Canon 50mm 1.4 vs Sigma 50mm 1.4

[Recty]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15510927#post15510927 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Jacob D
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.

I'm really hoping I like the prime quality... I hear a lot of ranting and raving about how sharp they can be when used correctly.

It seems kind of odd that in this day and age when you can get very nice zooms that are good and sharp that someone would want to use a prime which takes away any kind of focal length adjusting, but I'm going to try it out and see if it fits my style.

My 24-70 was basically a little soft wide open at 2.8, to get a good non flash shot of my fish I needed to be around f/4.

Supposedly this lens is decently sharp at f/1.4, sharp at f/1.8 and anything above f/2 is tack sharp... I'm looking forward to being able to increase my shutter speed and/or decrease my ISO and still take non flash pictures of my fish.

 

[Jacob D]

Well, zooming and physically moving closer/further away produce different results.

That aside, prime lenses have excellent image quality due to their simplicity. They also have size and speed advantages as well as more creative potential so even with today's advanced zoom lenses there are plenty of reasons to use primes.

 

[Tremont]

Just noticed this thread...

I have the Canon 50mm 1.4 prime and I use it very frequently. IMO, it is a bit softer at 1.4 but it still get's the job done @ 1.4 for stuff like astrophotography (which is pretty much the only time I will shoot at f1.4). I also use it all the time just for general time lapse stuff, at higher f-stops. It is also great for video with the 5d mark ii when you are shooting people when you want to blur the background. The cost vs. quality on this lens makes it very worth it imo.

 

[Recty]

The lens just arrived, I wont get to try shooting with it for another 4 or 5 hours though.

I'm a little surprised, when I shake the lens back and forth a little I can hear and feel a slight rattle going on inside. I've never had another lens do that. I would think the prime would have the least amount of moving parts as possible so there should be no rattling at all.

I've never owned a Sigma though, maybe that HSM focusing device just has a slight shake to it.

Has anyone on this board actually owned the Sigma and know that the slight rattle is normal?

 

[dendronepthya]

Eek. I wouldn't be too happy about that, but then again, I've never used that lens, only the Canon 1.4. Does it affect the pictures at all? If it doesn't, I'd say just leave it.

 

[Recty]

I dont know if it effects pictures yet, I am still at work for another 3 hours.

Believe me, if it effected picture quality I would be sending it back immediately

 

[BlueCorn]

Even if it didn't I'd at least be calling tech support and asking if it's normal.

 

[Recty]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15524853#post15524853 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by beerguy
Even if it didn't I'd at least be calling tech support and asking if it's normal.

That's a good idea, no reason not to call I guess.

 

[Recty]

Well their tech support is closed for the day and they dont even have an email address, which seems weird... but I'll give them a call tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'll do some testing tonight and see how it performs.

 

[Recty]

After very minor testing, I like the lens It definitely does a good job of what I wanted it to do. Other people had reported that at F/1.4 it was too blurry to be useful for anything but I dont feel so, here are some examples I took at f/2, all autofocus except one. I did some at f/1.4 but I never did get a good shot, the DOF is so thin it's hard to capture a hungry fish successfully.

I actually think I like the colors this lens reproduces better than I did the Canon 24-70 I just recently sold.

The bokeh is amazing, it's crazy smooth.

Here's just a couple shots I was goofing around with, first shot is f/1.4, second f/4, third f/7.1 and fourth was max at f/16. Notice the bokeh is still pretty good, imo, at f/16 but at f/1.4 it's crazy. The DOF is really thin at f/1.4, that will be hard to work with in the field I think, but I'll rise to the challenge

Anyway, I'm still calling Sigma tomorrow about that slight internal shaking/rattle noise it makes like something is a little loose, but it sure doesnt seem to have affected the performance of the prime at all.

 

[Wolverine]

Yeah, the performance seems fine, but I agree that I'd be nervous about the noise.

 

[Recty]

Here is one I took at F/1.4, this isnt even a crop from the center. Quite a few reviews say that unless your subject is dead center, at f/1.4 there will be a little blur but I dont think so.

It may not be 100% super sharp but it's really good, better than my 24-70 would have done for sure at wide open and this let me put me shoot at 100 ISO and shutter speed of 200.

 

[Recty]

I cant tell you how amazingly much I like this lens...

I have never yet gotten such a sharp photo so easy. I got 3 good ones in about 30 seconds.

Man, I am so glad I got this lens. It's really the perfect lens for fish tank photography as long as you can work with a fixed focal length.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

That f/1.4 shot was neat. You couldn't even tell there was a tank in the background. What was the distance from the food to the tank?

 

[Recty]

I'd say between 13 and 15 feet.

The big aperture certainly does bring on the bokeh.

 

[truthdesigns]

Very nice Recty Shaper than Sharp!!!
The colors are amazing:0)

 

[dendronepthya]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15528822#post15528822 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Recty
I'd say between 13 and 15 feet.

The big aperture certainly does bring on the bokeh.

If this was a photography forum, someone would be jumping all over you about the difference between DOF and bokeh, lol

 

[Recty]

Negative I feel I'm correct, the bigger aperture makes the bokeh more and more apparent.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

This isn't a photography forum?! :fun2:

 

[Recty]

Hmmmm, I may have spoken too soon about this Sigma.

I was taking some low light shots of a friend's baby last night and just using autofocus. It did horrible, I mean really horrible. It isnt just that it was a thin depth of field, it just wasnt nailing the focus at all. It looked OK through the viewfinder but pulling them up on my computer tonight is very disappointing.

Amazon already has a new lens coming to me in the mail to take care of this rattling issue I'm having with this one, I sure hope the new lens "handles" better than the first one.