Chasing after the Perfect 50!

elysium wrote in post #10778284
Not until another 20 topics on the same subject are done.

Which do you think has more threads... Sigma 50 vs 50L vs 50 1.4? or do you think there are more 24-70 vs 24-105 threads?

Maybe my poll should have been that.

AlanU wrote in post #10778239
If you shoot past 5 feet when using apertures 1.4- f/4 the 50L will be perfect for you.....or shoot f/1.2 all of the time

Defining a "learning curve" for a broken design of the 50L is simply stating the flaws of the lens. Canon has got to make a markII version.

Marlon grabbing the 50L thinking it will work like your 85L is gonna make you very disappointed. Even though I hate SimaDUD's 50mm (bought two and have tested like 7????) they all have issues straight out of the box.All of the 50L's I've tested backfocus/focus shift.

My Canon 50 f/1.4 doesn't have the greatest bokeh but its rock solid regardless of aperture or distance. Landing the shot and post processing is better than the issues of the 50L or Sigmadud.

However if I can find a Sigma that is not a dud I'll buy it.

If you do buy a 50L it will be fine when you print. Printing small prints it can hide backfocus quite well.

Hey Alan, I'd really like to test this sigma lens and I was wondering how I'd do it. can you define what focus shifting is. At what aperture and what distance should i test this lens at?

Marloon wrote in post #10778704
Hey Alan, I'd really like to test this sigma lens and I was wondering how I'd do it. can you define what focus shifting is. At what aperture and what distance should i test this lens at?

Here's an old post comparing the Siggy to the 50L.....Pretty damn close in my book. I love my Siggy.

https://photography-on-the.net …729368&highligh​t=sigmalux

My 50 1.4 is stupid sharp at 1.8. I don't know why you'd keep buying them, or if I believe that you've actually owned three. You must like setting money on fire if that's the case.

I don't know if it's just me or does anyone else notice that the Sigma lenses seem to have more uncontrolled light than the Canon versions. When I look at the photos in the samples thread I noticed that the Sigma seems more contrasty with the highlights being brighter than the Canon versions of the lens. I notice this not just with the 50mm lenses but most Sigma lenses seem to be brighter overall than the Canon lenses. Ultimately I prefer the shot from the Canon 50mm 1.4 to the ones from the Sigma 50mm 1.4. I'm not sure if that's due to the Sigma user error or the Canon users being better shooters or if it's just the lens.

Canon 50mm 1.4
https://photography-on-the.net …5&page=215&high​light=50mm

Sigma 50mm 1.4
https://photography-on-the.net …7&page=238&high​light=50mm

Canon 50mm 1.2
https://photography-on-the.net …9&page=156&high​light=50mm

Canon 50mm 1.8
https://photography-on-the.net …7&page=555&high​light=50mm

The bokeh on the Sigma is the bee's knees.

The 50MP is quite fantastic if you don't want AF.

I can't believe the 50mm 1.8 recieved votes !

Canon 50 f/1.4 for me...

It works and I have one and that equals Perfect in my book.

IMO there is no "perfect" 50mm unfortunately, not with AF. That's why i just gave up that FL. They each have their weaknesses. But a good copy of the Sigma should provide a huge bang for the buck.

Rent a 50/1.2L and try it.

Rent a 50/1.4 Siggy and try it.

Decide for yourself which you like best.

I almost pulled the trigger on the Siggy a while back, but ended up sticking with my tried and true EF 50/1.4. I do use it at f2.2 when I'm looking for the sharpest possible image. I think it softens a little more with each third stop larger than that. The f1.4 is the best all around compromise for me, and all lenses compromise in one way or another. The 50/1.2L II is a wonderful piece of glass and gives incredible bokeh potential. I can see where a wedding photographer might want one, but I'm not a wedding photographer. I can't justify spending 4X the cost of the f1.4 for a larger/heaver, slightly slower focusing lens that I'd be a little worried taking out and using in some of the places I shoot. At the other extreme, the 50/1.8 II is a tremendous value... But I'm sure I'd go through one or two a year, they are so lightly built, plus the bokeh, flare resistance and color rendition of the f1.4 are worth the price to me, about 3X the price of the f1.8 lens.

I'm still intrigued by the Siggy and really want to work with one for an extended trial some time. What kept me from buying it were two factors. One I'd heard about the problems getting a good copy or needing to send it in for calibration. That's ridiculous. Maybe they've improved that, I hope so. I also wasn't happy to have to buy and carry around still another filter size... I already have at least one each UV and Circular Polarizer in 58mm, 72mm and 77mm sizes, plus a couple drop-ins. That's enough.

For me a 50mm is useful on a crop sensor camera, as a short/portrait telephoto. I rarely use the focal length on a full frame camera. Simply doesn't appeal to me all that much. I'd rather use a 28mm or 35mm as my "normal". Currently using the 28/1.8, but am considering 35/1.4L.

I gave up... just grabbed the 45mm.

Now that you went with an MF lens anyways, why not consider one of the ZE offerings? I have the ZE 50 f/2 MP and used to have a ZE 35 f/2, both are excellent lenses.

For the money the 1.8 mk II s great. But it feels really cheap. Manual focus sucks. No full time manual focus sucks too. But for the price I would expect this level of performance.

The 1.4 is a much better lens. FTM focus. USM. 2/3 fast aperture. The price matches the performance level. If I was on a "budget" (aren't we all) then I would recommend this one.

When I got a chance to use a 1.2L I was blown away by the image quality and the amount of light a f/1.2 aperture can capture. For that much money I would expect this sort of performance level. The only thing is the size. A 1.4 is much more discreet.

Cheers!

Zeiss MP for me, loves it!