50L vs Sigma 50 1.4

Yes, I did a search, on here as well as just Google and read what there is to read. But there are people that I trust specific to this forum that I'd like to hear from. I know Bobby and Lloyd have the 50L and I know Nick has the Sigma.

I've heard the Sigma 85 1.4 is a real crap shoot to get a sharp one, I don't know if that applies to the Sig 50 too.

I don't know if it's relevant, but I LOVED my Sigma 30 1.4 when I had just crops.

I'm not so concerned with the extra 1/3 stop the 50L offers, I'm just tired of my Canon 1.4 being soft wider than F/2 and hunting so much for AF in low light. If the Sigma is sharp at even 1.6 and handles AF in low light better than the Canon 50 1.4 than I'll happily buy the cheaper Sigma.

But 50mm/FF is by far my favorite focal length, so if the 50L really does it all WAY better than I'll man up and buy it.

Everyone's thoughts would be appreciated.

There are only a few applications that I have ever liked the 50L. I find the bokeh distracting. Depends what's in the background.

Sharpness is subjective. Either way, both will beat the pants off the EF 50/1.4 anyday.

I've always been happy with the Sigma 50/1.4. I tend to stop down to f/2.5 to be safe, but sometimes, f/1.4 blows me away.

I love my siggy 50 more and more each day. I was never a 50mm fanboy until I started shooting with this lens.

snakeman55 wrote in post #12732439
Yes, I did a search, on here as well as just Google and read what there is to read. But there are people that I trust specific to this forum that I'd like to hear from. I know Bobby and Lloyd have the 50L and I know Nick has the Sigma.

Nick as in me? If so, I sold the Sigma and bought the 50L more than a month ago.

snakeman55 wrote in post #12732439
I've heard the Sigma 85 1.4 is a real crap shoot to get a sharp one, I don't know if that applies to the Sig 50 too.

Had to send my Sigma 50 in for calibration. Same with the Sigma 85. They came back just fine. I felt the Sigma 50 struggled focusing in low light. 50L does better in that regard...of course at a tremendous cost.

snakeman55 wrote in post #12732439
I don't know if it's relevant, but I LOVED my Sigma 30 1.4 when I had just crops.

I'm not so concerned with the extra 1/3 stop the 50L offers, I'm just tired of my Canon 1.4 being soft wider than F/2 and hunting so much for AF in low light. If the Sigma is sharp at even 1.6 and handles AF in low light better than the Canon 50 1.4 than I'll happily buy the cheaper Sigma.

But 50mm/FF is by far my favorite focal length, so if the 50L really does it all WAY better than I'll man up and buy it.

Everyone's thoughts would be appreciated.

The 50L isn't going to be the sharpest lens out there wide open. It begins to sharpen up nicely by f1.8. I wouldn't say the 50L is "way" better. In fact some will tell you it's not better at all.

nicksan wrote in post #12734254
Nick as in me? If so, I sold the Sigma and bought the 50L more than a month ago.

Had to send my Sigma 50 in for calibration. Same with the Sigma 85. They came back just fine. I felt the Sigma 50 struggled focusing in low light. 50L does better in that regard...of course at a tremendous cost.

The 50L isn't going to be the sharpest lens out there wide open. It begins to sharpen up nicely by f1.8. I wouldn't say the 50L is "way" better. In fact some will tell you it's not better at all.

I just pay attention to people's gear so I remembered you had the Sig. It's funny now that I'm debating a change you've gone 50L.

Thanks for the response.

bnlearle wrote in post #12734799
Normally I tell people that I would gladly shoot a wedding with my 50L, the 50 1.4, or the nifty 50 1.8. I personally have the L because a) I just wanted the extra light JUST in case, b) I like the build quality (I put my gear through the ringer like no one else), I THINK I notice a slightly more pleasing blur with the 50L, and, most importantly, I was easily able to afford the 50L.

I say most importantly because I think that, practically speaking, there's not nearly enough difference to buy the 50L if it's any sort of a financial strain. If it is, just wait. Keep shooting with any of the other 50's as they're just fine and get the 50L later when it isn't a financial issue.

So I think the 50L is the best but I would happily still shoot with the 50 1.8 if I didn't have the money. I second shot a wedding not to long ago with a friend. He only has the 50 1.8. Since it was his wedding, I took his 1.8 and I let him use my 1.2 for the day. I shot just fine and didn't notice anything terrible when going through my images later.

Having said that, you have voiced that you don't like your canon 50 1.4. So... I don't know much advice I can give. All I can say is that if the Sigma is significantly cheaper, sell your 1.4 and buy a used copy. Then when you have no concerns about spending the money of the 50L (which you may not even now), you can go for it if you still aren't happy with the Sigma

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I definitely don't hate my 1.4, I just want it to be all it can be. You're right though, in the grand scheme of things I'm nit-picking. My 50 1.8 is a very usable backup to my 1.4.

I can afford the 50L, it's just when I started researching I found some people preferred the Sigma to the 50L regardless of price. So I figured I'd hear what you guys have to say about it.

The good thing about L glass is it's pretty easy to sell if you want something different. I'll probably try to get to a camera store to play with the Sigma and the 50L before I decide.

Thanks everyone for their opinions.

snakeman55 wrote in post #12735258
I just pay attention to people's gear so I remembered you had the Sig. It's funny now that I'm debating a change you've gone 50L.

Thanks for the response.

The price difference is so huge I think it's one of those things where only you can decide.

I can't really tell you why I chose the 50L. I had the lens before I switched Nikon and had a love/hate relationship with it. When I came back to Canon, I got the Sigma, b/c that's what I was using with the Nikon gear. But as Bobby mentioned, *I THINK* there's something about the 50L that I just like. I can't tell you what that something is, but that's just the way I feel. YMM-Hugely-V.

I too like the fact that the 50L has the better build and just feels more solid. It's also weather sealed as well, which may or may not matter to you. I also find that it does better in low light, such as at lowly lit wedding receptions.

Of course for the 85mm FL, I decided to go with the Sigma 85, not because it was cheaper, but because I thought the AF made it a more versatile lens.

YMMV of course.

fwiw, i got the sigma 50, and i love it.
i never used the 50L, tho.
i went with the sigma 50 because it blows the cheap canon 50s out of the water, and some people say its better/same/almost as good as the 50L, which was to much money for me.
when you go sigma be ready to go through a few returns, then be ready for calibration.
my first sig 50, was way off, +15ma under 10 feet and something like -5ma over 10 feet.
sent it back to b&H, the second copy was spot on without doing any "scientific" tripods, charts, and battery tests but... wide open it gives some awesome results
out of 90+ shots that day 13 missed, a good 4 or 5 of those 13 could be used without anyone knowing it missed a bit.
i love the 50 sigma, and would probably love the 50L just as much


edited:

To tell you the truth, I haven't really used the Sigma enough to give an honest answer. I used it briefly during a workshop in London but not extensively. But honestly, I would imagine that if the Sigma publicly existed when I bought the 50L, I would have sprung for that. I still use the Sigma 30 a LOT, and it's still one of my favourites. But I use the 50L on a crop 95% of the time. I rarely use it on FF, I just don't like how much blur there is on FF, and the blur quality quickly decreases as you stop down, so I either use this lens at F/1.2, or F/5.6 and narrower, but hardly anything in between.

Anyhow, it focuses decently well. It's not fast, but it's not slow. But it seems to do a decently good job of accuracy. I haven't noticed it to be any better or worse than my previous 50 1.4. But then again, I never complained about the 1.4's focusing speed/accuracy either.
I went with the 50L because it shows less halation wide open. 50mm lenses seem to be the most sensitive to that. My 1.4 had a lot of halation at F/2.2 and wider, my Canon FD 50 1.4 has it also at F/2 and wider, as does my FD 50 1.8 at F/2.5 and wider. My Nikon 50 1.4D had brutal halation at F/1.4 and 1.6 but was excellent at F/1.8. The 50L does also suffer from it, but to a lesser degree. The halation on the sigma 1.4 looks pretty strong too. Anyhow, it was the least offensive on the 50L which is why I decided to go with it. It does all right for me, though I'm not in love with the lens or anything like that. It is NOT sharp though. It's actually kinda soft at F/1.2, but the blur quality is the best out of any other 50mm I've used. But I'm not too concerned with sharpness. I've printed many larger prints from my 40D and 50L combo taken at F/1.2 and it's still not much of a concern. So don't get the 50L for sharpness, because it just isn't wide open. In fact I think my 1.4 was sharper, but like I said, I don't care too much about sharpness.

One thing to note was that the first 50L I bought was brutal. I couldn't focus on anything properly to save my life. I first thought I just had to get used to it, but after a week I knew my technique wasn't that bad. So I exchanged it for another one, which was excellent and consistent, and still use it today. Don't know if bad 50Ls are common or not, but I was batting .500 with mine.

Another thing to note, I tried out my cousin's 50 1.4, and hers was a zillion times better than mine in regards to halation control. If I had her lens I would have no need for the L. In fact, I MUCH prefer the size of the 1.4. So there seems to be quite a bit of copy quality variance in both the 1.4 and 1.2 lines imo. Maybe I'll ask to trade with my cousin, but I don't think she's interested in having a big, FAT, heavy lens that won't give her much more than what she already gets.

So yeah, I paid extra for the L, and I don't resent my purchase. The bokeh is still best on the L, so I feel I DID get something for my money, but I'd also be perfectly happy with a 1.4 that had less halation than mine.

^
I like my copy of the Canon 50 1.4. Gave up the L for it and don't regret it.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

m.shalaby wrote in post #12736209
^
I like my copy of the Canon 50 1.4. Gave up the L for it and don't regret it.

I bought the L from you and don't regret it.
So where does that leave things?

m.shalaby wrote in post #12736209
^
I like my copy of the Canon 50 1.4. Gave up the L for it and don't regret it.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

What do you like better about the 1.4? Do you use it wider than F/2 a lot?

nicksan wrote in post #12736393
I bought the L from you and don't regret it.
So where does that leave things?

exactly, lol... just shows how its all just personal preference.

snakeman55 wrote in post #12736843
What do you like better about the 1.4? Do you use it wider than F/2 a lot?

i had a hard time nailing focus each and every shot with the L.

perhaps it was me, perhaps it the lens... perhaps it was the lens + my body, or a combo of all 3 - but I was getting very spotty results, lots of OOF shots.

with the 1.4, I don't even worry about missing focus. its more trustworty for me. the L has a slightly nicer bokeh character, but that means nothing is you miss the shot, so the 1.4 works for me.

When I do a shoot with a model, and I go through the shoot to find the 'keepers', its always determined by first - getting the shot in focus, then its facial expression, composition, lighting, etc.... - never have I once got rid of an otherwise perfectly good shot becuase I thought to myself "man, only if this had the L bokeh... now I gotta trash it."

its really a matter of what you shoot I guess.
I shoot models mostly. So nailing focus is key. After that, I find their poses, facial expressions, lighting, compositiong... all have a M U C H higher impact... I can't stress MUCH enough! on the overall image then the tiny tiny differences between the L vs 1.4

This is all just me.

It's funny how the Sigma 50/1,4 get's praise like it's the best thing since sliced bread. On full frame it's not superior to Nikons 50/1,4, Zeiss 50/1,4 or Sony's 50/1,4. Unless Canons 50/1,4 is crap it's doubtful the Sigma will "blow it out of the water"

I owned 3 copies of the Sigma 50/1,4, all been okay but none been superb as people want it to be. Sure bokeh is quite good compared to other 50mm wide open, but once you stop down it deteriorates faster then Nikons and Zeiss primes.

The Sigma is also noticeable wider compared to all the 50mm primes iv owned, along with Sigma EX (crap finnish) clunky AF that goes AWOL from time to time. Not to mention it's warmer color cast (magenta)

Sharpness is by no means superior on FF.