http://www.neutralday.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-ex-dg-hsm-field-notes-comparison-with-canon-ef-50mm-f1-4/
Just using the above for reasoning.
I've been messing around with my 50mm for nigh on 4 years now (nifty fifty) and it's ace. I've got some really nice photos with it, one of which is framed on the wall behind me! Annoyingly my hard drive has them all on and I don't have a PC compatible with the drive to get them off! Grr!
Anyway, I've been thinking of getting various lenses when I've cleared my debts at the end of the year (yay!). I know I need, and I do mean need, a 200mm lens but that's a lens I'd use less. I've decided to improve the quality of what I have, and concentrate on that side of things, then at a later date get new lenses for other lengths.
So, which 50mm would you get? 1.2 is absolutely NOT in the list sadly
It's the Sigma 1.4 or the Canon 1.4 to choose from.
Pretty much all comparison tests I've found have pros and cons for both lenses. Canon has better contrast apparently (according to the above link) and Sigma have better sharpness at 1.4-2.0 (which I've seen mentioned on various tests). My main concern is that I have seen a lot of people mention that the old Sigma problem of soft lenses rears it's head occasionally.
Would I be right in thinking that the Canon is the safer choice and cheaper all rounder, but it's worth taking the risk on the Sigma as a good copy will be sharper?
On a side note, the below are lenses I have and wonder about upgrades:
Sigma 105 macro - I love this. It's VERY sharp but has poor build quality. From what I've read, the upgrade would be the Canon 100mm macro. Is that still the case?
Sigma 12-24 - I really like this lens, but it's not 100% sharp throughout. I've really no idea what to upgrade to, but at the time of purchase the Canon 17-40 was the alternative.
Sigma 70-300APO - I hate this lens. It's so soft in places it's just far too unreliable. I only got this to bridge the focal length gap I had at the time. This is why I'm needing the 200mm lens. Pretty much any of the Canon L series would be better than this rubbish
Does anyone have any opinions on these lenses and upgrades? I'd be interested from real peoples experience with their lenses, rather than the copious test shots and articles I've read tonight (starting to go cross-eyed!).
Also worth noting is that I'm using a 30D which I love, but I expect that in around a year I'll upgrade to a newer model of this, or if funds allow, a 5DmkII or whatever is the shiny new version of it when I have funds (I still have a guitar to buy too!).
All help GREATLY appreciated. I'll be back about 7pm tomorrow to check you lovely peoples replies
Just using the above for reasoning.
I've been messing around with my 50mm for nigh on 4 years now (nifty fifty) and it's ace. I've got some really nice photos with it, one of which is framed on the wall behind me! Annoyingly my hard drive has them all on and I don't have a PC compatible with the drive to get them off! Grr!
Anyway, I've been thinking of getting various lenses when I've cleared my debts at the end of the year (yay!). I know I need, and I do mean need, a 200mm lens but that's a lens I'd use less. I've decided to improve the quality of what I have, and concentrate on that side of things, then at a later date get new lenses for other lengths.
So, which 50mm would you get? 1.2 is absolutely NOT in the list sadly
It's the Sigma 1.4 or the Canon 1.4 to choose from. Pretty much all comparison tests I've found have pros and cons for both lenses. Canon has better contrast apparently (according to the above link) and Sigma have better sharpness at 1.4-2.0 (which I've seen mentioned on various tests). My main concern is that I have seen a lot of people mention that the old Sigma problem of soft lenses rears it's head occasionally.
Would I be right in thinking that the Canon is the safer choice and cheaper all rounder, but it's worth taking the risk on the Sigma as a good copy will be sharper?
On a side note, the below are lenses I have and wonder about upgrades:
Sigma 105 macro - I love this. It's VERY sharp but has poor build quality. From what I've read, the upgrade would be the Canon 100mm macro. Is that still the case?
Sigma 12-24 - I really like this lens, but it's not 100% sharp throughout. I've really no idea what to upgrade to, but at the time of purchase the Canon 17-40 was the alternative.
Sigma 70-300APO - I hate this lens. It's so soft in places it's just far too unreliable. I only got this to bridge the focal length gap I had at the time. This is why I'm needing the 200mm lens. Pretty much any of the Canon L series would be better than this rubbish
Does anyone have any opinions on these lenses and upgrades? I'd be interested from real peoples experience with their lenses, rather than the copious test shots and articles I've read tonight (starting to go cross-eyed!).
Also worth noting is that I'm using a 30D which I love, but I expect that in around a year I'll upgrade to a newer model of this, or if funds allow, a 5DmkII or whatever is the shiny new version of it when I have funds (I still have a guitar to buy too!).
All help GREATLY appreciated. I'll be back about 7pm tomorrow to check you lovely peoples replies
Last edited:
Yes I agree, although I would say 80-90% of the time it's used near enough wide open.