|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Nopanic www.juzaphoto.com/p/Nopanic  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Pros: Mainly sharpness, good already at full aperture in all conditions and at any distance of focus Cons: Boring and flat rendering, amateur autofocus sometimes does not hook, high weight to be a 1.4, worse construction than it seems Opinion: SHARPNESS: let's start with the merits, the Sigma 50 Art is sharp, disgustingly sharp. It is able to perform well in any condition already at full aperture, whether it is a close up or a distant full-length portrait. GENERAL YIELD: when I bought it (used at 450) as the main work lens I was very happy because compared to my old canon 50mm 1.4 it did not knead at full aperture over the meter of focus, it had less aberrations (than those that you do not remove with a click), more sharpness and general contrast very good, but after two years I wanted to sell it because it has a very flat yield anyway, opaque, which soon bores, the colors are never decided and has like a "patina" that kills photos with a lot of color variation inside them, I do not know if I explain. Example, a portrait of a blonde with blue eyes does not make it well, it is sharp but flat in tones, regardless of the color profile used or highlights the cold colors (blue eyes) or warm (dark blond / brown hair), the microcontrast of this lens is really mediocre. Before selling it I had it for some time together with the Canon EF 50mm 1.2 that replaced it, well they are two lenses of different categories. The numbers and reviews say one thing, while the experience in the field says quite the opposite, there is a reason why the sigma on the used is found at just over half of the Canon. The Canon L has much better colors and a much higher halftone yield, but I'll come back to that later. AUTOFOCUS: another note against the sigma, the focus (at least on Canon bodies) is mediocre and at key moments you risk losing the exchange of the rings and this is not a good thing, there is a problem of front back focus (which it still has) but not to hook the subject! BOKEH: the blur of the Sigma is good but not excellent, even here I would call it boring. Quantity but not quality. BUILD QUALITY: it has never taken shocks but after only a summer of weddings I found it with a crack on the plastic around the front element, bad bad sigma. DIMENSIONS: a really excessive weight for a 50mm 1.4, but this is the price to pay to have a hyper correct optics. BRIEF COMPARISON WITH THE CANON EF 50mm 1.2 L: the Canon is less sharp at full aperture but is already sharp enough for every use, has a blur of a completely different caliber (quality and quantity), majestic colors and a rendering of detail (NOT sharpness but tonal detail) at full aperture to leave you speechless. All weighing and cluttering less! Then if you are interested in distortion (correctable with a click and in any case nothing tragic) aberrations (also here nothing dramatic) and sharpness at the edges at full aperture buy the Sigma, if instead you are photographers and you want a lens that can make the difference and give you that "more" invest yourself with your eyes closed on the Canon without thinking twice. The Canon is a lens that does not always use it at full aperture because, generally speaking, it has its own identity from 1.2 to 1.8 (magical) and another identity from f2 up (sharp and microcontrasted not to be believed), so it is like having more than one lens in one depending on the yield you prefer, a daydream (1.2), a daydream but engraved (1.8), a blade with otherworldly colors (from f2 upwards). Sigma has for better or worse the same identity at every opening, not surprising, without infamy and without praise. CONCLUSIONS: in short, it is an amateur lens suitable for general use and very unsuitable for portraiture in my opinion, if you want to take on an exaggerated weight for a 1.4 spending 450 on the used (not worth a euro more especially for the build quality and autofocus) this lens is for you, but if you are professionals it will not withstand either the test of time or the comparison in the field with optics of other caliber such as the aforementioned Canon 50 L or some other zeiss pearl sent on September 26, 2021 |
 | Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Pros: Blurred dream, color rendering, quantity and quality of midtones from higher category optics, lightweight to be a 1.2 autofocus. Cons: For me nothing. Opinion: It is my favorite lens, and I say this also owning the 35mm f1.4 L I and the 85mm 1.2 L II which are two equally magnificent glasses. I come from the Sigma 50mm Art and the Canon full aperture sharpness apart is superior in every other respect. Sharp enough at 1.2 but with a micro contrast ("3D pop", "zeiss pop", "leica rendering", call it what you like) already so high as to overshadow the sharpness of which the optics is capable, in a portrait head shoulder to 1.2 the pixels seem to disappear in favor of "an infinite detail" in the rendering of tones, difficult to explain, it must be tried. The quality of the blurred is clearly phenomenal, but it is especially the transition from fire to blurred, things just out of focus do not appear out of focus, but as if wrapped in an aura of magical softness. Do not be frightened by those who speak badly because the optics are not made to shoot brick walls or optical sights but the surrounding world. Not only is it sharp enough already at full aperture, but at 1.2 it makes it good even with fire distances around 10 meters, at these distances it does not knead everything as the little brother 1.4 does. If you want a little more sharpness and focus / blur detachment just close at 1.6 or 1.8 without affecting too much the character of the lens, which instead from f2 upwards changes to become much more "correct" and obviously sharp. I personally use it almost always at full aperture, except if I have to shoot groups that touch the edges of the frame (and there f2 honestly is enough) or close up, where I close a little to avoid an excessive "fog" effect. The autofocus is fast and precise, certainly more precise than the Sigma 50mm Art. On my 5D mkIV it did not need any calibration and makes very little mistakes even at full aperture, while on my R6 it is practically never wrong. If I really have to find the negative sides are those typical of ultra bright optics not very correct: a bit of distortion (correctable with a click) and extreme edges never super sharp, but it is a problem only if you take this lens to make only landscape, having said that I also do landscape without any patema of soul, it has colors and a rendering engraved from f2 up that I see only in the other fixed series L. Aberrazioni in conditions of strong contrast there are but to me they do not give boredom, also because you have to know how to shoot and there is no optics that holds if you want to insist on shooting with a light unsuitable for the purpose and delegate everything to the post. I prefer this lens to the 85 because the latter is already too "hard" from 1.2, but they are simply personal preferences, as they are two equally legendary lenses, compared to the 35 L instead the 50 L I find it superior to full aperture on distant subjects (full figure portrait). But in general they are three fixed ones that return a very coherent aesthetic with each other and are perfect to use as a trio. That said, it is an optics that for what it offers is at a very honest price on the used and I do not find it at all heavy even for intense use sent on September 20, 2021 |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
