Strange that so many here and other forums are bitchin' about the canon 50mm f/1.4 lens.
I remember during the film days, and even till today, the 50mm f/1.4 is the standard golden baby to be featured together with Canon's mid range and top of the range camera bodies.
I somehow feel back 20-30 years' ago, people really take pictures and enjoy the finer art of photography. With digital, the danger is that we talk photography with our mouths more often than shoot with our eyes.
I also remember the Canon f/1.8 was all praise as the cheap yet sharp lens when I was shooting lots of films in the past. It's favoured by amateurs especially, and even pros used it. The f/1.4 was even better if you could stretch your budget.
Today, we hear amateurs and photography "whiners" who complain and complain, Wooooh, my f/1.8 lens not sharp enough. The f/1.4 wide open too soft. (Do they understand about lenses at all???) These were seldom heard of in the past. Could it be that people today love to study a picture like a microscope and lose the joy of photography? Many stunning pictures were produced in the past with these lenses.
Today, we see L, L, L lenses. All we ever hear is, Buy buy, buy those L lenses. If want a 50mm, go for the 50 f/1.2 if possible. But with what kind of pictures can these photographers show for?
Now, the "in" thing for forummers to do is to whine how bad their Canon 50mm is compared to the Sigma 50mm.
But have you guys considered the real experience of having front and back focusing issues? Sure, some say you can calibrate it. But AFAIK, the QC for Sigma is not good. That's why you get all the various reviews which is so confusing. Why buy a Sigma and then leave it to chance on whether you get a good copy? You want to have headaches and leave the focusing to chance when you should be concentrating on taking pictures?
And have you also considered that the Sigma is heavier, bulkier, and of course, more expensive? With the 50 f/1.8 or 1/4, it's a no brainer. You hardly feel it or realize it's there in your camera bag.
As for bokeh.... well it may be true that the Sigma is "smoother" (and that's if you zoom in close to study it like a pixel scientist), but with all the uncertainties and problems above, is that really a plus point? I don't know of anyone good in photography who judges a picture by its bokeh! That'll be a joke. It's all these internet camera and lens reviews that I find are guilty in misleading us into getting our priorities wrong in photography.
In the time that some common forummers here keep debating whether to get the Sigma or Canon 50mm, or justifying their lenses, lots of photo opportunities are wasted and slipped by. Think about it.
For all you know, those guys in fourms who said they loved their Sigma may not even be true photographers but lens collectors. Just cos its bokeh is good etc doesn't mean the end. They may not have shot enough to encounter the focusing problems that are so prevalent in the Sigma lens. And who knows, maybe by the time you read those outdated reviews, those guys probably would have sold off their Sigma!
So it's really your call. Take the chance and be really happy with your Sigma, or end up with all the bad focusing issues and uncertainties and a heavier bulkier lens which hardly improves your photography by leaps and bounds compared to using Canon's 50mm.
For sure, there are pros and cons in both brands. But whenever I hear one sentence advice "Get the Sigma over Canon", I feel skeptical.
Just feel like rambling today...
Food for thot....
I remember during the film days, and even till today, the 50mm f/1.4 is the standard golden baby to be featured together with Canon's mid range and top of the range camera bodies.
I somehow feel back 20-30 years' ago, people really take pictures and enjoy the finer art of photography. With digital, the danger is that we talk photography with our mouths more often than shoot with our eyes.
I also remember the Canon f/1.8 was all praise as the cheap yet sharp lens when I was shooting lots of films in the past. It's favoured by amateurs especially, and even pros used it. The f/1.4 was even better if you could stretch your budget.
Today, we hear amateurs and photography "whiners" who complain and complain, Wooooh, my f/1.8 lens not sharp enough. The f/1.4 wide open too soft. (Do they understand about lenses at all???) These were seldom heard of in the past. Could it be that people today love to study a picture like a microscope and lose the joy of photography? Many stunning pictures were produced in the past with these lenses.
Today, we see L, L, L lenses. All we ever hear is, Buy buy, buy those L lenses. If want a 50mm, go for the 50 f/1.2 if possible. But with what kind of pictures can these photographers show for?
Now, the "in" thing for forummers to do is to whine how bad their Canon 50mm is compared to the Sigma 50mm.
But have you guys considered the real experience of having front and back focusing issues? Sure, some say you can calibrate it. But AFAIK, the QC for Sigma is not good. That's why you get all the various reviews which is so confusing. Why buy a Sigma and then leave it to chance on whether you get a good copy? You want to have headaches and leave the focusing to chance when you should be concentrating on taking pictures?
And have you also considered that the Sigma is heavier, bulkier, and of course, more expensive? With the 50 f/1.8 or 1/4, it's a no brainer. You hardly feel it or realize it's there in your camera bag.
As for bokeh.... well it may be true that the Sigma is "smoother" (and that's if you zoom in close to study it like a pixel scientist), but with all the uncertainties and problems above, is that really a plus point? I don't know of anyone good in photography who judges a picture by its bokeh! That'll be a joke. It's all these internet camera and lens reviews that I find are guilty in misleading us into getting our priorities wrong in photography.
In the time that some common forummers here keep debating whether to get the Sigma or Canon 50mm, or justifying their lenses, lots of photo opportunities are wasted and slipped by. Think about it.
For all you know, those guys in fourms who said they loved their Sigma may not even be true photographers but lens collectors. Just cos its bokeh is good etc doesn't mean the end. They may not have shot enough to encounter the focusing problems that are so prevalent in the Sigma lens. And who knows, maybe by the time you read those outdated reviews, those guys probably would have sold off their Sigma!
So it's really your call. Take the chance and be really happy with your Sigma, or end up with all the bad focusing issues and uncertainties and a heavier bulkier lens which hardly improves your photography by leaps and bounds compared to using Canon's 50mm.
For sure, there are pros and cons in both brands. But whenever I hear one sentence advice "Get the Sigma over Canon", I feel skeptical.
Just feel like rambling today...
Food for thot....
