Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art vs Canon 50mm 1.2L

Since the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art is better than the Canon 50mm 1.2 L, why is the Canon priced considerably higher?

Because The only way Sigma gets a look in is price. Even with the new global vision they still need to be cheaper.

In the case of the 50mm Sigma v Canon you have to take into account the Canon is also f/1.2.

Because Canon's AF actually works (except for the 24II in my experience)

texshooter wrote in post #17331120
Since the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art is better than the Canon 50mm 1.2 L, why is the Canon priced considerably higher?

Since my minivan is better than a Corvette (for transporting my family of 5) (and wallet), why is the Corvette priced higher?

ejenner wrote in post #17331154
Since my minivan is better than a Corvette (for transporting my family of 5) (and wallet), why is the Corvette priced higher?

Thank you for giving me a good laugh

I saw the 35A gave the 35L a tough run since it came out (35Ls were sold in 1100s and now I've seen 900s). Now with the 50L being 1/3 stop faster but softer images, focus issues and cost around 300-400 more than the 50A used market. I'm patiently waiting for to see how much the 50L will drop in a couple years? One of the reasons is because it's still a "Canon" and sigma is a 3rd party company. And remember oem stuffs are always more expensive than none oem.

texshooter wrote in post #17331120
Since the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art is better than the Canon 50mm 1.2 L, why is the Canon priced considerably higher?

Multiple reasons. The easiest is just flat out brand name recognition and stature. Canon as a brand holds higher stature with most consumers. This is due to a longer history of quality in multiple aspects with their lenses.

Sigma has some top notch lenses out recently, one of which I own and am wowed by when I use... and another I am waiting to arrive on Monday! Unfortunately Sigma has to fight previous history and that was one of spotty QC. I mean they don't call it the Sigma lottery for nothing!

Even so currently there is still seemingly a hit and miss with some issues (AF comes to mind). Personally I try to make my decision off current merit. Which is why I chose to plunk down the money on my Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS and on the Sigma 18-35 1.8. The lenses stood in a unique range that gave them a leg up in my decision making process. But the quality plus price ratio tipped it for me on both purchases. Now if Sigma had for the past 10 years been putting out the same quality as they currently are in their Art line - I could easily see them pricing on par or higher than Canon for many lenses. Until they establish that consistency over time or unless they present something so ungodly as to be untouchable by Canon the price difference and amount of deference some folk give to purchasing a Sigma lens will remain as is...

My personal 50L is what Will Chao used in his often linked review between the 50A and 50L (some of the photos on that review I took too)

Yes the 50A is sharper than the 50L

but the 50L is faster.

And the 50 f/1.0L is faster than the 50L. Yet softer. Yet more expensive.

However one sad indictment on the 50L is that its bokeh is no better than the 50A despite its aperture advantage.

I can justify the higher cost for the 50L at the moment, but let's just say if I lose the 50L, I will replace it with the 50A.

Well, i thought that comparison should be between 50 f1.4 vrsion and not lenses f2 vs. 2.8 or 1.4 vs. 1.8

Between Canon 50L and Sigma Art i will choose the Canon only because of f1.2, but i feel i want to sell my Canon both 50s [1.4 & 1.8] and get Sigma 1.4 Art.

Also the title of this thread is general, so what Sigma lenses that are matching or equal or even beating Canon equivalent lenses?

I have a better question. Why can't Canon make a 50mm lens as sharp as Sigma can?

texshooter wrote in post #17331787
I have a better question. Why can't Canon make a 50mm lens as sharp as Sigma can?

I think or feel or even believe that they can, but they came so earlier, and Sigma waited to see Canon versions, i am sure if Canon thinking to make newer 50mm then they can make it sharper than the Sigma one now, it is a war now between the manufacturer about newer equivalent gear, same with Canon 16-35 and Sony[or Zeiss] 16-35 both f4, so it became like making 2-3 cars of almost same type or category but with different company names, one can be slightly faster but the other one is more luxury or performance so more price, and it is up to you to go with slightly faster overall lower price or more luxury better performance higher price one, sometimes can't have both at the same time unless all those companies deciding to make that car that have everything you need, but again, you will pay more for the most popular or top name as usual.

The Canon 1.4 came out in 1993, the 1.8 in 1990 and the 1.2 in 2007.

The sigma 50mm ART came out in 2014. The pre-art version came out in 2008.

By sheer technology alone I think you can see the reason why the sigma is sharper. What digital cameras were around in 1993? That's right...it's a film era lens not designed for the density of todays sensors.

The F1.2 is a specialty lens and the people using that lens are not caring about maximum sharpness...don't get me wrong...the lens is sharp...but that's not the total reason you use an F1.2 lens...otherwise you'd constantly be using it at F7.

I am disappointed that Sigma has made such a name for itself in terms of quality glass but they can't seem to get autofocus right. Some people say they have no issues, and I would love to try one of their lenses...because every Sigma I've tried (with the exception of their macro) has had some autofocus issues. Maybe not huge, but the keeper rate is noticeably shorter than my Canon lenses.

Of course one may blame Canon because last I heard their AF algorithms are still proprietary so all Sigma can do is reverse engineer them.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #17332000
I am disappointed that Sigma has made such a name for itself in terms of quality glass but they can't seem to get autofocus right. Some people say they have no issues, and I would love to try one of their lenses...because every Sigma I've tried (with the exception of their macro) has had some autofocus issues. Maybe not huge, but the keeper rate is noticeably shorter than my Canon lenses.

Of course one may blame Canon because last I heard their AF algorithms are still proprietary so all Sigma can do is reverse engineer them.

Since this is a discussion more about Sigma vs Canon, I'll say that I finally purchased my first Sigma lens a year ago, the 12-24 II, and AF works like a champ. Yes, a wide angle/ultra wide angle lens doesn't have to focus perfectly, but I am picky. I've used it in the studio, at car shows, and on the street. It's a fine lens.

I would definitely consider other recently designed Sigma lenses. My sense from reading reviews and commentary is that Sigma is making much better lenses today than in the past.

I had the same view based on recent reviews...but the 35 ART I tried let me down again.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #17332000
... last I heard their AF algorithms are still proprietary so all Sigma can do is reverse engineer them.

Bingo!

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #17332169
I had the same view based on recent reviews...but the 35 ART I tried let me down again.

That's disappointing.