it looks very nice. I am a big fan of EX HSM lenses. However, I think the 77mm filter size is a bonus, it matches all my other filters. It is a rather large lens physically though, can't wait for pictures.
Personally, I don't use the 50mm lens that much and hence find the Canon's cheapo 50mm f1.8 suffices my needs. But it's always good to have more choices.
No kidding, you could use the lens as the volleyball.
I own the 30mm 1.4, different lens of course, but in some ways, similar.
+ Its very sharp with good colors
+ HSM override is sort of nice at times
- Front focus (The Dpreview review mentioned there was a slight tendency to do this with the 50mm as well)
-Legendary Sigma quality, or not. Lives up with the rest of my sigmas as having gritty focus and zoom feel compared to my Nikon lenses.
-HUGE and HEAVY compared with other primes in its class
I'd consider getting this, but its big, heavy, and expensive. Nikon 50 1.4 does ok for now.
Sigma have clearly understood what primes are best for these days. With the image quality offered by the better (f/2.8 especially) zooms, primes are only really worth the lack of versatility because of the apertures.
That new beast of a lens is waay sharper wide open than the Canon 50/1.4 or the Nikon 50/1.4D. It's meant to be used at f/1.4-2.
Sigma have clearly understood what primes are best for these days. With the image quality offered by the better (f/2.8 especially) zooms, primes are only really worth the lack of versatility because of the apertures.
That new beast of a lens is waay sharper wide open than the Canon 50/1.4 or the Nikon 50/1.4D. It's meant to be used at f/1.4-2.
I guess. But for me, the other benefit is small size of primes. Though I think Sigma is more competitive by not competeting in the same game as Nikon or canon, but by making their own game.
You've got a point there. Pancakes for anyone? :hotcake
I'd be interested in that, but of course, from what I here, few are made to be as fast or as wide as a decent 35/30mm prime (50 equiv) as the normal primes out there. And the cameras themselves are pretty big unless you go for the baby SLRS (D40,D60 for example) which lose the built in AF motors rendering the pancakes MF only. You could probably build a built in motor, but then again, it wouldn't be a pancake anymore.
Not to hijack the thread any further but would anyone be up for a smallish, traditional looking SLR similar? Kinda like Leica is doing with the M8. I'd love something that looks really old and in a way, more secretive and less threatening than today's digital SLRs.
I'd be interested in that, but of course, from what I here, few are made to be as fast or as wide as a decent 35/30mm prime (50 equiv) as the normal primes out there.
Pancakes are designed to be small and become slowish (f/2.8 usually) and are less well corrected.
The new Sigma is designed to be sharp and bright, size no object and became huge
People are going to notice you with that thing. With the hood on it almost looks like the business end of a megaphone, or a bucket.
Pancakes are designed to be small and become slowish (f/2.8 usually) and are less well corrected.
...
That's all true. While some "pancake" lenses are pretty good, if you add a hood, which you should, it is not so diminutive and suddenly it lacks a lot of the original appeal.
As a relatively new 40d owner who only has the kit lens, I've been seriously considering a 50mm prime as my next purchase. At first, I was going to get the inexpensive f/1.8 Canon lens, but thenI talked myself into the 1.4. Now I see this lens.
What makes this lens worth the extra $$$ over the Canon 1.4?
As a relatively new 40d owner who only has the kit lens, I've been seriously considering a 50mm prime as my next purchase. At first, I was going to get the inexpensive f/1.8 Canon lens, but thenI talked myself into the 1.4. Now I see this lens.
What makes this lens worth the extra $$$ over the Canon 1.4?
- Jason
In a nutshell, it looks like the new Sigma has improved sharpness, especially in the corners and at large apertures. The improvement is apparent on both crop and full-frame cameras.
The differences diminish at smaller apertures, but that begs the question of why you would purchase an f1.4 lens.
It also appears that the Sigma is considerably larger and heavier and somewhat slower to focus.
Altogether it's a pretty impressive lens that I migh consider for a future purchase. For right now, I'm pretty happy with my Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 USM.
being the 50mm lover that i am, im thinking keeping the canon 50 for its size, weight and stopped down quality to match it with the quality wide open of the sigme could be a nice combo
perhaps maybe its time for the 85 to make way :P (already... lol!)
In a nutshell, it looks like the new Sigma has improved sharpness, especially in the corners and at large apertures. The improvement is apparent on both crop and full-frame cameras.
The differences diminish at smaller apertures, but that begs the question of why you would purchase an f1.4 lens.
It also appears that the Sigma is considerably larger and heavier and somewhat slower to focus.
Altogether it's a pretty impressive lens that I migh consider for a future purchase. For right now, I'm pretty happy with my Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 USM.
Ziggy,
Do you think that the Canon 1.4 is worth the extra $$ over the 1.8? Since I don't have a proper flash yet either, I hate to spend too much on a lens when I could be using that money for flash savings as well.
Do you think that the Canon 1.4 is worth the extra $$ over the 1.8? Since I don't have a proper flash yet either, I hate to spend too much on a lens when I could be using that money for flash savings as well.
- Jason
Yes, I think the Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 USM is well worth the extra cost. I have both and the f1.4 is much more accurate to focus.
The EF 50mm, f1.8 just plain misses focus too often for comfort. I did learn how to improve the keeper rate through very careful focus technique but too often there just isn't time.
You are right that a flash with a focus assist light can make a dramatic improvement in interior focus accuracy too. The proper use of a flash and modifiers is also critical to improvement of interior images.
Tough choice.
If you can take the time to practice with the f1.8, and if you take the time to take extra images of anything important, it can produce very nice images.
Maybe get the f1.8 and a flash now, and upgrade to the f1.4 later.
I tried the new Sigma 50 f/1.4 and although it was sharp at 1.4 the AF beyond about 6 ft was inaccurate and inconsistent. It backfocused severely the further you got beyond 6ft.
Too bad because it would have been a nice lens to use but I would want it to be more reliable past 6ft. If you used it for sports you may be disatisfied for anything except closeups.
Many other owners of this lens have reported the same problem so i don't know if it is copy problem or design flaw. Mine went back to the dealer
I tried the new Sigma 50 f/1.4 and although it was sharp at 1.4 the AF beyond about 6 ft was inaccurate and inconsistent. It backfocused severely the further you got beyond 6ft.
Too bad because it would have been a nice lens to use but I would want it to be more reliable past 6ft. If you used it for sports you may be disatisfied for anything except closeups.
Many other owners of this lens have reported the same problem so i don't know if it is copy problem or design flaw. Mine went back to the dealer
Too bad. It looks like a great lens on paper. I nearly bought it, but I'm glad I didn't, especially after the dissappointing 30 1.4.
Personally, my Sigma 30mm 1.4 experience has me jaded and I doubt I will ever be buying another Sigma lens. After 3 trips to Sigma, it's finally a great lens, but the quality control is an obvious issue. I understand that any lens can have an issue, but the thing with Sigma and Tamron is that they have to reverse engineer the AF of Canon and Nikon. I had front focus, back focus and a blown AF motor on my Sigma. Just makes it very obvious that they just don't have it down yet, even with the new 50mm. If 1 out of 2 lenses is having some sort of focusing issue, for me, the extra money of Canon is simply worth it. I'm actually even seriously considering saving up for the 35L 1.4 to replace the Sigma, but since the Sigma is working very nicely right now, it's a hard thing to justify. I just have that constant doubt in my head when I put the Sigma on my 40D "will it work this time? Or will I be pissed beyond belief when I import this card into Lightroom?"
My Kit
Canon 5DII, Canon 7D
Canon Canon 24-70 f/2.8L, Canon 35 f/1.4L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon 85 f/1.2L II, Canon 500mm f/4 IS, Zeiss 21mm ZE
Speedlite 580ex II, Canon 430ex
So the Sigfifty is sharper wide open but lacks corner to corner sharpness when stopped down. Not shure if I like this, especialy not for the price
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Comments
it looks very nice. I am a big fan of EX HSM lenses. However, I think the 77mm filter size is a bonus, it matches all my other filters. It is a rather large lens physically though, can't wait for pictures.
edit: the review isnt up yet, but www.thedigitalpicture.com has comparison images...here is the Sigma vs Canon 50m 1.4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=473&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115 The Sigma looks quite a bit better than the Canon.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/392-sigma_50_14_canon
Personally, I don't use the 50mm lens that much and hence find the Canon's cheapo 50mm f1.8 suffices my needs. But it's always good to have more choices.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
I own the 30mm 1.4, different lens of course, but in some ways, similar.
+ Its very sharp with good colors
+ HSM override is sort of nice at times
- Front focus (The Dpreview review mentioned there was a slight tendency to do this with the 50mm as well)
-Legendary Sigma quality, or not. Lives up with the rest of my sigmas as having gritty focus and zoom feel compared to my Nikon lenses.
-HUGE and HEAVY compared with other primes in its class
I'd consider getting this, but its big, heavy, and expensive. Nikon 50 1.4 does ok for now.
That new beast of a lens is waay sharper wide open than the Canon 50/1.4 or the Nikon 50/1.4D. It's meant to be used at f/1.4-2.
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
I guess. But for me, the other benefit is small size of primes. Though I think Sigma is more competitive by not competeting in the same game as Nikon or canon, but by making their own game.
You've got a point there. Pancakes for anyone? :hotcake
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
I'd be interested in that, but of course, from what I here, few are made to be as fast or as wide as a decent 35/30mm prime (50 equiv) as the normal primes out there. And the cameras themselves are pretty big unless you go for the baby SLRS (D40,D60 for example) which lose the built in AF motors rendering the pancakes MF only. You could probably build a built in motor, but then again, it wouldn't be a pancake anymore.
Not to hijack the thread any further but would anyone be up for a smallish, traditional looking SLR similar? Kinda like Leica is doing with the M8. I'd love something that looks really old and in a way, more secretive and less threatening than today's digital SLRs.
Pancakes are designed to be small and become slowish (f/2.8 usually) and are less well corrected.
The new Sigma is designed to be sharp and bright, size no object and became huge
People are going to notice you with that thing. With the hood on it almost looks like the business end of a megaphone, or a bucket.
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
That's all true. While some "pancake" lenses are pretty good, if you add a hood, which you should, it is not so diminutive and suddenly it lacks a lot of the original appeal.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
What makes this lens worth the extra $$$ over the Canon 1.4?
- Jason
In a nutshell, it looks like the new Sigma has improved sharpness, especially in the corners and at large apertures. The improvement is apparent on both crop and full-frame cameras.
The differences diminish at smaller apertures, but that begs the question of why you would purchase an f1.4 lens.
It also appears that the Sigma is considerably larger and heavier and somewhat slower to focus.
Altogether it's a pretty impressive lens that I migh consider for a future purchase. For right now, I'm pretty happy with my Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 USM.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
perhaps maybe its time for the 85 to make way :P (already... lol!)
Ziggy,
Do you think that the Canon 1.4 is worth the extra $$ over the 1.8? Since I don't have a proper flash yet either, I hate to spend too much on a lens when I could be using that money for flash savings as well.
- Jason
Yes, I think the Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 USM is well worth the extra cost. I have both and the f1.4 is much more accurate to focus.
The EF 50mm, f1.8 just plain misses focus too often for comfort. I did learn how to improve the keeper rate through very careful focus technique but too often there just isn't time.
You are right that a flash with a focus assist light can make a dramatic improvement in interior focus accuracy too. The proper use of a flash and modifiers is also critical to improvement of interior images.
Tough choice.
If you can take the time to practice with the f1.8, and if you take the time to take extra images of anything important, it can produce very nice images.
Maybe get the f1.8 and a flash now, and upgrade to the f1.4 later.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Too bad because it would have been a nice lens to use but I would want it to be more reliable past 6ft. If you used it for sports you may be disatisfied for anything except closeups.
Many other owners of this lens have reported the same problem so i don't know if it is copy problem or design flaw. Mine went back to the dealer
Canon Equipment
http://www.victoryphoto.net
Too bad. It looks like a great lens on paper. I nearly bought it, but I'm glad I didn't, especially after the dissappointing 30 1.4.
Canon 5DII, Canon 7D
Canon Canon 24-70 f/2.8L, Canon 35 f/1.4L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon 85 f/1.2L II, Canon 500mm f/4 IS, Zeiss 21mm ZE
Speedlite 580ex II, Canon 430ex
― Edward Weston