Sigma 50mm 1.4

[PhotoWrangler]

I've done a little bit of research and it looks like the Sigma 50mm 1.4 has smoother bokeh than the Nikon 50mm 1.4G, due to the aspherical elements.

I know that Sigma has a reputation for shoddy quality control, but I've only ever used their zooms. Is the quality control just as shoddy across their primes as well?

And if you've used the Sigma 1.4 what have your experiences been?

I'm hesitant to buy anything Sigma due to my limited experiences.

 

[Tee]

The Sigma 50 1.4 has been in my kit for over a year. I really enjoy it. If I had one nitpick, I'd say it can be slow on the autofocus at times but it's not a deal breaker for me.

I pulled this off my phone but I think I used the 50 for this shot.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

Is it slow in all light, or just low light?

 

[Tee]

Low light.

 

[GDHLEWIS]

Iv not used the 50 1.4 before but have got 2 other sigma's in my kit and used a few other and have never had any issues with them really. Only gripe is autofocus is a lot slower than the Nikkor lens's but that is about it.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

I've used a 70-200 2.8 some years ago, and I currently own a 24-70 2.8, both Sigma. But that's the extent of my experiences with their lenses.

 

[cgipson1]

I had one.. and loved it. But after moving to FX, I chose to use my Nikon 85mm 1.4 primarily... and my 24-70 2.8 if I need wider than the 85. So I sold it to Sharon (sm4him) who loves it. She has posted several images with it.. and they look good. It has wonderful bokeh characteristics... and for the price, is a steal!

(assuming you get a good copy... but with that series of Sigma's ... good copies are the norm. It is their cheaper lenses that often have problems!)

 

[SCraig]

It isn't that Sigma has shoddy QC but rather that their QC is hit-or-miss. Of course I suppose that could equate to "Shoddy".

I have two Sigma lenses and love them both. I have a 17-70 (3 years old) and a 150-500 (2 years old) and have never had any issues with either. I would not hesitate to purchase either one of them again. On the other hand numerous people have reported issues with the 150-500.

 

[cgipson1]

It isn't that Sigma has shoddy QC but rather that their QC is hit-or-miss. Of course I suppose that could equate to "Shoddy".

I have two Sigma lenses and love them both. I have a 17-70 (3 years old) and a 150-500 (2 years old) and have never had any issues with either. I would not hesitate to purchase either one of them again. On the other hand numerous people have reported issues with the 150-500.

I tried 3 of the 150-500's and never got one that was close.. so I know what you mean! I have seen your shots with your 15-500... which is WHY I wanted one, lol! They rock!

 

[Smokeyr67]

The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is a fantastic lens, it's the first one I throw in the bag when I'm going for a walk(Second now I have the 18-35)

I have a lot of Sigma lenses, 70-200 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, 105mm macro f2.8, 18-35 f1.8, 85mm f1.4 and of course the 50mm 1.4 and I've never had a problem with them. I did have an 18-200 a few years ago, and it was absolute crap.

 

[JTPhotography]

From what I have read, not as sharp as the nikons but better bokeh. Sigmas also tend to have an odd color cast. I had an 85 1.4 and was happy with it, no quality issues at all. I also had a cheap zoom, 70-300 I think, a long time ago, and it was so bad I threw a party when it broke.

 

[sm4him]

I had one.. and loved it. But after moving to FX, I chose to use my Nikon 85mm 1.4 primarily... and my 24-70 2.8 if I need wider than the 85. So I sold it to Sharon (sm4him) who loves it. She has posted several images with it.. and they look good. It has wonderful bokeh characteristics... and for the price, is a steal!

(assuming you get a good copy... but with that series of Sigma's ... good copies are the norm. It is their cheaper lenses that often have problems!)

Yep, I bought Charlie's lens, and I *love* it. I was perfectly happy with my Nikon 50mm f/1.8g, but I like the Sigma even more.
Admittedly, I've only had it for a short period of time, and until today, I really hadn't done any shooting in low light conditions with it. But today, I took some photos at a wedding shower in our church and didn't notice any problems at all with the autofocus speed. And the bokeh is much nicer than the Nikon 1.8 was!

I also have the Sigma 150-500 that Scott mentions (in fact, like Charlie, I bought it in part because of the results that Scott was getting with it!) and I've been really pleased with it. No problems with it, in terms of shoddy quality or anything.

From what I have read, not as sharp as the nikons but better bokeh. Sigmas also tend to have an odd color cast. I had an 85 1.4 and was happy with it, no quality issues at all. I also had a cheap zoom, 70-300 I think, a long time ago, and it was so bad I threw a party when it broke.

On the other hand, I had one of those too, the Sigma 70-300. Bought it on Craigslist when I thought the 55-300 I had at the time was gonna die, and that Sigma was the only replacement I could afford at the time. Turned out, not having anything except a kit lens was a MUCH better option than trying to get decent results with that hunk of useless plastic and glass.
I couldn't even resell it, because my conscience wouldn't let me sell anyone such a piece of junk. It's currently serving as a paperweight in my office. :lmao: