Canon 50L vs. Sigma 50 1.4 Art? Which one?

In light of the recent reviews, especially the one by Digital Picture, Bryan Carnathian, is the 50L dead in the water, especially for a few hundred more?

I owned the 50L, sold it. It was a good lens when the pics were on, but its focus wasn't great at times. The comparison between the two show the Sigma to be considerably sharper, both center and corner sharpness.

I owned the Sigma 85 1.4 and it hunted. Out with it.

While Bryan did say at times the focus is dicey, so is the 50L.

I see Sigma selling many of these lenses and the Canon offering dying on the vine.

What say you?

I don't know, I'm on the fence. I was initially very excited by the lens but now I'm not so sure. In addition to the AF issues, there also seems to be some issues with purple fringing in the OOF areas which is also disappointing.

With regard to AF, the 50L has a known idiosyncrasy that can be worked around while the Sigma is noted as having inconsistent focus at times. Although neither is perfect, I guess I'll take the one that is at least consistent. Of course, this could prove to be copy variance...time will tell.

The difference in sharpness is what really sets these two apart but I think it puts them in two different categories and you'll choose based on your usage, not just sharpness. For example, the Sigma is indeed very sharp corner-to-corner while the 50L is not. This may prove valuable for some, but others will continue to prefer the colors, quality of the OOF areas, etc from the 50L.

I guess I'm still undecided and will wait for user reviews/samples from the Sigma 50.

The 50L makes beautiful images. There's nothing dead about it, but it has a little more competition now.

CaliWalkabout wrote in post #16858536
The 50L makes beautiful images. There's nothing dead about it, but it has a little more competition now.

Pretty much sums it up.

People need a working AF will still pick 50L; but people may not spend 4K for MF Zeiss Optus

x_tan wrote in post #16858783
People need a working AF will still pick 50L; but people may not spend 4K for MF Zeiss Optus

I've seen 1 review say the AF wasn't perfect on the 50A, in the same review they said the AI servo was as good or better than 50L.

lets not make misleading statements.

Jerobean wrote in post #16858794
I've seen 1 review say the AF wasn't perfect on the 50A, in the same review they said the AI servo was as good or better than 50L.

lets not make misleading statements.

people will keep making mountains out of mole hills. "arg, f1.4, 1/30sec iso 2000 and my pics are soft, it must be the lenses fault..."

Jerobean wrote in post #16858794
I've seen 1 review say the AF wasn't perfect on the 50A, in the same review they said the AI servo was as good or better than 50L.

lets not make misleading statements.

Don't be silly as none of us have / use both lenses; any of those current reviews from Internet don't have much credibility than any of current POTN users.

Just wait & see.

I'm not sure how sharpness is only important to some folks.

But if that's so, so be it.

However, if sharpness wide open is important, one look at the comparison pics on digital picture shows the 50L to be S O F T. I've always felt the same about the 85L. I've had 4 copies, 1 Mark I and 3 Mark II's, and none have been very sharp wide open.

On that account, the Sigma is quite a bit better than the 50L.

I'm going to be purchasing a 50mm in the next month or so (mostly for filming but I'll want to use it for photography too)... it's a big toss up between the Sigma and Canon it really is.

Super sharp and good microcontrast on the Sigma, seemingly more pleasing overall rendering on the Canon. The price difference is not to be forgotten either (~$500AU).

The Sigma also comes with more modern features such as 9 aperture blades which should give lovely 18 point stars.

My money is ready if more users show me Sigma Art has nice 'micro-contract' and beautiful colour rendering. AF is just a bonus.

Sharpness is well overrated

I was out with some co-workers the other day eating lunch and mentioned that my salad had significantly greater micro-contrast than anything I'd eaten before. They didn't appreciate the joke.

I would personally go for the 50A.

How about this:

Often times in reviews of audio equipment, blind testing is done.

Simply put, if you looked at the results of both lenses on Bryan Carnathian's ****e, not knowing which lens took which shots, which would you pick, the visibly soft results, or the sharper version? Be honest.

I wouldn't choose a $1000 lens based on a few photos, blind or not . . .