Canon EF 50mm 1.4 USM OR Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX DG HSM

[corneliustoh]

canon
1) lighter, more compact
2) lower price
3) good IQ

sigma
1) better bokeh
2) heavier and chuckier
3) slightly more expensive
4) sharper wide open

 

[ant0800]

I am also in a similar situation... currently on Canon EF 50F1.8II and shoot quite alot of portraits (especially kids) and found that although the shots are good... felt its not sharp enough... as I am a newbie to photography, some friends have advised me to change to a F/1.4 for better results... any comments?

 

[Malicious]

the sigma hands down if you have the cash. it is sharper wide open has a 77mm filter thread which allows you to share your filters with other lenses.

 

[gigahz]

Get Sigma, Canon 50mm 1.4 is really old.

 

[Trickster]

Good day to all.

Been considering looking into purchasing a new prime medium telephoto lens and have sorted my choices between a Canon 50mm 1.4 USM v.s. a Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX DG HGM.

Not on my list is the Canon 50mm 1.2L USM (its out of my budget) and the Sigma 85mm 1.4 HGM (its too telephoto for me).

Which one do you think is the better choice? Here in Manila, a Canon 50mm 1.4 HSM is cheaper than the Sigma 1.4 HGM. Why is this so? Is it because the Canon 50mm 1.4 is not in the L series and an old issue?

Would really appreciate some tips and suggestions. By the way, my camera is a Canon 550D.

Thanks in advance guys.

The Sigma does cost more than the Canon. After testing both I bought the Sigma, it's way sharper and the bokeh is simply delicious. But you may have to calibrate the Sigma though.

 

[apcaw]

I am also in a similar situation... currently on Canon EF 50F1.8II and shoot quite alot of portraits (especially kids) and found that although the shots are good... felt its not sharp enough... as I am a newbie to photography, some friends have advised me to change to a F/1.4 for better results... any comments?

I have the same problem. I'm using the canon 50mm 1.8 and find the sharpness really bad. 1.2 is sssooo expensive and that's why I was considering sigma as a contender. I was figuring that the canon 50 mm 1.8 wouldn't have that much of a difference to the 1.4. That's why I started the question.

Can we now discuss as to the sharpness of the two lenses?

 

[ant0800]

I have the same problem. I'm using the canon 50mm 1.8 and find the sharpness really bad. 1.2 is sssooo expensive and that's why I was considering sigma as a contender. I was figuring that the canon 50 mm 1.8 wouldn't have that much of a difference to the 1.4. That's why I started the question.

Can we now discuss as to the sharpness of the two lenses?

agree... can we have some comments between Canon EF 50mm 1.4 USM and Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX DG HSM... some photo comparisons would be great... :embrass:

 

[gerardo12]

Guys, I was in the same situation as you. However, what I did was I went up to flickr to do search on photos taken by both lens. Also went to overseas forums to see people post their pics. I can tell you it can get confusing at times.

Why is that so? Well because I get to see excellent pics from both lens. Alot of people actually thrashed the 50 f1.4. But I was amazed at some of the excellent pictures produced by this lens posted by many people. The Sigma one does have a more creamy bokeh though. Both are able to produce sharp pics.

End of the day, I believe both copies are capable in their own ways. In choosing a lens, just need to choose one that you are comfortable with. I think for people like us who still needs to ask for opinion, the safer way is to get the cheaper version and to abuse the lens till we find that it cannot meet our demand any longer. By then, our skill level is improved, and we may even be able to take good pictures with the nifty-fifty.

For me though, after going through all, I have decided to forgo the 50mm FL and to go for a wider and longer prime.

 

[An drew]

Alot of people actually thrashed the 50 f1.4. But I was amazed at some of the excellent pictures produced by this lens posted by many people.

I don't think there is any lousy 50mm lens being produced nowadays. All 50mms are good, the question is how good. People are thrashing the EF50 1.4 because the game has moved ahead, with better AF, bokeh, etc. and we want Canon to refresh the EF50 which came out in June 1993, almost 18 years ago. So that we don't have to sell a kidney to get the 50L.

 

[Minglink]

I don't think there is any lousy 50mm lens being produced nowadays. All 50mms are good, the question is how good. People are thrashing the EF50 1.4 because the game has moved ahead, with better AF, bokeh, etc. and we want Canon to refresh the EF50 which came out in June 1993, almost 18 years ago. So that we don't have to sell a kidney to get the 50L.

I totally agree with your saying...

Own the Sigma 50mm f14 for a few months but sold it due to the Bf/FF issue even after calibration.

I myself is using a very old Nikon 50mm pre AI f.14 lens via adaptor on my 5D. I enjoy using it till now...

 

[nabelrock]

Sigma's 50mm f1.4 does seem to have focusing issues on subjects at varying distances from the shooter, acurately sharp < 3m and Front/Back Focused at > 3m.

IMHO, the lack of sharpness of the EF 50 f1.4 when shooting wide open can be resolved during post, its not even horrible to start with its just that the Sigma is really tack sharp when it hits the focus spot on. But when you get a Front/Back focused shot its a dead end.

The Sigma one can be really great as long as you work keeping in mind it's weakness.

 

[Anthony Lee]

I love my current OM 50f1.4 with s/no greater than 1.1 mil. I have tried Canon 50f1.4, 50f1.8, Sigma 50f1.4, Zeiss ZE 50f1.4, Zeiss C/Y 50f1.4, 50f1.7, Leica Sumicron F2, Nikkor 50f1.4 AiS, Pentacon 50f1.8, Pentax SMC Tak 50f1.4 and Mamiya 55f1.4. I will be testing out the OM 50f1.2 and the Nikkor 50f1.2 AiS to see whether they are that much better than my current OM 50f1.4. IMHO, the differences are very minute, but all of them render differently. You need to use each for a short while, and if one can click with you, keep it until the next one comes along. So, the best way is not to ask for others' opinion, but try it out yourself. If you insist on AF your choices are then limitted.

 

[apcaw]

I was able to go through another forum and read a thread about people really hating the Sigma but another thread really loving the Sigma over the Canon.

One thing is common, though, that users have recognized that the Sigma has focusing problems and its AF is not up to their expectations. Here are some of the things I gathered so far:

Some suggest using MF when using Sigma 1.4.
Sigma 1.4 produces a sharper image at around 1.8 to 2 (but what is the point in buying a 1.4 right?)
Canon's AF is better than its sigma's counterpart
Sigma produces better brokeh than canon's.
Some suggest that if your camera has micro-adjusting, sigma won't be a problem (but I have a 550D which doesn't have MA :-()
Some suggests always using a tripod to get sharp images (whether using canon's or sigma's)
Canon's 50mm 1.4 is older than Sigma's

What do you guys think? After all these, which one should I get? I don't have the luxury of buying a lens and later on selling it if I'm not happy. Selling second lenses is not easy in my country. I also don't have the luxury to test lenses since shops here don't allow it.

 

[AbsolutKev]

I don't think there is any lousy 50mm lens being produced nowadays. All 50mms are good, the question is how good. People are thrashing the EF50 1.4 because the game has moved ahead, with better AF, bokeh, etc. and we want Canon to refresh the EF50 which came out in June 1993, almost 18 years ago. So that we don't have to sell a kidney to get the 50L.

Dude!!! Y didnt i think of that??? How much do u thin my kidney can fetch??? Haha, nice description though...

Btw, the canon 50mm f1.4 is an ambassador for the company... In advert, they paired it up with many of their pro bodies like 5dmkii n 1d series. That is not saying that it s a great lens but somehow it can still deliver. If its a lousy lens then they r shooting their foot if they pair it up with the pro body... Im using it myself n so far, so good. But rent it n try it for urself.

 

[AbsolutKev]

Dude!!! Y didnt i think of that??? How much do u thin my kidney can fetch??? Haha, nice description though...

Btw, the canon 50mm f1.4 is an ambassador for the company... In advert, they paired it up with many of their pro bodies like 5dmkii n 1d series. That is not saying that it s a great lens but somehow it can still deliver. If its a lousy lens then they r shooting their foot if they pair it up with the pro body... Im using it myself n so far, so good. But rent it n try it for urself.

If u dun wanna rent, buy one from bns to try. If u dun like it then sell immediately for same price

 

[An drew]

I will be testing out the OM 50f1.2 and the Nikkor 50f1.2 AiS to see whether they are that much better than my current OM 50f1.4. IMHO, the differences are very minute, but all of them render differently.

I use the Nikkor 50 1.2 AIS and it is probably my favorite 50mm, it is certainly a very good lens but having seen your OM 50 1.4 pic, I don't think it is better/sharper.

 

[Anthony Lee]

I use the Nikkor 50 1.2 AIS and it is probably my favorite 50mm, it is certainly a very good lens but having seen your OM 50 1.4 pic, I don't think it is better/sharper.

My current OM 50f1.4 is my 3rd copy. So you think it's as good as the Nikkor 50f1.2 AiS. My other favorite is the Zeiss CY 50f1.7 and I may get it back someday. At one time I kept more than one copy of each because of copy variations. My greatest regret was to give up 2 of my M42, an SMC Takumar 50f1.4 and a Mamiya Sekor 55f1.4 because of 5D's morror problem. All these lens are truly value for money. Thanks for your kind comments anyway.

Sorry guys for straying a little bit.

 

[nottipiglet]

Sigma's 50mm f1.4 does seem to have focusing issues on subjects at varying distances from the shooter, acurately sharp < 3m and Front/Back Focused at > 3m.
QUOTE]

I was really interested in this lens... however, I read that it suffers from 'focus shift' when stepping down:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/392-sigma_50_14_canon

From the report, it appears that the subject will still be within the focus zone because the DOF widens as you step down. However, the focus zone extends backwards as you step down, and more and more area behind the subject becomes sharp.

As the subject is still in the focus zone, it should not be a real problem for most. However, I imagine myself using such a lens... and I imagine the DOF extending backwards when I step down... and I think I really don't want to have such a problem. Basically, there are enough variables to worry about when we shoot, I don't think I want to worry about where the focus zone is at particular f/stops.

... so I got the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 instead.

 

[nabelrock]

Sigma's 50mm f1.4 does seem to have focusing issues on subjects at varying distances from the shooter, acurately sharp < 3m and Front/Back Focused at > 3m.
QUOTE]

I was really interested in this lens... however, I read that it suffers from 'focus shift' when stepping down:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/392-sigma_50_14_canon

From the report, it appears that the subject will still be within the focus zone because the DOF widens as you step down. However, the focus zone extends backwards as you step down, and more and more area behind the subject becomes sharp.

As the subject is still in the focus zone, it should not be a real problem for most. However, I imagine myself using such a lens... and I imagine the DOF extending backwards when I step down... and I think I really don't want to have such a problem. Basically, there are enough variables to worry about when we shoot, I don't think I want to worry about where the focus zone is at particular f/stops.

... so I got the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 instead.

yep, where degradation of sharpness is all you have to worry about, and can be decently resolved during PP. Where as when you get a front/back focused shot, I don't know if you can do anything about it to make it look decent enough...

 

[AbsolutKev]

yep, where degradation of sharpness is all you have to worry about, and can be decently resolved during PP. Where as when you get a front/back focused shot, I don't know if you can do anything about it to make it look decent enough...

Yeah, f1.4 dof is so shallow that if u miss it.... Its gone