# Review - Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 24, 2015)

Discuss our review by Dustin of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art here.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 24, 2015)

I'm sure Canon has the ability to make a 50mm lens as good as Sigma 50 Art.
But at what price you would sell?

After reflecting this issue, I gave up waiting for the Canon 50mm F1.4 IS and bought the Sigma. I do not regret it one bit.

I know the beauty of Bokeh is subjective, but I consider that the Sigma 50 Art has the most beautiful bokeh that Canon 50mm F1.2L.
I know I'm a heretic, and committed sacrilege, but I like the combination of smooth Bokeh, keeping the sharpness and contrast of objects in focus.


----------



## LOALTD (Jun 25, 2015)

I agree! I also find the bokeh on the Sigma much less busy/distracting and more pleasing than on the 50L, I was beginning to think it was just me:


----------



## infared (Jun 25, 2015)

I waited a while before I bought my Sigma Art because I REALLY read Up on the lens and it seems that the earlier lensRS exhibited a lot of AF problems...even being cautious did not save me. LOL!
My first lens was all over the place with the auto focus and not correctable with The Sigma Dock.I wish I could have those frustrating hours of my life back, Sigma...I got to that place where I was saying "sigma, I just spent over $900 on a 50mm lens....um...why am I fine-tuning it??? Isn't that your job????".
In spite of that experience (and after seeing my images that WERE in focus...WOW!)....I returned my first lens and took delivery of another with great expectations because I had read about people having spot-on lenses.
My second lens is fantastic!...it took a "little" fine tuning with The Dock...but the AF is just nailed 95%of the time..and I think that if it isn't it must be operator error.
I personally love the bokeh and we all know the sharpness and contrast are outstanding.As a matter of fact I think that the images are so intense and refreshing that I for one do not care that the lens is large, heavy and expensive(all those glass elements are what make these fantastic images..oh well).
No...it does not render like my 85mm f/1.2L II....but both are great for different reasons.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 25, 2015)

Excellent review, Dustin. My results mirror yours.

I have owned most of Canon's modern autofocus 50s. I sold my 1.2L because it wasn't a lens I used very often. I decided I'd rather not have so much money invested in a lens that rarely left the bag, so I sold it and got the Canon 1.4. That lens got the job done, but 50mm just wasn't a focal length I seemed to enjoy.

Then Sigma came out with the Art. There was so much hype, and after reading all of the reviews and seeing loads of sample images, I decided to give it a shot. Well I've had it for about 9 months now and it turns out that 50mm is indeed a focal length I enjoy a lot, I was just never happy with the lenses I had. The lens gives images a certain look that is all its own.

Autofocus on my 6D is about 90-95% accurate and about 60-70% accurate on my 7D MkII...so I certainly think a firmware update down the road with the $60 dock will solve the accuracy issues. Although, it does seem to depend on the copy as well.

I'm an Art fan now and plan to fill out my bag as they release lenses I use/need.


I shot this at f/2.0 and the background looks like a damn painting it's so smooth and beautifully rendered. Love this lens and so do my clients.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 25, 2015)

LSXPhotog said:


> Excellent review, Dustin. My results mirror yours.
> 
> I have owned most of Canon's modern autofocus 50s. I sold my 1.2L because it wasn't a lens I used very often. I decided I'd rather not have so much money invested in a lens that rarely left the bag, so I sold it and got the Canon 1.4. That lens got the job done, but 50mm just wasn't a focal length I seemed to enjoy.
> 
> ...



What "firmware update down the road"?

If I'm not mistaken, despite all the reports of AF problems, Sigma has NOT released a firmware update for Canon mounts.

Anybody know different?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 25, 2015)

*Clarification question on review*

On the empirical side of things, it seems the Sigma is just about as good as the Zeiss, perhaps just a tad lower IQ - generally thought to be not big enough a difference to overpower the advantage of having autofocus. 

But people who like Zeiss and Leica lenses often talk of "drawing" or "rendering." Not having really used these lenses myself, I'm wondering if you might try to show us what this means. I'm imagining that one might be able to do this by showing pictures of the same subject matter showing the differences in rendering. I understand it might not be quantifiable, but if it's a real difference, it has to be demonstrable. 

Thanks for the review.


----------



## sleepnever (Jun 25, 2015)

I picked up the Sigma 50A just recently from Adorama for $849 out the door (Sigma $100 off sale). I've rented it once before and fell in love. Yeah, I have some lower light AF hunt issues, but compared to the Canon 50 1.4, it destroys it in pretty much every way. I'm shooting on a 5D3.

I haven't picked up the dock yet, to see if that'll help with anything. The only downer now is if that doesn't fix it, having to ship all the way back from Seattle to Adorama, get a swap and wait for that. Buying locally is great, but saving $100 + tax is probably worth it =)


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 25, 2015)

*Re: Clarification question on review*



[email protected] said:


> On the empirical side of things, it seems the Sigma is just about as good as the Zeiss, perhaps just a tad lower IQ - generally thought to be not big enough a difference to overpower the advantage of having autofocus.
> 
> But people who like Zeiss and Leica lenses often talk of "drawing" or "rendering." Not having really used these lenses myself, I'm wondering if you might try to show us what this means. I'm imagining that one might be able to do this by showing pictures of the same subject matter showing the differences in rendering. I understand it might not be quantifiable, but if it's a real difference, it has to be demonstrable.
> 
> Thanks for the review.



You are right that it is hard to quantify. Above we have examples where you would say that the bokeh is better than from the 50A than the 50L. But having used both lenses extensively, I would say that the opposite is true. The 50A is much sharper and has less quirks in its rendering, but the 50L draws better. The Otus 55 is simply not in the same category as the 50A optically. I've used them both for a long period of time, and the Otus just draws in a uniquely beautiful way, and definitely still out resolves to the Sigma at the same time. There is less edging around the bokeh from the Otus, which makes highlights look softer and the transition zone is smoother. I didn't have the two lenses at the same time (I did have the Otus 85 at the same time as the Sigma), but here are two somewhat similar shots from the Otus 55 (top) and 50A (bottom).


----------



## Eldar (Jun 25, 2015)

I found myself in a situation where I had sold all my AF L-primes (24, 35, 50, 85 and 135) and replaced them with manual focus Zeiss lenses (not the 24 though). I have been waiting for Canon to release new versions, but that seems to take more time than I have. I have had a couple of both the 35 and 50 Art lenses, which all had significant AF issues, so they were all returned. But this last weekend we had a very generous offer from the Sigma distributor (about $400 off) and, since I miss having a fast AF prime amongst my slower zooms and quite a few people I know reported good AF performance on their 50 Arts, I have ordered my third 50 Art. Fingers crossed for a fully functional copy this time.

Optically the 50 Art is a phenomenal lens, especially when you consider the price. But I agree with Dustin, the Otus is in a class of its own. I´ll see if I can make some useful examples to help emphasize Dustin´s very valid points when I get the new Art copy.


----------



## Travelintrevor (Jun 25, 2015)

I can't get on board with comments like "It blows every other 50mm lens (save the mighty Otus) out of the water at wide apertures." because it just is not true. How is this even determined or quantified? The Sigma Art certainly is a little sharper in the corners than the 50L but center sharpness is the same. I have read similar statements in the past and it seems to have been repeated often enough and is just accepted and hardly challenged. Same goes for the sharpness of the 135 mm f/2.0-great lens (love mine) but the 50L is just as sharp wide open. I hardly consider myself lucky enough to have the only sharp copy of the 50L.

I do mainly portraits and the 50L is phenomenal. I could have saved the extra money and bought the Sigma but found that, after using both, the 50L was overall better except in the corners. By 1.8-2.0, corners were the same. 

The attached comparison photo is shot at 1.2 and the focus point was her cheek. He is slightly oof because he was not in the same focus plane.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 25, 2015)

Travelintrevor said:


> I do mainly portraits and the 50L is phenomenal. I could have saved the extra money and bought the Sigma but found that, after using both, the 50L was overall better except in the corners. By 1.8-2.0, corners were the same.


I know that the best Bokeh, is subjective and one can prefer the "dreamy" look. But to say that sharpness of the Canon 50mm F1.2 is as good as Sigma Art in the center, and is worse only in the corners ... It seems to me that you used a bad copy of the Sigma 50 Art.

My experience is similar to that found by thedigitalpicture.com the link below.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=941&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

See also compared both in aperture F2.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## CosminD (Jun 25, 2015)

Travelintrevor , the sigma 50 art in better than Canon 50 L in about every way(about the sharpness, the Sigma is a little sharper in the center and a LOT in the corners than the L) , just look at this review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yHcoPF9hNE


----------



## cannondale1974 (Jun 25, 2015)

I have a love/hate relationship with my Canon 50/1.4 (on a T3i body) So many of my shots are OOF, I was wondering if it was my technique but with my 17-55 I am much more accurate. I'm really thinking of selling the Canon and going with the Sigma ART, the pictures are simply amazing. Any idea if the price is anticipated to drop in the near future?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 25, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Travelintrevor said:
> 
> 
> > I do mainly portraits and the 50L is phenomenal. I could have saved the extra money and bought the Sigma but found that, after using both, the 50L was overall better except in the corners. By 1.8-2.0, corners were the same.
> ...



You beat me to it.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 25, 2015)

cannondale1974 said:


> I have a love/hate relationship with my Canon 50/1.4 (on a T3i body) So many of my shots are OOF, I was wondering if it was my technique but with my 17-55 I am much more accurate. I'm really thinking of selling the Canon and going with the Sigma ART, the pictures are simply amazing. Any idea if the price is anticipated to drop in the near future?



There has been an occasional sale, but as for a permanent price drop...don't hold your breath. Maybe $899, but I think Sigma is doing pretty with the lens at its current price point.


----------



## Travelintrevor (Jun 25, 2015)

I love Brian's reviews and generally find that my experiences mirrors his data as well but not so with the 50L.
I don't think the Art copy was bad. It was AFMA'd, live view and VF AF showed the same sharpness.
Comparing it wide open to the 135 f/2.0 also does not give me the same results as shown on his comparison page and my 135mm is not a bad copy. Same for the 24-70 II


I would love nothing more than to put some extra money in my pocket by selling the L and purchasing the ART but...there is no compelling reason for me to do so. If I happen to have a stellar copy of the L, then even better 

Here is the screen grab to show that the attached photo really was at 1.2


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 25, 2015)

Travelintrevor said:


> I love Brian's reviews and generally find that my experiences mirrors his data as well but not so with the 50L.
> I don't think the Art copy was bad. It was AFMA'd, live view and VF AF showed the same sharpness.
> Comparing it wide open to the 135 f/2.0 also does not give me the same results as shown on his comparison page and my 135mm is not a bad copy. Same for the 24-70 II
> 
> I would love nothing more than to put some extra money in my pocket by selling the L and purchasing the ART but...there is no compelling reason for me to do so. If I happen to have a stellar copy of the L, then even better


AFMA could not help if your copy of Sigma Art had some decentralized element. That would explain the mediocre performance in image corners, unlike all the good copies of the 50 Art.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 25, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> cannondale1974 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a love/hate relationship with my Canon 50/1.4 (on a T3i body) So many of my shots are OOF, I was wondering if it was my technique but with my 17-55 I am much more accurate. I'm really thinking of selling the Canon and going with the Sigma ART, the pictures are simply amazing. Any idea if the price is anticipated to drop in the near future?
> ...


The distributor in Scandinavia had a surprise sale last week (lasting for 5 days). The price dropped 35-40% for both the 35 and 50 Art lenses.


----------



## Travelintrevor (Jun 25, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Travelintrevor said:
> 
> 
> > I love Brian's reviews and generally find that my experiences mirrors his data as well but not so with the 50L.
> ...




could be...I am always selling and buying lenses and cameras so I will rent another copy this weekend and play around. CPW has the SIGMA ART for $750 so I could pocket some cash if I sell the 50L.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 25, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent review, Dustin. My results mirror yours.
> ...



Firmware update down the road means just that....down the road. It's inevitable that the firmware of the lens will be updated as it already has for the 35 and 18-35. The 50 and 24 are newer and haven't received anything.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 25, 2015)

Travelintrevor said:


> I love Brian's reviews and generally find that my experiences mirrors his data as well but not so with the 50L.
> I don't think the Art copy was bad. It was AFMA'd, live view and VF AF showed the same sharpness.
> Comparing it wide open to the 135 f/2.0 also does not give me the same results as shown on his comparison page and my 135mm is not a bad copy. Same for the 24-70 II
> 
> ...



If you are happy with what you have - don't switch. It takes time to learn a new lens and get the most out of it. This may seem ironic, as many photographers would love access to an unending supply of new gear like I have as a reviewer, but frankly, sometimes I enjoy going to shoot with MY lenses. Not for a review, not for a comparison, but simply because I love photography and I love my own personal kit of gear.


----------



## e-d0uble (Jun 25, 2015)

Every time the word "drawing" is used in a lens review to describe something other than charcoal/paint/graphite/ink/etc. and paper, a certain deity kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens. That is all.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 26, 2015)

LSXPhotog said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > LSXPhotog said:
> ...



I don't have the faith you do. The Sigma 35mm Art was updated within eight months of release. Nothing for the 50mm.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 26, 2015)

I don't have the faith you do. The Sigma 35mm Art was updated within eight months of release. Nothing for the 50mm.
[/quote]

+1, no new firmware at all when it hasn't come yet.


----------



## Travelintrevor (Jun 26, 2015)

[/quote]

If you are happy with what you have - don't switch. It takes time to learn a new lens and get the most out of it. This may seem ironic, as many photographers would love access to an unending supply of new gear like I have as a reviewer, but frankly, sometimes I enjoy going to shoot with MY lenses. Not for a review, not for a comparison, but simply because I love photography and I love my own personal kit of gear.
[/quote]

Very true! 
I decided to order the Sigma 50 Art and will play with it next week. I explained my situation to the store and told them that I might return it and they were fine with it. I know what I am looking for and always keep an open mind and if it is "better" than I will sell my 1.2.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 26, 2015)

If you are happy with what you have - don't switch. It takes time to learn a new lens and get the most out of it. This may seem ironic, as many photographers would love access to an unending supply of new gear like I have as a reviewer, but frankly, sometimes I enjoy going to shoot with MY lenses. Not for a review, not for a comparison, but simply because I love photography and I love my own personal kit of gear.
[/quote]

Very true! 
I decided to order the Sigma 50 Art and will play with it next week. I explained my situation to the store and told them that I might return it and they were fine with it. I know what I am looking for and always keep an open mind and if it is "better" than I will sell my 1.2.
[/quote]

Be sure to share your findings here. I'd love to hear first hand feedback from someone who has been using the 1.2L for a while.


----------



## sleepnever (Jul 2, 2015)

sleepnever said:


> I picked up the Sigma 50A just recently from Adorama for $849 out the door (Sigma $100 off sale). I've rented it once before and fell in love. Yeah, I have some lower light AF hunt issues, but compared to the Canon 50 1.4, it destroys it in pretty much every way. I'm shooting on a 5D3.
> 
> I haven't picked up the dock yet, to see if that'll help with anything. The only downer now is if that doesn't fix it, having to ship all the way back from Seattle to Adorama, get a swap and wait for that. Buying locally is great, but saving $100 + tax is probably worth it =)



Well, there goes that. I'm returning my copy to Adorama for another. The AF misses are just too much in situations where it should not miss at all. Hopefully the 2nd copy is better. I can so far recommend everything about this lens, but this known issue.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 2, 2015)

sleepnever said:


> sleepnever said:
> 
> 
> > I picked up the Sigma 50A just recently from Adorama for $849 out the door (Sigma $100 off sale). I've rented it once before and fell in love. Yeah, I have some lower light AF hunt issues, but compared to the Canon 50 1.4, it destroys it in pretty much every way. I'm shooting on a 5D3.
> ...



I'm on my third 50 now, fifth Art overall with EXACTLY that issue. The second 50 was much better, and it was for about 6 months, then started acting up. 

The one I have now is the ONLY of the 5 that did not require different AFMA value for different distances, I think that is key, if your lens gets a bit better with adjusting two or more of the 4 distances differently, return it. Keep looking until you find one you just set one AFMA value in camera and it works. Man, I love this lens. Keep at it, you'll find a good one. The great thing is that optically they have all been equally superb and sharp.


----------



## Travelintrevor (Jul 5, 2015)

The SIGMA ART arrived on Tuesday and I had a chance to do a quick comparison against the 50L. As Dustin requested, here are the findings:

SIGMA has:

1) less chromatic aberrations

2)is sharper in the center and corners by a large amount

3)SIGMA has great build quality

4)is about 1 full stop darker than the 50L when both are wide open (50L at 1.2 vs SIGMA at 1.2)

5)Canon is 0.40 stops brighter when both are at 1.4 (I did not stop them down to see when they equalize). I adjusted the Canon files -0.40 for all the photos you find in the gallery

6) The SIGMA has a much warmer rendering than the Canon and thus has colors that seem to pop more. Both at the SAME WB balance!

7)Bokeh is a draw, IMHO

8) SIGMA AF is very inconsistent on my 5D MK III but stellar on the 7D M MKII. It needed a +10 AFMA on both cameras.

9) SIGMA AF is a little bit faster. 


Due to the size limitations, I uploaded the files to my website and turned on the gallery download. Feel free to download and take a look.

http://www.photographybyrudyconrad.com/Sigma-14-ART-vs-Canon-12L/

So what lens turned out to be the best/better? 

The SIGMA is sharper, no contest, bokeh seems to be the same overall, and I really like the warmer colors from the SIGMA. The Canon is A LOT faster (1 stop is huge) so if you have a camera that has less than stellar ISO, then the Canon is the way to go. Critical AF needed? Canon 1.2 is your best bet.

If AF and a loss of light is not that big of a deal, then the SIGMA is the one to buy. With Canon's new DPAF coming to the 5D MK IV, the SIGMA will remain in my bag and the Canon 1.2 will be sold. I use Live View focusing for all critical shots (wide open) anyway and DPAF has a 98% focus success rate (maybe even higher). 

So it seems that I have changed my mind and will keep the SIGMA this time around. Seems like copy #1 had some issues and this one is much better.


----------



## Travelintrevor (Jul 5, 2015)

The downloads do not tell you what lens was used. I can list the jpegs numbers if needed but the difference is always very obvious. There are a few bokeh comparisons in there that are already cropped.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 6, 2015)

Just picked up copy no.3 of this lens ... Let´s see if I get AF to live with this time ...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 8, 2015)

Travelintrevor said:


> 8) SIGMA AF is very inconsistent on my 5D MK III but stellar on the 7D M MKII. It needed a +10 AFMA on both cameras.



Ironically, mine is simply useless on my 7D MkII and nearly flawless on the 6D and whenever I use a 5D.


----------



## jorden12 (Jul 14, 2015)

*ricoh gr 16.2 mp reviews*

Ricoh GR key specifications. 16.2MP APS-C CMOS sensor with no low-pass filter; 18.5mm (28mm equivalent) F2.8 lens; ISO 100-25,600; 3.0" 1.2m dot LCD.Check out Ricoh Pentax GR 16.2MP Point and Shoot Camera with f/2 28mm Wide Lens reviews, ratings, features, specifications and browse more Ricoh


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBknXX51WUQ


----------



## jorden12 (Jul 14, 2015)

*ricoh gr 16.2 mp reviews*

Check out Ricoh Pentax GR 16.2MP Point and Shoot Camera with f/2 28mm Wide Lens reviews, ratings, features, specifications and browse more Ricoh.Ricoh GR 16.2 MP Digital Camera with 3.0-Inch LED Backlit (Black). by Ricoh. 86 customer reviews.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBknXX51WUQ


----------



## Eldar (Jul 16, 2015)

I got my third copy of this lens a couple of weeks back. Never saw that coming, but the Norwegian distributor had a 30% discount for a few days, which was to tempting to pass. I have now tried it on the new 5DSR for awhile and (did not believe I was going to say this) it performs just fine ...

In servo mode, shot wide open, I still get lots of weird results, but in One-shot, with a single focusing point, it nails it pretty much every time. I still have a hard time trusting it, so no pictures beyond pure testing so far. I am going on a 2 week trip on the west coast, starting on Saturday and that will be the baptising for real shooting.

Fingers crossed ...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 17, 2015)

Travelintrevor said:


> 4)is about 1 full stop darker than the 50L when both are wide open (50L at 1.2 vs SIGMA at 1.2)



Hmmmmm....maybe I'll return my Sigma 1.4 Art too so they will send me an f/1.2 like you received......?????


----------



## Viggo (Jul 17, 2015)

LSXPhotog said:


> Travelintrevor said:
> 
> 
> > 4)is about 1 full stop darker than the 50L when both are wide open (50L at 1.2 vs SIGMA at 1.2)
> ...



I think he compares t-stop value.


----------



## Travelintrevor (Jul 26, 2015)

Viggo said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > Travelintrevor said:
> ...



nah..it was a typo...50L at 1.2 vs Sigma at 1.4...my fault


----------

