Sigmalux -vs- the 50L

Got together with a friend of mine this weekend for a sunrise shoot. He's got the 50L and knew I'd just picked up a sigma, so we decided to do a quick comparison... We were both curious to see how the sigmalux looked -vs- the 50L. These were very quick tests done on my body as I have a tripod and bracket. I AFed on the EOS/5D logos on the side of the body and then fired off then entire sequence (so only AFed once). Matt's 50L backfocuses (something we only realized once I got home with the images) on my body so watch the pentax in the background for the sharpness on the L and the bag in front of the logos for the sigmalux. Also notice the wider feild of view with the siggy? Otherwise they're pretty similar IMHO...

These were run through my basic LR export action, so they have some slight adjustments... But I do have FULL RES versions available (they were also shot as JPEGs). Read the note at the very end for instructions on how to view the full res images.

50L @ 1.2

2.8:

11:

I also had my olympus, but left it in the car. We did a quick test with it before we left but I didn't realize the sun are almost in the frame... w/o a hood it's flare takes even more away from it's contrast (it's not as good in colors/contrast as the others) but it IS sharper than both the canon and the sigma:

Thanks for posting this comparison. The first photo, the 50L @ f/1.2, seems to have much greater DOF than @ f/1.4. Is that the right photo?

The Sigma looks better in those photos.

I'm certain that the Canon would be better in tougher shooting environments???

timeasterday wrote in post #8350459
Thanks for posting this comparison. The first photo, the 50L @ f/1.2, seems to have much greater DOF than @ f/1.4. Is that the right photo?

thanks, it was the 5.6 image some how... Fixed now, and BTW, EXIFs are intact.

Looks very similar. The Canon has a little higher green saturation, but otherwise, very similar. I found the same...I bought both when I went full frame and returned the Canon.

I need a good 50, but Sigma's QC worries me. I really don't want to have to send the lens back and forth to Sigma to get one that focuses accurately.

Was your copy good right out of the box?

Brett wrote in post #8350818
I need a good 50, but Sigma's QC worries me. I really don't want to have to send the lens back and forth to Sigma to get one that focuses accurately.

Was your copy good right out of the box?

yeah, this is an annoying issue with this lens IMHO... I have a 5Dii. When I got the lens, the first shots were OK where the very back edge of what was sharp was what I focused on (so it was front focusing). A little micro adjust and it's fine now, but if you don't have that option you'll have to send it in. I still think I will anyway though so I can use it on my wife's XSi or be able to sell it eventually.

Also note, my buddies 50L in this test is off more on my 5Dii than my sigma was when I got it... It backfocused, but what I aimed at wasn't even in the DOF at all.... His lens is dead on with his body (also a 5Dii) which we found very interesting. He also shot my 24L which was off on his body, but has always been great on mine. Weird.

Nice comparsion Ben, thanks for posting.

My Sigmalux had some serious focusing issues but after a month with Sigma (actually CRIS in AZ) its working perfectly. Much "smoother" bokeh than the Canon 50 1.4.

Here's my Siggy vs the Canon 50 1.4...

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=728333

twofruitz wrote in post #8350468
I'm certain that the Canon would be better in tougher shooting environments???

Canon still has weather sealing as a bullet point

jacobsen1 wrote in post #8350399
Got together with a friend of mine this weekend for a sunrise shoot. He's got the 50L and knew I'd just picked up a sigma, so we decided to do a quick comparison...

Thanks for the great test there. Blind, I would take the Sigma's bokeh by a bit (oh the horror! but seriously - brand placebo excluded - the best 50 bokeh I have ever seen), but I wouldn't kick either out of my camera bag for eating cookies. The price difference, and the BF "out of the box", does make me chuckle though

jacobsen1 wrote in post #8350931
He also shot my 24L which was off on his body, but has always been great on mine. Weird.

Hey, "you get what you pay for!" Oh wait, that's right Leica saved itself a real headache by never implementing AF on their rangefinders... customers pay for that premium! I have no complaints with my TS-E 24LII, which can only be evaluated optically. My other 24L though, ouch. I just wish Canon hadn't forgotten how to implement AF in the 11 years between the 24L/1.4 1 and 2... I don't mind micro-adjust, but mine is so inconsistent that the results can be heart breaking.

versedmb wrote in post #8351153
Nice comparsion Ben, thanks for posting.

My Sigmalux had some serious focusing issues but after a month with Sigma (actually CRIS in AZ) its working perfectly. Much "smoother" bokeh than the Canon 50 1.4.

Here's my Siggy vs the Canon 50 1.4...

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=728333

nice, yeah we were wishing we knew someone else with the 1.4... I should have called the guy I traded mine off to...

Chez Wimpy wrote in post #8351179
My other 24L though, ouch. I just wish Canon hadn't forgotten how to implement AF in the 11 years between the 24L/1.4 1 and 2... I don't mind micro-adjust, but mine is so inconsistent that the results can be heart breaking.

wait, so you're having AF issues with the II? I LOVE my original... enough so I'm sticking with it.

Im still lost of the back focusing issues between the two bodies, but I guess I have the right combo for me. Yea, would really love to do all 4 at some point.

In terms of bokeh, both are exceptional, but I think the Canon just has this something the Sigma lacks.