# How about Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HS



## leecheeyee (Mar 31, 2012)

Canon 50mm f/1.4 is normal quality. I want to get a new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM. What's your suggestion?


----------



## Joellll (Mar 31, 2012)

I couldn't even afford a Canon version, so I opted for a Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4.

To my surprise it was really good. Unless you really need AF, I think MF lenses are worth trying. The Super Takumar is just half the price of the Canon one.


----------



## DanielG (Mar 31, 2012)

I like the Sigma 50mm 1.4. I debated between the Canon and Sigma for a bit and ended up with the Sigma a while ago.

I didn't use it so much on a crop body but ever since the recent upgrade to full frame I really like shooting with it.

Here is a shot taken with it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/naux54/7009972627/#in/photostream


----------



## ScottyP (Mar 31, 2012)

Joellll said:


> I couldn't even afford a Canon version, so I opted for a Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4.
> 
> To my surprise it was really good. Unless you really need AF, I think MF lenses are worth trying. The Super Takumar is just half the price of the Canon one.


Plus, "Super Takumar" just sounds way cooler than the other two. (ha)


----------



## leecheeyee (Mar 31, 2012)

Thank you. Here is my flickr space. Sorry for all descriptions are Chinese.

www.flickr.com/photos/leecheeyee

Definitely, I am planning buy a EF 50mm f/1.4 or Sigma one.





DanielG said:


> I like the Sigma 50mm 1.4. I debated between the Canon and Sigma for a bit and ended up with the Sigma a while ago.
> 
> I didn't use it so much on a crop body but ever since the recent upgrade to full frame I really like shooting with it.
> 
> ...


----------



## infared (Mar 31, 2012)

I bought my Sigma for use on a Full-Frame 5D Mark II (and soon a 5D III ...LOL!)...I debated between the Canon 50 f/1.4 and the Sigma. I did not consider the Canon 50 f/1.2 because of cost and lack of sharpness wide open, plus I own the 85mm f/1.2 II (awesome lens!) and I thought I had "bought-the-farm" purchasing the 85mm, so I wanted something more cost effective for my 50mm that still offered bokeh when I wanted it. I am generally not a fan of Sigma products but most of my reading said that the lens was extremely sharp and had more pleasing bokeh than the Canon. 
I have been extremely happy with this lens. It performs fine and I can highly recommend it without hesitation. The only thing I could not stand was the shiny gold trim ring out the front of the lens...but some carefully applied pinstripe tape from the local hobby shop...took care of that!!!! ( I have not really experienced any of the autofocusing issues that are documented on the web regarding this lens. ..Keep in mind...wide open ...you have an very narrow DOF, so some images are going to be out...it is just part of the game...)
I love the lens. Here is a still I shot with it on a tripod with the aperture closed down:
http://masters.galleries.dpreview.com.s3.amazonaws.com/1815033.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=14Y3MT0G2J4Y72K3ZXR2&Expires=1333209445&Signature=nFUVHwGEt1bDRnrO6Pm8wTPghdw%3d


----------



## Ninjajack (Mar 31, 2012)

I love it, I shoot on a 60d and also picked up the Sigma 30mm 1.4 thinking it would work better on my crop camera. Without any actually testing or specifics I just feel like the 50mm is sharper and better all around than the 30mm. I've gone back to using the 50mm more and plan on getting a used 5DmII and just leave the 50mm on it all the time


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 31, 2012)

Ninjajack said:


> I've gone back to using the 50mm more and plan on getting a used 5DmII and just leave the 50mm on it all the time



The Sigma 50/1.4 is said to be stellar on crop but to have iq issues on full frame - let us know your experiences after you switch


----------



## smirkypants (Mar 31, 2012)

Love love love this lens. Did a shoot for a magazine ad and brought my 1D4, Siggy 50, a 24-70 I, and a 70-200/2.8 II. They were all outdoor shots. Those shot with the Siggy were my favorite. I was generally shooting at between f2.8 and f8 and the sharpness, color, contrast and out of focus highlights are just phenomenal. (I'd share a couple of photos from the shoot but I can't). 

I never took the lens seriously until to a friend whose work I really admire. Great lens if you get a good copy. Mine front-focuses badly but it's corrected with micro-adjustment.


----------



## ferdi (Apr 1, 2012)

My Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is spot on (no MA needed) but my 50mm has front-focussing issues at f/1.4. I set my cameras to +20 but that was enough, I think it needs about +25. Tried another copy, same issue. I can live with it until I get a Canon 50L although these are still 2,5 times more expensive secondhand than a new Sigma. I definately prefer the Sigma over the Canon f/1.4 I had before because of the bokeh and a better focus ring.


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 1, 2012)

ferdi said:


> My Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is spot on (no MA needed) but my 50mm has front-focussing issues at f/1.4. I set my cameras to +20 but that was enough, I think it needs about +25. Tried another copy, same issue. I can live with it until I get a Canon 50L although these are still 2,5 times more expensive secondhand than a new Sigma. I definately prefer the Sigma over the Canon f/1.4 I had before because of the bokeh and a better focus ring.


Ferdi, I don't know how aggressively you want to tackle the front-focusing issue. If you want, you can set the camera to +5 and the lens to +20 to get to where you need to be. Then you can put a -5 on the rest of your lenses. Your camera should remember each lens.

Inelegant, but it should work.


----------



## dr croubie (Apr 1, 2012)

Joellll said:


> I couldn't even afford a Canon version, so I opted for a Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4.



I started with the EF 50/1.8II, then went to Super Tak 50/1.4 (but now I'm on the FL 55/1.2).
Super Tak is a bit low-contrast at f/1.4, but at f/2.0 it beats the EF 50/1.8 II at f/4.0.
Built like a zeiss, silky-smooth focus, as small as the EF 50/1.8, get a slightly yellowed one and your portraits just look amazing.
You can't do much better for less than $100 if you're a bit patient on ebay.
MF is not for everyone, of course. If you definitely need AF i'd probably be heading Sigma-way for IQ (although the AF isn't very reliable from what i've heard).


----------



## pwp (Apr 1, 2012)

My EF 50 f/1.4 went to eBay and was replaced with the highly rated Sigma 50 f/1.4. 
In hindsight it was largely a wasted exercise, the only real difference is more weight & bulk in my bag. The Sigma is big.

Short answer? They're both competent lenses. If you use polarizing filters on your other Canon lenses, you've probably already got a 77mm filter C-PL. The Sigma takes 77mm. 

Paul Wright


----------



## carlc (Apr 1, 2012)

I love my Sigma 50mm f1.4. It is the only non-Canon glass I own and use it a ton on my 7D. I learned to shoot on manual with this lens!!!


----------



## unkbob (Apr 1, 2012)

Siggy 50 1.4 is a wonderful lens. I used it at a wedding on Friday on a 5D3 and the images were awesome - this was video but I love it for photography as well. I use my 35L a lot more and it's even better, but the 50 is a more flattering focal length.


----------



## ferdi (Apr 1, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> ferdi said:
> 
> 
> > My Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is spot on (no MA needed) but my 50mm has front-focussing issues at f/1.4. I set my cameras to +20 but that was not enough, I think it needs about +25. Tried another copy, same issue. I can live with it until I get a Canon 50L although these are still 2,5 times more expensive secondhand than a new Sigma. I definately prefer the Sigma over the Canon f/1.4 I had before because of the bokeh and a better focus ring.
> ...


The camera (5D2) seems to use only one adjustment option because I can't see any difference between +0/+20 and +20/+20 with the MA-per-lens option active. Likewise, there's no difference between +20/0 and +20/+20 with the global MA option active. Can you tell me how to make this work?


----------



## jrod (Apr 1, 2012)

unkbob said:


> Siggy 50 1.4 is a wonderful lens. I used it at a wedding on Friday on a 5D3 and the images were awesome - this was video but I love it for photography as well. I use my 35L a lot more and it's even better, but the 50 is a more flattering focal length.



Just out of curiosity how was the auto focus performance with the mkIII? I have found little documentation as to which auto-focus points work with the 3rd party lenses. I have been looking into getting this lens, but if the Canon 1.4 works better with my mkIII I will probably go that route.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 1, 2012)

jrod said:


> unkbob said:
> 
> 
> > Siggy 50 1.4 is a wonderful lens. I used it at a wedding on Friday on a 5D3 and the images were awesome - this was video but I love it for photography as well. I use my 35L a lot more and it's even better, but the 50 is a more flattering focal length.
> ...



AF seemed fine, although I haven't done any micro adjustment yet with my 5D3. I never had a problem with the Sigma 50 1.4 with my 5D or 5D2, it was the perfect match. My 50D had AF issues with it for some reason - wasn't fixable with MA, it was just a little unreliable.

Also, I only use the centre focus point right now. That may change with the better performance of the 5D3 AF.

I much prefer the bokeh of the Sigma 50 to the Canon 1.4.


----------



## skitron (Apr 2, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Ninjajack said:
> 
> 
> > I've gone back to using the 50mm more and plan on getting a used 5DmII and just leave the 50mm on it all the time
> ...



I'm a recent "switcher" from a 50D to 5D2 and though I read all the stuff about the Sigma 50 not being any good on FF, I actually found it to be very good. 

And those findings are corroborated when I go to DXO and compare the field maps for the Canon 1.4, Sigma 1.4 and Canon 1.2. You'll see the Sigma is similar to the Canon 1.2 in terms of how sharpness works from center to edge at different f stops and how vignetting works at the different f stops.

Mine is a fairly recent copy and exhibits a small amount of focus shift from 1.4 to 3.2, but small enough to not be relevant with proper AFMA (it needed +5). Mine is also pretty good about locking focus consistently as long as I don't put a filter on it. I had fits with the AF on the 50D when using a B+W MRC IR on it for some reason, have not tested yet with filter on the 5D2. 

I have no desire to change it for something else whether on FF or crop and for me the next lens may be a 135 L.


----------



## iaind (Apr 2, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> Joellll said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't even afford a Canon version, so I opted for a Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4.
> ...



Already had a Zuiko 1.4 so all it cost me was an adaptor and new rear lens cap


----------



## Flake (Apr 2, 2012)

Careful of the Sigma, it's noted for focus shift, where the focus point changes when the lens stops down. It won't be noticed if you shoot wide open or if there's enough DoF, but if you're stopping down to say f/2 then it could be a problem. Those people who don't report issues could be forgetting where they placed the focus point! It all depends on how you shoot as to whether this lens will suit you, but bear in mind that the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a very good lens despite its elderly design.


----------



## skitron (Apr 2, 2012)

Flake said:


> Careful of the Sigma, it's noted for focus shift, where the focus point changes when the lens stops down. It won't be noticed if you shoot wide open or if there's enough DoF, but if you're stopping down to say f/2 then it could be a problem. !



I read all the internet chatter about this as well before I bought mine and decided to take a chance after they'd been out for a while and bottom line is shift was much more pronounced in the early models. Testing a recent one will verify that they don't exhibit anywhere near the shift of the early ones had...mine shows about the same amount of shift as the sigma 85 tested on the photozone.de writeup, which is to say it's present but not much of an issue. Definitely less shift than the Canon 50 1.2....


----------



## woodsiefromtant (Apr 4, 2012)

I got mine about a year ago, then I read about focus problems etc etc (oh no, what have I done?) But I had no problems on my 500D, with my 5D III it is just awesome, very accurate, easily my sharpest lens (over 24-105 f4 & 16-35 f2.8) Beautiful bokeh.


----------



## drjlo (Apr 5, 2012)

pwp said:


> My EF 50 f/1.4 went to eBay and was replaced with the highly rated Sigma 50 f/1.4.
> In hindsight it was largely a wasted exercise, the only real difference is more weight & bulk in my bag. The Sigma is big.



I borrowed a friend's Sigma 50 f/1.4 and did some side-by-side with my Canon 50 f/1.4, and there really wasn't a significant difference worth writing about. However, the Canon is much lighter and smaller  Canon really just needs to release their 50mm f/1.4 MkII with more/rounder aperture blades IMO. And none of this adding IS on short primes and jacking up price business, either.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 5, 2012)

drjlo said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > My EF 50 f/1.4 went to eBay and was replaced with the highly rated Sigma 50 f/1.4.
> ...



What kind of tests did you do? The Canon's bokeh is much sharper. 

And the Sigma is not exactly heavy. In fact it may be my lightest / smallest Canon-fit lens. Being well-built is a plus, for me.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 5, 2012)

unkbob said:


> The Canon's bokeh is much sharper.



If this wasn't a typo: For my lenses, I'd like the bokeh to be blurry, not sharp  ... but concerning the 50/1.8 you are actually correct: due to the few blades the lens shows sharp "artistic" artifacts in the background.


----------



## unkbob (Apr 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> unkbob said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon's bokeh is much sharper.
> ...



Not a typo. I chose the Sigma because the bokeh is softer on the edges, it's like a painting. Canon's 1.4 bokeh is nasty - although not as cheap-looking as the 1.8.


----------



## sweetcancer (Apr 5, 2012)

I still like the unedited raw straight from the camera more on a 5d3 than an unedited raw from d800. Sure, with the d800 you have more room for pp, but with 5d3, you don't need to do much pp.


----------

