Though no one at Sigma has ever told me they were gunning to best the Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus when they released the 50mm f/1.4 Art, it's been pretty widely accepted that was their goal (since crushing Nikon and Canon glass doesn't seem to be a challenge lately). But recent DxO tests show Sigma fell short of this. But it's pretty easy to see it's still the best 50mm on the market.
What follows here is 100% opinion from me. Though some will agree with me, I'm certain there are just as many if not more who disagree, but I still feel like this perspective is worth sharing.
In our review of the 50mm f/1.4 Art, John Schell and I found the lens to be better in every category than both the 50mm f/1.2 L and the 50mm f/1.4 from Canon. Not just a little better, but a lot better. It focused faster, it was sharper, had less chromatic aberration and basically gave John lens lust despite his attachment to his beloved 50mm L.
No one seemed to disagree with our findings, but what people did disagree with was the price point.
I argued that the lens is priced extremely well, and even lower than what many were expecting. I stated in the pricing release that the general guess for the price was around $1200, and Sigma's sub $1000 pricing was, to us at Fstoppers, pretty surprising. Those who disagreed said the Sigma was priced too high since comperables from Canon and Nikon at the same aperture were much less expensive. Those who agreed seemed to say that the lens can't and shouldn't be compared to Canon and Nikon 50mm lenses because it was more comparable to a Zeiss Otus, therefore the pricing was amazing.
Well, we can really compare it based on performance and price. The Zeiss Otus, according to DxO, is better. I'm not surprised, the lens is nearly $4000 and very well should be awesome. But it's not four times better than the Sigma. It's a hair better and it doesn't have autofocus.
So if we accept that the Sigma is better than Canon 50mm options (from Fstoppers testing)... If we accept it's better than Nikon (if you want to believe DxO tests)... If we accept that it is almost as good as a Zeiss that's priced four times higher... Where does that leave us?
To me, it means that if you want the absolute best bang for your buck - the best value on the market today for a 50mm lens - it's pretty difficult to argue that the Sigma isn't that product. Am I wrong?
Note: No, this post wasn't sponsored.
The only thing that kills me about this lens is that is not weather sealed. It makes me nervous about buying a lens that might more easily get dusty inside. I tend to take my camera out more in backcountry. What do you think? Is it something I should really worry about compared to some other lenses?
I really wish I could answer this question, but I have no idea. That said, I think weather sealing is important if the lens is on your camera body in a sandstorm, but if you plan to be switching through lenses in a sandstorm, no amount of weather sealing will help.
But in your case, you sound more concerned with the safety of your equipment than on the absolute best performance. It's give and take. Get the gear that matches your specific case. And to be honest, there isn't anything WRONG with any of these lenses discussed. We're splitting hairs for people who like to split hairs.
Well, that's a good honest answer. Ha. I guess I'll just have to think about where I'll be using this if i get it (which is probably going to happen anyways). Thanks Jaron
I'm currently trying to decide between the Canon 50mm 1.2 L and this one. I know, the Sigma is far better in terms of quality, but damn that weather sealing drives me nervous, too.
If you're not going to be shooting this in the rain or in the desert than it should be fine. I have glass from the 80s and they're all optically excellent. Some of them do have very tiny dust particles inside, but it doesn't affect IQ in anyway, doesn't show up in photos. Leica glass from back then still costs thousands of dollars and they're not weathersealed either! The build quality of the Sigma is going to be built like a tank like their 35mm.
Thanks man :)
While I found myself looking at the Sigma vs Zeiss, I stepped back to see that the Sigma stomped the Canon by a pretty large amount. The fact that it is sub 1k in price is just awesome. Sigma is taking over, but most importantly I think it's going to give Canon and Nikon a kick in the jumblies to innovate! =)
You should update your screenshot, you're using 2 different cameras.
Weird. I never changed it manually.
Which has better bokeh?
That's the point ! Thank You !! Good question !
We are free to like a given bokeh as we choose. It's matter of personal preferences (although it's probable that a majority will agree on same choice) But : Nobody seem to see (jet enough commercial) interest to make available (true) comparison shots made with Sigma Art 50 and Otus 55. Not only that : It looks like a taboo subject to envisage such well-made comparisons to be even mentioned.. !!!!
Sigma please make a 85 1.4 Art Lens for $999 please.
If you have money to burn and don't mind manually focusing I suppose a Zeiss makes for a good toy. In the real world it's pretty much a no-brainer. The Sigma wins.
If you look at the resolution charts on the Zeiss you'll see it is a tad sharper. I doubt in day-to-day work you could realistically see the difference. One could argue that the lack of electronics will give the Zeiss greater longevity, and that may be true, but at $4000 you have to wonder who, that could easily afford the Zeiss, is gonna really care about that? I still have all my Ai Nikkors from over 30 years back, and they all still work perfectly, but they were affordable optics that were designed for day-to-day work in the trenches back in the day (and I still use them today). The Zeiss just strikes me as a status symbol with little practical real-world use in the modern day.
But even the Sigma has to be evaluated in a real-world environment. If you have a true need for wide-open shooting, and are prepared to deal with it's added mass for a 50mm optic, then it's a good investment. Otherwise your run-of-the-mill 50mm f/1.8 optic will much better serve you in day-to-day work.
You bring up an interesting question: how long will a new Sigma last in a real world environment of basically day to day use? 10 years? 30 years? More? I had an older older Sigma and it lasted about five years of beat-to-death daily grind. I would hope the new ones can do better than that.
If you use a lens like this as a casual enthusiast shooter, chances are good it will last. If you use it as a professional it may not last as long, however you will have made your investment in it several times over, so that's not going to be such a great loss. You simply buy another one. You can even write your loss and repurchase off. It's business.
Waiting 35mm T/S f2.8 and $999. Come on Sigma. You can do it!
Can't see any reason why I should buy the Sigma. I went in to DXOmark and checked out the test between the Canon, the Sigma and the Nikon 50mm AF-S f/1.4G. And the Canon got a total of 29, the Sigma got 35 and the Nikon one, got 32. Sure the Sigma gets the best result! But it's twice the price of the Nikon. Maybe it's just me and I don't shoot the 50mm that much. But I don't see the point of spending twice the amount of money for that little different.
Call me ignorant, but why is the Sigma stopped down a WHOLE stop, while the Canon and Zeiss are tested wide open? Let's see results at f/1.4 for all three lenses... or stop them all down to f/2.
The performance on a lens is definitely going to be better in all these tests when you're a whole stop in. Looks like a poor test.
I think those who think this SIgma is overpriced probably are influenced by the fact that just 3 years ago, Sigma glass was pure garbage, targeted at those who wanted a cheaper alternative to OEM lenses. Now they have stepped up their game drastically, and thats to be applauded for. But I think it will take a continued effort on their part to gradually change their brand image and alter people's perception of what is a 'fair' price for Sigma glass.
Imagine this scenario: Honda makes the CRV at 25k, the Range Rover is 80k. All of a sudden Honda releases a new line of luxury SUVs with it's appearance, trim, and performance all on par with that of a Range Rover's, and decided to price it at 60k. Would you buy it? Many would, while many more would be sold if it came at under 49k. Same thing here.
First, thank you for the good work from your site's content(5dMkIII,Tamron24-70f/2.8&others reviews) especially recently regarding the Sigma 50 1.4 Art lens.
I went to the DXO site & changing the cameras to 5d Mark III the Sigma beats the Zeiss slightly, in sharpness(sharpness went from 18 to 21,surprisingly, for Sigma while Zeiss stayed 18), barrel distortion and vignetting. I'm thinking Sigma edges out Zeiss because of autofocus and the newer camera body with a newer autofocus system possibly needed to take advantage of the full potential of the lens comparing 5dMkIII to an older 1DsMkIII. Like the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 from reports working better with camera bodies with more advanced auto focus systems, e.g. better with a 60D or 7D than a T3i.
The only real negative comments I have seen about the Sigma, were on image characteristics with lackluster color range, translating to what one commenter described as images feeling clinical or lacking emotion, compared to a more colorful Canon 50 f/1.2 and focus issues on 5dMkIII possibly having to micro adjust.
From your video and article review on the Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art lens, the images looked great and then video with the lens looked like the images, it looked so good. The Sigma has more strengths than producing a higher level of perceived detail in an image. It seems to produce images that are dramatically leaps and bounds ahead of my good ol' Canon 50mm f/1.4.
Many sites have reviews rating this lens as either THE best 50mm lens, ONE of the best 50mm lenses, one of the best lenses ever tested and one site going so far as to say THE BEST lens they have ever tested on a Canon body. With the Sigma there's a level of excitement not often seen in lens reviews.
Thanks again for your informative and enjoyable reviews.
BokehBokehOk-OK ??
I wonder why bokhe comparison is systematically forgotten and avoided.
As long as there are no comparison photos available (Otus vs Art) of
-of numerous different lit and subject situations
-shot at strictly the same technical settings (photos shot "same time" in parallel)
..then one should at least keep shout out for them to be made and shared,
but certainly not leave out to mention (yell!) that this remains THE BIG question !
Prize, sharpness evenness, MTF, robustness, coma, colorfringing, AF/MF, aberration(S), curvature of field, vignetting, flare resistance, you name it.. But also ask for BOKHE COMPARISON whenever possible, but especially when talking comparison of lenses - ALWAYS. Please! Bokhe characteristics is where the character, the mood of images can truly differ (same apperture, same focallength..) and make a BIG difference to ..YOU (at least I hope so)!
Oh I now realize that
BokehBokehOk-OK ??
(Jaron Schneider, You ask : "Am I wrong?")
I wonder why bokhe comparison is systematically forgotten and avoided.
As long as there are no comparison photos available (Otus vs Art) of
-of numerous different lit and subject situations
-shot at strictly the same technical settings (photos shot "same time" in parallel)
..then one should at least keep shout out for them to be made and shared,
but certainly not leave out to mention (yell!) that this remains THE BIG question !
Prize, sharpness evenness, MTF, robustness, coma, colorfringing, AF/MF, aberration(S), curvature of field, vignetting, flare resistance, you name it.. But also ask for BOKHE COMPARISON whenever possible, but especially when talking comparison of lenses - ALWAYS. Please! Bokhe characteristics is where the character, the mood of images can truly differ (same apperture, same focallength..) and make a BIG difference to ..YOU (at least I hope so)!
Hey group! I have been fortunate enough to find both the Otus 85 and 55, used!!!!! Definitely the cost was more than purchasing either the canon 85 1.2, the 50 1.2 and the sigma art 50. I must say that I find myself yearning for autofocus capability especially shooting at 2.0, 1.8 or 1.4 with either lens..... but the results are sweet. Here are a couple shots for bokeh ref. The first is with the Otus 55.... the rest are with the Otus 85
Otus 85 1.2
all shot with Canon 5DSr