Sigma 50mm f1.4 - results!

[AnnaV]

Got it for Christmas after a big Nikon/Sigma debate. Really, really pleased with it!

Took it out for a couple of hours yesterday and got these shots, not very exciting but thought it would give you an idea.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/4222909774_0104435c16.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2596/4222897526_9065cbf15a.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2585/4222894192_fcf09dff40.jpg

[woof woof]

Great stuff.

I wouldn't be without mine.

[sbowler579]

Tis a fine little lens, eye.:thumbs:

[micloi]

Lovely lens, I used to have the Canon 50mm 1.4 but the Sigma is better!

[AnnaV]

Feels lovely and solid too, quick focusing and surprisingly sharp even wide open. Very happy :thumbs:

[Hope]

I just bought a 50mm 1.8, you think there will be much difference?

[daugirdas]

I just bought a 50mm 1.8, you think there will be much difference?

Sorry to spoil you purchase, yes - there will be much difference. You can work round it (shoot past f/2.8, avoid busy backgrounds with bright lights, refocus and reshoot several times each frame). It is 8x cheaper though.

[AnnaV]

It is 8x cheaper though.

You can't have everything ;)

[Motogp]

Nice, enjoy your christmas present.:)

[Hope]

Sorry to spoil you purchase, yes - there will be much difference. You can work round it (shoot past f/2.8, avoid busy backgrounds with bright lights, refocus and reshoot several times each frame). It is 8x cheaper though.

All because of 0.4 aperture?

I can get the Canon 1.4 for not much more

[boyfalldown]

All because of 0.4 aperture?

I can get the Canon 1.4 for not much more


8x the cost is a bit of an exgageration. Maybe 3 times for the Nikon versions -but there's also a lot of other things to consider - sure the 1.8 isn't as good as the 1.4 but there are a couple of other differences between the lens as well. The (Nikon agin) 1.4 is a newer lens, so has improved coatings and AF as well as the extra apperture, but tbh its a bit up in the air if the extra is worth spending, only you can decide that and despite what was said to you then the 1.8 is a great lens. If you need or want the extra then its worth spending for th 1.4 if you don't or aren't sure then its probably not.

[daugirdas]

All because of 0.4 aperture?

I can get the Canon 1.4 for not much more

No, Leica-R 50mm f2.0 is as good as it gets. The problems with Canon are 5 bladed aperture, cheap optics, poor focusing accuracy, and cheap build.

[specialman]

....The problems with Canon are....

....the letters C A N O N on the plastic ;);)

[AnnaV]

....the letters C A N O N on the plastic ;);)

:lol: very naughty



Seriously though, I tried the Nikon 1.4, 1.8 and the Sigma 1.4 and the Sigma's build was better (although bigger), I felt it was sharper wide open and the bokeh looked a bit nicer on my very quick shop test.

The 1.8 also wouldn't AF on my D40, so that was a major consideration - also I love taking portraits so I really felt it would be a lens I would use a lot and that would justify the extra aperture, IQ etc for the 1.4, even once I upgrade to a body that the 1.8 would AF with.

I am really enjoying the focal length too and am actually finding composing shots easier, whereas I imagined it would be more difficult. Anyway, I am in love with it :love:

[Meeten]

I just bought a 50mm 1.8, you think there will be much difference?

For a Canon ....

I had the 50mm 1.8 MkII and for the price it was a cracking lens.
Moved to a Mk I as the build quality was better (metal mount)

Upgraded (approx 4 times cost) and now using the Sigma 50mm 1.4.

Build quality MILES better (than the MkII) and it is a substantially larger lens, with more blades, and subsequently a better bokeh.

For the money, the 1.8 is great, but this forum is like heroin, so getting the next hit is even better (I do not condone hte use of hard drugs - money wated on camera equipement!!) :bonk:

[specialman]

:lol: very naughty

I know - just couldn't resist it though. Back to serious business now - don't let fools like me get in the way.... :D

It is making interesting reading though that the Siggy is a better prime. Have to say though, in terms of build quality, I think both Nikon and Canon's f/1.8 fifties are pretty shambolic. Does Sigma do a fast 85mm of similar quality?....

[boyfalldown]

I know - just couldn't resist it though. Back to serious business now - don't let fools like me get in the way.... :D

It is making interesting reading though that the Siggy is a better prime. Have to say though, in terms of build quality, I think both Nikon and Canon's f/1.8 fifties are pretty shambolic. Does Sigma do a fast 85mm of similar quality?....

nope afraid not. Interesting thread though - I went for the Nikon over the Sigma for exactly the same reasons as Anna went for the Sigma

[boyfalldown]

duplicate post