50mm canon vs Sigma - Guess the pic

The first one is also a little brighter, which will give the appearance of more vibrant colours.
 
I had a new subject come home very tired from swimming,

wasn't disappointed with this result at 2.8 with flash.

4926521342_cc0d8d9c6c_b.jpg


4926521782_a105554953_b.jpg
 
I don't know about that, the lens now seems to have a strange artifact whereby two vertical bars have been added to the image.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA
Thanks joe.
this thread has redeemed my honour!! OEM is ALWAYS better. MU-ha-ha-ha-ha

Interestingly th canon seems to show some CA at the edges of the black nose and al;ong the hotspot on the crystal ball?1
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
I had a new subject come home very tired from swimming,

wasn't disappointed with this result at 2.8 with flash.

4926521342_cc0d8d9c6c_b.jpg


4926521782_a105554953_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with that one. Could it have been that although tripod mounted, something interfered with the first one? At 1/13 th slightest gust from a nearby doorway could have maybe contributed :shrug:
 
Dman said:
Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with that one. Could it have been that although tripod mounted, something interfered with the first one? At 1/13 th slightest gust from a nearby doorway could have maybe contributed :shrug:
Click to expand...

I doubt that, I took lots from 1.4 to 4 and all were softer than the canon. 'm gonna keep testing with different subjects.

particularly comparing against the 1.8. I'll keep this thread updated of my thoughts over the next few days before I decide whether to keep the lens or send it away.
 
Have you tried using Live View and Live AF in order to eliminate AF calibration errors? At least that way you can make valid comparisons of the optical quality. If you're using regular AF then I think there is potentially too much variance in performance from shot to shot to make critical judgements with shallow DOF, even if the AF has been microadjusted.

I understand the AF calibration needs to be right as well, but AF performance is one thing and optical quality is another. Don't let problems with one thing confuse assessment of the other.

But apart from looking for sharpness, do pay attention to things like bokeh, distortion, contrast and colour as well. The bokeh on the nifty gets pretty unappealing as you stop down, unless you like pentagon shaped highlights rather than smooth, rounded orbs. I like smooth, rounded orbs, myself.
 
tdodd said:
Have you tried using Live View and Live AF in order to eliminate AF calibration errors? At least that way you can make valid comparisons of the optical quality. If you're using regular AF then I think there is potentially too much variance in performance from shot to shot to make critical judgements with shallow DOF, even if the AF has been microadjusted.

I understand the AF calibration needs to be right as well, but AF performance is one thing and optical quality is another. Don't let problems with one thing confuse assessment of the other.

But apart from looking for sharpness, do pay attention to things like bokeh, distortion, contrast and colour as well. The bokeh on the nifty gets pretty unappealing as you stop down, unless you like pentagon shaped highlights rather than smooth, rounded orbs. I like smooth, rounded orbs, myself.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did this with the hula hoop shot because by that stage I could see there was an issue with the focus.

The results I think were pretty even on the hula hoops, they certainly weren't any sharper from the sigma, but it seemed the colour rendition was better.
 
Joe, several threads have come recently about the sigma 50 1.4 and every time I've advised people to stick with the Canon or Nikon equivalent. The Sigma was atrocious on the copy I had and it seems there are plenty of others out there who have seen similar dire copies.

Stick with the Canon one :)
 
joescrivens said:
Yes, I did this with the hula hoop shot because by that stage I could see there was an issue with the focus.

The results I think were pretty even on the hula hoops, they certainly weren't any sharper from the sigma, but it seemed the colour rendition was better.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. You said you used manual focus, but not that you were also using Live AF to assist with focusing perfection. If you were focusing manually through the viewfinder I would put no particular faith in such results. I also actually meant Live AF , which is the contrast detect AF mode, and should result in perfect focus, free from any calibration errors, but manual focus in Live View at 10X magnification should be OK too.
 
tdodd said:
Fair enough. You said you used manual focus, but not that you were also using Live AF to assist with focusing perfection. If you were focusing manually through the viewfinder I would put no particular faith in such results. I also actually meant Live AF , which is the contrast detect AF mode, and should result in perfect focus, free from any calibration errors, but manual focus in Live View at 10X magnification should be OK too.
Click to expand...

yes it was live view manual focus x 10 that i did, sory didnt explain that very well.
 
ryanyboy said:
Joe, several threads have come recently about the sigma 50 1.4 and every time I've advised people to stick with the Canon or Nikon equivalent. The Sigma was atrocious on the copy I had and it seems there are plenty of others out there who have seen similar dire copies.

Stick with the Canon one :)
Click to expand...

thanks ryan,

I have seen mixed results though now to be honest, i'll keep testing and then send back if its poor!
 
ryanyboy said:
Joe, several threads have come recently about the sigma 50 1.4 and every time I've advised people to stick with the Canon or Nikon equivalent. The Sigma was atrocious on the copy I had and it seems there are plenty of others out there who have seen similar dire copies.

Stick with the Canon one :)
Click to expand...

The Canon one is hardly remarkable either.
 
neil_g said:
why not send it to be calibrated if its out? like i say once its good its very good.
Click to expand...

well yes, if I feel it is good and it's just off on the af i will do that.

but if I feel like it's only a little bit better than the results from my 1.8 then I wouldn't imagine I'd justify the extra cost.
 
trencheel303 said:
The Canon one is hardly remarkable either.
Click to expand...

yeah, but the canon one costs a quarter of the price!

I bet if i put an image up from my 50mm 1.8 and i put one up from my 85mm 1.8 you wouldn't be able to pick which was which
 
joescrivens said:
yeah, but the canon one costs a quarter of the price!

I bet if i put an image up from my 50mm 1.8 and i put one up from my 85mm 1.8 you wouldn't be able to pick which was which
Click to expand...

50mm 1.8 has horrible looking bokeh while the 85mm 1.8 looks nice and dreamy.
 
that, and the perspective difference would be a dead giveaway.
 
i would have guessed top one siggy........... even though the results are out.

Why do yuo say disappointingly so, or am i going blind / is my monitor fubarred?
 
trencheel303 said:
that, and the perspective difference would be a dead giveaway.
Click to expand...
There would be no perspective (or framing) difference when shooting a flat subject, or if shooting from identical positions and cropping the 50mm shot to match the FOV of the 85mm lens.
 
tdodd said:
There would be no perspective (or framing) difference when shooting a flat subject, or if shooting from identical positions and cropping the 50mm shot to match the FOV of the 85mm lens.
Click to expand...

true, but in two 'real world' shots from the lenses I am fairly confident I could tell them apart.
 
trencheel303 said:
true, but in two 'real world' shots from the lenses I am fairly confident I could tell them apart.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course, but when the challenger is confident that he/she can tell the difference then it is the job of the challengee to make the job as hard as possible, without cheating, naturally. :)
 
I've got both the Sigma 1.4 and the Canon 1.8 too. The Sigma is much sharper, but I've entirely given up on using AF on it, I don't think it has ever nailed one dead one when it is wide open. Manual though, with Liveview, and it's amazing.

C'est la vie.

EDIT: And I got the first pics for that reason too. I just went with the OOF one being the Sigma.
 
When I use my sigma 50 1.4 on my 5D the AF is rubbish and I end up using manual focus, when it is on my 1D the AF is spot on. So I think the camera body matters as well.
 
Okay some more results and I am starting to see better from the sigma after a microadjustment,

take a look at this side by side comparison, left is the sigma - this was at f2

you can see a lot more detail in the lips and the snot around her nose - nice! I applied the same processing to both shots

4928386855_e6cfa814d0_b.jpg


also this was at 1.4

4928984182_7557f6de25_b.jpg


and again at f/2
4928390471_5b3191c326_b.jpg
 
And trenchel,

Here's your challenge, 4 pics, 2 with the nifty fifty, 2 with the 85, stripped the exif, which ones are which - will swap wth the ones that have the exif in after you make your guess. I used the same subject throughout to make it easier for you.

1
4928484535_1bc7763dbd_b.jpg


2
4928484711_1d6c6fa9fc_b.jpg


3
4928484359_68a2c85d65_b.jpg


4
4929079508_8f8469c90d_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
Okay some more results and I am starting to see better from the sigma after a microadjustment,

take a look at this side by side comparison, left is the sigma - this was at f2

you can see a lot more detail in the lips and the snot around her nose - nice! I applied the same processing to both shots

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4078/4928386855_e6cfa814d0_b.jpg

also this was at 1.4

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4928984182_7557f6de25_b.jpg

and again at f/2
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4928390471_5b3191c326_b.jpg
Click to expand...

thats much better :)
 
I guess I was lucky with mine (Sigma) I gave my Canon 1.4 to the wife and we sold her Canon 1.8 the Sigma is way way better than the 1.8 and gives better contrast/colour/bokeh wide open than the Canon(1Ds3), it is also pin sharp. I got it for the 1.4 facility and it has never let me down yet (touch wood) My friend also just got one last week and it is delightful straight from the box on a 1Ds2 which has no MA to fine tune it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top