Sigma 50mm F/1.4

[JerryPH]

LOL... I wanted to get it done today, but it rained cats and dogs... and a blonde, I think I know where to get a nice shot of a few of them.

As soon as the weather clears up, I am all for doing this.

 

[Montana]

THanks Jerry. Real world tests are always a joy to view. Congrats on the lens. How is focus speed compaired to your more expensive Nikkors?

 

[JerryPH]

Focus speed is acceptable. It is slower than the Nikkors, but I will tell you... not by much!

Today I had a little sun but no models... lol

A fast test of displaying CA by shooting a sbuject that was heavily backlit:

Puppy dog eyes... at F/1.4... lol

I really have to watch focus with this lens more than any other so far from what I can tell. DOF is very shallow and noticeable.

 

[Montana]

Does it appear that 8x10 or 8x12 prints would be perfectly usable wide open Jerry? Sharpness wise......

I want to give that Sigma a whirl, but the Canon 50 f/1.4 will have to let me down before I make the switch.

 

[JustAnEngineer]

Focus accuracy is reported to be the achilles heel of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM.

 

[Agoraphobic]

Oh...and what "kinda-sorta amateur" Nikon was this shot with?

lol... a D700. And you know what they say... resistance is futile.

Lol....okay, well I'm just going to sit here and try to convince myself that it wouldn't look nearly as nice on my D90 (even though it would still probably look incredible)....but that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.....for a day or two at least.

Idk man, I'm getting some pretty nice shots with my 50mm on my D40 so I think you'd be pretty happy with it.

 

[shivaswrath]

Jerry - did you try out the 50 1.4G from Nikon? That is a sharp lens on the D700 for sure! congrats. . .

 

[Sw1tchFX]

If everything works right, the Sigma 50mm is definitely a nice lens, however, it's way to big for me and defeats the purpose for a 50mm if you want small, light, unobtrusive, which is why I got the Nikon 50G instead. If you're a Nikon shooter, you really can't go wrong with either.

 

[NateS]

If everything works right, the Sigma 50mm is definitely a nice lens, however, it's way to big for me and defeats the purpose for a 50mm if you want small, light, unobtrusive, which is why I got the Nikon 50G instead. If you're a Nikon shooter, you really can't go wrong with either.

Doesn't defeat the purpose if you want sharp wide open, creamy bokeh and really small DOF....which is what I wanted.

Mine will be here today and I'm sitting at work anxious cause I can't wait to get home and play. The size honestly doesn't bother me at all since I always have my MB-D80 on the camera and usually have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (not as big a round but longer than the 50mm I think). I'd gladly change the size for wide open sharpness and nicer bokeh......I can see where some wouldn't though as it is a pretty hefty lens for a 50....the new 50mm AFS is no slouch either.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I think "Creamy Bokeh" should be a band name.

 

[JerryPH]

Does it appear that 8x10 or 8x12 prints would be perfectly usable wide open Jerry? Sharpness wise......

I want to give that Sigma a whirl, but the Canon 50 f/1.4 will have to let me down before I make the switch.

Sharpness SOOC is acceptable at F/1.4, but it really gets sharp at F/2 and above that I would find no reason to sharpen in post at all. I would push the slider to 10-15 points in LR to sharpen at F/1.4 to suit my tastes (maximum is 150, so very minor, but lets face it, I am a sharpness nut... lol).

If you are a Canon user, I'd suggest sticking with the Canon 50mm F/1.2, its an awesome lens. Also, a few Sigma users with the Canon mount are experiencing back focus issues... more than I would like to say is normal. The canon users that send it back for calibration are getting incredible results with it, but thats a lot of hassle, more than I would want for sure.

Oh, I had a strobist shoot setup for last weekend, but it got pushed to August 2nd... I have a couple of models lined up, one a natural red head, a real cutie. This is where I plan to take several kinds of shots that you asked for. Montana, you were NOT forgotten!

Focus accuracy is reported to be the achilles heel of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM.

Maybe I am lucky (but lucky at least 4 times in a row so far with Sigma... lol), but I am willing to bet that a LOT of the bad press concerning the focus accuracy of this lens is user error. If it was the lens, it would be *CONSISTENTLY* bad. When I first got it, it was not sharp, but with a little practice and care, it is tack sharp at F/1.4 at all distance... and that is with an AF fine tune setting of zero on my D700. It really is that picky of a lens. It would be easy to blame the lens, and it took me a fair amount of practice before I got it down, but now, I can get excellently focused shots consistently. This lens is demanding, but the results are excellent.

Jerry - did you try out the 50 1.4G from Nikon? That is a sharp lens on the D700 for sure! congrats. . .

I did but for a really short time (and it was after I ordered the Sigma 50), and it was a tight call. Also in the wedding forum that I visit, they are now up to about 15 people that owned both the Sigma 50 and the Nikkor 50. Each and everyone is returning or selling the Nikkor lens and keeping the Sigma because they like it better. They are very close, but the Sigma just consistently edges out the Nikkor in sharpness and contrast. I really like the feel of he bokeh better than on the Nikkor, and it also uses a 77mm filter, which is the same as my 24-70, 70-200 and 85mm Nikkor lenses... so CPL and effects filters can be shared. The Nikkor is a (I believe) a much smaller 52mm filter.

If I had to remake the purchase today, I would make the same purchase. I love my Sigma 50mm. That is not to say that the Nikkor is bad... both are excellent, but the Sigma seems to get the edge in contrast, sharpness, bokeh quality and popularity amongst people that have had both.

If everything works right, the Sigma 50mm is definitely a nice lens, however, it's way to big for me and defeats the purpose for a 50mm if you want small, light, unobtrusive, which is why I got the Nikon 50G instead. If you're a Nikon shooter, you really can't go wrong with either.

Well, a D700 with MB-D10 battery grip is already so obvious that the extra 20mm lens thickness and that maybe 1 inch more in length doesn't make that much of a difference. If you want unobtrusive without a loss in quality, a Leica Rangefinder with a 50mm F/1.0 is utterly unbeatable, now we're talking unobtrusive!

 

[JerryPH]

I think "Creamy Bokeh" should be a band name.

LOL... I almost took that as my domain name, but when I did some quick research, everyone asked me if I was a photographer... or a cook... lol

Suffice to say, I passed on it. :lmao:

 

[NateS]

Well...shot with mine some and I love it. Size didn't shock me at all....but the weight did. It's a pretty heavy lens...heavier than my Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Anyway, on to the pics (all with a D90)

f1.4

f1.4

f2

f1.4

f1.4

This thing is sharp at f1.4 and crazy sharp at f2. I love it.

 

[JerryPH]

Good examples... taking note of pics #2 and #5 in particular, some people would say the lens was off, which it was not in either case.

In #2 the focus POINT was off from the head of the subject... note the sharpness of the arm.

In #4, someone may look at the right eye and say it was the lens' fault. It was not, the DOF was just that shallow.

Many unsuspecting users could easily mistake their errors and blame it on the lens... as I said, its a very unforgiving lens in that respect until you master it. Now, as many issues as there are, I am betting that the Canon users are having some more serious issues, but that, I feel, is unrelated to the Nikon mounts.

Thanks for the great shots!

 

[rufus5150]

The closer you get to shooting wide open with that lens, the less leeway you have in the ability to focus and then reframe. Shooting that wide is a tricky beast, but wow when you nail the focus, the blur is so silky smoooooth.

That being said, I rarely shoot my 50mm (canon 1.4 USM) wide open. Now and again just to keep me on my toes but it's not where it performs the best. Usually at f4 (where's it's so crazy tack sharp it's not even funny) but I'll shoot f/1.8 on occasion. It starts to lose some of its magic bokeh at 2.5, but it's such a wonderful focal length to work with.

Grats on the lens, Jerry.