Sigma 50mm f1.4

What you need to remember is it's about realising the full potential of the lens. People here can see if the shot is over sharpened so a properly processed image is what's needed but I understand your thining when you posted an un-treated pic.

And I think you're right that opnions count more since photogrpahs are so subjective.

I find the 1.4 does focus a little slowly in low light but I don't often use it under those conditions so it's fine with me.
 
Radiohead said:
...

So I rarely feel like I'm missing out.
Click to expand...

I've seen a lot of what you've done with the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-S, Guy, and I agree, you're not missing out ;).

I own the Sigma and I chose it over the Nikkor purely for the (seemingly) smoother bokeh, but in the hands of a pro (unlike me), both lenses can look equally fantastic :).
 
I am torn between this and the Nikon 50mm f/1.4. My concern with the Nikon is I have heard it is pretty slow to focus, especially when dark.

What I really want is the canon 50mm f/1.2 but it wont fit on my D700 particularly well.
 
It's not as fast as the Sigma Chris, but it's very accurate.

The only time when I can't get it to lock is where there's not enough contrast using an outer point. So not the lens's fault.
 
I can see where Radiohead is coming from. When you're a pro, you don't have time to really have time to faff about with samples.

Saying that, by doing that you can miss out on a fantastic lens and saving a bit of cash too :-)
 
Radiohead said:
It's not as fast as the Sigma Chris, but it's very accurate.

The only time when I can't get it to lock is where there's not enough contrast using an outer point. So not the lens's fault.
Click to expand...

Cheers Guy, I will have to give some thought. It is either upgrade my 50mm to f/1.4 or stash some cash and wait to get an 85mm. At least the Nikon version is marginally cheaper!
 
Photogaz said:
I can see where Radiohead is coming from. When you're a pro, you don't have time to really have time to faff about with samples.

Saying that, by doing that you can miss out on a fantastic lens and saving a bit of cash too :-)
Click to expand...

Well, not in this case :nono:. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 cost more than the Nikkor version, both when we were buying them a year or so ago, and also today!
 
I've only ever had two Sigma lenses. One being the 30 1.4 which was my favourite DX lens (I sold it when I went full frame) and the second being the 10-20 which is now my favourite DX lens!

I bought the Nikon 50 1.4 and absolutely love it. I wasn't going to pay extra for a Sigma version, especially given the QC issues that tend to be the norm with Sigma. And anyone telling Guy he's missing out obviously hasn't seen any of the work he's done with the Nikon, it's on another level.
 
Oops I forgot the Sigma is more expensive in this case. As a Canon user, the sigma is far better. The Nikon may be different.

C'mon, Radiohead makes lenses work beyond spec, that's a unfair comment ;)
 
"And anyone telling Guy he's missing out obviously hasn't seen any of the work he's done with the Nikon, it's on another level."

That was me and it wasn't a comment on anyones skill as a photographer. The comment was only made in consideration of the Siggy being widely regarded as the best of it's type. After all, we've had people here reporting problems with Canon L lenses too but there doesn't seem to be people recommended that we all avoid Canon L lenses in case we get a bad one. :naughty:
 
woof woof said:
"And anyone telling Guy he's missing out obviously hasn't seen any of the work he's done with the Nikon, it's on another level."

That was me and it wasn't a comment on anyones skill as a photographer. The comment was only made in consideration of the Siggy being widely regarded as the best of it's type. After all, we've had people here reporting problems with Canon L lenses too but there doesn't seem to be people recommended that we all avoid Canon L lenses in case we get a bad one. :naughty:
Click to expand...

You missed my point. Given what he gets from his Nikon 50, I doubt he'd ever feel like he's missing out, as he couldn't get much better even with a top drawer copy of the Sigma.

I have heard that the Sigma can be better than the Nikon/Canon equivalents, but like with Tamron, they suffer with the reports of IQ issues, there seems to be far too much inconsistency.
 
If the inconsistencies are indeed real and not a placebo, I suspect it's because of the reverse engineering involved in order to make the third party lenses compatible.
 
How? Once they get one right it's just a case of repeating it. Some Canon lenses suffer from sample variation too. The 24-70 is suppose to be bad!

It's probably down to the lens elements layout and the quality control.
 
"You missed my point"

No I didn't. My point was...oh...never mind, there's no need to carry this on and on and on...
 
Thanks everyone for the kind words about my photography. It's much appreciated.

woof woof - I never read that as aimed at me, so no worries there.
 
Well I've been pondering buying this lens (Sigma that is) since I got my D700.
I've finally decided to get one and have it reserved for collection at Misfuds for tomorrow morning :D

At least if it is duff it's simple enough to drive it back to the shop! Mind you I've owned 5 Sigma lenses and never had an issue with a single one.

Barney
 
Well I'm sold on them. If you can get comparable IQ from a Sigma that's a lot less expensive than a Canon L then why spend the extra just for the status symbol? Trouble is you are never going to know unles you try them for yourself and I have yet to try the Sigma 24-70 2.8 to see if it's worth getting instead of the Canon 24-70 L I had stolen a while ago
 
Barney12 said:
Well I've been pondering buying this lens (Sigma that is) since I got my D700.
I've finally decided to get one and have it reserved for collection at Misfuds for tomorrow morning :D

At least if it is duff it's simple enough to drive it back to the shop! Mind you I've owned 5 Sigma lenses and never had an issue with a single one.

Barney
Click to expand...

New toy time! let us know what you think of it!



AndyB said:
Well I'm sold on them. If you can get comparable IQ from a Sigma that's a lot less expensive than a Canon L then why spend the extra just for the status symbol? Trouble is you are never going to know unles you try them for yourself and I have yet to try the Sigma 24-70 2.8 to see if it's worth getting instead of the Canon 24-70 L I had stolen a while ago
Click to expand...

The Sigma is a horrible lens, I can't see it getting close to the quality of your L.
 
When I brought my Sigma 50 mm f1.4 it was front focusing a little. I sent it to Sigma and they recalibrated it, and got it back to me within a week. Since then it has been perfect.
I have always had excellent service from Sigma UK.
 
Deasy said:
New toy time! let us know what you think of it!

The Sigma is a horrible lens, I can't see it getting close to the quality of your L.
Click to expand...

Are we talking the HSM version? As I've got the HSM and used the Canon and apart from
better build, the Sigma is sharper at the edges!
 
i'm hoping the post lady brings mine tomorrow. won't be too disappointed if not as it looks like weather is going to be horrible. raining so hard here that my sky signal has completely stopped. hasn't done that in a long time, but i digress.

really looking forward to getting it.

Huss1100 - i had a look on your flickr. you've taken some really nice pics with the sigma 1.4 wide open (especially those in wonderful norfolk!!) i really love the bokeh. it's somehow different.
 
Photogaz said:
Are we talking the HSM version? As I've got the HSM and used the Canon and apart from
better build, the Sigma is sharper at the edges!
Click to expand...

That's the question I was going to ask - there are two versions and I know one didn't get very good reviews
 
AndyB said:
That's the question I was going to ask - there are two versions and I know one didn't get very good reviews
Click to expand...

The non HSM version is the old one that didn't get good reviews. The new HSM has had excellent reviews. I've used both and my vote goes to the Sigma. If canon update theirs and IS then I may be interested!
 
I didn't know Sigma had a non HSM fifty. Are you sure you guys aren't thinking of their 24-70?
 
Keep up Trench ;)
 
AndyB said:
That's the question I was going to ask - there are two versions and I know one didn't get very good reviews
Click to expand...

I had the old (non HSM) version and it was pants- horrible. I haven't seen many positive reviews of the HSM version either.

AP did a comparison a while back of the Sony CZ 24-70 vs. the Sigma 24-70 HSM, to my amazement the Sigma was given a positive review! It did make me wonder if the manufacturers are asked to supply a sample lens for the review and are therefore able to hand pick a decent copy. Knowing Sigma they would have to go through a few!
 
They kindly hand pick the ones I buy too. :love: :lol:
 
well, my sigma 50 1.4 arrived today. i'm pretty impressed to be honest. it's much sharper than i was expecting at f1.4 and colour/contrast seems good to me.

here are a few test shots, nothing fantastic i'm afraid - i didn't get home until late and then it started to rain. hopefully i'll have more of a play tomorrow:

f1.4
4905642784_979f6a15e1_b.jpg


100% crop
4905053151_58bd6289e0_b.jpg


f1.4
4905054437_65fc4d096b_b.jpg


f1.4 100% crop
4905645990_c496136fee_b.jpg


f4
4905643958_5462d925a1_b.jpg


f4 100% crop
4905055113_0081cb2984_b.jpg


no sharpening or any other processing performed: raw > png (it seems to have been converted to jpg by flickr)
 
Last edited:
Hey cuthbert,

i'm considering this lens as well. Do you still have your 50mm 1.8

I wonder if you could take a photo of the same subject using both lenses at 1.8 and don't tell us which one is which and see if we can spot the difference?

Im hearing the build quality etc is all better but I want to know how much better the IQ is.
 
I don't have the nifty 1.8 any more, but I do have the very same watering can test shot if i recall, so i'll take a look and put up a comparison shot.

sharpness is probably about the same from 2.8 onwards, below that it seems much better on the Sigma.

More importantly though, colour and contrast seem much better on the Sigma. My nifty always seem to be a bit "milky" and pale compared to the other lenses i own(ed).

I'm hopefully going get out today to use so i'll post some more test shots up later.
 
well Joe, i couldn't find the watering can shot, but here are a few more pics i took today. nothing special, straight raw > png conversion in lightroom. no sharpening/noise reduction etc. ISO was at 400. i took these between 6:30 and 7:30pm this evening... my little girl was tired the light is very dull, but i think they illustrate the sharpness of the lens.

i, personally am very impressed by the sharpness wide open. focussing is much quicker than the nifty fifty also (and a quieter).


f1.8
4908093467_2612aecb89_b.jpg


100% crop
4908094059_fee4381103_b.jpg


f1.4
4908094933_fa538ef3cc_b.jpg


100% crop
4908689622_cb02ce4f82_b.jpg


f1.4
4908690356_77aef58056_b.jpg


100% crop
4908691052_da930ababc_b.jpg
 
f1.4
4908691556_c27d20f953_b.jpg


100% crop
4908692210_4f6c52142e_b.jpg


initial testing seems to indicate that by f2.0 - 2.2 things are actually razor sharp.

this is a great lens.
 
Lovely isn't it. Mine is on my camera :)

PS. I agree that at f2 things are sharp.
 
Last edited:
I've been looking at getting the Sigma 50mm f1.4 as well, I've read nothing but good things about it.

I used to have the Canon 50mm f1.4, I thought it was pretty good but low light focusing was pretty bad on my 5D.

How does the sigma do in low light?
 
@woof woof: i think it's going to go on holiday with me. 50mm is a nice length for a walkaround and it's about half the weight of my 135.

@gaz81: i haven't done extensive low light testing but as you can see from my test pics, the light was pretty dull and it had no problem at all focussing.... so far i have noticed no excessive focus hunting at any time, it's pretty much just like any other decent lens i've owned (100mm f2.8 macro and 135 f2).

i taken a few low light shots indoors with flash/assist light, and again... no problems at all.
 
looks good cuthbert,

I just ordered one and am gonna compare it closely with my 50mm 1.8 tomorrow to decide whether I keep it or not if I think the quality is worth the £280 extra for it.
 
Gaz81 said:
I bought on on fleabay on monday for £289, should have it tomorrow!
Click to expand...

brave man, I hope you get a good copy off the bat. I didn't have the balls to do that with a sigma in case I got a bad copy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top