# Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART vs Canon 50mm f/1.2 - Quick Comparison Photos



## rocksubculture (May 3, 2014)

I received the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART a few days ago (I pre-ordered on B&H on April 11th at noon; it shipped April 28th)

I haven't seen too many user photos so thought I would provide some comparisons with my Canon f/1.2 in the event that might be helpful to some looking at this lens.

I have all Canon-branded lenses currently, except the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, which I love. I have found it to be a good focal length for all around shooting and love it for low light. As such, I was interested in checking out the 50mm version, even though I've already got the Canon f/1.2 version (and I feel like I have a really great copy, as I had one prior to my current one and didn't get the same results/experience).

So I haven't really had a chance to use the new Sigma 50mm Art property, but I just quickly took some random pics in my house. 

These are not meant to be great photos, but just provide some comparisons against Canon's f/1.2 version of the 50mm.

What I did was put each lens on its own Canon 5D Mk III (I have two) and took photos all at f/1.4 and at varying shutterspeeds (had on manual with Auto ISO). So the settings are more or less the same in each shot, one taken after another. So not scientific at all, but gives some comparison...

These are straight OOC JPEGS saved down to 1024 pixels for this forum... if you want any 100% crop of the originals for anything, let me know.

My biggest take-away is that there is more color and color contrast in the Sigma shots... and Canon blurs OOF lights more. Will have to experiment more with some night time / dark shots... Also, you can focus closer to the subject with the Sigma with autofocus. Sigma also has a quicker focus going from, say, across the room to something close up.

I know there's been talk about focusing issues... I was using single point autofocus, and didn't have any issues at all - it seemed to hit what I was focusing on pretty reliably. But again, these aren't great photos... just some quick snaps.

Currently, I'm really impressed with the Sigma. But am withholding judgment until I can take some portrait photos and put it through it's paces on that front... 

In each photo below, the first example is the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and the second example is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART:














































































































































































































































































































































































































Jason


----------



## drjlo (May 3, 2014)

Whoever said different brand lenses should not differ in color rendition? The colors I see from Sigma 50 is consistent with what I saw with my previous Sigma lenses, i.e. warmer colors with significant yellow push, making some scenes look better/more colorful but making others look overdone/cartoonish..IMHO.


----------



## jyrbba (May 3, 2014)

I gotta say, I prefer the 50L, even when it's probably technically worse. The lack of contrast and subtle colors are more pleasing to me as I tend to use VSCO presets a lot with my wedding shoots. I usually never touch contrast too much, but looking at these images i'd gotta say I would have to lower it on Sigma.


----------



## distant.star (May 3, 2014)

.
Thanks. I appreciate all the work. Very useful.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 3, 2014)

Thanks a lot- very informative.
I have 2 takeaways:
1. If I owned a 50L, I'd see no reason to change.
2. If I didn't own a 50L and wanted a high-quality 50mm, then image quality or sharpness will not be the determining factor for me. The trade-off between bokeh and cost will be.
In other words, the 50L holds its own very well. 

Why do people complain so much about the 50L? Anyone has soft images from the lens to share?


----------



## Eldar (May 3, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Thanks a lot- very informative.
> I have 2 takeaways:
> 1. If I owned a 50L, I'd see no reason to change.
> 2. If I didn't own a 50L and wanted a high-quality 50mm, then image quality or sharpness will not be the determining factor for me. The trade-off between bokeh and cost will be.
> ...


+1
This lens is THE puzzle for me. It is murdered in technical reviews, but it still produces images of phenomenal quality.

And thanks for the impressive number of comparative images. Very interesting!


----------



## Steve (May 4, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Why do people complain so much about the 50L? Anyone has soft images from the lens to share?



Uh, there's a whole bunch in the first post of this thread? Look at the Ms Mr cover shot. The Sigma clearly shows more detail and contrast and the colors are richer. The 50L definitely looks soft in comparison. In each of those samples above, the Sigma is distinctly sharper and resolves better. As for the bokeh, they are very similar - to my eye the 50L oof areas are a bit "bigger" but the Sigma fall off from focus to oof looks smoother. 

If you already had a 50L, sure, no huge reason to change but if you didn't then the Sigma is pretty obviously the better optical performer. For less $$$'s it seems like a no brainer to me.


----------



## CarlTN (May 4, 2014)

Jason, thanks for posting those, nice job! I do like the Sigma better from what I see here. Are you sure none of these via the Canon was not at f/1.2? Sorry if that's a dumb question...the one with the globe kind of looks like shallower DOF.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 4, 2014)

Steve said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people complain so much about the 50L? Anyone has soft images from the lens to share?
> ...



I agree the Sigma is sharper, but I don't think the 50L is unacceptably soft. Not enough to engender the hatred it enjoys.
Also, you are comparing bokeh at f/1.4. I am sure the 50L bokeh will improve slightly wide open (yes, it will also get a little softer). 
I am not undermining the Sigma one bit- it is excellent. However, the rant against the 50L seems unreasonable. All the photos above are quite beautiful.


----------



## docsmith (May 4, 2014)

Thanks for all the shots. I've probably scrolled through them a dozen times. 

I think center sharpness is very similar, however, there are a couple of shots were I think the 50A clearly wins the off center sharpness. I am actually very happy with my 50 f/1.4 except for off center sharpness. I like to use 50 mm to frame my subjects off center, so this has been a problem at wider than f/2.8. It is for this reason I have preordered the 50A (still waiting).

However, I give consistent natural colors to the 50L. As drjlo noted, some reds and yellows in the 50A look unnatural/more saturated/cartoonish to me. Are others seeing this?


----------



## Ruined (May 5, 2014)

Steve said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people complain so much about the 50L? Anyone has soft images from the lens to share?
> ...



In most of the pics the colors of the 50L are much more natural and lifelike IMO, the Sigma looks oversaturated in a bad way. (viewing on a color-calibrated monitor). Reds look garish on the Sigma.

And, while the Sigma does look slightly sharper at f/1.4, it can't do f/1.2 and can't get as thin DOF as the 50L; bokeh on the 50L appears superior. Yes, the Sigma is cheaper and while it does put up a good showing I'd rather have the 50L if price was not an issue; but, then again, if the 50L is not in the budget the Sigma is certainly a good substitute. Also, for the record some of the best shots I've ever taken were with the 50L. YMMV.

Also, off topic I'd advise that a buyer of either of these lenses pick up the Eg-S focusing screen to go with them for an accurate viewfinder as the stock Canon screen won't show DOF below approx f/2.8 equivalent.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2014)

I once had a long thread run in with a medium format shooter who swore he could tell a MF B&W pic from a 135 format DSLR pic in an in line thread image at 1,000px, turns out he couldn't.

Anybody arguing the nuances of colour rendition, colour accuracy, micro contrast etc in a 1,000px in line image on the internet is talking nonsense. They are also missing the point of a half decent digital workflow.

When we shot a wedding on film and used different lenses the processors had to make a choice on how to render the colours, they were pros and good ones rarely threw us problems, but differences between lenses were often evident in the subtle renditions of colours, today we have the opportunity to work to a much higher level of accuracy and our personal "look" is the cornerstone of most high end shooters, and that surely is where most people aspire to be, even if not professionals, having the ability to shoot to the highest professional levels. 

Well nowadays all lens differences in the colour and contrast characteristics are academic, with a robust digital workflow you can make anything look like anything else, from a colour and contrast point of view.

As for the Sigma 1.4 and Canon 1.2 comparison, who cares? Buy what you want and make no excuses for it, just don't try and justify your personal preference to others. I am extremely unlikely to ever buy a Sigma lens, even if the numbers and price say I should, not because I am a Canon fan but because I lived through the move from film to digital debacle that was Sigmas lens compatibility nightmare, the fact they dropped many customers in the can is something I don't let people do twice. For those that never lived through that and who like the numbers, get the Sigma, for thise who don't get the Canon, I don't care if you want the Canon over the Sigma because it has a red ring, or the Sigma over the Canon because it resolves a few more lppmm off center, and neither should you, it is your lens.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 5, 2014)

The 50L looks better but the sigma is sharper, even at these small sizes.


----------



## mackguyver (May 5, 2014)

Jason, thanks for the photos and I must say that you have a seriously well-trained dog! I can't believe how little movement there is between shots!

As for the differences, the Sigma has more contrast in the bokeh making it look a little less smooth and as shown by the LEDs in the last few photos, the larger physical aperture of the 50L gives somewhat larger bokeh shapes. The Sigma is definitely sharper, even downsized like this, but overall both lenses do a nice job.

I don't think you can go wrong with either lens, and my 50L isn't going anywhere


----------



## thepancakeman (May 5, 2014)

Thanks for the work you put in! 

However, I think a better use of these photos (or a new set!) would be a "pick which lens" in which we are not told which image was from which lens and see how consistent the "oversaturated" and "better bokeh" type comments are to each lens. ???

EDIT: Probably have to strip off the EXIF too to avoid cheaters.


----------



## mackguyver (May 5, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> Thanks for the work you put in!
> 
> However, I think a better use of these photos (or a new set!) would be a "pick which lens" in which we are not told which image was from which lens and see how consistent the "oversaturated" and "better bokeh" type comments are to each lens. ???
> 
> EDIT: Probably have to strip off the EXIF too to avoid cheaters.


That would just be cruel! I think it would be tough to tell them apart with the exception of the LED shots. Home Theater Magazine did this years ago (a double-blind test) comparing high end ($1,000) speaker cable vs. zip cord (cheap hardware store electrical wiring) and no one, audiophile or not, could tell the difference. It was pretty funny.


----------



## Albi86 (May 5, 2014)

Very interesting.

I honestly can't see any remarkable difference in bokeh between the two. In fact it seems that f/1.4 and f/1.2 produce similar DoF. But this could be an artifact of resizing.

The Sigma does look already a bit sharper though. One can see that in pictures involving fine details.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the work you put in!
> ...



I have done stuff like that with comparative lenses, and formats, people can never see what they believe they will be able to see. Even the most strident.


----------



## thepancakeman (May 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > thepancakeman said:
> ...



Yup, that was kind of my point--people will see what they want to see.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> Yup, that was kind of my point--people will see what they want to see.



I know, I was agreeing.

Nice cartoon too


----------



## Bruce Photography (May 5, 2014)

+1 on Thank You for your comparison shots. I know that was a lot of work and many people enjoyed seeing your efforts. I have the Canon 1.2 L so I've decided not to order the Sigma 50mm 1.4 in a Canon mount. I'm still waiting for my Nikon mount to arrive. I guess sometime this summer. Thanks again for your efforts.


----------



## docsmith (May 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, that was kind of my point--people will see what they want to see.
> ...



So, do we have confirmatory bias about the lenses....or do you have confirmatory bias about people trying to assess a lens?  ;D

I can tell you for myself, I am interested in the 50A (have it on preorder) and am just trying to learn as much about it as I can.


----------



## mackguyver (May 5, 2014)

I have been following the 50A since it was announced and here's the differences that I'm aware of big & small:

Canon = more expensive / Sigma = less expensive
Canon = a Canon [and red ring] - important to some / Sigma = a 3rd party lens (with the USB dock, not a big concern)
Canon = weather sealed / Sigma = not
Canon = small & stubby / Sigma = big & heavier (24-70 Mk I size)
Canon = USM, but some backfocus at MDF / Sigma = the jury is still out, but the USB dock and AFMA are recommended
Canon = center IQ good, corners soft (on test charts) / Sigma = Zeiss Otus 55 sharp
Canon = field curvature wide open, low distortion / Sigma = flat field, nearly zero distortion
Canon = you like vignetting, right? / Sigma = medium vignetting
Canon = great color / Sigma = great color
Canon = good contrast / Sigma = more contrast
Canon & Sigma = good flare resistance
Canon = CA not great / Sigma = good but not perfect CA control
Canon = LoCA ugly / Sigma = LoCA not Otus, but pretty good
Canon = a bit less contrast in bokeh / Sigma contrasty bokeh
Canon = larger physical aperture for bigger OOF elements / Sigma = no slouch, but slightly smaller OOF blobs
Canon = 72mm filters / Sigma 77mm filters

Summary: both are great lenses and it's a good time to shoot 50mm 

The key differences are price, size, weather sealing, and requirements for edge-to-edge sharpness. AF accuracy may be added to the list, but it's too soon to tell.

For me, the 50L's small size is a big plus and since I use it for portraits 99% of the time, edge-to-edge sharpness isn't critical. If I were in the market for a 50mm lens, now, though, I'm not sure what I'd do


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2014)

docsmith said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > thepancakeman said:
> ...



I can confirm my empirical non standard testing has proven, beyond doubt, that people claim to be able to make differentiations that they can't actually make. I find this amusing because even when they fail the "test" they continue to make reasoned excuses as to why the particular comparison is not valid.

I would also point out that I have personally taken similar tests, and when I express that I believe I can tell a difference (knowing that sometimes there isn't one) I have got it right, normally to the chagrin or complete unacceptance of the poster.

I believe people spend too much time reading forum opinions, tests, reviews etc, and their buying decisions are influenced by that reading. I believe people are sold something on subtleties and nuances that they themselves can't actually see or appreciate and to "justify" that purchase, when no justification is needed, they will make silly claims about minutia. 

There is currently a ridiculous thread about lens cleaning techniques, we are being told, most sincerely, that we should never wash a lens cloth in with our regular washing because of microscopic chemical residue, if I could be bothered to challenge these well meaning assertions for any proof of these ideas, not a chemical analysis of the cloth, but an actual damaged lens element, I would be attacked personally, the thread would go off at a complete tangent and nobody would be happy. But nobody will ever post a picture of a camera lens element that was damaged by the chemicals from using a regular washing washed lens cloth.

I don't care what people buy, I won't buy Sigma because of their historical unreliability and customer service, does that make me a Canon fanatic? Many would say so, to that I would say go buy 5 lenses that won't work on your next camera and are not supported by the manufacturer and come back and tell me the same thing. USB dock be damned, if Canon want to drop Sigma in the sh!t it has been shown that they can, personally I value reliability and guaranteed future compatibility far more than a slightly sharper image in the corners, but I equally well respect people who value cheaper price and a slightly sharper image more. But you don't need to justify that decision to me or anybody else, apart from maybe your partner if it is a hobby


----------



## docsmith (May 5, 2014)

EDIT-originally followed Mackguyver's post.

I think that is a very fair assessment. Of course, I own the 50 f/1.4, so for me the list is a little different, but this thread is about the 50L vs 50A. Of course, I would expect to learn a lot more as the 50A as more people get their hands on production models.

I also think there is a lot of benefit in things that may be subtle to others. For example, the dock is likely necessary from the start. I had told myself I didn't need the dock until Canon did something to prevent the Sigma lens from working. Having read more, it looks like it would be good to have the dock from the start to better tune the AFMA at different distances.

I do "get" the concern that reaction in threads like this can give lenses a bad reputation, potentially undeserved. With the 50A, potentially with AF issues or maybe color. But, to me, it is more subtle. As for the color, I see a difference. I may prefer the 50L, but what it really means is that I'll develop a color profile for the 50A to see if that addresses the issue. But it doesn't change the fact that everything I've seen to date says that this is a very good lens. 

The AF issue is the main one I am interested in seeing if it proves out. But, hopefully I'll have my own lens soon to assess.


----------



## AudioGlenn (May 5, 2014)

thanks for all the work you put into this for us =)


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2014)

docsmith said:


> I think that is a very fair assessment. Of course, I own the 50 f/1.4, so for me the list is a little different, but this thread is about the 50L vs 50A. Of course, I would expect to learn a lot more as the 50A as more people get their hands on production models.
> 
> I also think there is a lot of benefit in things that may be subtle to others. For example, the dock is likely necessary from the start. I had told myself I didn't need the dock until Canon did something to prevent the Sigma lens from working. Having read more, it looks like it would be good to have the dock from the start to better tune the AFMA at different distances.
> 
> ...



Absolutely they are good lenses, all of them, even the modest Canon 50 f1.4, which I have. They are all better lenses than all of us actually, and the quality of our images is not because we own this version or that version. 

Now so many lenses are so good it is much more about the psychology of the ownership, do you take great images because you have a great lens, or does owning a great lens free your mind to take great images? Just look at the countless world class creative images shot with the 50 f1.8 (doesn't matter if it is the one with the metal or the plastic mount) on Flickr, normally by Eastern Europeans, that blows away any cat image shot by an Otis owner.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Just look at the countless world class creative images shot with the 50 f1.8 (doesn't matter if it is the one with the metal or the plastic mount) on Flickr, normally by Eastern Europeans, that blows away any cat image shot by an Otis owner.



Like this, you mean?


----------



## docsmith (May 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I would also point out that I have personally taken similar tests, and when I express that I believe I can tell a difference (knowing that sometimes there isn't one) I have got it right, normally to the chagrin or complete unacceptance of the poster.
> 
> I believe people spend too much time reading forum opinions, tests, reviews etc, and their buying decisions are influenced by that reading. I believe people are sold something on subtleties and nuances that they themselves can't actually see or appreciate and to "justify" that purchase, when no justification is needed, they will make silly claims about minutia.



I've taken a few of the online tests. I am usually right ~70% of the time, so there is a little something to it, but, ultimately, sometimes I can't tell the difference.

On your second point, I absolutely have seen some people spend too much time reading and basing too much of their opinion in details only analytical tests are able to discern. I am sure I've done it myself. That said, I think we are in the phase where we are getting to know not only the 50A but the Sigma Art series. Sigma did something very interesting. But it will be over the next year or two where there is enough use out there to really know what that means. Are there AF issues? Does the dock fix the AF issues? Do Sigma Art lenses develop issues with time? Does Sigma Art have a "unique" color to them? Etc.

Just because there is the potential for over analysis doesn't mean you do not do any analysis. Which is why I really appreciate a side by side comparison performed here at the start of this thread.


----------



## mackguyver (May 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> They are all better lenses than all of us actually, and the quality of our images is not because we own this version or that version.


Truest statement I've seen here in a long while!


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Just look at the countless world class creative images shot with the 50 f1.8 (doesn't matter if it is the one with the metal or the plastic mount) on Flickr, normally by Eastern Europeans, that blows away any cat image shot by an Otus owner.
> ...



Or this http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18169.msg364512#msg364512
this http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18169.msg363431#msg363431
this http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-Otus-55f1_4.html
this https://www.flickr.com/photos/hugo_l/12221207084

And I am not putting any of those image makers down, just pointing out that magic bullets are not magic.


----------



## rocksubculture (May 5, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Jason, thanks for posting those, nice job! I do like the Sigma better from what I see here. Are you sure none of these via the Canon was not at f/1.2? Sorry if that's a dumb question...the one with the globe kind of looks like shallower DOF.



All the EXIF data should be in the images - I checked the globe one and it is f/1.4. I just checked my files and all show f/1.4... 

Jason


----------



## zlatko (May 5, 2014)

Thanks very much for putting together this comparison! I'm very happy with the 50L, but that Sigma looks really, really good. I believe this thread is going to help sell some Sigma 50mm lenses!

The color difference is striking. I have to wonder wether _something_ was set differently between your two 5DIII cameras — saturation, contrast, color space, etc.? There are so many settings on these cameras that it's easy to forget something hidden in a menu. Perhaps you double checked everything already.


----------



## rocksubculture (May 5, 2014)

zlatko said:


> Thanks very much for putting together this comparison! I'm very happy with the 50L, but that Sigma looks really, really good. I believe this thread is going to help sell some Sigma 50mm lenses!
> 
> The color difference is striking. I have to wonder wether _something_ was set differently between your two 5DIII cameras — saturation, contrast, color space, etc.? There are so many settings on these cameras that it's easy to forget something hidden in a menu. Perhaps you double checked everything already.



All of these images are straight OOC JPEGS, apart from the resizing. I have C1 custom setting on both my Canon 5D Mk IIIs set the same, as I do concert photography and use four bodies (these two plus two 6Ds) at the same time and keep the settings the same across all four so I don't have to pay attention to which lens I put on which body. 

Apart from changing from shooting RAW to shooting JPEG, I left all other settings the same (and are on default for exposure compensation, WB shift, etc.). The only variable was I had each on Auto ISO for these shots, so could be some variance there...

Jason

Jason


----------



## Eldar (May 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Now so many lenses are so good it is much more about the psychology of the ownership, do you take great images because you have a great lens, or does owning a great lens free your mind to take great images? Just look at the countless world class creative images shot with the 50 f1.8 (doesn't matter if it is the one with the metal or the plastic mount) on Flickr, normally by Eastern Europeans, that blows away any cat image shot by an Otis owner.


Well, that is a melon an plum comparison isn´t it. The images posted here by Otus owner, or any other lens owner for that matter, when they are just released, are probably (only) to show off what the lens can do and not sell images or win awards for the photographer, or what? 

I actually believe a lens like the Otus makes you a better photographer, simply because it requires special attention, it takes time and the rewards when you do it right is great.

There is an other saying, bought cheap, treated cheaply, which is a potential problem with a plastic lens. 

Great photographers will be great, regardless of equipment.


----------



## zlatko (May 5, 2014)

Thanks, Jason. That is helpful. In that case, the color differences are quite interesting. I am tempted to buy the Sigma.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2014)

Eldar said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



No I am not. You can misconstrue the comment if you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that none of the cat images are compelling images, my point is the lens is not a magic bullet, that is, using the lens does not make an image compelling in and of itself, and as the minutiae is endlessly argued that simple and obvious point is often overlooked, and isn't made clear to more impressionable and less experienced readers. You don't need an Otus/Sigma Art/Canon f1.2 to make compelling 50mm images, *and having one doesn't guarantee it.*

On a personal level the compelling images you do take, and you have shown many, particularly your wildlife shots, were not possible because of the lens you used alone, be that the 200-400 the 600 MkII or the Otus, they were possible because of the lens/camera and *you* combination. As for my posting images, I have posted literally hundreds of images on this site, and a couple of videos, though few of them could be considered compelling, most, like the cat images, are purely illustrative. I live in my own box, not the one you might try and push me into. I don't respect money or badges, I respect my eyes, physics, but most of all empirical results.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 5, 2014)

Eldar said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Now so many lenses are so good it is much more about the psychology of the ownership, do you take great images because you have a great lens, or does owning a great lens free your mind to take great images? Just look at the countless world class creative images shot with the 50 f1.8 (doesn't matter if it is the one with the metal or the plastic mount) on Flickr, normally by Eastern Europeans, that blows away any cat image shot by an Otis owner.
> ...



That is my point, not to say gear never matters, but worrying about the tiniest differences between this lens characteristic or that one misses the point of camera gear. I am not against collectors, but if we thread readers and contributors are going to be image makers, we need to cut through a lot of bull---- and look at the images with an honest eye, realise what makes a difference and what doesn't; and the answer is normally the control of the light, nothing to do with lenses.


----------



## rocksubculture (May 5, 2014)

I uploaded the native (non-resized) files to DropBox right now... so if you are interested in comparing the full res files, I'll leave them up here for a while:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xnwbr96r2pwxqlt/ZAscIoEa9k

Jason


----------



## Eldar (May 5, 2014)

Maybe we should get this thread back to what it ought to be.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 5, 2014)

rocksubculture said:


> I uploaded the native (non-resized) files to DropBox right now... so if you are interested in comparing the full res files, I'll leave them up here for a while:
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xnwbr96r2pwxqlt/ZAscIoEa9k
> 
> Jason



Thanks, Jason.
We owe you a cup of joe for all the work


----------



## eml58 (May 6, 2014)

Thanks Jason, pretty well what I had hoped to do myself, and the results you came up with are interesting.

Both your work here & Eldar's work on the Otus thread are appreciated, certainly from my own perspective it assists in making decisions.

Based on the current comparisons I see here, for myself, I don't really see myself preferring the 50Art over my 50f/1.2 L, I just prefer the Image rendition from the Canon 50 over the Sigma 50, softer more subtle colouring but the Sigma is certainly sharper.

I think as has been mentioned, if you already own the 50f/1.2 L the need for the Sigma 50f/1.4 Art is less compelling, either Lens will produce good Images.

I may yet cancel my 50Art based on this, the only benefit I had hoped for with the 50 Art was much faster/better AF than the 50f/1.2 L, I may just live for the moment with the tardy AF of the Canon.

On Cats & the Otus.

The work Eldar has done re the Otus Lens & Posted on different threads for the general benefit of all CR readers should be applauded, not derided, well, maybe the candle/electric lights/onion rings was a little, I say a little, intense.

Personally I feel Eldar's Cat is awesomely compelling, drop him into the Serengeti and I'm sure he could hold his own.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 6, 2014)

i think the new sigma 50 Art has the best Servo performance of any 50mm I have ever used
here is a shot of my daughter coming down an enclosed slide, 5Dmk3 AI servo engaged by Dof preview button
CASE 2 tracking zone af on top center zone.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Thanks Jason, pretty well what I had hoped to do myself, and the results you came up with are interesting.
> 
> Both your work here & Eldar's work on the Otus thread are appreciated, certainly from my own perspective it assists in making decisions.
> 
> ...



Is mackguyver really the only one here who got the point? 

You guys are so sensitive to comments you automatically jump to the defense, why? I wasn't deriding any individual or their images, I was deriding everybody who believes having an Art, or an Otus, or even an L over the other will make a serious difference to their images. Only THEY can make a difference to their images. A class in posing, lighting, methodology etc would be far better spent than the cost to swap. Practical things like AF speed, size and weight etc are far more compelling reasons to choose between these lenses.

I once saw a lecture by a very cool photographer who pointed out the backgrounds of many really good photographers, every one of them had a more expensive, in time or money, education on image creation than they did in equipment value.


----------



## Logan (May 6, 2014)

I dont care about what lens makes better pictures, theres a big threadjack going on here because nobody ever suggested one would make you a better photographer, the title of the thread is not "which will make you a better photographer" and the entire debate is just stupid lets move on.

I came here for the advertised comparison photos. The OP delivered in spades. I like how they are almost identical photos so you can actually see the differences. If you cant see a pretty distinct difference between them, you are blind or something. Thank you for posting such a thorough comparison, and sorry these jackasses had to invade your excellent comparison thread. 

I think its blatantly obvious that these are quick snaps around the house (apartment?) showing a variety of objects, colours, contrast levels etc. For someone to point out that they are not fine art photos is kind of facile. 

Thank you again to the OP for taking the time to do a thorough comparison with no analytical nonsense, just everyday photos that any of us would be taking with a 50mm lens. I am looking for an upgrade to my 50 1.4 and the first post in this thread is very informative.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 6, 2014)

Logan said:


> I dont care about what lens makes better pictures, theres a big threadjack going on here because nobody ever suggested one would make you a better photographer, the title of the thread is not "which will make you a better photographer" and the entire debate is just stupid lets move on.
> 
> I came here for the advertised comparison photos. The OP delivered in spades. I like how they are almost identical photos so you can actually see the differences. If you cant see a pretty distinct difference between them, you are blind or something. Thank you for posting such a thorough comparison, and sorry these jackasses had to invade your excellent comparison thread.
> 
> ...



I agree, I would like to see a few 100% crops from the OP too as having to downsize images to post here will balance out alot of variation but some 100% crops will show a greater difference


----------



## eml58 (May 6, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> that blows away any cat image shot by an Otis owner.



Private, I really do think we all got the point you are making, really, we do, and I'm pretty sure we mostly agree, gear matters yes, but gear alone won't produce a compelling Image, we all get it.

What a few of us take exception to is throw away comments used to reinforce your view, i.e., the comment about Otus owners and their un-compelling Cat Images.

The only person I've seen on CR that owns an Otus & a Cat and has posted those Images, has been Eldar, so it's a reasonable assumption (I know, dangerous ground) that it was Eldar you were referring to, he didn't post the Cat Images because they were compelling images, he posted them because it was probable snowing outside & he was testing his new Otus Lens and posting the images so we could possibly benefit from the knowledge & experience, he could just have easily posted some un-compelling Images of light sources, Oh !!, that's right, he did.

Everything you've said in your Posts on this thread has been reasonable, except the comment above, just not necessary is my Point, it's not about sensitivity, I spent 16 Years in the Army, personal sensitivity is long gone.

As Eldar commented, time to get things back on track.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2014)

Logan said:


> I dont care about what lens makes better pictures, theres a big threadjack going on here because nobody ever suggested one would make you a better photographer, the title of the thread is not "which will make you a better photographer" and the entire debate is just stupid lets move on.
> 
> I came here for the advertised comparison photos. The OP delivered in spades. I like how they are almost identical photos so you can actually see the differences. If you cant see a pretty distinct difference between them, you are blind or something. Thank you for posting such a thorough comparison, and sorry these jackasses had to invade your excellent comparison thread.
> 
> ...



Yes Logan, and my first point was if you think 1,000px in line images are going to show you what you need from this caliber of lens, you don't know what you need.

Seriously, are we talking about comparative colours and contrast on 1,000px images that have been crucified by forum algorithms? Colour and contrast that makes zero difference anyway if you have the slightest idea how to post process? 

Now link to RAW files, or post the RAW files on Dropbox, which I have done several times for people, and the images might have some value, but 1,000px in line images, give me a break.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2014)

eml58 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > that blows away any cat image shot by an Otis owner.
> ...



But I linked to four images of cats with an Otus, each from a different photographer, two here on CR, two not here on CR! I WAS NOT belittling Eldar, his wolf images are amazing. It wasn't even about Otus owners, for any lens release you can find countless early adopters and their in line low res images of their cats. I was belittling anybody that thinks they will get anything useful from a 1,000px in line image when talking about lenses of this caliber with nuances as subtle as they have.


----------



## Logan (May 6, 2014)

I don't really care about 100% crops, I care about how the pictures look. I really don't care about your opinion you don't even own a camera as far as i can see, because you haven't posted any pictures. As for disparaging eldar, which you are now trying to backpedal on even though we can all read, 50mm is an excellent cat portrait focal length, and cat photos are another great comparison, i for one take 50mm pictures of my cat and appreciate them. If you can't, keep it to yourself. If you insist on replying to me please us PM so as not to further distract from this thread. I'd rather you didn't though!


----------



## privatebydesign (May 6, 2014)

Logan said:


> I don't really care about 100% crops, I care about how the pictures look. I really don't care about your opinion you don't even own a camera as far as i can see, because you haven't posted any pictures. As for disparaging eldar, which you are now trying to backpedal on even though we can all read, 50mm is an excellent cat portrait focal length, and cat photos are another great comparison, i for one take 50mm pictures of my cat and appreciate them. If you can't, keep it to yourself. If you insist on replying to me please us PM so as not to further distract from this thread. I'd rather you didn't though!



Copy and paste the words where I disparaged Eldar personally.

I am not saying cat pictures are not useful, I said there are a lot of people shooting with a 50 f1.8 that make far more compelling images than any cat photo taken with an Otus, I have also consistently said 1,000px in line images are not useful for this kind of comparison. If you want to see reams and reams of cat test pictures go to any Leica forum. I take 50mm images of my cat too, but I don't expect to do serious lens evaluations after I reduce the images to 1,000px and post them through forum IQ mashups.

P.S. I am not replying to you, I am replying to your comments, I have no interest in a private discourse. If you don't want me to post don't misrepresent what I actually said.


----------



## Radiating (May 6, 2014)

For me personally I find the 50L unacceptably soft. If you can see a clear improvement in sharpness in 1024 px in uncropped frames like I can then there is a huge difference. I really don't know what else to say. You can also make the sigma images look just like the Canons @f/1.4 in the in focus areas, just by softening the sigma up, literally there are light room settings that make both indistinguishable for in focus areas but you can't create detail that was never recorded with the Canon. Logically speaking if you get a good copy and ignore the very minor difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 the Sigma is better in every measurable and conceivable factor. I really don't get why this is so contentious.


----------



## eml58 (May 6, 2014)

Radiating said:


> but you can't create detail that was never recorded with the Canon.



Good Point


----------



## zlatko (May 6, 2014)

Radiating said:


> For me personally I find the 50L unacceptably soft. If you can see a clear improvement in sharpness in 1024 px in uncropped frames like I can then there is a huge difference. I really don't know what else to say. You can also make the sigma images look just like the Canons @f/1.4 in the in focus areas, just by softening the sigma up, literally there are light room settings that make both indistinguishable for in focus areas but you can't create detail that was never recorded with the Canon. Logically speaking if you get a good copy and ignore the very minor difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 the Sigma is better in every measurable and conceivable factor. I really don't get why this is so contentious.


Yep, no doubt there is a big difference if it's visible in 1024px photos. The Sigma wins for sharpness at f/1.4 and for richer color, and for that it's going to attract a lot of photographers. The difference is certainly visible in the full-res uploaded to Dropbox (Thank you Jason for that).

However, while sharpness and detail are important, they aren't _everything_ there is to know about a lens. The 50L adds a beauty factor in how it draws a picture. It just looks *pretty*, especially for portraits. Maybe the 50L's slight softness is an advantage for some photos and for some photographers. I'm eager to see some portrait comparisons with the Sigma 50/1.4. I'm sure the Sigma will compare well, but it will be interesting to see any differences.


----------



## zlatko (May 6, 2014)

dilbert said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...



The 50L is what it is. It's not going to get any sharper (unless you stop down). So whether I want it to be sharper is neither here nor there. The Sigma looks great and I may buy it. But I also love the look of the 50L, wide open and stopped down. Lenses are sometimes chosen for their look, not just for sharpness and detail.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2014)

dilbert said:


> So does that mean that you don't want the 50L to be sharper than the Sigma 50 Art?



At what cost? With the 50/1.2L, Canon tried to replicate the 'look' of the 50/1.0L (in addition to getting the lead out, along with a few other toxic elements), improved the sharpness, lost some of the creaminess and half a stop of light.


----------



## drjlo (May 6, 2014)

zlatko said:


> The 50L adds a beauty factor in how it draws a picture. It just looks *pretty*, especially for portraits. Maybe the 50L's slight softness is an advantage for some photos and for some photographers.



Forums like these tend to attract hard-core photographers whose thought process goes like this:

"Too sharp for portraits? Non-sense and lazy. I will capture every single pore and blemish on the face since one can never recover detail that wasn't captured. I will use multiple large strobes in my studio to perfectly light everything on the skin with the perfectly sharp lens, then I will proceed to spend hours in post-processing to remove the pores, soften the skin tones, beautify blemishes in order to prevent the subject from complaining photo's don't look flattering. Color differences? Doesn't matter because I will create and apply X-Rite color profile." 

It's all great and I do that, too, but we often forget that probably the majority of people photo's taken out there do not undergo TLC like this, and many are even straight ooc jpegs :-[ Oh, the horror..


----------



## sanj (May 6, 2014)

Thank you so much for these photos. If I had to buy either of the two lenses I would buy the Sigma as I prefer better contrast.


----------



## jeffabbyben (May 6, 2014)

Thanks for the wide variety of pics. Hopefully mine will ship soon


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 6, 2014)

At the risk of being considered rude, my comment is one of suspicion. The author said that he put the two lenses on two different 5D3s and took casual snapshots around his home. So how is it that in each pair of shots, the composition and focus are so identical? And how the heck did he get the dog to stay absolutely perfectly still while he switched cameras?


----------



## metacove (May 6, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> And how the heck did he get the dog to stay absolutely perfectly still while he switched cameras?



I have a dog that is often a focus test subject for my lenses ;-) It's very easy to catch them in one spot for several minutes. I have a standard poodle which are known for being active and agile yet I still notice my dog is plenty lazy ;-)

Thank you so much for these pictures. If only my pre-order would ship......


----------



## jeffabbyben (May 6, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> At the risk of being considered rude, my comment is one of suspicion. The author said that he put the two lenses on two different 5D3s and took casual snapshots around his home. So how is it that in each pair of shots, the composition and focus are so identical? And how the heck did he get the dog to stay absolutely perfectly still while he switched cameras?



I bet he is a secret agent for sigma hell bent on single handedly destroying canon.


----------



## rocksubculture (May 6, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> At the risk of being considered rude, my comment is one of suspicion. The author said that he put the two lenses on two different 5D3s and took casual snapshots around his home. So how is it that in each pair of shots, the composition and focus are so identical? And how the heck did he get the dog to stay absolutely perfectly still while he switched cameras?



LOL

My dog is camera shy and kind of freezes up and looks away. I just had one camera in each hand and would pay attention to the composition in the corners of each shot and duplicate, as well as kind of brace my shots in the same position. I really just tried to get a variety of shots to see how the lenses might differ. 

Jason


----------



## infared (May 6, 2014)

rocksubculture....thanks for posting the images....no incessant "measurebating, focal...blah..blah..blah.."
In real life (I tended toward the Sigma as I have the 35mm which I love) I can see that both lenses offer there very special signature which with each has its own pluses and minuses. Well done.
I was hell-bent on buying the Sigma Art...but I think I am just going to hold on to my Sigma 50mm DG and enjoy its own rendering for a while longer. I have a friend who is dying to buy the lens from me as he KNOWS the new Sigma is giving me serious G.A.S. ...especially since I just bought the Sigma lens dock....
I think I need to step away from this..go make some pictures and come back to the prospect with a clearer head. 
I actually like all three lenses...what is a poh boy to do!!!!!!! LOL!


----------



## drmikeinpdx (May 6, 2014)

rocksubculture said:


> drmikeinpdx said:
> 
> 
> > At the risk of being considered rude, my comment is one of suspicion. The author said that he put the two lenses on two different 5D3s and took casual snapshots around his home. So how is it that in each pair of shots, the composition and focus are so identical? And how the heck did he get the dog to stay absolutely perfectly still while he switched cameras?
> ...



Well, you did an amazingly good job! And your dog even keeps his tongue in the same position from shot to shot. It just seems kind of odd and not typical of the casual test shots we usually see posted. I always try to be just a bit sceptical when I see stuff posted on the net.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 6, 2014)

rocksubculture said:


> I received the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART a few days ago (I pre-ordered on B&H on April 11th at noon; it shipped April 28th)
> 
> I haven't seen too many user photos so thought I would provide some comparisons with my Canon f/1.2 in the event that might be helpful to some looking at this lens.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the comparisons Jason!

To be totally honest, I have a hard time seeing any difference at all (watching this from a crappy laptop screen). If I strain my eyes, I might agree that there might be some slight color renditions. This bodes well for the Sigma, as I love the 50L, but could not afford it. 

Btw: Love to see others who value good knives  Six Kai Shun.. I love mine.


----------



## candc (May 6, 2014)

rocksubculture said:


> drmikeinpdx said:
> 
> 
> > At the risk of being considered rude, my comment is one of suspicion. The author said that he put the two lenses on two different 5D3s and took casual snapshots around his home. So how is it that in each pair of shots, the composition and focus are so identical? And how the heck did he get the dog to stay absolutely perfectly still while he switched cameras?
> ...



Thanks for doing the comparison. I am looking at getting one of these 2 lenses. I have some sigma lenses and am generally happy with them. I know the new sigma is supposed to be really sharp but the canon shots look really good too.I just really like the way the canon looks on a camera. Its got a unique extra fat stubby look that makes me want to buy it just for that reason.


----------



## Jemlnlx (May 6, 2014)

Thanks for the review. I have the original 50mm Sigma 1.4, which I like but am looking into an upgrade. I have rented the 50mm 1.2 and liked it as well....decisions...decisions? $950 pricepoint is tempting...


----------



## eml58 (May 7, 2014)

sanj said:


> Thank you so much for these photos. If I had to buy either of the two lenses I would buy the Sigma as I prefer better contrast.



If you do decide to buy the Sigma 50Art, have a good read here first Sanj.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20627.210

I had the 50 Art on Order, but cancelled after reading the issues regards AF that seem quite consistent, not what I was expecting after having owned & used the 35Art for around 9 Months now, the 35 Art has some issues in dim light, but otherwise performs exceptionally well.

The Otus 55f/1.4 is just exceptional, and any focus issues remain the Photographers, the only real issue I've ever found with my 50f/1.2 L has been slow to focus, it's perhaps not as sharp as what I'm seeing from others on the 50 Art, but the 50f/1.2 L doesn't have an inconsistent AF issue (at least mine doesn't), the AF issues I'm seeing with the Sigma 50 Art are a deal breaker for me.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 7, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> At the risk of being considered rude, my comment is one of suspicion. The author said that he put the two lenses on two different 5D3s and took casual snapshots around his home. So how is it that in each pair of shots, the composition and focus are so identical? And how the heck did he get the dog to stay absolutely perfectly still while he switched cameras?



Check the EXIF, it is from two 5D MkIII's.

I was actually putting a comparison selection together, with adjusted colours and contrast, even at 100% the images are identical, but the focus points are very different in each pair so it falls down a bit.

To be sure, anybody can make the colour and contrast of these two lenses identical, even with just jpegs. The most strikingly different pair, the stereo/cable box (?) lights are focused on completely different planes so the blur comparison is fatally flawed there too.


----------



## Ruined (May 7, 2014)

dilbert said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...



If sharpness is your only concern, you shouldn't buy either of these lenses and instead get a 50mm f/1.8 and shoot at f/8, which I'll be much sharper than both of these at 1.4.

sigma is a little sharper at f/1.4 but can't do f/1.2 at all, can't get quite as thin DOF as the 50L, has less realistic color and less pleasing boke. Personally no, I would not trade off those things for a.little more sharpness; I have a ton of sharp lenses but very few look quite like the 50l.


----------



## infared (May 7, 2014)

Ruined said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...


Um...no bokeh?


----------



## infared (May 7, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> At the risk of being considered rude, my comment is one of suspicion. The author said that he put the two lenses on two different 5D3s and took casual snapshots around his home. So how is it that in each pair of shots, the composition and focus are so identical? And how the heck did he get the dog to stay absolutely perfectly still while he switched cameras?


I see what you are saying but, to me I can clearly see that the rendering is different for each shot exactly the way I would expect it to be for each lens. Plus others have checked Jason's exif data and said it proves him true. Perhaps his dog is a professional model and Jason is just being modest?


----------



## Ruined (May 7, 2014)

infared said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Ah, well if bokeh becomes a factor, there is no doubt that the 50L offers thinner depth of field and hence can render more out of focus. This is not subjective, but rather a fact of f/1.2 vs f/1.4. I also like the rendering better, though that is subjective. But that is the whole point, one can crow about sharpness all they like but that is a very one dimensional and frankly inaccurate summation of a lens.


----------



## infared (May 7, 2014)

Ruined said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...


Well...I think the whole point is sharpness (wide open) and nice bokeh. So many wide lenses are not even close to sharp wide open... I agree tho. I think that both of these lenses (and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG) all have good sharpness wide open and they all have different renderings. I can totally see where someone would like the Canon, as it is clearly no slouch and does have the superior softness in the rendering of the bokeh, but I also feel that the sharpness and contrast is superior in the Sigma (and the price) so I can see it is personal like or dislike for each look. (and I am not even going to touch the AF discussion...it is so complicated...arrrrgggghhh..LOL). 
I think all three of the lenses I am mentioning are great for different reasons. Makes buying just one kind of tough...but then if you have a REALLY good shot...is anyone going to notice which lens it was??? LOL. That is a whole other discussion too!!!!


----------



## Ruined (May 7, 2014)

infared said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, well if bokeh becomes a factor, there is no doubt that the 50L offers thinner depth of field and hence can render more out of focus. This is not subjective, but rather a fact of f/1.2 vs f/1.4. I also like the rendering better, though that is subjective. But that is the whole point, one can crow about sharpness all they like but that is a very one dimensional and frankly inaccurate summation of a lens.
> ...



Sure, and this is the type of intellectual discussion that is more befitting of this type of equipment. In photography, there is no such thing as 'the perfect lens,' everything has tradeoffs. Whether it is sharpness, flare, bokeh, aperture, autofocus, cost, weight, size, etc - everything has a tradeoff. For example - even a big, heavy, metal-encased, recently redesigned, highly praised, and expensive lens like the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L (which I own) has more flare and less sharpness at narrow landscape apertures than the much more modest Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS. 

Your discussion is where I am going, in that everyone has a preference and desire, with many factors that go into this. A lot of it factors into what you will be shooting. I shoot people mainly, so bokeh is huge and sharpness is less important. People actually tend to dislike sharpness as it exposes skin flaws. I do have the Canon EF 100m f/2.8L Macro if I want to go razor sharp, as that lens is as sharp as it gets corner to corner and the boke level at f/2.8 is somewhat similar to 50mm @ 1.4 (50/1.4=35.7, 100/2.8=35.7). But, people tend to dislike that skin-pore exposing effect and I get very positive feedback to the 'look' of the 50L. Whether it is being a bit softer, or having more smooth boke, either way the 50L makes my customers happy. For others, it might be a total fail.

On the same token, preferences like color as you mentioned above can differ as well. I use dual Dell u2413 monitors (1xlandscape, 1xportrait) hardware calibrated at 6.5k/120 (not Eizos but pretty decent), and to me the sigma shots look oversaturated. The wood in the shot with the wood knife block for instance just looks oversaturated and less realistic than the Canon shot. The flowers look too contrasty, for me to the point of being caroonish. But, someone else might like that contrasty look. Yes, all of this can be adjusted in post (as others mentioned), but at the price points of these lenses post compensation should not be a factor. Besides, if you bring all the stuff you can do in post into the discussion, there is little point in discussing the lens differences in the first place 

You also bring up a good point about autofocus. The 50L has focus shift when stopped down (design tradeoff, most evident at f/2 close range) including current builds. I have heard the autofocus on the Sigma 50 1.4 is even more erratic, though that may also be a case of focus shift - hard to tell when first released based on reviews. Either way, though, one should consider a high precision focus screen such as the Eg-S with either of these lenses so one can actually see what is truly in focus & manual focus when needed - the stock screen won't cut it with these ultra fast lenses!


----------



## rocksubculture (May 9, 2014)

Since some have found my original files useful, I was shooting some for my own comparison (this time paying more attention to focus accuracy) and thought I would share.

As with before, these are just random "walking around snaps" - not meant to be artful photos, but to compare these lenses against one another in different scenarios.

I paid more attention to focus this time, and found that there are instances in which both lenses "miss". I used center (1 PT AF) in all instances, and generally framed my shots so that the focus point was pretty much dead center. I just took one to two shots of each subject/scene each time, so it wasn't a matter of picking "the best", but just making sure focus was complete (red flash box) and shot.

All shots were at f/1.4 except for a couple of the exterior shots (landscape) - see EXIF for those.

A few were shot in a very dark utility room (the water timer and hanging keys) and some in medium light.

This time I shot in RAW, and I will put all of the original, OOC RAW files on DropBox shortly.

Again, I had the Canon 50mm f/1.2L on one Canon 5D Mark III and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART on another Canon 5D Mark III. And again, I manually adjusted shutterspeed but had both set on Auto ISO. 

I have not adjusted/micro adjusted either lens to any of my bodies - just at default settings.

These are the versions saved down to 1024 wide in Lightroom (otherwise as shot OOC)...

One observation... when I shot in camera as JPEGs, the Sigma was much more vibrant. This is true as RAWs too, but... looking at the images saved as JPEGS, looking at the second set below (the bowl of blood oranges), the Canon looks much more vibrant than the Sigma, so they don't translate into JPEG (via Lightroom) in the same way they do when shot in camera, if that makes any sense. As I scrolled my preview for this post, I thought maybe I had misordered them, but it is Canon on top and Sigma below... If you pull my RAW originals off Dropbox (link soon), you'll see what I'm talking about.

In each case, CANON is the top image and SIGMA is the lower image in each set:
































































































































































































































































































































































Jason


----------



## metacove (May 9, 2014)

These are fantastic. Thanks for the extra pictures. Unfortunately they only make me want my lens that much more. This preorder wait is brutal.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 9, 2014)

Thanks very much, that is a far more valuable comparison, interesting that the much talked about colour and contrast difference isn't actually there, also the bokeh, especially on the lights on the TIVO (?) are so similar this time with the same AF point.

In truth it seems the differences are miniscule, as I tried to point out before. Where I would expect to see a usable difference would be 1; at f1.2, obviously the Sigma doesn't do that. 2; off center focus, I would think you could be much more creative with focus and composition with the Sigma.

Thanks again, I will be downloading the RAW's ASAP, as I said before I tried to do a close comparison with your other full sized jpegs but the focus was all over the place so it didn't work, these are perfect. Also very interesting that ypu had similar focus inconsistencies with both lenses, one more thing to not push a decision one way or the other.


----------



## rocksubculture (May 9, 2014)

The RAWs are still uploading on my end - I'll post a link once they are all up.

Yeah, I found both lenses to be inconsistent on focusing, especially if shooting something small, single-point, from say six feet away. But even some closer ones were off - like the Sigma with the pear-shaped candles it missed the tag I focused on and IIRC the first TiVo emblem shot missed also. But similar results with the Canon on other shots.

I did experiment with some shots in near darkness (not posted here), with the Canon at f/1.2 and Sigma at f/1.4 - the Canon was less noisy at the high ISO and found the single point focus better (but still struggled - had to find a true point of contrast). So that is a small edge to the Canon on that front. But it was so dark both sets of images looked bad, just wanted to push to the limits to see what they would do.

I hope to have a chance to experiment with some portraits over the next week or so, as well as nighttime shots with small lights to compare the OOF bokeh on them and bokeh effects overall.

Jason


----------



## docsmith (May 9, 2014)

Again...thanks for the posts. Very interesting and helpful. I agree, the differences in this set range from very minor to imperceptible. I can see a few instances were I like the bokeh better with the 50L, but others where I like the sharpness and detail of 50A. But, for the most part, the images are extremely similar. With Viggo coming around to trusting the AF.....


----------



## rocksubculture (May 9, 2014)

Here is the link to the RAW files on Dropbox:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8qzabpem293spp6/AABUczvDztiTKF0bZRvsdAPHa

Jason


----------



## infared (May 9, 2014)

rocksubculture said:


> Here is the link to the RAW files on Dropbox:
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8qzabpem293spp6/AABUczvDztiTKF0bZRvsdAPHa
> 
> Jason



MORE IMPORTANTLY...in the second set of photos your dog moved his head between shots. I hope you are going to have a word with him regarding that! :-X


----------



## infin8ti (May 9, 2014)

Thanks for taking the time to do the comparisons. It is interesting that the color differences are much closer in the RAW comparisons. It is possible that the lack of a specific lens profile for the Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART affected the color rendition in Lightroom? I definitely prefer more neutral colors of the 1.2L compared to the Sigma . I was leaning towards the 1.2L but after seeing the RAW comparisons , I'm not so sure anymore.

It would be great if you can experiment with portraits. It would be interesting to see the differences in skin tones between the lenses.


----------



## sanj (May 9, 2014)

Dog! I am officially blind now. Cant see any worthwhile difference. Am lying. Hardly can see any difference.


----------



## mackguyver (May 9, 2014)

Thank you for your continued contributions to the Sigma v Canon debate  I'm glad these shots are closer to each other and the Tivo LEDs now match in size, so that and some of the other details make this more useful.

Now that you've had both lenses together for a little while, can you comment on the ergonomics of using them? I realize this is a lot more subjective, but how does the Sigma's weight and balance (front or back heavy, balanced?) feel in hand? Which one is more enjoyable to use? If the IQ was exactly the same, which one would you prefer?


----------



## infared (May 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Thank you for your continued contributions to the Sigma v Canon debate  I'm glad these shots are closer to each other and the Tivo LEDs now match in size, so that and some of the other details make this more useful.
> 
> Now that you've had both lenses together for a little while, can you comment on the ergonomics of using them? I realize this is a lot more subjective, but how does the Sigma's weight and balance (front or back heavy, balanced?) feel in hand? Which one is more enjoyable to use? If the IQ was exactly the same, which one would you prefer?



I read somewhere that if you want to manual focus the lens that the Sigma is a JOY to use and that the Canon handled like "a greased pig". Which would you rather hold?? I am guessing that the focus on the Canon (I have never used one), is like the manual focus on my 85L. It makes me nervous to even hold the lens (I do love that lens)..because the focus ring just spins...there is no damping....if the Sigma is like my Sigma 35...it would be MUCH more stable in the hand for general use compared to the Canon, no?


----------



## mackguyver (May 9, 2014)

infared said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for your continued contributions to the Sigma v Canon debate  I'm glad these shots are closer to each other and the Tivo LEDs now match in size, so that and some of the other details make this more useful.
> ...


I saw that, too (here), but I think "greased pig" might be a bit hyperbolic (as is Roger's style), because that would mean that nearly all L lenses are greased pigs. The 85L with it's focus-by-wire does suck (I don't fool with it all and actually disable it in my 5DIII and 1D X), but the 50L is a mechanical focus just like the 24-70, 70-200, etc. The TS-E lenses and 180L macro have smoother focus mechanisms than most Canon's, but none of them match Zeiss or other "fine" lenses. I was asking Jason for his opinion because he's not a silly guy like Roger (who's stuff I like, btw).


----------



## rocksubculture (May 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Now that you've had both lenses together for a little while, can you comment on the ergonomics of using them? I realize this is a lot more subjective, but how does the Sigma's weight and balance (front or back heavy, balanced?) feel in hand? Which one is more enjoyable to use? If the IQ was exactly the same, which one would you prefer?



In terms of ergonomics only, I would chose the Sigma for more action kind of photography - feels much more rugged and gives you more to work with. The Canon maybe for portraits or stealthy street stuff, since it is really short. Overall I prefer the ergonomics of the Sigma, but I don't mind big/heavy lenses (not that it is really, just compared to the Canon). Probably my two all-time favorite lenses are the Canon 70-200 2.8 II (and obviously that is a big and heavy lens) and the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art. So I don't really have a brand bias. For me it's matching what a lens can do for the kind if photography I do. 

Jason


----------



## mackguyver (May 9, 2014)

rocksubculture said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Now that you've had both lenses together for a little while, can you comment on the ergonomics of using them? I realize this is a lot more subjective, but how does the Sigma's weight and balance (front or back heavy, balanced?) feel in hand? Which one is more enjoyable to use? If the IQ was exactly the same, which one would you prefer?
> ...


Thanks for sharing your thoughts and I guess I owe it to myself to check out the Sigma.


----------

