Buying guides 2015

News Reviews Features Buying Guide Sample Images Videos Cameras LensesPhonesPrinters Forums Galleries Challenges

Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM review

May 2014 | By Andy Westlake

Buy on Amazon.com From $849.00

The Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art is a fast 'normal' lens designed for full frame SLRs, and one of the most hotly-anticipated lenses of 2014. Sigma shook up the moribund 'fast 50' sector back in March 2008 when it announced the 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM, which we considered to be 'Highly Recommended' for its impressive optics, especially at larger apertures. This marked the start of string of excellent fast primes from the Japanese lens maker, including last year's stellar 35mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art (another winner of our top award).

The latest 50mm is unusually large and expensive for its type; indeed its $950 / £850 / €1000 price tag suggests Sigma is aiming at users who might otherwise choose the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm F1.4G, Canon EF 50mm F1.2L USM, or Sony Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F1.4 ZA SSM. It bears a distinct family resemblance to the company's 35mm F1.4, but if anything is slightly larger, with a 100mm / 4" long barrel and 77mm filter thread. Its complex optical formula of 13 elements in 8 groups isn't based on a conventional double-Gauss design, like most 50mm primes are, but instead is of the retrofocal type.

This set of characteristics, along with Sigma's recent track record of making impressive optics, means that the 50mm F1.4 Art has inevitably invited comparison to the astounding Zeiss Otus 1.4/55 - quite possibly the sharpest lens we've yet seen. However, given that lens's $4000 price tag, it seems a little optimistic to expect quite the same qualities. But the Sigma offers autofocus via a ring-type ultrasonic motor (with full-time manual override), which means it wins out on practicality. The new lens's premium price point also means that it doesn't directly replace the older model, which we understand will continue to be sold for some time yet.

Headline features

50mm focal length
Fast F1.4 maximum aperture
Ring-type ultrasonic autofocus motor with full-time manual override
Internal focus design
Will be available in Canon EF, Nikon F, Sony Alpha, and Sigma SA mounts

Angle of view

The pictures below illustrate the 50mm F1.4 Art's angle of view on full frame and APS-C, taken from our standard position. As is Sigma's way, the lens is just slightly 'wide' for a 50mm prime (its measured focal length is 48mm), bringing it closer to a classic 'normal' view on full frame. On APS-C cameras it behaves like a short telephoto lens.

Full frame	1.6x APS-C (~80mm equivalent)

Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | Art specifications

Price	• $950 (US) • £850 (UK) • €1000 (EU)
Date introduced	January 2014
Maximum format size	35mm full frame
Focal length	50mm
35mm equivalent focal length	• 75mm (1.5x APS-C / DX) • 80mm (1.6x Canon APS-C)
Diagonal Angle of view	• 47º (full frame) • 31º (APS-C)
Maximum aperture	F1.4
Minimum aperture	F16
Lens Construction	• 13 elements / 8 groups • 3 SLD glass elements • 1 aspherical element
Number of diaphragm blades	9, rounded
Minimum focus	0.4m
Maximum magnification	0.18x
AF motor type	• Ring-type Hypersonic Motor • Full-time manual focus
Focus method	Internal
Image stabilization	No
Filter thread	• 77mm • Does not rotate on focus
Supplied accessories*	• Front and rear caps • Petal-type Hood • Soft lens case
Weight	815 g (28.7 oz)
Dimensions	85 mm diameter x 100 mm length (3.4 x 3.9 in)
Lens Mount	Canon EF, Nikon F, Sigma SA, Sony Alpha

* Supplied accessories may differ in each country or area

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X, Y, and Z and ideally A, B, and C.

Gear in this story

Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A

356

I own it

457

I want it

I had it

Discuss in the forums

Shop now

124 customer reviews

Canon In stock Usually ships in 24 hours	$849.00 »
Nikon In stock Usually ships in 24 hours	$849.00 »
Sigma In stock Usually ships in 24 hours	$849.00 »
Sony In stock Usually ships in 24 hours	$849.00 »

Comments

Total comments: 579

I'm using Sony Alpha. I really impressed with this lens. Overall is perfect!!!

0 upvotes

I can fully aggree on the conslusions, except for one thing: It puzzles me that it is regarded as expensive, given how unshamefully good it is. I mean: Next step up would be the Otus.
Anyway, I am deeply awed by it, and it is such a joy to see how Sigma has stepped up their game. (More like a quantum leap, actually.)
And no, I don´t have any close friends at Sigma.

0 upvotes

IMO, the Sigma is really expensive, because while it's really sharp and fast and everything, it also completely lacks character and the Bokeh is far from great.

The Canon 50/1.2L may be slow and way too expensive and not really sharp wide open, but it has character and produces beautiful oof highlights.

The OTUS is an investment for life and delivers on the whole spectrum. There is absolutely nothing I could find to complain about with this lens.

0 upvotes

On my first few shots, I have to say I wasn't particularly impressed.

I was comparing with my EF 24-70/2.8L II. Center sharpness appeared about the same.

But once I started using it more - and then (especially) fine-tuned with the USB dock this lens positively came alive. There's more to it than just sharpness, which it's certainly got to the very corners. Local contrast is amazing - this thing pulls details out of thin air.

I've loved my Nikkor 50/1.4 AI-S since the late 70's, and nothing could match its creamy bokeh until now. This lens is another winner from Sigma.

0 upvotes

Now I can finally get rid of this awful Canon 50 f/1.4. Yesssss

0 upvotes

This being said, there were lots of opportunities to do so even before this lens was created.
I opted for the previous Sigma 50 1.4 EX DG HSM. It was already way better than the Canon.

0 upvotes

HI,
I want to buy this lens to use it on a D3200 Nikon. Are there going to be any issues with focusing with this lens on this camera and is it a good choice and should I go for it?

Thanks in advance!

0 upvotes

Hi,
D3200 has a crop factor, so this lens for FF will be a 75mm equivalent. It will certainly work.
If you're looking for a 50mm equivalent you could use their 35mm for full frame.

A $1,000 lens might not usually be paired with a D3200. Nikon and other have qualitative 50mm equiv lens for a portion of the price.

0 upvotes

It appears that the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM standard lens is a true winner, a very fine lens! I have a Canon digital SLR (Rebel XS), and it seems whether most photographers have and shoot with a Canon, Nikon, or other digital SLR, then this standard lens is definitely the glass to choose, and use!

0 upvotes

Sharp, great color, distortionless and exquisitely detailed. The bokeh is decidedly short of dreamy however....

0 upvotes

does this work with nikon d7100?

0 upvotes

Of course. But it becomes a 75mm equivalent lens because of the crop factor.

0 upvotes

In love with the new 50mm and 35mm 'art' lenses. only had an issue with one of out of what we've sold. It's good to see Sigma have stepped up their mark a fair bit.

0 upvotes

This Lens is exceptionnal, the bokeh are so soft and dreamy wow!

0 upvotes

I had it for a few days, very ordinary, i prefer my 50 mm 1.4 by Canon.
Maybe i got a bad one....

0 upvotes

I want it

0 upvotes

ok, now I want to see a 24/1.4.....

1 upvote

Sigma's long standing problem has been quality control and consistency, they could design good lenses but go on to build a rather significant proportion of them that were not quite right.......I hope they have cracked it.

0 upvotes

That problem may have been true some years ago.

But it's not an issue people have reported lately, say after the year 2010. (Excepting of course that all manufactures will have issues.)

1 upvote

I love my 2 brand new sigma lenses. I love the image out of them, the feel, and the look. Both needed to be sent out for repair just a few months old. I own Canon glass by buckets, mostly purchased used. Some 10-15 years old. Never had to repair a single lens. Good that Sigma offers a 7 year warranty, otherwise I would not buy even if I love the product.

0 upvotes

I agree with the QC/QA problem but they do seem to have fixed it. I own a 35mm Art lense, my impressions so far for the last 4 months of ownership has been they have done a very good job on making sure it was a well designed product. I plan to own more sigma glass in the future because of this. (50mm Art, and a 135mm if they ever make a high end version of that)
http://flic.kr/p/pzS1Qo
Recent landscape shot taken w/35mm Art lense. I have been using it for a walking around lense while making children's portraits at family events as well.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Is anybody using a 50mm lens?

1 upvote

Is anybody *never* using a 50mm lens?

7 upvotes

actually I do not use it, my most used lenses when not shooting sports:
1) 70-200/2.8
2) 35/1.4
3) 85/1.2
on FF cameras

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting

1 upvote

I don't do photography as a hobby, when I photograph weddings I use 24-70 and 70-200 on different camera bodies.

Changing lenses on a wedding is not something I would risk doing - by the time you change the lens the moment is gone...

Using a 50mm lens for a hobbyist is justifiable cuz you can carry 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm lenses in your camera bag and take them out when you need them - good for nature on the picnic photography :)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

0 upvotes

Have to disagree on that point. As a professional photographer of 25 years.. A good 50mm like this lens is a must! ...Just not for weddings... I do commercial, industrial and investigative photography as well as in the studio 50mm are vital to have in your arsenal.. Especially one as good as the Art lens!

6 upvotes

I know of at least one reputable pro photographer who uses the 50mm on a crop body for fashion and beauty portraits with excellent results.

2 upvotes

Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 vs Sigma 50mm f/1.4

Read more at http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/roundups/lens/542551/1/zeiss-otus-55mm-f-1-4-vs-sigma-50mm-f-1-4.html

1 upvote

My Sigma 50mm Art arrived last week. I had been told by Brisbane Australia camera shops that I could not get one until late in 2014. BUT Leederville Cameras in Perth Australia has them and their service is very good.

Am I happy with the lens on a Canon 6D? After all the hype I am a touch disappointed. The lens set at "0" microfocus was alarmingly back focused. Reikan Focal suggested +12 to overcome the problem. This seems a lot to me but the images while sharper are not as I expected. They are nothing like a Zeiss 21 - perhaps not a fair comparison - not quite as good as a well set up Fuji X100s 50mm and, dare I say it, not even as sharp as my Canon 24-105 at 50mm.

I will continue to work at the micro adjustments in the hope of getting something better out of the lens.

So far I am underwhelmed. Good luck to all those who are happy with their purchase. Unless it gets better I think I will stay with Canon and Zeiss lenses.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Time to eat humble pie. I spent some time adjusting the lens again. The results are amazing on my Canon 6d. Wonderful bright colour that certainly did credit to Sydney Harbour on a sunny Sunday. Sharp corner to corner at f 5.6. I processed images using DXO but the program made minimal difference to the original RAW photos.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

5 upvotes

I am also using this lens on a Canon 6D. It is the second one I have had. The first one was returned under warranty. A couple of times the camera operation froze with this lens installed. This had never happened with any other lens I have. Returned it and the store gave me a replacement. The 2nd one has been perfect. No issues and the photos have been razor sharp. Just amazing. I have done 2 weddings and a retirement dinner shoot and couldn't be happier with the lens performance. I have previously owned the Canon 50mm f1.8, Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSM and Canon f1.2 L lenses and this one is sharper then all of them.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting

1 upvote

I am using the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art on a Canon 5d III... had a job at a kids summer camp photographing IDs on a three dimensional backdrop ... the picture were the sharpest I have ever taken with outstanding contrast.... well done Sigma (and Canon) .

1 upvote

OMG not even one decent image with the best lens you have ever reviewed (well maybe there was but I gave up) . Look guys I like the site but come on how about some guest photographers or something! Pretty please. : )

0 upvotes

Thanks for the info - will definitely add this my list of gear to buy for wedding photography :)

0 upvotes

I did my own tests comparing the Zeiss Distagon T* 24mm f/2 and the Sigma, and head to head it was pretty much identical in terms of stellar resolving power with very little CA. I'd have to give the edge to the Sigma, but both were very impressive. The ONLY thing I really miss and wish the Sigma had was a focus hold button. Really miss that. But the Sigma IS all it's cracked up to be, stellar! It's heavy too!

1 upvote

No surprise the Sigma outperforms virtually all other 50/1.4s and even the Canon EF 50mm f1.2L (which isn't awfully sharp wide open and has unattractively nervous bokeh)–my Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art, after a year of continual use, still impresses the hell out of me with its spectacular build quality, sharpness (especially wide open) and superb contrasts. Sigma is on a mission, it seems, and I'm along for the ride.

7 upvotes

I have the Sigma 35mm and as of a few days ago the 50mm, love them both. I've also had a Sigma 20mm f/1.8 for years now and although it's a fun lens to use (incredible flares whether you want them or not!) you can see how far Sigma have come. It's as much a tank as the Art lenses (82mm filter thread!) but it's a clown-car in comparison to the Art build quality.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

Blown away by these recent samples! Of course the best ones would have been taken with the D4s.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2662280@N23/

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

i like

Comment edited 57 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

I did now a short astrophotography test and I am very happy! http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53811756

1 upvote

I do not see anything in the samples to make me buy one, and my old Nikkor will just have to do. It's great to know they can be made, but outside of controlled studio conditions,with no IS either to get that resolution, as there is no weatherproofing at all, the risk that electronically it may die, or be ruined by damp and/or dust tells me that Sigma do not care about buyers.Like most makers these days...

You would need to stop taking pictures if it rained, and now ALL of the modern fast primes we compare it to are useless outside in normal weather conditions. This from a country with a climate like our own and subject to tsunami and volcanic eruptions makes no sense at all.

Weighs three times a Nikon 50mm f1.4 does too

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

When, by most reports, this lens optically outperforms anything but a Zeiss Otus, and you don't see anything special about one particular set of samples, I suggest you look for other samples and/or use a better monitor.

As to weather sealing, well that would be nice, but SLR lenses worked before weather sealing.

If the Nikon 50mm 1.4 has the optical performance you seek, use that Nikon.

7 upvotes

I’ve been out in the rain with unsealed lens more than once. The truth is you’ll be seeking shelter long before the lens will crap out. I had my unsealed Sigma 35mm gone thru the occasional beer dousing at wedding receptions with no ill effects...

0 upvotes

Nothing beats a leica summilux f1.4 asph.
Cheaper than an Otus, way smaller and way lighter than both Otus and this Sigma lens. The only thing this Sigma has for it is better value per dollar and autofocus. Its a very good lens but I still cannot accept weight a size compromises you have to make to enter dslr world. The biggest joke is when u compare an Othus to the Leica Lux...it looks like a serious joke from size.

1 upvote

The Sigma trumps the Leica in every category, except size/weight.
The Sigma is way sharper across the entire frame at any aperture, has way less distortion and less vignetting.
For a lot less quality on the Leica, you have to pay more and lose AF.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1503/cat/107/date/1336701679

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30

At least with the Otus, it is sharper than the Sigma on the corners. Perhaps that is worth the additional $3000 (but I myself am not willing to pay that much dollars for the difference in corner sharpness).

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

10 upvotes

You reply to me with two charts? Just me laugh.

0 upvotes

starwolfy:

That Leica 50mm f/1.4 costs more, not a lot, than the Zeiss Otus.

Then the lens that beats the Leica 50/1.4? The Leica 50/2.0--costs a bit more than the Otus though.

0 upvotes

Since you love test charts I will prove you with test charts that you are wrong :)

Better sharpness across the entire frame ? LoL
Far less distortion ? LoL
Vigneting ? LoL

Oh and wait...3 times lighter, E46, wayyyy smaller.

Thanks.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/comparing-rangefinder-and-slr-50mm-lenses-version-0-7

4 upvotes

Indeed for that price we should expect no less. Makes us all wish that all full frame cameras had lenses the size of Leica glass. Still Sigma is still the more practical purchase for the rest of us.

0 upvotes

summilux and otus are pretty much a full on hobby lenses. while they do edge out the 50mm art in sharpness, the difference is so marginal that you will not notice it if you don't spend an hour examining a picture at 100% crop.

in our day and age i see no reason to even consider a manual focus lens unless you are on a ridiculously tight budget or you prefer to do things the hard way.

if your photography is 100% portrait work, i can see a reason to possibly consider a super sharp manual lens, but otherwise, good luck focusing manually on fast moving subjects...

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting

1 upvote

solomonshv:

I've not used this Sigma 50, so can't be sure. But good Leica and Zeiss lenses, besides being sharp, do subtle colour real well.

And that's something that's pretty easy to see with a decent print or raw file and a good display.

So this Sigma looks real promising, but thinking that resolution is the only reason to use say a Leica M is misleading.

0 upvotes

"but otherwise, good luck focusing manually on fast moving subjects..."

I always laugh when i read things like this. I shoot fast moving musicians using a manual focus Summilux all the time. I've also shot sports such as boxing and even sport bike racing (200+mph) using a manual focus lens.

Sorry to break this to you, but it's not luck, it's skill.

1 upvote

@JDThomas

Sorry to break this to you, but it doesn't take much skill to focus on a motorcycle going at even 250 mph because you are sitting in the stands that are 50+ meters away. from that vantage point you have plenty of time to track them as they go past you. for the most part they are moving in a straight line and taking occasional turns. but they are following a track so there aren't any surprises as to where they are going to be when you hit the shutter button.

want to test your "skills"? try to focus on your subject when you have to take 50+ degree turns at any unpredictable moment in a matter of 3 seconds. like photographing a basketball player maneuvering around the defenders from near the court side. see how well that works out for you. even "cat like" reflexes won't help you much.

2 upvotes

How about professional boxers from ringside about a meter away? You think those guys are predictable? Less than 3 seconds my man. DONE IT. How about BMX and skateboarding? Done that too.

Also just to clarify, I don't sit in the stands when I shoot MotoGP. I'm 15-20 feet away on the infield track.

Seriously dude. Maybe YOU can't hack it, but some of us can.

1 upvote

@JDThomas If what you claim is true then you are indeed very skilled. However the point still stands, modern autofocus especially with a high end cameras like the 1DX or the D4s with the Sigma will still outperform your manually focused Summilux regardless how skilled you are.

1 upvote

I can show you the photos if you want. I'm not just saying it for the hell of it.

The real truth of it is that zone focus will beat AF always, but leaving that out, I'd rather manually focus and get one exceptional image than have my camera autofocus and get 30 mediocre images.

And even if the AF captured a great moment, the satisfaction of catching a great moment against the odds by manual focusing is more fulfilling. I mean don't get me wrong, I use AF when I have to get the shot for the money, but I always love the photos that I work for best.

0 upvotes

@JDThomas Although I have mingled with a few sports photographers I have yet to meet someone who shoots fast sports action on manual focus though I don't deny that photographers of the past shot iconic sports photography on full manual. So, yes please send me a link, I'm genuinely curious.

However, I remain skeptical that zone focus will beat the modern AF of a camera like the 1DX or D4s - at least if one's criteria is reliability and output. Quality, well, in my opinion having a reliable tracking autofocus means one less thing to worry about for the photographer which mean he/she can focus more on things like composition. However if it is the visceral satisfaction you get from shooting fast action with a manual lens than you are correct.

As you said not everyone can cut it or even want to cut it if given the choice.

1 upvote

This is the highest score I remember seeing on this site. Well done Sigma.

8 upvotes

My only complaint about this lens is that it is not readily available.

2 upvotes

i went to B&H to pick one up locally. they had a substantial shipment on release but they were all pre ordered and there were even pre orders that could not be fulfilled.

0 upvotes

How in the World can the price be in "CON"???
This glass is CHEAP compared to all PRO Lenses... beats the Canon 1.2L Lens and its like 500$ cheaper.

Zeiss costs 4000 Bucks.. and you dont have AF.. Quality is slightly better but most of you wont notice it anyway. and did i mention the Price of the Sigma?

ONLY!!!! 949$...! get your head straight guys!

14 upvotes

Yes, I agree. People complain about the silliest things. This lens is a bargain. With Zeiss-like quality at one quarter the price, this is a great deal and I'm getting one. I was going to buy the Otus, but decided this is a much better deal with negligible image quality differences.

1 upvote

My new SIgma has exceeded all expectations. Build quality and optical quality is amazing, significantly (hands down) better than both my Canon 50mm f1.2L and my Zeiss f1.4 ZE planar, both of which are on sale on craigslist. Sigma has surpassed Canon as a lens builder. Possibly even Zeiss. And this is coming from a Sigma hater!!! To reiterate, the Sigma is sharper wide open than either of those stopped down to any level. It even humiliates my Canon 100mm macro IS L. I find myself in disbelief

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting

13 upvotes

How does the colour, in your estimation, compare to that from the Zeiss 50 f/1.4?

I realize the Sigma is sharper.

Which Canon DSLR are you using the Sigma on? Do you shoot raw at ISO 3200 and above?

0 upvotes

The colors are much richer, contrast and micro-contrast is superior and sharpness is otherworldly. The Sigma simply outclasses the other 50s. no small feat.
FYI, I use a Canon 5D series body and a T4i. With the 5D the shallo DOF is spectacular, on the t4i it becomes a supern 80mm portrait lens. unbeatable. I do not use the lens past 800ISO.

2 upvotes

Chris Y:

Thanks.

I'd be interested to see what you think of higher ISO shooting (raw) above ISO 3200, but if that's not what you shoot, I understand why you'd skip that.

0 upvotes

For one, the 5d doesn't go past 1600 ISO, and I rarely use the t4i past that.

0 upvotes

CY:

I guess I didn't realize you were using the 5D MarkI. I'd forgotten it doesn't go above ISO 3200.

0 upvotes

Yeah, I'm still using the old 1st Generation 5D and cranking out beautiful photographs. The t4i is also a fun camera to use. It just depends on my mood really. I'd love to get a Canon Mirrorless, but it has to have a viewfinder.

1 upvote

Chris Yates:

It's a nice body, I just have these higher ISO--low light needs.

I think there are better mirrorless than Canon's mirrorless, and if you're comfortable with manually focusing you can use those Canon lenses, and the Sigma, on various mirrorless bodies. Fuji+Sony+Samsung all have adapters and all have bodies with electronic VFs.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Just shot my first assignment with Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art on Nikon D4: totally amazingly sharp full open. Accurate and fast AF also. It is a keeper! Next I have to play with D800e...

5 upvotes

I have it now since a week and tested it a lot on my 5DIII. To make it short: my EF 50/1.2 is on ebay now. To make it a bit longer: great sharpnes and contrast already wide open (for what I want to use it). Focus quite reliable (-2MA at close distances, 0 at infinity, will be corrected via USB dock). Nice handling and it mixes nicely with my EF 85/1.2II from its color rendering... Interesting finding: dpp allows for a DLO correction! Nevertheless I do it with DXO anyway.

1 upvote

Horses for courses as usual. The Sigma is obviously a very fine lens: no question.
However a point of order here: Most DSLR lenses from Canon and Nikon have very low contrast.
I am lucky enough to own a Nikkor 135 F2 DC: to my mind this has THE best bokeh of any 35mm lens. However, it has, in comparison to my MFT lenses, and particularly the 75 1.8 frighteningly low contrast. This is not a small difference: it is massive and its a key reason that Nikon and Canon DSLR's are so lax at CD. CD relies on contrast. So, my point is when are the "big 2" going to get real and start producing lenses that make crap PD systems obsolete?
Anyway well done Sigma.

0 upvotes

What?!! Most lenses ???? Doesn't apply to any of my Canon L lenses.

1 upvote

See:
http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/

In this review, there is a good comparison with Canon's 50L with regards to bokeh on identical situations.
It looks like the Sigma easily beats the more expensive 50L.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting

3 upvotes

In the past Sigma Lens seldom get mentioned by Pro's etc but today it's brand that's not only getting recognised but getting good review rank. This Japanese company come a long way. Very patient, great achievement. Only thing is, the price of their fine achievements are going upwards to.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

You love primes ?
One word : PENTAX
And another word : Limited

After that, you can speak about overpriced Zeiss, Sony, Sigma Tamron, Canon, Nikon, whatever lenses.

0 upvotes

You've already done a comparison? Nice. Send the link please.

12 upvotes

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/03/13/dxomark-best-lenses-for-the-nikon-d800-camera.aspx/

0 upvotes

That link isn't terribly relevant here, as it predates the Sigma 50mm F1.4 Art.

2 upvotes

Hi!
Can someone explain me something about the 3 shots of the distant clock to point out focus inaccuracy?

As the clock is really distant, I guess focus is set on infinity, right ? Moreover, focusing and exposure is always measured the aperture fully open, that is 1.4. So why is there misfocusing? Infinity is infinity, no ? There's no infinity + a little front focus or back focus.

Thanks for explaining.

0 upvotes

The focus *should* be at infinity, but the camera's autofocus system didn't actually set it correctly (it front-focused slightly instead). That's really all there is to it.

2 upvotes

Thank you Andy. I understand that. I must have expressed myself badly...
What I meant is that it seems the clock is so far away that it's way beyond the hyperfocal distance (93.1m @50mm f/1.4 on APS-C). So what I don't get is : if the camera front-focused a little, it should still be within the "sharp focus range". No ? Unless the camera front-focused a lot.

Sorry for bothering...

0 upvotes

So there are two points here. Firstly, it really doesn't take very much movement of the focus ring to blur the image by the amount seen in those shots. If you look at the [distance scale](http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm/images/scale.jpg), there's a very small angle between infinity and the first marked distance, which is just 3m.

Secondly, depth of field calculations use a concept of 'acceptable sharpness' that's defined by the diameter of the 'circle of confusion'. For APS-C this is normally about 0.02mm, which is a blur circle covering 4 pixels. By these standards all three of those images would be considered to be 'in focus'. This reflects the fact that DOF calculations aren't about looking at 100% crops, but instead viewing prints.

2 upvotes

Thanks again ! This really helps.

I wrongly thought that if there was so small an angle between infinity and the 3m marked distance, it was because there was almost no room for change when travelling from 3m to infinity. I understood something like : "Beyond 3m or so, it's (almost) the same. So why bother having a long distance scale in that range, it won't help/improve things".

So I understand that there's obviously a design choice by Sigma to optimize the focus ring travel distance from 1.7 to 3m. Should be the range they expect people to use the lens most and/or where the slightest change has the biggest impact. So it's the range where there's the most part of the focus distance...

Put that way, it makes sense. Ideally the mechanical travel distance should be infinite too as there is but one 100% perfect focus plan...

Thanks again!

0 upvotes

I don't understand. The Sony FE 55mm f1.8 is sharper than this and has more pleasing bokeh.

1 upvote

I've both the Zeiss 55 ZA and the Sigma 50 Art, the Sigma is IMO just a touch sharper, with regards to the out focus rendering I think it all depends on the elements being thrown out of focus, I've not found either the Zeiss or Sigma to be better than the other in every situation so far, I do prefer the rendering from the Zeiss though, seems to give a bit more of a 3D look.

5 upvotes

The sharpest lenses manufacturers from now on are Carl Z and Sigma.

Nikon will come after Canon.

0 upvotes

Have you used the new Leica 50mm f/2.0?

For APSC mirrorless, Fuji and Samsung both make sharp lenses.

Not every Zeiss is particularly sharp.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

OTUS!!!

2 upvotes

Come on Sigma put a 4/3 mount on a few of them. I'm sure you have some left over from the old 50mm F1.4. I still us for portrait work.

0 upvotes

Not much point really is there? The original 4/3 mount is pretty dead these days and adapting a DSLR lens to mirrorless doesn't make sense (it's a waste of space behind the rear element). Really they should start fleshing out their mirrorless lens range.

4 upvotes

This new lens can almost compete with a 35 year old 55mm f2.8 AIS Nikkor for sharpness and CA! I think I'll keep the 55 and buy a tripod to cover those rare f1.4 moments.

0 upvotes

The Sigma is sharper than the Nikkor, even if the Sigma is at 1.4 and the Nikkor is at 2.8. When you put the Sigma at 2.8, it trumps the Nkkor big time.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/sigma50f14a/ff/tloader.htm
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/nikon55f28ais/ff/tloader.htm

6 upvotes

The Nikkor isn't very sharp for an f/2.8 prime to begin with.

6 upvotes

Yes, Nikkor 55/2.8 is an extremely sharp lens. I compared it to Sony FE 55/1.8 on Sony A7 -- they are about equal optically at normal shooting distances. Both at f/2.8 -- FE 55 is a tiny bit sharper in the center has lower lateral CA and nicer bokeh, but the Nikkor has significantly lower longitudinal CA (much harder to get rid of in post). At close focusing distances, the Nikkor (being a macro lens) obviously just spanks the FE Zeiss.
As for the SLRgear report -- this is not the only strange result in their site. Micro Nikkor 55/2.8 is one of the sharpest lenses ever made (and I used Canon 100/2.8 IS, Sigma 70/2.8 macro), its sharpness is "beyond outstanding" for macro applications: http://coinimaging.com/nikon_55microais.html

Having said that, Sigma 50 is not a bad value at all (if you are willing to handle the bulk and weight): after all, it is full two stops faster! Every stop at least doubles the price. Plus it has AF which the Nikkor does not.

0 upvotes

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not quite sure the comparison of the center to corner image quality (on the Westminster photo) at wider apertures on the "Image Quality" chapter is fair. At f1.4, the focal plane is so shallow that the "lack of image quality" in the corner may be due to the fact that it's not in the same plane and DOF is causing the blurring.

0 upvotes

I'm pretty sure they're far enough away that the whole thing is in the same focal plane.

0 upvotes

At that point the Thames is about 250m wide (that's the span of Westminster Bridge, according to Wikipedia). The lens was critically manually focused using 10x live view, so that should be a very close estimate of the focus distance. If you plug the numbers into a depth of field calculator you'll find that the far limit of acceptable focus is about 1500m, even if you use an extremely critical circle of confusion that's equal to the 6D's pixel pitch (~0.006mm). So while the Elizabeth Tower isn't in exactly the same plane as the centre crop, it's not going to be out of focus either.

The take home message from that comparison should actually be just how implausibly sharp the Sigma is at F1.4, even in the extreme corners.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

Thanks for the explanation. As an engineer, I feel like I should have been able to figure this out...

1 upvote

It is just as heavy and big as Canon 24-70/2.8 II. I would consider having 5DIII+Sigma 50/1.4 combo. Having Sigma as the only lens would be a good discipline. I already have Sigma 35/1.4, which I find a bit short for the photography I do, so only 50/1.4 would be perfect (alternatively EF 24-70/2.8II or combo Sigma 35/1.4 and upcoming 84/1.4)

0 upvotes

I remember reading an interview with Leica's then chief designer aeons ago, probably pre-internet. When asked what he would need to produce still sharper designs he said no size or weight constraints.
He said it was much easier to get good performance from a big heavy lens.
The biggest challenge with Leica M lenses, and I suppose why they are so expensive, was to get such good quality from small relatively light lenses.
FWIW

8 upvotes

I can imagine this from Leica Leica wants to reach the top in both optical/image quality and mechanical quality.

Sigma wants to reach the top in image quality for an affordable 'consumer' orientated price. So compromises have to be made.

3 upvotes

If it was said in pre-internet era, you can just forget it.
What was true back then (before relatively cheap aspheric lenses were available) is no longer relevant.
Short answer, to produce still sharper designs, you must up the number of aspheric surfaces. Even a single AS would allow the sharpest possible (diffraction limited) performance in the center ... at one subject distance. More elements/surfaces would help reduce off-axis aberrations.
Actually this is why modern triplet-based ("Sonnar") designs started to compete with a more powerful (sharpness wise)design form -- the Double Gauss: Triplets have good bokeh, and aspheric elements bring about the sharpness.

2 upvotes

That's why cinema lenses from those all-spherical days were so big. Or at least the good ones were.

The downside of aspherical is, you have much more difficult tolerances in manufacturing that will inevitably lead to an even bigger sample-to-sample variation than we have seen with easy-to-make, all-spherical lenses.

1 upvote

well the lenses I like most are both heavy and were supposedly designed by Leitz: Panaleica 25mm and Nocticron

https://plus.google.com/photos/110955796927925538104/albums/6018823849151460369?banner=pwa

0 upvotes

I know it's a lot of work, but I sure wish you'd taken some of those test images side-by-side with the Canon 50mm f/1.4. It would make it far easier to decide whether this expensive lens is worth it.

As it is... I have a lot of respect for all of the work (you did an excellent job), but the result are a lot of "take my word for it" accolades, and it's hard to see for myself if the praise is justified, because there's no baseline.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

5 upvotes

I don't think it's worth it. The EF 50mm f/1.4 just isn't sharp enough especially in the corners. Why even bothering doing a comparison if they're worlds apart?

4 upvotes

Highest rating lens ever on dpreview?

0 upvotes

The next highest rated on dpreview is another Sigma - the 35mm Art.

1 upvote

There are good questions as to why the lens is so big and heavy, weighing as much as Sony FE 55/1.8 with the camera. I haven't seen good answers though.
It's not because of the flange distance, it's a normal lens for Pete's sake! There are plenty of normal lenses, sigma included, which are a lot smaller and lighter. And it's not because this lens is much brighter -- it's practically the same as Sony, i.e. measured T/1.7 for Sigma and T/1.8 for Sony.
It's because the lens has a retrofocal design, c.1950. It's a well known fact that retrofocus lenses require more and larger glass elements with bigger light loss. Therefore manufacturers avoid retrofocal designs unless necessary (wide angle lenses). The moment Sigma decided to make a ormal lens retrofocus it had a FAIL written all over it.

1 upvote

Actually it IS the flange distance—well related to it. The Otus and the ART designers (and probably the FE55mm) realized the traditional fast 50mm design was reaching a point of diminishing returns. All three lenses use non-traditional designs for a "normal" prime. The FE55 has the advantage of a short flange distance so it can use tele-centric (Sonnar) design without the need for retrofocal corrections. Because of the mirror box the Otus and ART require a lot more corrections & glass and therefore size & weight.

I believe it would be impossible to use the FE55 design on a camera with a longer flange distance (unless the focal length of the lens exceeds the flange distance by a good margin AKA the SAL85f2.8 which uses a similar Sonnar design).

6 upvotes

Total comments: 579

Editorial content

Product database

Community

About us Work for us Advertise with us FAQ Feedback Interest-Based Ads Privacy Legal

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998 - 2015 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.

Mobile site