Sigma Announces 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM

ed rader wrote in post #5137067
one thing the canon 50 1.4 has going for it is i bet it will be smaller and lighter and optically it is great.

ed rader

And then the upshot of the Sigma would be the EX (L-like) build. Far superior to the prosumers.

In other words, the number of threads is going to triple.

"50, 50, 50, or 50?"

Fabrian wrote in post #5137000
After all of your "soft" inserts and complaints, do you really think someone here is going to by your 50?

Seriously, Good for Sigma for getting on this lens. They should have done it a long time ago. I don't have much use for a 50 at this point in time, but I'm sure it'll be a winner, and win over a lot of Canon folks from their EF 50.

It was already said, but I hope there's no inherent focusing issues after calibration.. I wish I was one of the lucky ones who had a proper 30

he probably doesn't know how to use the lens. tony also claims that his 85 1.8 is soft until f2.8 and that his 17-40L is defective .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #5137101
he probably doesn't know how to use the lens. tony also claims that his 85 1.8 is soft until f2.8 and that his 17-40L is defective .

ed rader

Ed, Ed, Ed. There you go again, making stuff up. My 85mm is nice wide open, but it's razor sharp at f/2.8. The 50mm is, well, inadequate, especially compared to my Siggy 30mm. And the only complaint about the 17-40 that I ever had was that it was soft until f/5.6. Not a good thing for a crop sensor camera. Had I intended to migrate to full-frame one day, I would have kept that 17-40L. OK?

Tony-S wrote in post #5137119
Ed, Ed, Ed. There you go again, making stuff up. My 85mm is nice wide open, but it's razor sharp at f/2.8. The 50mm is, well, inadequate, especially compared to my Siggy 30mm. And the only complaint about the 17-40 that I ever had was that it was soft until f/5.6. Not a good thing for a crop sensor camera. Had I intended to migrate to full-frame one day, I would have kept that 17-40L. OK?

if you can find fault with the 85 1.8 you either have a bad copy or you have wood for canon...and you already know what i think .

ed rader

This must be a blessing for full frame owners out there. I've heard nothing but good things about the 30 1.4

ed rader wrote in post #5137130
if you can find fault with the 85 1.8 you either have a bad copy or you have wood for canon...and you already know what i think .

ed rader

OK, Ed, I beg of you to help me learn to use the 50mm at f/1.4. I know this image doesn't have as much purple fringing as your 17-40L, but I'd sure like it have that much. Can you tell me how to get MORE purple fringing from my Canon EF 50mm f/1.4? I've even sent it in to Canon for them to "improve" it, but to no avail. Pretty please?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Tony-S wrote in post #5137196
OK, Ed, I beg of you to help me learn to use the 50mm at f/1.4. I know this image doesn't have as much purple fringing as your 17-40L, but I'd sure like it have that much. Can you tell me how to get MORE purple fringing from my Canon EF 50mm f/1.4? I've even sent it in to Canon for them to "improve" it, but to no avail. Pretty please?

i can make any lens look bad if that's my goal.

do you see any purple fringing in this 17-40L shot?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME

No, Ed, I meant this one. You know, the one you took with your 17-40L.

https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=4506282#p​ost4506282

If this lens is priced close to the Canon and performs like the Sigma 30 1.4 (which is about the price of a 50 1.4 anyway), I don't see ANY advantages to the Canon to be honest.

Tony-S wrote in post #5137256
No, Ed, I meant this one. You know, the one you took with your 17-40L.

https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=4506282#p​ost4506282

ahhh you saved the link in an attempt to belittle me later. that's the second time that's happened to me recently .

any idjit can see that i was shooting straight into the sun, which will cause fringing .

ed rader

Ed, Tony, you guys are like an old, bickering married couple .

This thread is about the new Sigma 50 1.4 (which on paper looks better than the Canon), not the 17-40L (which is a kick-ass lens) .

perryge wrote in post #5137269
If this lens is priced close to the Canon and performs like the Sigma 30 1.4 (which is about the price of a 50 1.4 anyway), I don't see ANY advantages to the Canon to be honest.

Indeed. If they make this $300 and it reviews as well as their 30 I will pick it up in an instant.

ed rader wrote in post #5137249
i can make any lens look bad if that's my goal.

do you see any purple fringing in this 17-40L shot?

A point and shoot can take a picture that size and show no purple fringing.

How about 100% crops? Also, what aperture did you shoot at? F/9 doesn't count.

The guy's talking about f/4 and saying that at 5.6 it's good.

My 17-40 is nothing spectacular at f/4 either and there is fringing.

perryge wrote in post #5137292
Ed, Tony, you guys are like an old, bickering married couple .

This thread is about the new Sigma 50 1.4 (which on paper looks better than the Canon), not the 17-40L (which is a kick-ass lens) .

hey -- i gave my opinion about the sigma 50 1.4, which i thought was pretty fair .

ed rader

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #5137308
A point and shoot can take a picture that size and show no purple fringing.

How about 100% crops? Also, what aperture did you shoot at? F/9 doesn't count.

The guy's talking about f/4 and saying that at 5.6 it's good.

My 17-40 is nothing spectacular at f/4 either and there is fringing.

how about no? let's get back on track with this thread. if you are unhappy with your lens start a thread about it or sell it .

ed rader