Canon 50 1.2L vs Sigma 50 1.4

in summary...what these past 45 posts tell the OP is simply:

try both and make your own informed decision

jwcdds wrote in post #12676643
My examples were taken with my 7D, as you know, the pixel density is just a bit higher than that of your 5d2 and my old 40d.

Here's another example, in better lighting as oppose to the crappy lighting in my den:It's not razor crisp, but I can make out the texture on my son's facial skin so, to me, that's pretty darn good, considering how smooth baby skin is.

I've never shot w/ the Siggy 50 so I cannot and will not comment on its capabilities personally.

If you look at the eyebrow, and compare it with the one I posted using Sigma 50/1.4, the difference is obvious.

But here is the complication: 7D's linear pixel density is 48% higher than 5D2's, so this is not a fair comparison. I tried to downsize your 7D photo by 1/1.48, and the hair is still not anywhere close to the one from Sigma 50/1.4.

It would be more definite to see a comparison using the same camera.

Good points, Alan. I have to say I prefer the 35L to any of the currently available 50s.

drumsfield wrote in post #12676389
I'm listening.. so how does it not perform?

I never said it doesn't perform, as clearly many 50L users get fantastic results from it. That being said, the focus shift issue that is well documented (and still exists) is a flaw that is inherent to the design of the lens that other L primes don't share. Some people never experience the problem, while others can work around it, but it is a real phenomenon.

I was merely pointing out the other statement comparing it other L primes isn't entirely unfounded.

pieq314 wrote in post #12676793
If you look at the eyebrow, and compare it with the one I posted using Sigma 50/1.4, the difference is obvious.

But here is the complication: 7D's linear pixel density is 48% higher than 5D2's, so this is not a fair comparison. I tried to downsize your 7D photo by 1/1.48, and the hair is still not anywhere close to the one from Sigma 50/1.4.

It would be more definite to see a comparison using the same camera.

So riddle me this... are you comparing the 50L based on your own experiences on your camera? Or are you using my photos (taken on the 7D) to compare with yours? Because... um... yeah, that doesn't quite work.

You ever see a 1 year old's eyebrows? Do you realize how fine/thin those things are? Your subject looks to be about 50-60+ y.o. Those aren't "fine hair" anymore... those are "trunks/stubs". (of "wisdom" of course :lol

You can downsize, upsize, rightsize, leftsize all you want but you're not going to come close to getting anything definitive. As I noted, I believe the Siggy 50's a great lens (especially for the price and assuming you find that good copy, which may take some work). And I have nothing bad to say about its IQ as I don't have any personal experience on the matter.

I can only assume you've personally tried the 50L and found it to be deficient compared to the Siggy 50. If not, then it would seem you're just playing the armchair quarterback on the matter, which I'm not sure helps the OP any.

I show these all the time but all of these where shot with the 50L at 1.2 ( 2 different copies of the lens so I don't know how much sample variation there really is )

2 more at 1.2

jwcdds wrote in post #12676858
So riddle me this... are you comparing the 50L based on your own experiences on your camera? Or are you using my photos (taken on the 7D) to compare with yours? Because... um... yeah, that doesn't quite work.

You ever see a 1 year old's eyebrows? Do you realize how fine/thin those things are? Your subject looks to be about 50-60+ y.o. Those aren't "fine hair" anymore... those are "trunks/stubs". (of "wisdom" of course :lol

You can downsize, upsize, rightsize, leftsize all you want but you're not going to come close to getting anything definitive. As I noted, I believe the Siggy 50's a great lens (especially for the price and assuming you find that good copy, which may take some work). And I have nothing bad to say about its IQ as I don't have any personal experience on the matter.

I can only assume you've personally tried the 50L and found it to be deficient compared to the Siggy 50. If not, then it would seem you're just playing the armchair quarterback on the matter, which I'm not sure helps the OP any.

The purpose for posting sample photos is for people to compare, including those who have neither of these lenses (of course, those who have one or both are also welcome to compare).

pieq314 wrote in post #12676947
The purpose for posting sample photos is for people to compare, including those who have neither of these lenses (of course, those who have one or both are also welcome to compare).

I know this was not directed at me but its a good point. I never owned the Sigma but I am sure its a fine lens and well worth the price. I had the 50 1.4 before the L and I thought the 1.4 was also very good. All I am saying is my experience with the 50L has been positive. Considering how hight the price of the 50L is now ( as well as the 1.4 ) I would probably get the Sigma if I was buying today.

I really like the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 because of its smooth, unharsh bokeh even when stopped down.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/hxpham/58199252​47/

I am a 50L shooter. I shoot mainly the 50L. Http://flickr.com/leni​nglass - First 8 pages are 99% 50L with 5D Classic.

There are a lot of hate on the 50L... The money is definitely worth it, imo.

Let's see some 2000% crops from both lenses!

I normally don't post in these types of threads but I find it amazing that people can actually think they are giving a valid response without ever using the lenses in question. I agree that sample photos can give some indication of how a lens will perform, but to validly compare the two lenses all variables must be held as constant as possible. I've seen amazing "sample" pictures from both lenses in the archives, but I've also seen some pretty horrible ones as well.

When "ametuer" photographers look through the archives of the 50L they see pictures taken by "professionals" and wonder why their pictures don't look the same... They then feel it's copy variance, focus shift, you name it... I'm not denying that these problems exist, but I do believe "ametuer" photographers are quick to judge by comparing their results to a seasoned veteran. A lot more goes into a "posted" photo than simply uploading it. The end result has a lot to do with post processing as well.

All in all, I was in the same boat as the OP. I looked through the archives and weighed my options and in the end I ended up with the 50L. I couldn't be happier with my purchase.

OP, I'm sure no matter which lens you decide to purchase, you'll be happy with your decision.

-tyler

Go go along with what TeeBoi was saying, the 50L is VERY unforgiving to someone who doesn't know what they're doing because of it's incredibly shallow depth of field. If you miss focus a tiny bit you will see it right away. Those of you who have actually used the lens might have noticed when using one shot mode that if the subject or camera moves even slightly the focus will be off. That is why I use AI Servo mode when shooting wide open at times. I can tell you from experience I can't complain about focus shift because honestly I haven't noticed any.

Additionally, when I owned the 85L I tested it out on charts and I can tell you unequivocally it has focus shift. Not that there was anything wrong with the lens. It rendered the most beautiful shots I have ever taken but I think as a matter of fact most lenses have it to some degree.

yes, it can be very unforgiving....as I commented in another thread concerning the 50L

PWard wrote in post #12553131
if I'm using 1.2, the focus can go forward or backward since the dang depth of field is so freakin' shallow....if I burp or fart I can miss focus.

but, I am a 50L owner, and don't regret the decision over the other 50mm models.