50mm - Sigma vs Canon

Which f/1.4 is better for the money? I've heard a lot of problems with the Sigma...

I have used neither of the two u mentioned but if I were to buy one today, I would go with the sigma. From what I've heard, the sigma is better than the canon one if you get a good copy or if you're willing to send it in for re-calibration.

I have the Sigma and it is a stellar piece of glass. I have not used the Canon 50/1.4 (I did own the 1.8, but thats a different lens altogether). I would highly recommend the Sigma. Yes some of the models do have some focus issues, but it is worth the small hassle to have such a nice lens. Be sure you buy from a reputable dealer - I got mine on Amazon. I feel like it is worth the extra price for the amazing bokeh and sharpness. Good luck!

I've owned both (and the 50 f/1.8 and the 50L, and a ton of manual focus 50s) and the Sigma 50 is MUCH better. There have been some QC problems with it, so you might get one with a focus problem, but a trip to Sigma should fix that, and trust me, it is definitely worth that if it comes to it.

Mine, luckily, was great right out of the box. From several polls I've seen, you've got about a 65% chance of getting a perfect one out of the box, and a 35% chance of having to send it in. Totally worth it...the lens is stunning, and is optically on par with the 50L in my opinion.

Recent shot with mine:

It compares to the 1.2L?! Wow...

I just picked up a Sigma 50 1.4 on Friday to replace my Canon 50 1.4.
All the internet hype about the colours, contrast, and bokeh are all right on the money, but unfortunately it seems so are the stories about Sigma's quality control.

My copy was very soft wide-open (I'd need to stop the Sigma down past f/2 to get the same sharpness as my Canon at f/1.4), and had the front-focussing issues that seem to be so common. So I took it back to the store and swapped it for another copy.
The 2nd copy is certainly better when it comes to sharpness (it is comparable to my Canon 50 at wide apertures, and my Canon 50 seems to be a great copy of that lens), but the focus issues remain. It front-focuses when focusing at close range and back focusses when focusing on distant objects, and AF microadjustments can't correct for that. So I'm going to send this copy in for calibration this week.

I bought this lens fully expecting that I might end up having to do this, so while I'm a bit disappointed I'm not at all surprised. If it comes back from being calibrated and isn't 100% perfect though, I'm taking it back for a refund.
The Canon 50 1.4 might not be a perfect lens, but I have found it 100% dependable and consistent. I've never sent a Canon lens in for calibration because I've always been satisfied with the results out of the box. Sigma must be losing sales because of their QC issues.

I should also point out that I own 3 other Sigma lenses - a 15mm fisheye which is awesome, a 10-20mm UWA zoom which is brilliant, and a 28mm f/1.8 prime which can produce gorgeous shots but is even dodgier than this 50mm f/1.4 when it comes to AF. The 28mm is a beautiful lens when it will focus on something, but unfortunately that just doesn't happen often and when it does it's extremely slow and noisy. I hardly ever use it and ended up buying a 35L to replace it. But in some cases I prefer the look the Sigma 28mm gives to a photo over the look given by the 35L. I'd have paid twice as much for the Sigma if the AF was as reliable as the Canon.
Actually, I might send the 28mm in for calibration at the same time. It's no longer under warranty but I assume they won't charge much (if anything).

I've had both lower Canon 50s, and I got the Sigma recently. I don't feel like the Canon 50/1.4 is much of an upgrade over the /1.8, but as your first 50, its fine if you don't want or can't afford the Sigma. The Sigma 50 is a phenomenal lens for the price...but it's huge and it has focus issues. Mine backfocused if the background was remotely shiny, so it's at Sigma now.

I did a little test while I had both the Sigma and Canon 50/1.8. Wasn't very rigorous and I don't have the images anymore, but my results were consistent with DPReview's. The Canon is a tad sharper in the center all the way to ~f/2.5, but the Sigma has it beat everywhere else at equivalent apertures, and the images are just more pleasing overall.

Wow, lots of Sigma 50 1.4 fans (including me)

It's interesting that every one is comparing this Sigma lens to the Canon 50mm f1.4. When it was released it was suggested that it would be a Canon 50mm f1.2 L killer. I guess not if it's considered to be equal or a bit better than the current Canon 50mm f1.4 usm.

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #7810960
It's interesting that every one is comparing this Sigma lens to the Canon 50mm f1.4. When it was released it was suggested that it would be a Canon 50mm f1.2 L killer. I guess not if it's considered to be equal or a bit better than the current Canon 50mm f1.4 usm.

I would agree. The 50L is currently the best AF 50 mm out there. The Sigma is quite good, but not that good .

Of course, the 50L is about 3X as expensive as the Sigma, and to many the increase in IQ is not worth the difference. To me it is, just like it is to you and several others on the board (Perry comes to mind somehow, and Ob Com, amongst others ).

I've shot landscapes with the 50L at F/3.2, sharpened a little, and a 24" X 36" print looks like it has been shot at F/8 or F/11. It is incredible - try that with any other lens...

I spoke with a studio photographer last week, and he said he absolutely loves this lens. It is the only lens in his set-up where he actually has to desharpen the output, because it is too sharp. I found that quite funny, considering the stories surrounding this lens .

Kind regards, Wim

The sigma is my first prime and it has set the standard high... VERY high!

I don't believe the hype around the 50L. The copy I tried in shop was a lot less sharp at 1.4 than both my Siggy and the 30mm f/1.4L on display, and results at 1.2 were a wash. The depth of field is so small at that aperture anyway I'd have a hard time using it for portraits and the like, given that at 1.4 my Siggy is already razor-thin.

Bokeh wise, I was completely turned off by the 50L's bokeh in the in-store preview shots I shot, but I've seen really nice examples of 50L bokeh in the form of low-light shots, so I think in-general, I like my Siggy's bokeh better than the L, I do have to hand it to Canon, in that, in the right situation, with the right combination of elements in the background, the 50L's bokeh is peerless.

In any case, as far as 1.4 50mm lenses are concerned, NO CONTEST. If you have the money (and potentially, in worst case, a week or two to send your lens and/or camera in to Sigma for calibration) go with the Siggy. If you need your camera 24/7 and are going to overnight the 50mm to you for a job tomorrow, go with the canon because you'll probably feel like it works better than the Sigma you didn't feel safe buying.

Just don't bang it against anything, because the canon 50mm f/1.4 may be their weakest lens, build-quality wise.

Is the Sigma 50/1.4 comparable to an 85L on FF? I am contemplating the move to FF and sadly may sell my Sig50 and save up for an 85L (equivalent focal length) if/when I make the move. This of course depends on if I don't just love my 50 on the FF to begin with (then its a moot point). Would I be better off just keeping the 50 and deciding later if the 85 is worth its exorbitant price tag? Thanks so much.

As much as I love the Sigma 50, the 85L is a better lens. If you like that FOV, and are switching to full frame, the 85L is where its at. I love mine, but I'm not a fan of the 85mm focal length on full frame, so I use the 100 f/2 now.

Future Blues wrote in post #7811908
I don't believe the hype around the 50L.

Neither do 50 % of the others who try this lens. And which hype are you talking about? The only hype i know about the 50L is that it is supposed to be a bad lens.

Interesting. Not my experience, especially not the F/1.2 experience, as no other lens for Canon in the 50 mm FL has F/1.2. I tested two Sigma 50s, and tried 1 30. And yes, you have to look for a good 50L, but the same is true for the Sigma.

You don't need to use it at F/1.2 or F/1.4. It is great to have that wide an aperture, however, when you need it and nothing else will save the day.

I guess that is really about personal preference. That's fine. Did you shoot the Siggy in the same store, shooting the same subject from the same distance?

It is, for a 50, full stop. The Sigma is good, but not as good as a 50L, IMO.

I agree, when it comes to F/1.4 50s.

No, the 50 F/1.8 Mk II is weaker in that regard . As are a few other lenses. But indeed, it is close, IMO.

Kind regards, Wim