|
|
 | 29 June 2012 19:48 |
| profilepictures Photographer  Location United Kingdom Suffolk Bury St Edmunds | Thats it. Sorted. My favourite lens of choice the 50mm in a format I'm satisfied with. Tried mk1 canon which was pretty good but clunky and not great in very low light. Mk2, which was toy like but great value, and the canons f1.4, which though giving a decent picture is weak in the front focussing element and goes off its game with a bump, meaning the lens hood has to stay on to protect it. Answer ( no, not the f1.2, not heard enough glowing stories about it to warrant the expense) The sigma f1.4, despite lots of reviews questioning its focus front or back, got one at a decent price and it's works a treat, same size glass as my L stuff do shared filters and caps, sharp with quiet autofocus and built satisfyingly solidly. Just though it worth a mention to maybe save others doing the nearly two year quest I'd just done. And reassured by the sigma offering and saving a few quid on the L price I got a 15mm fisheye from sigma too which so far is more fun than a barrel of monkeys and built just as well. |
| 30 June 2012 07:57 |
| extra_mayo Photographer  Location United Kingdom Kent Gillingham | I have it too and love it. Reasuringly heavy too Ian |
 | 30 June 2012 08:02 |
|
| RedChecker Photographer  Location United Kingdom Buckinghamshire Stoke Mandeville | I'm over the moon with my mine. Despite all my doubts with going for Sigma it has proven to be one of the best lens purchases I've ever made. The large (77mm) filter thread's handy as it's the same as my 24-70 and 70-200 which saves faffing about with convertors/extra filters. I'm now in the position of considering their 85mm over Canon's offerings (the cheap one has really bad CA on full-frame and the expensive one is just, well, expensive) |
|
| If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit | ||
| 30 June 2012 08:03 |
| rod_m99 Photographer  Location United Kingdom Cambridgeshire Cambridge | Fabulous lens. In the Nik world it just has the edge on Nikon's own 50mm in terms of less vignetting when wide open, and is a tad cheaper as well. It has revolutionised my work! |
| 30 June 2012 09:43 |
| profilepictures Photographer Location United Kingdom Suffolk Bury St Edmunds | I'd ended up genuinely fearful of the 1.4 canon, so fragile at the front and after a repair at Lehman costing 125 I thought I'd look again at sigma, its not built like the strongest L offerings but solid and reassuring like a good tool ought to be, and it comes with a decent padded case and a well fitting lens hood plus two year warranty. |
| 30 June 2012 09:48 |
|
| RedChecker Photographer Location United Kingdom Buckinghamshire Stoke Mandeville | To sum it up - it actually feels worth the money, the Canon one doesn't. The bokeh on the Sigma is lovely as well, not too dissimilar from Canon's f1.2, but from what I've seen of the Canon f1.4 it's a bit meh, and that clinched it for me when I got mine. Distortion is also very well controlled on the Sigma also, I've shot doorway images and they're pretty well behaved. |
|
| If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit | ||
| 30 June 2012 11:43 |
| PeekImage Photographer  Location United Kingdom Worcestershire | And no ones had any bacl focus problems with theirs? When I was shooting sony/minolta I was going to get one, but was warned against it, kept hearing the same complaints about sigmas QC. I have owned a copy of their 30mm 1.4 though, and that wasnt a bad little lens! I only ask as I'm in the market for one, and haven't heard any complaints about nikons af-d offering yet, but a few about the af-s. I own an ai-s for my old film body and love it!  |
| 30 June 2012 11:49 |
|
| RedChecker Photographer Location United Kingdom Buckinghamshire Stoke Mandeville |  Quote from PeekImageAnd no ones had any bacl focus problems with theirs? I'd say mine is bang-on and have been hapilly shooting at ~f1.6-2.2 for most shots that 'worked', although you have to be very selective of what you focus on, but that's the same with all lenses if you understand how AF works. |
|
| If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit | ||
| 30 June 2012 11:59 |
| profilepictures Photographer Location United Kingdom Suffolk Bury St Edmunds | It's difficult to discern what are real focus problems and what are failures to understand the issues of shallow depth of field and auto focus systems. At f1.4, you can be working a tiny narrow focus area easily catching one eye sharp and another blurred, so it's easy to miss your intended target if you don't concentrate hard. Or someone breathes in! Also canon has a narrow width of AF points and even in selecting one manually and carefully you can get it wrong or ask too Much. If its crucial and unrepeatable sometimes I go for manual focus and live view to give myself the best chance. In any case I've micro adjust in camera and haven't needed to use it so QC at least on this occasion was very acceptable. |
| 30 June 2012 12:37 |
|
| Hugh Photographer  Location United Kingdom Dyfed Aberystwyth | The Canon 50/1.4 is Ok, but not great - never loved mine. Pictures from it need work to make them match my other lenses (35/1.4L, 85/1.8, 135/2.0). I have wondered about getting the Canon 50/2.5 macro. Been very tempted by the Sigma since discovering it's the only lens she uses: http://www.cwphoto.de/de/startseite/ - if only it wasn't so big! |
|
| It's not Fine Art just because it's in Black and White. | ||
|
