 , f1.2?



That's what they show. The "best" setting shows f/1.2, which seems to be why the sharpenss score is so low on that lens at the "best" setting. However it seems that scoring at such a fast aperture, with their scoring methodolgy, the advatage of the fast aperture outweighs the disadvatage of the sharpness at that setting, thereby making it the "best" setting for overall score. Thats how I understand their testing to work anyway....


----------



## Solar Eagle (Apr 18, 2014)

I'm really glade Sigma is making these super-awesome new lenses, but giant no compromise lenses aren't my preference. I carry my 6D with no strap, so I like to go for light/compact lenses. This would be a great lens to have, but I'm gonna hold out for whatever Canon turns out for a new 50mm. Plus I like IS. I went for the 35mm f/2 IS over the 35mm Sigma, and I'm guessing I'll take the 50mm F/1.8 IS, if thats what Canon is going to offer. I also went for the 24-70mm f/4 IS, again because its the lightest option... Nevertheless good on Sigma for what they are up to these days.........


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

Solar Eagle said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > *Sigh*
> ...



If you look at all of DXO's lens tests, it's very clear that they are VERY HEAVILY weighted based on the T-stops value. That's a problem, because it makes comparing the overall quality of lenses with different maximum apertures practically impossible...it's why a 50mm f/1.4 lens scores higher than Canon's 600mm f/4 L II supertele. The 50/1.4 doesn't even come remotely close to comparing to the 600/4 II, but it scores quite a bit higher. Why? Because it's f/1.4, and the 600 is f/4.

The T-stops weighting effectively nullifies much of the value that could potentially exist in DXO's lens tests. There is a certain value to testing lenses that way...but not if the most important benchmark is T-stops. 

BTW, DXO does not mix ratings for measures from different apertures. If they choose the measures for a lens when it is tested at f/1.2, then that means sharpness, distortion, vignetting, and CA are all based on the testing at that aperture. As far as I know, DXO tests all lenses at all of the full-stop apertures (plus the max aperture, in case it isn't a full stop faster), but when they score, it's based on whatever they deem is the "best" aperture. Since they put such a significant weight on T-stops, that is usually the maximum aperture, although not always.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2014)

To clarify, "Best at FL+aperture" refers to the Lens Score, which is based primarily on 'performance in 150 lux illumination' (like a dimly lit warehouse). The Lens Score is only secondarily influenced by the optical metrics (sharpness, CA, etc.), despite those metrics being listed under the Score. That's why almost all lenses are 'best' wide open, even though the optical metrics are rarely highest at max aperture. 

Consider that the Sigma 50/1.4 A is *not* 'best at 50mm f/1.4', but at f/2. Since giving up a full stop of light is obviously not better for 'performance in 150 lux' that suggests that one or more of the secondary factors measured for the Sigma 50/1.4 A at f/1.4 were sufficiently bad to counteract the loss of a stop of light. Or it could be that DxO just screwed up their testing, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> To clarify, "Best at FL+aperture" refers to the Lens Score, which is based primarily on 'performance in 150 lux illumination' (like a dimly lit warehouse). The Lens Score is only secondarily influenced by the optical metrics (sharpness, CA, etc.), despite those metrics being listed under the Score. That's why almost all lenses are 'best' wide open, even though the optical metrics are rarely highest at max aperture.
> 
> Consider that the Sigma 50/1.4 A is *not* 'best at 50mm f/1.4', but at f/2. Since giving up a full stop of light is obviously not better for 'performance in 150 lux' that suggests that one or more of the secondary factors measured for the Sigma 50/1.4 A at f/1.4 were sufficiently bad to counteract the loss of a stop of light. *Or it could be that DxO just screwed up their testing, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.*



LOL, no, not the first time.

I'm curious why the Sigma 50 A would bet the "best at f/2" treatment...but not the Canon 50L. It's quite clear that the 50L does not perform ideally (at least according to DXO's metrics) at f/1.2...and yet you can't even select f/1.4, f/1.8, or f/2 when comparing apertures with other lenses. 

It's little things like that that always make me wonder if DXO really does have a bias against Canon. It seems they very often put Canon equipment in the worst possible light, and take special care to put other brand's products in the best possible light (such as the Sugma 50/1.4 A being best at f/2.)


----------



## tcg films (Apr 20, 2014)

Sigma has really come far in a short time. I may actually buy one.


----------

