What is the best 50mm lens

[woof woof]

If you head over to lens rentals, Roger has done a test of the best 50's out there and included the sigma Art and the Zeiss Otus.

What surprised me was that the Sigma Art was better than the Zeiss Otus from F2.

What really surprised me was how 'poor' (and all things are relative!) the Sigma Art lens is when you compare it to a lens beginning with 'L' and I don't mean Canon L.

Are you thinking about the £7,000 Leica lens?

What they say...
"I think it’s pretty cool that two SLR lenses are able to hang right there with the f/1.4 Leica lens, the Summilux. Price-wise, you would hope the Otus would, but certainly the Sigma, one of the least expensive lenses in the test, has to take honors for hanging with the best at a tiny fraction of their price.

I think this is the important take home point of this type of testing. If we just looked at the MTF50 numbers in the first part of the article the Summilux probably seemed the best of the three. It had higher MTF 50 numbers in the center, middle, and edges of the lens, although it also had higher astigmatism. Looking at the MTF curves with a slightly different test, the case isn’t quite as clear and you could certainly make an argument that you preferred any of the three lenses."

Personally I think it's rather sobering that spending an extra £6,000 doesn't buy you something that completely blows the "cheapo" alternative away.

 

[BillN_33]

Are you thinking about the £7,000 Leica lens?

What they say...
"I think it’s pretty cool that two SLR lenses are able to hang right there with the f/1.4 Leica lens, the Summilux. Price-wise, you would hope the Otus would, but certainly the Sigma, one of the least expensive lenses in the test, has to take honors for hanging with the best at a tiny fraction of their price.

I think this is the important take home point of this type of testing. If we just looked at the MTF50 numbers in the first part of the article the Summilux probably seemed the best of the three. It had higher MTF 50 numbers in the center, middle, and edges of the lens, although it also had higher astigmatism. Looking at the MTF curves with a slightly different test, the case isn’t quite as clear and you could certainly make an argument that you preferred any of the three lenses."

Personally I think it's rather sobering that spending an extra £6,000 doesn't buy you something that completely blows the "cheapo" alternative away.

Always the Law of Diminishing Returns once you start spending "big" money

 

[Laudrup]

Digital Picture compared the Sigma and the Zeiss here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=941&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[Brazo]

Are you thinking about the £7,000 Leica lens?

What they say...
"I think it’s pretty cool that two SLR lenses are able to hang right there with the f/1.4 Leica lens, the Summilux. Price-wise, you would hope the Otus would, but certainly the Sigma, one of the least expensive lenses in the test, has to take honors for hanging with the best at a tiny fraction of their price.

I think this is the important take home point of this type of testing. If we just looked at the MTF50 numbers in the first part of the article the Summilux probably seemed the best of the three. It had higher MTF 50 numbers in the center, middle, and edges of the lens, although it also had higher astigmatism. Looking at the MTF curves with a slightly different test, the case isn’t quite as clear and you could certainly make an argument that you preferred any of the three lenses."

Personally I think it's rather sobering that spending an extra £6,000 doesn't buy you something that completely blows the "cheapo" alternative away.

If its the Leica F2 summi(something) then yeah! My post was somewhat tongue in cheek as tbh I didn't know there was a lens that offered a good chunk higher mtf numbers than either zeiss or sigma, and yeah I would buy the Sigma! (actually i'm quite happy with my £100 Minolta 50mm 2.8 macro!!!

 

[Brazo]

Digital Picture compared the Sigma and the Zeiss here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=941&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Thats an interesting comparison, would have been better on the Nikon D800E though

 

[ndwgolf]

If you want the absolute best image quality the Zeiss Otus, if you want the fastest the Canin 50mm f/1.0 and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART if you want the best autofocus 50mm.

+1 for the Otus

 

[Yellowbelly]

All my lenses (and I own several) are Canon L's. EXCEPT I plumped for the Sigma 1.4 ART having read many reviews. (I don't part with my paper readily).

Quite simply the Sigma is superb in all respects. I have never regretted buying it for one moment. The resolution is simply the best of any lens I have owned and the build quality is as good if not better than Canon IMHO.

I was holding off buying a 50mm prime as I had read so many mediocre reviews of the Canon offerings so this lens was a breath of fresh air. Watch out Canon, the wolves are snapping at your heels.

 

[andyred]

Quite simply the Sigma is superb in all respects. I have never regretted buying it for one moment. The resolution is simply the best of any lens I have owned and the build quality is as good if not better than Canon IMHO.

Yes I've heard very good things about the new Sigma lens. Good to have another positive (or very positive ) opinion on it.

Hopefully the price will come down some and I'll be able to afford one