canon 50mm 1.4 vs sigma 50mm 1.4

stumac

stumac

Messages
3,252
Name
stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
I was just about to buy a Sigma 50mm 1.4 until I bought this months digital camera magazine. In the mag was a review of 50mm primes. I was going to go with the Sigma due to reading on-line reviews and it appeared to come out on top 80% of the time. But in the magazine it is clearly stating that the canon is better in every respect especially and most importantly in sharpness. I dont normally go solely on magazine reviews but this is now thrown a spanner in the works.
Does anybody have any experience of both lenses and if so what do you think?
 
Not on this laptop but I have some shots with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 on a 7D (so 18MP) wide open and it's totally razor sharp at 100% - not sure about the corners but that's rarely an issue as they will normally be totally out of focus anyway.

Never used the Canon to compare but I don't see how it could be sharper. The quality of the bokeh appears nicer on the Sigma to my eyes too on comparing images online from the Canon to my Sigma pics.
 
I myself have never read a review that placed that Canon above the Siggy.

I don't have the Canon 50mm f1.4 but I've tested my Siggy 50mm f1.4 againt my Canon 50mm f2.5 which I've read is Canon's sharpest 50mm and the Siggy is a match for it at all apertures.
 
I agree with everyone here, the sigma 50mm f/1.4 is supposed to be the better lens, sharper and with smoother bokeh.

I've not used the sigma but I have used the canon 50mm f/1.4 and to be honest I didn't think the images it produced were any better than my canon 50mm f/1.8 (though it's built better!).
 
From the comments of a friend who owned both lenses for a short period of time, the Sigma 50/1.4 is obvious better than Canon 50/1.4 at wide open, upto 2.8. can not tell much difference from f/4. Sigma 50mm was observed the edge quality drop. in addition, you need to try it in store to find a good quality Sigma 50mm.
 
I have the 1.4 and have to say its an awesome lens but as people say, the sigma is better it seems.

As for the 1.8 being better, If they were the both the same price then no, but at that price it is possibly worth getting the Canon 1.8 then saving for another lens... the 1.2? ;)
 
Interesting thread. For those just getting into photography it seems the 50mm 1.8 is the stand out lens for the money. Especially for those on a budget
 
Had the Canon1.8 the Canon 1.4 and the Sigma 1.4
Keepng the Sigma, nuff said.
 
neil_g said:
i bought mine blind off ebay.. im MAAAAAD! :wacky:

not really, it was is tack sharp like all my other sigmas :D
Click to expand...

It would be nice if you can post some sample shots.
 
woof woof said:
Not strictly true, that, is it? The prejudice and rumour mongers of internet forums strike again :)
Click to expand...

the first one which my friend tried in the store was focus-shifting, not even sharp at f/4. Second one was just like a different lens. it might not be an issue on newer bodies, but unfortunately my friend's got a 5D mark 1
 
I have the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and it does need a little micro adjust to be accurate, the problem is that it needs a different amount when working at about 1.5-2m from a subject compared to further. I haven't played enough yet to know if I'm missing something or sending it in for calibration.

Boldonian, can you post a few samples so I can see what to expect on full frame? I use a 5D and 5DmkII.
 
Just bought the Sigma (used on ebay - eek but okay) and after a few test shots have no doubt that, to my tastes, it is a way better lens than the Canon 50 f1.4. I was shocked at how much CA there was with my Canon 50 and the Sigma's bokeh is smoother and just plain nicer. May cost a little more, but definitely worth it.

I also have a Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm F1.4 T* that I bought for the E-P1 but also use on the 5D2 and the Siggie seems every bit almost as good. Maybe the Zeiss edges it wide open but as the aperture closes the Sigma seems nicer to me. When I had learned my how to focus properly, the contrast and clarity of the Zeiss edges it for me. Sigma is v good though and your mileage may vary.

Btw, focus on mine is 100% bang on. Mind you, the bloke I bought it from reckoned he had tried 5 of them in the shop and bought the best one.
 
Last edited:
Seems to be the general concensus that the siggy is the way to go.

Would be nice to see some images for us not fortunate to have one to play with yet.

If anybody has both lenses, side by side shots would be great!
 
Don't have the Canon any more but here's one from the Sigma. 1/1250 f2 100 iso.

5624362229_5b0e6ab27a_b.jpg
 
I've had both...

Sigma is larger, heavier, chunkier, better built, includes hood. I personally don't notice much difference in focus speed, bokeh, flaring, CA, vignetting, distortion... all the things that pixel peepers and forum readers obsess about. In real life, for Joe average, other factors influence the pictures more. In addition, if you put your photos through a workflow like I do (LR3), I apply lens correction as default.

I needed to microadjust the lens, which I think is one reason you may not go for Sigma. Also, I think the inclusion of a hood is one reason (as well as the more solid build) that the Sigma fares better than the Canon (which I didn't know how much having a hood would help prevent damage to it - weak body and focus ring).

My flickr stream has sets of both Canon and Sigma f/1.4 lenses - you won't be able to tell the difference tbh.
 
I tried both extensively and I could not see the difference between them! The sigma is "supposedly" sharper in the corners wide open but almost everything I shot wide open with both lenses the corners were completely blurred!! So I opted for the smaller and cheaper option as I really couldn't see the point in spending more money for something I would never notice!! And the canon is quite a bit smaller too!
 
clariasync said:
Seems to be the general concensus that the siggy is the way to go.

Would be nice to see some images for us not fortunate to have one to play with yet.
Click to expand...

Siggy at f8 and f1.4. For each the whole image is followed by a 100% crop.

50-8.jpg


50-8c.jpg


50-1-4.jpg


50-1-4c.jpg


I don't know if it comes across here but I think that these are sharp.
 
clariasync said:
Some nice sharp wedding photos there Grum. Did you use any other lens on the big day?
Click to expand...

Cheers, yup I used the Sigma 85mm 1.4 a lot too which is an incredible lens. I bought a 24-105 f4L and 70-200 2.8L specially for doing weddings and thought they would get the most use but in the end I preferred using the fast Sigma primes most of the time.
 
grum said:
Cheers, yup I used the Sigma 85mm 1.4 a lot too which is an incredible lens. I bought a 24-105 f4L and 70-200 2.8L specially for doing weddings and thought they would get the most use but in the end I preferred using the fast Sigma primes most of the time.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. So you find with using the primes that you have to move a lot, ot do the lengths led themselves well to the surroundings and photo types?
 
I have the Sigma lens but on a Nikon body and what a lens this is. IMHO its one of the best 3rd party 50mm lenses out there
 
Good point Tom. But there's always a use for a fast prime at a wedding. I'm sure either lens will me more than good enough.
 
I know I posted earlier in this thread that I wasn't doing too well with my copy of the Sigma 50mm f1.4. I just wanted to update and say that a little more time messing around with micro AF adjust and it is now working well. I'm really quite impressed by the results that I've now managed to get and looking forward to using it more. I love the quite wide angle (on FF) along with shallow DOF, I used to be a 70-200mm f2.8 man to get a nice shallow DOF but like the new perspective. I am however planning to send it to Sigma to get it so that the AF is spot on as currently it isn't usable on my 5D so don't always want to be limited to the mkII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top