Canon 50mm 1.4 vs Sigma 50mm 1.4

Recty

Recty

New member
Anyone have experience with both of these lenses? I'm looking to get a good 50mm prime and was either going to go with the canon or the sigma.

I get mixed readings on both, reviews seem to state the canon is a little soft below f/2 and the sigma isnt. I'd be getting the lens primarily to shoot my fish at a low f stop so I can have a high shutter speed and still not have to flash, so if the canon really is a little soft at 1.4 and 1.8 then I'll pay the extra $100 for the sigma.

It would be my first non canon lens but it comes with a lens hood and a carrying case so it almost balances out the extra $100 and then if it's a lot clearer of a lens at a low f stop, that is a no brainer for me.

Anyway, anyone have any input on these two lenses? Or even just one of the lenses?
 
Well, they are both 50mm... so yes, I am getting one, I just cant decide between the Sigma and the Canon :)

Edit - Cool, good to hear from someone with firsthand experience.

Wolverine, do you find your 1.4 is soft at 1.4? Like do you have to shoot at f/2 and higher to get a good crisp picture?

I know all about depth of field and how it would be very difficult to get a real crisp picture at f/1.4 since the subject is most likely not all in the depth of field, but it would be nice if the part that is in the depth of field is crisp and sharp.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15506539#post15506539 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Recty
Wolverine, do you find your 1.4 is soft at 1.4? Like do you have to shoot at f/2 and higher to get a good crisp picture?
Click to expand...

I haven't had any issues with it being too soft. I use it at 1.4-1.8 all the time. I wouldn't be happy with it if I had to go above f/2.
I should also mention that I'm using an XSi; noise can be an issue when I'm shooting at ISO 1600, but that's not dependent on the lens.
 
See, I just never know how much to trust reviews... most of the respected review websites rate the canon F/1.4 as being soft at wide open, almost a dreamy effect they call it. I really wouldnt be happy with that either.

However, the Sigma they rate as not being like that. But they do say the Sigma has problems back focusing, which isnt good... so I cant decide which problem I want to go with, although I think in real world application I probably wont see any of the issues.
 
Well, I went ahead and ordered the Sigma. If nothing else, I like that it comes with a lens hood (woohoo, $40 value!) and a carrying case.

It looks to be a slightly better lens as far as image quality goes at wide open, which is exactly why I'm buying this lens.

I sold my 24-70, btw... I just couldnt justify that much money into the lens. My new 50mm I hope is going to produce as good, if not better, pictures and costs about 40% of the price of the 24-70 AND it will be lighter, shorter and hopefully since I can run it at f/1.4, I'll be able to up my shutter speed on my fish and get crisper, better photos.

We will find out in 3-5 business days!

If it does have focusing issues, I read about one guy sending it in to Sigma and they fixed it. If nothing else, Amazon is great about taking returns that dont meet the buyer's expectations, so I'll just return it if I have to.
 
I never paid attention to the reviews, I knew a few other people who had the lens and loved it (included two professionals in our department, one of whom also uses it as her walk-around lens). I played around with theirs, and really liked it.
 
I paid $1205 for it and sold it for $1050, if it's any of your business :P

All in all, I lost $150 but I got to use a great lens for 8 months, that is under $1 a day rental fees!
 
too late now but I have the Canon 1.4. I haven't seen it be soft even wide open. I'm sure both are good though.
 
I can't imagine selling my 24-70 but I am always interested to hear what they are going for used. That and the stinging fact I contributed to your decision to buy it, I'm glad you didn't get hurt too badly. Cheers on your new lens!! At least you know exactly what you want and why you want it now.
 
One thing to consider when you read a review of a lens that has a big aperture being soft is the depth of field is so thin wide open that just about everything is going to be out of focus. If the lens' autofocus is off by a little bit, the part of the image that is supposed to be in focus will look soft. It is one of the reasons that some of the newer cameras have a micro adjust that you can program for each lens in your bag.

For everyday use though, I don't think you will notice. If you are pixel peeping, then you might get a little annoyed.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15508765#post15508765 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by IPT
too late now but I have the Canon 1.4. I haven't seen it be soft even wide open. I'm sure both are good though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was hoping you would chime in because I knew you had it for your borealis photos, I even looked around for your card you gave me a while ago and I couldnt find it, I was going to call and see how you liked it.

I'm pretty sure I'll be happy with the Sigma, but if not, I've got 30 days to return it and I'll be going with the Canon version :)

Titus, dont feel bad about recommending me that lens. You were correct in everything you said about it :) The 24-70 L is an amazing lens, TOO AMAZING for what I need. I believe this 50mm will take just as good of pictures for about half the price and I'm going to put the rest of the money into some other gear so all in all, it will work out really well.

If they made a 24-70 that did F/1.4 I'd be all over it, but they dont so I'm going with the next best thing :) I spent the last week or so using my 24-70 at the 50mm setting so I could see what it would be like being stuck at 50 and it's just fine, 50mm is a good length for a lot of the stuff I do.

Dendro, agreed. I actually already mentioned that in my 2nd post in this thread ;) I'm looking forward to having a really shallow dof. From what I've read, some of the earlier versions of the Sigma have a little bit of a back focusing issue, but supposedly the newer ones dont and if they do, you can send them in to Sigma to get fixed, or my 50D will compensate for that so either way, I should be good to go.
 
I've considered adding the 50 to my kit just for those extra 2 stops but honestly I could never dream of selling my 24-70 to do it.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15510330#post15510330 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
I've considered adding the 50 to my kit just for those extra 2 stops but honestly I could never dream of selling my 24-70 to do it.
Click to expand...
I hear ya... it took me about a month to make this decision.

You make money at photography, I assume. Your pictures are certainly good enough you should be if you arent :P

I, on the other hand, am about $2500 in the hole... I've only had one paying gig and that was just partially about the camera, the rest was incorporating those photos into a website.

If I ever started making some decent $$$ doing this, I'll probably pick up another 24-70 :) But who knows, I might just like the 50mm so much I stick with it.

I've seen some amazing pictures taken with prime lenses and I just never seemed to be able to duplicate that sharpness with my 24-70, I can get really close but not quite there. I'm hoping it isnt just that I suck and the 50mm wont help me any, but we will find out in a couple weeks ;) The other thing is I want to do some night time photography this winter up here in Alaska and I'm really looking forward to having the f/1.4.

All things considered, it just seemed like the right thing to do to sell the lens, but it was a hard choice. If nothing else, that 24-70 was solid enough if someone ever tried to rob me of my camera it had a built in club attached to kick his keister with... I'll miss the solidness of that lens but this Sigma 50mm is a little over a pound and pretty large compared to the other 50mm lenses, so I'm happy about that. I almost just tried out the 50mm f/1.8 but I dont know that I could have gotten over the cheap plastic feel.
 
I had the Canon 50/1.8 and 50/1.4... wasn't really happy w/ either for various reasons. The Sigma is the way I would go if I did it again.

The only lenses I use any more are my Canon 85/1.8 and 35/1.4, when I finally get my 200/1.8 I will be complete... well maybe :) Still prefer f/4 zooms for travel versatility and light weight.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15510562#post15510562 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
If they made a 24-70 f/1.4 it would cost $10,000!
Click to expand...
I had a dream about 2 weeks ago that I made a lens that fit all SLR cameras and went from very wide angle to very long zoom, had a huge aperture and was image stabilized. VERY sharp pictures.

I was basically an instant billionaire because I was selling it for $2k but it did what you need about $30K worth of lenses to do normally so pretty much everyone purchased it.

It was kind of funny because before I woke up I was glad I had all the money so I could buy some new lenses then I realized I already had the lens I made, which was perfect for all situations, so I didnt need to buy any new lenses and it was somewhat of a letdown actually :) I wanted the thrill of getting a new lens!

That was back when I started really getting serious about wanting to sell my 24-70, I'm sure the dream was induced by that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Calcium very elevated
Replies
3
Views
2K
jcarlilesiu
J
S
AI Blade Grow and Glow help
Replies
5
Views
2K
Sermanley
S
griss
Sicce Pump Question
Replies
13
Views
1K
ironwill723
ironwill723
DRThompson
FMAS Holiday Party Dec 7th, 2024 @2pm
Replies
0
Views
498
DRThompson
DRThompson
Brian60077
Big project starting today......
Replies
7
Views
763
Dustin07
D
Back
Top