Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art priced to kill everything, including OTUS!

[basketballfreak6]

http://willchaophotography.com/sigma...-4-art-review/

such much for this ugly bokeh on the 50A that some 50L owners like to remind everyone :-/

[ameerat42]

Tony. Your links don't work.
Is it somewhere in here?
Am.

[basketballfreak6]

Tony. Your links don't work.
Is it somewhere in here?
Am.

hey Am, i just clicked on it and it took me to the photographer's review fine

it's a great comparison as he tested it against the 50L and the old sigma 50 in real world situations, i was personally surprised coz i thought the 50L would do a bit better in the bokeh department thinking that with the sharpness and contrast of the new art lens something's gonna give but apparently the art really hold it's own

[WhoDo]

such much for this ugly bokeh on the 50A that some 50L owners like to remind everyone :-/

Fantastic side-by-side comparison. To my eye the S50A is hands-down better than the 50L, and not just for bokeh either. The 50L shots look decidedly soft by comparison in some frames.

[ameerat42]

How odd! Still can't get it. Tried 2 browsers.

[basketballfreak6]

How odd! Still can't get it. Tried 2 browsers.

that's strange, still no luck?

[WhoDo]

How odd! Still can't get it. Tried 2 browsers.

It does take some time to download, am. I'm using Safari so I doubt it's the browser. Maybe your link is timing out before the page comes up? Just a thought.

[basketballfreak6]

few more shots from this baby, street snaps from my trip down to Melbourne last weekend, hopefully may push those of you's that's on the fence about getting this lens :P

all shot wide open @f/1.4

Melbourne by basketballfreak6, on Flickr

Melbourne by basketballfreak6, on Flickr

Melbourne by basketballfreak6, on Flickr

Melbourne by basketballfreak6, on Flickr

Melbourne by basketballfreak6, on Flickr

[Bennymiata]

The shots look great basketballfreak6.
The lens give them an almost 3D look.
Give them a bit of contrast, clarity and vibrance, and the people will REALLY pop!

I have heard that Sigma will be bringing out an 85mm A lens soon, so I might hold out for that.

[wideangle]

Still out on this one, how about some 100% crops to see the detail/sharpness.

[basketballfreak6]

The shots look great basketballfreak6.
The lens give them an almost 3D look.
Give them a bit of contrast, clarity and vibrance, and the people will REALLY pop!

I have heard that Sigma will be bringing out an 85mm A lens soon, so I might hold out for that.

thank you Benny, just an incredibly fun lens to use, again despite all that sharpness and contrast imho oof rendering does not suffer one bit, also evident by the comparison review i linked earlier of this lens vs 50L and the earlier sigma 50

- - - Updated - - -

Still out on this one, how about some 100% crops to see the detail/sharpness.

ask and you shall receive my friend

David by basketballfreak6, on Flickr

Sigma 50 f/1.4 ART wide open 100% crop by basketballfreak6, on Flickr

that is wide open at f/1.4

just picture that crop a little bit less sharp, i find flickr applies sharpening to photos you upload these days, but you get the picture (puns may/not be intended)

[wideangle]

Very nice indeed, thanks for the post at 100%

[basketballfreak6]

Very nice indeed, thanks for the post at 100%

no worries mate, i should clarify this is obviously not a SOOC image but raw processed through lightroom with sharpening etc applied, but for me the files produced by this lens is very good to work with

[I @ M]

i should clarify this is obviously not a SOOC image but raw processed through lightroom with sharpening etc applied,

As all raw images should be presented.

It is the end result of camera, lens and processing that counts and in the case of that lens if you start with good sharp images you don't have to resort to massive sharpening attacks later to make the image acceptable.

[I @ M]

The review on Photozone is very favourable.

[Lance B]

Interestingly, it doesn't seem to perform better than the 35 f1.4 Art as far as resolution is concerned when mounted on the same test camera. In fact, the peak centre performance is almost identical at apertures f2.8, f4 anf f5.6! However, if Photozone is to believed, the 35 f1.4 Art does slightly better wide open.

[MissionMan]

Interestingly, it doesn't seem to perform better than the 35 f1.4 Art as far as resolution is concerned when mounted on the same test camera. In fact, the peak centre performance is almost identical at apertures f2.8, f4 anf f5.6! However, if Photozone is to believed, the 35 f1.4 Art does slightly better wide open.

True, but they also state that it's the best 50mm they have tested to date which is an impressive statement for Sigma to claim.

So, in summary, "Highly Recommended" - again - and better than all the other 50mm lenses that we have tested to date. The new (untested) Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 may still be better, especially regarding bokeh fringing, but it's a manual focus lens and in terms of size, weight and astronomical price tag it just cannot be everybody's darling anyway.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Lance B]

True, but they also state that it's the best 50mm they have tested to date which is an impressive statement for Sigma to claim.

So, in summary, "Highly Recommended" - again - and better than all the other 50mm lenses that we have tested to date. The new (untested) Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 may still be better, especially regarding bokeh fringing, but it's a manual focus lens and in terms of size, weight and astronomical price tag it just cannot be everybody's darling anyway.

Yes, it is an impressive result all the same, as you say. However, I was not denegrating it's performance one bit, merely pointing out that there was much hoopla with this lens and as great as it is, it isn't any better than it's stablemate.

It is definitely much better than the standard offerings from Canon and Nikon, but to be fair to both those makers, I don't think that they thought a large and heavy 50 was a selling point. The standard 50's were always relatively small and discrete to be put on the camera as a standard lens and remember, we are talking about the Japanese tradition here. It's not that Canon and Nikon couldn't make a lens of this calibre, just I don't think they ever thought it was an option. This Sigma is 2x the length, 3x as heavy and 2x the price of the Nikon version, especially when you consider that Nikon has always been more expensive than any 3rd party lens! It's almost like a standard zoom in weight and size!

Having said that, if I was in the market for a 50 with exemplary IQ, then I would probably get the Sigma if I could justify the weight and size. 50mm isn't a focal length I would use much as it is neither here nor there as for as I am concerned. If I need a good 50, I think I would opt for a small f1.8 that would take up much room or be much weight in my already full and heavy bag!

[MissionMan]

True, but given they have tested the Canon 50/1.2 which is $500 more expensive and came out on tops, they have reason to be proud. I think it takes away a bit of the stigma associated with Sigma as the poorer cousin.

I don't think they are aiming this lens at the 50 f/1.8 buyers, they are aiming it at the 50 f/1.4 buyers have been disappointed by the quality of both Nikon and Canon to date, or 50/1.2 buyers who want a quality lens at a lower cost. I personally have a 50 f/1.4 Nikon and I am a little disappointed in the lens in a number of aspects.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[arthurking83]

..... from Canon and Nikon, but to be fair to both those makers, I don't think that they thought a large and heavy 50 was a selling point. ......

Don't forget expensive too!

People forget that Canon have the 50/1.2 and Nikon have the 58/1.4 .. both of which are large and heavy(+ expensive).

50 .. 55 .. 58!!! mils .. it's all relatively the same focal length in reality and you'd be hard pressed to see the difference if it were not explained.

So the Art lens competes against the Nikon 58mm, the Canon f/1.2 lens and the Otus .. not really against the normal 50/1.4's from the two big brands.

I think that Nikon and Canon see a market for a large expensive and high quality normal(ish) lens like these. How far they're willing go to achieve the best(in this class) is another matter tho.

But Lance's comments are seemingly correct. It's weird that with all the hype, that the 35 Art is apparently higher resolving (in numerical terms) where we're lead to believe that the 50 Art supposedly is.
I expected it to resolve at least a little bit better than, if not equally to, the 35 Art.

What should be noted here tho with these resolution tests is that the Canon 5D used is most likely the limiting factor.
If the camera can (only) theoretically resolve only 3700 line widths per picture height, how can it register a score of 3732!!!
both lenses seem to achieve this score on the 5D .. yet the 35 Art scores 3960 on the 3Dx test(max up to 4000).
Hence the 5D is recording some anomaly in the tests (expected).

Seeing the 50 Art in the Nikon database may change some figures, and my guess is that it will most likely outresolve that sensors maximum theoretical 4000 limit too!
I think it's time Photozone changed the D3x for a D800E(or D810 )

As a sideline tho .. and being mildly amusing .. much hoopla is lapped on the 50 Art and the Otus for being so and so sharp, etc, etc.
But if you take PZ's tests as an example, the Canon 50/1.4 is technically the sharper lens in the centre of the frame, outresolving both the Art and the f/1.2 lens.