Is the Sigma 50mm 1.4 REALLY soft at 1.4?

It's all handheld, but that's how I shoot. If it's unusable handheld at 1.4 for whatever reason (even narrow DOF, and the lens is fine), then it's a no-go anyway. But some shots have been at 1/2000+, and some focused at a distance, so narrow DOF shouldn't be the only reason. I think it's just soft at 1.4. I'll just need to decide if I'm OK using this at 1.8 or 2.0+

That's kind of my point. I tested mine on a tripod at 1.4 and it is impressively sharp but 90% of the time I shoot it at 2.0 just to give myself some room for error. You cant say its a bad copy if it's fine on a tripod but not "handheld because that's how I shoot".

I never said it was a bad copy. I just asked if the Sigma is really soft at 1.4.

Well in that case. No. Someone might come in and pixel peep these but i find 1.4 to be perfectly usable.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/stirfryalot/7​907602002/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/stirfryalot/7​907599636/

Read Roger's Take on this lens
http://www.lensrentals​.com …0mm-f1.4-dg-hsm-for-canon

This is probably Sigma's reason for testing at 2 meters. I've noticed the same .. With my cameras, i tend to use Live View for closer subjects and for further subjects - or just another lens.

WT21 wrote in post #15039671
Focus point was on the green chair

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

what's with that terrible purple fringing in the high contrast areas? looks just like my samyang 35mm @ f/1.4

wayne.robbins wrote in post #15041965
Read Roger's Take on this lens
http://www.lensrentals​.com …0mm-f1.4-dg-hsm-for-canon

This is probably Sigma's reason for testing at 2 meters. I've noticed the same .. With my cameras, i tend to use Live View for closer subjects and for further subjects - or just another lens.

Wonderful link and it explains a lot. Thanks so much. I think I need a bit for flexibility from my lens than just 5-15 feet, lol. Back it goes.

Shout out to lens rentals, too. Love their articles and their service.

Try another copy WT21. My first copy went back and the new one is great. It is not unusable at f/1.4, but really comes into its own at f/1.8 to f/2.8.

Lloyd, do you focus with live view or regular AF?

Regular AF. I wear mulitfocal lens glasses so have to rely on AF all the time. With the 50 I use the focus point I need rather than use centre point then recompose. I find the depth of focus so narrow below f/2 you can't take the chance. Even on the 5D2 the outer points work better than recomposing.

For me primes are generally used at f/1.2 to 2.2 maybe 2.5. If I need to shoot smaller like f/2.8 I'll grab a zoom (my zooms must be extremely sharp to justify owning).

OP, my concern is being soft at f/1.4 handheld. Also the inaccuracy commonly found with sigma primes. The WTF shots when you know you had the subject perfectly focused is why I dont own sigma primes. All of the sigma primes I've purchased and owned semi frequently had OOF back focus out of the blue. My Canon primes dont irritate me with this erratic flakey behaviour.

For the people that seriously own a good copy of a sigmadud 50mm I am jealous. All I know is I'll never own a sigma lens due to the lottery involved.

Wide open sigma on a 7D and 1D4... it was calibrated by Sigma

Did some quick tests on my 5dc body. No MA here. Einstein at 4.1 ws.

@f1.4, ISO50. LR defaults.

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.

Try this one. To put this in perspective of the 100% crop image, the actual statue is only 1 inch tall.

i never understand how people posting shots of their lens working at f1.4 has any relation to whether the op's lens works at f1.4...