Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM (Art) is finally here!

mystik610 wrote in post #16917653
You're right its totally semantics. But yes in terms of color contrast, Canon lenses seem to have the Sigma's beat.

The sigma's seem to have more punch and contrast between the extreme ends of the shadows and highlights, but don't do nearly as good of job as the Canon lenses at exposing the subtle shifts in the tonal boudnariesl in between.

Interesting. The tide appears to be turning. The canon appears to have superior color contrast. That leaves one deficiency, overall sharpness. How relevant is this?

As irrelevent as talking about lenses instead of using them.

Nick3434 wrote in post #16918235
As irrelevent as talking about lenses instead of using them.

???

Bakewell wrote in post #16918224
Interesting. The tide appears to be turning. The canon appears to have superior color contrast. That leaves one deficiency, overall sharpness. How relevant is this?

Actually AF is probably more important than either of those, you can forget about sharpness if a lens can't even focus properly!

Dlee13 wrote in post #16918480
Actually AF is probably more important than either of those, you can forget about sharpness if a lens can't even focus properly!

Said no Otus owner ever

Actually if AF is seriously a concern, then I would rule the 50L out. I owned it for a while and the focus shift made it ditch it. Only now reconsidering it because I shoot primarily with manual focus via a7r.

mystik610 wrote in post #16918483
Said no Otus owner ever

Actually if AF is seriously a concern, then I would rule the 50L out. I owned it for a while and the focus shift made it ditch it. Only now reconsidering it because I shoot primarily with manual focus via a7r.

haha yeah after I posted it I just realised MF is always an option >.< Although I've tried MF but I'm horrible at it. The only lens that I find MF easy with would be my 100mm f2.8L IS.

Yeah for me if I was to buy another 50 I would wait for a new Canon f1.4, although I'm happy with the old Sigma since it's AF is much more accurate since I got my 6D.

From what I've read on many different forums, I think the 50A will work best with new bodies such as the 6D, 5D3 and 70D etc. I know when I switched from my 550D to 6D the old Sigmalux went from maybe 3-4/10 shots in focus to 9/10!

mystik610 wrote in post #16917653
You're right its totally semantics. But yes in terms of color contrast, Canon lenses seem to have the Sigma's beat.

The sigma's seem to have more punch and contrast between the extreme ends of the shadows and highlights, but don't do nearly as good of job as the Canon lenses at exposing the subtle shifts in the tonal boudnariesl in between.

Honestly, I didn't notice quite the dramatic difference that your examples are showing when comparing the 35L (which I owned for years) to the 35A. But it may come down to certain lighting conditions, raw processing style, etc. Your examples leave me more than a little curious, tbh.

I think I am liking what I see about this Sigma. Had the older 50mm f1.4 and it was very nice sharp lens. Regarding micro-contrast, there is definitely difference between canon and sigma lenses. Here is quick example from 35L and Sigma 35mm f1.4

bacchanal wrote in post #16916858
I think the problem here is semantics. "Microcontrast" doesn't really have a clear definition. What you are talking about is not the same thing that Jerobean is talking about, and I'm not sure that there is a clear right or wrong.

Here is an interesting read: http://www.luminous-landscape.com …eries/lens-contrast.shtml

From the link, I think this section below may touch on where you folks are differing. The Sigma renders in the more Leica style, while Canon pays more attention to color rendering.

In a nearly, and totally unrelated point....
At some point this article makes the point of saying that in reality someone should obtain at least 6, or 30! with the exclamation point(not 30, factorial), lenses to assess "sample variation", what ever that is.

Unfortunately, 30 would truly not be enough, as the ehhhhhh, "debate debate debate..." the distribution of errors is not normal(what ever that really means), but is, instead, non-parametric(gah... what ever that means, too).

With out knowing the "true" color representation of a scene(and we will never, in reality, know the truth...), we will never know how much a lens may be "off" by. (side note: the human eye(and brain) is TERRIBLE identifying randomness).

I suppose we could do something to see the......ehhh.....dist​ribution(cringe) of color frequencies(more cringing...) in some sample, and compare it to a reference.... and THEN we could see, maybe, if there are some differences between lens X and lens Y.


Or, we could just have a preset for a lens to alter the "raw" camera file to our TASTE(as that color stuff, is, after all, subjective...)


I suppose I started with how you claimed that sigma was one way, and canon was another, but It looks like I have arrived back at your original point, perhaps out of context, that there is little clarity either way.


but what do I know?

Dlee13 wrote in post #16918480
Actually AF is probably more important than either of those, you can forget about sharpness if a lens can't even focus properly!

How are you finding your copy to be with AF? You have one of these right? You are keeping track of AF misses like I have been with my copy? Just curious what you have found in your experience to compare. As I have stated here before and in the lens sample room (I don't believe I have seen your pics in there?) I am conservatively calling it 3 flat out misses per 100 shots taken. I am at 170 shots now (80% @ 1.4) and have 4 total AF misses, but in reality I think it is smart to figure a little fat unless I make 200 with 4 total, then I may revise.

Are you finding that your copy is not somewhat in line with these real world results?

Nick3434 wrote in post #16919360
How are you finding your copy to be with AF? You have one of these right? You are keeping track of AF misses like I have been with my copy? Just curious what you have found in your experience to compare. As I have stated here before and in the lens sample room (I don't believe I have seen your pics in there?) I am conservatively calling it 3 flat out misses per 100 shots taken. I am at 170 shots now (80% @ 1.4) and have 4 total AF misses, but in reality I think it is smart to figure a little fat unless I make 200 with 4 total, then I may revise.

Are you finding that your copy is not somewhat in line with these real world results?

Haha na sorry I actually have the old version, I've just been interested in how the AF of the Art version is compared to the previous one since the AF is all that I was unhappy with on the old version. 3/100 misses is actually pretty good if you ask me and way more than acceptable consider how good the IQ of a Sigma lenses are. To me it sounds like your copy is working great, but I believe the 6D being a real new body has a lot to do with that. The people I've seen with issues have had bodies in the 1D series. I think there are still a few copies with QC issues but nowhere near as bad as what the original Sigmalux had

i found it in local store for 820$ is this a good price?
and does it have focus problem with 6D?

Skyvesky wrote in post #16919418
i found it in local store for 820$ is this a good price?
and does it have focus problem with 6D?

Yes, that's a fair price considering they're 899.99 new (on Amazon, B&H, etc.) Not to mention they're incredibly scarce right now... pick it up and post some more samples!!!

mystik610 wrote in post #16918483
Said no Otus owner ever

Actually if AF is seriously a concern, then I would rule the 50L out. I owned it for a while and the focus shift made it ditch it. Only now reconsidering it because I shoot primarily with manual focus via a7r.

I love my Otus!

Skyvesky wrote in post #16919418
i found it in local store for 820$ is this a good price?
and does it have focus problem with 6D?

Buy it and resell for 1,000