Is the Sigma 50mm 1.4 REALLY soft at 1.4?

That's nowhere near sharp, it's extremely soft in fact.

JLai81 wrote in post #15038096
Seems ok to me. Here's a random one I just took of my cat's whiskers.

SOOC w/ no editing:

Cropped w/ no editing:

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15039602
That's nowhere near sharp, it's extremely soft in fact.

So you're saying the top picture is soft @ the whiskers? Top picture looks ok to me.

I guarantee you zoom in any picture close enough and it's going to look "soft"...especially when I zoomed in on something as small as a whisker. I simply magnified the crop to show were I focused.

I'll go retry with a stationary object tonight.

I have gotten some sharp ones, but 60-70% of my shots look like the ones below. These are 1:1 views in LR that I recorded via screen capture. These were ALL center point focus. The quick crop I made didn't always put the subject at the center. Sorry about that.


Focus point was on the kids gummy fiber

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

JLai81 wrote in post #15039649
So you're saying the top picture is soft @ the whiskers? Top picture looks ok to me.

I guarantee you zoom in any picture close enough and it's going to look "soft"...especially when I zoomed in on something as small as a whisker. I simply magnified the crop to show were I focused.

I'll go retry with a stationary object tonight.

I owned 50L for several months, there is a big difference between that lens and Sigma, you should google some shots and see it for yourself.

When you zoom in, you can see decreased "resolution", but the sharpness of the image should still be there somewhat. The eyes of the cat is very blurry, so is the nose. It's like the focus plane is a mush. The only way to see how bad sigma is to compare it with 50L. Obviously one of them cost 3 times as much as the other one, so that sharpness comes at a cost. But comparing sigma to Canon 1.4, sigma wins hands down, so it's not a totally bad lens.

This is clearly a defective lens, but to be honest with you, every single Sigma I tried (I had total of 4 of them) was somewhat similar (one of them decentered).

I honestly don't believe Sigma lenses can be good. People get "lucky", but that's about it.

WT21 wrote in post #15039671
I have gotten some sharp ones, but 60-70% of my shots look like the ones below. These are 1:1 views in LR that I recorded via screen capture. These were ALL center point focus. The quick crop I made didn't always put the subject at the center. Sorry about that.


Focus point was on the kids gummy fiber

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Focus point was on the flintstones

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Focus point was on the radio

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Focus point was put on the roller handle

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Focus point was on the green chair

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Focus point was on the umbrella

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Doesn't look good. Focus seems to be off for some of them. Let me see if I have some shots from my sigma. I have both canon and sigma and they pretty close to each other.

I called Sigma service. They said it was my camera (5Dc with no MA) and that I should test at 2 meters. If I test closer than that it could back focus, if I test further than that, it could front focus. I should test at 2 meters. If it's OK at 2 meters, then it's an OK lens. I don't quite understand that anwer.

I think I will run the test, but I think I'm also just going to return it and get a 35L + 85/1.8 and forget the 50 (or maybe get a 50/1.8 for kicking around -- my last 50/1.8 was no worse than this at 1.8, albeit 2/3 stop darker)

TheLensGuy wrote in post #15039677
I owned 50L for several months, there is a big difference between that lens and Sigma, you should google some shots and see it for yourself.

When you zoom in, you can see decreased "resolution", but the sharpness of the image should still be there somewhat. The eyes of the cat is very blurry, so is the nose. It's like the focus plane is a mush. The only way to see how bad sigma is to compare it with 50L. Obviously one of them cost 3 times as much as the other one, so that sharpness comes at a cost. But comparing sigma to Canon 1.4, sigma wins hands down, so it's not a totally bad lens.

I have no doubt the 50L is sharper in the center from what I've read and seen.

I didn't focus on the eyes or nose...So they should be blurry. I was trying to focus on the whiskers.

Newsprint isn't as sharp as it once was, but the essential definition at point of focus seems to be about the same except the depth of field widens as the f-stop goes up in number. Click on an image to see them full size.

Focus is on or about the words CONTEST RULES.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/clgriffin/80233​13263/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/clgriffin/80233​13681/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/clgriffin/80233​14127/

bobbyz wrote in post #15039719
Doesn't look good. Focus seems to be off for some of them. Let me see if I have some shots from my sigma. I have both canon and sigma and they pretty close to each other.

Edited:- Couldn't find the test shots comparing the two. Here is a quick one from my 5dc @f1.8. I didn't like 50mm focal length as 35mm better for what I shoot so need to sell both my 50mm.

This is a great shot, but at f/1.8

I just did some more tests around the house at f/1.8-2.2, and two odd things: 1) the output is much sharper, 2) the incidence of missed focus has dropped greatly. Could the lens be so soft at 1.4, that it was throwing off focus lock?

I have over 600 shots with a previous nifty fifty and 5D, and I would say this lens is sharper at 2.0 than the nifty is at 2.0.

So, it seems the 1.4 is not really useable (whether that's just the Sigma design or my specific lens, I'm not sure), but is it worth $400 instead of $100 (and the weight gain) to have USM and better results at 2.0?

At least now I can mentally rule this out as a 1.4 lens. It's 1.8+ but with good results (as tested so far). It reminds me of my old SuperTakumar 50/1.4, where 1.4 was for "soft focus" portraits from the 70s!

advaitin wrote in post #15039925
Focus is on or about the words CONTEST RULES.

This is a flawed test and this is why. First, EOS cameras are designed to focus on the closest point of detail and you have detail immediatly in front of where you are focusing. Second, the actual AF sensors are slightly larger than the squares on your screen so this makes this worse.

It looks like your lens is front focusing. Unfortunately this is a common problem with the Sigma. Mine has been sent in and calibrated to my 7d and is still set at +7 on MA. I won't even get into the focus shift issue...

That being said, I usually end up with nice results in real world use and I love the smooth bokeh and the depth of field control. My lens is nicely sharp at f/1.4, but it really shines at f/2-f/2.8. It's quite a bit sharper wide open then my 50 f/1.8 was, but the canon is a lot sharper stopped down. The sigma is pretty much a shallow depth of field lens. If you're stopping it down there really isn't a reason to not use a zoom IMHO.

Nickc84 wrote in post #15037501
its pretty good but it really shines at f2-f2.8

Mine is the same way....

FEChariot wrote in post #15039958
This is a flawed test and this is why. First, EOS cameras are designed to focus on the closest point of detail and you have detail immediatly in front of where you are focusing. Second, the actual AF sensors are slightly larger than the squares on your screen so this makes this worse.

KayakPhotos wrote in post #15040011
It looks like your lens is front focusing. Unfortunately this is a common problem with the Sigma. Mine has been sent in and calibrated to my 7d and is still set at +7 on MA. I won't even get into the focus shift issue...

That being said, I usually end up with nice results in real world use and I love the smooth bokeh and the depth of field control. My lens is nicely sharp at f/1.4, but it really shines at f/2-f/2.8. It's quite a bit sharper wide open then my 50 f/1.8 was, but the canon is a lot sharper stopped down. The sigma is pretty much a shallow depth of field lens. If you're stopping it down there really isn't a reason to not use a zoom IMHO.

Test was quick and dirty. I used live view and noted to self that any twitch on my part caused focus to change when I was pressing shutter. On Flickr at magnified view the quality of the letters stays the same as the DOF expands. That was my point and not where the exact focus was, as I said in the comment: FOCUS IS ON OR ABOUT...

Have you tried shooting at 1.4 on a tripod or has it all been handheld?