Sigma 50mm f1.4 - results!
- Thread starter AnnaV
- Start date
- Messages
- 15,454
- Name
- Steve (Being Kind)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Tis a fine little lens, eye.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,757
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
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.
OP
- Messages
- 473
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 2,218
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
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.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,757
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
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.
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OP
- Messages
- 473
- Edit My Images
- Yes
....the letters C A N O N on the plastic
very naughtySeriously 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
- Messages
- 1,728
- Name
- Meeten
- Edit My Images
- No
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:
- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know - just couldn't resist it though. Back to serious business now - don't let fools like me get in the way....
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?....
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I know - just couldn't resist it though. Back to serious business now - don't let fools like me get in the way....
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
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
duplicate post