I love my version but I think the comments point to the fact that Sigma had some major quality control issues when this lens was released. Contemporary reviews either raved about it or found it to be unreliable , over priced junk. I am currently on my second copy of this lens , the first was destroyed in a natural disaster . I have found mine to be slightly less sharp wide open (but still usable) , but at f/2-2.8I have no complaints , and chromatic aberration is negligible. Both copies required micro adjustment on my Canon bodies to get the best results.
Jakub
August 4, 2022 8:33 am
Like most lens testers you seem to judge lenses solely by mtf scores. My guess is that you are not a portrait specialist…. There are a few lenses that manufacturers have consciously designed in such a way and not in a different way – nikkor af-s 58/1.4, zeiss plannar t* 50/1.4, fujinon xf 35/1.4, pentax-fa 43/1.9 and probably others which I have not had the pleasure to use. The listed lenses have one feature in common, the curvature of the focus field. It is especially noticeable at maximum aperture. This allows you to take photographs, which with lenses rated as excellent, for example, by the author of the test, is simply impossible. For an informed user who does not like ‘dermatological’ photos, these lenses are unusual, unique and ‘magical’. But indeed, to photo technicians and photo sharpness geeks I do not recommend…. Regards JH
Guru
January 13, 2019 6:26 am
Very information article and equally rich comments. My own experience matches with results narrated on bokeh and sharpness.
Have a weird observation – is it my lens or others have observed the same? The center focused subject that is slighter far (say 20 feet) is not sharp in the frame. If the subject was say 10 feet, then sharpness is there. Please share if you have some insights.
It seems that your lens is front focusing. Most modern DSLR’s allow adjustment of focusing for several individual lenses. I had this problem with my Sigma 50mm F/1.4 as well. After adjustment the focusing is perfect.
Tom
September 6, 2018 12:45 am
Maybe you had a bad copy? Mine was very sharp at f/1.4. Only in the corners, wide open, is the newer Art version noticeably sharper and more free of aberrations, but that does not matter much as at wide apertures you usually want blurred backgrounds. It is a great lens, if you get a well-put-together example. I no longer have mine, but that is not because of any shortcomings in the lens itself. it is because a 24-70 is my main lens and, as I shoot a lot more at stopped down apertures than f/2 and below, I do not want to double up on the 50mm focal length at the cost of an extra half kilo in my camera bag.
Jill
May 8, 2016 3:32 pm
I wish I had read this review years ago when I got my Sigma 50 1.4. I do like the lens, but it was a pricey upgrade from my first “nifty fifty” (Canon 1.8) that didn’t really deliver for me. It had pretty severe front focusing and was definitely soft. I felt really let down and wished I had read more reviews.
That said… Sigma has stepped up their game since this article was written, from the sounds of things. Also, you can’t beat their customer service. 10 year warranty, speedy repairs and a very responsive service department. My Canon 100mm 2.8L Macro IS has a ONE year warranty, for comparison.
So I’m torn on whether I would purchase another Sigma. Honestly, I do think I would give them another chance.
Jake Oliver
February 12, 2016 6:27 am
This is a great lens, it sounds like you got a bad copy. The bokeh and sharpness is better than my 1.8G most certainly.
paulski
May 22, 2015 9:50 am
It makes no sense at all that this lens, which you do not recommend, rates higher (4.4 stars) that the 50mm f/1.4 ART lens (4.3 stars), which you heartily recommend. Something is off here…
Yes…. While I am rather late to the party, I noticed the same thing. Other reviews by other “Pro’s” indicate that the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM is very close to the “Art” version. Glad I am not the only one to notice the inconsistency.
I suspect there is also a bias toward Camera MFG’s judging from the opening remarks. @paulski, good catch!
As for your bias remark, I recommend that you take a look at my other Sigma reviews, where I praise Sigma very highly compared to Nikon. I love their Art series lenses, but many of their older lenses were sub-par, especially when it came to QA issues. AF performance reliability was a huge concern in the past and it has gotten much better with the newer Art series lenses.
That’s what happens when you look at numbers and don’t look at what was written. The overall rating is just a number, it does not have any special meaning. The Art is superb optically that the older Sigma 50mm cannot match. But it does come at a much heavier weight, bulkier construction and higher cost, which is why the numbers for those criteria were lowered.
The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is a very different lens compared to its predecessor. Shoot both side by side and see for yourself – there is simply no comparison. When you look at regular lenses in the $500 range though, the older Sigma is not my top choice. I personally prefer the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G, as stated in the review.
Stan
August 12, 2013 2:02 pm
Tirza, sharpness deficiency is seldom caused by lenses, mostly the remedy is technique, lighting and post processing. If all your LiveView focused images suffer from the same lack of sharpness in good light, while mounted on a tripod and shooting at a moderately high shutter speed. Assumed lack of sharpness is also related to how you are viewing the images. If you are judging the images on a computer monitor, be aware that monitors have rather low resolution. If you are pixel peeping to judge, you will never be satisfied with any camera or lens combination unless possibly using files from a low resolution camera, where pixel density of the sensor is closer to the native resolution of the screen. Images are intended to be viewed at a reasonable distance from a print or display showing the entire image. I have the Sigma 50, and in the center, it is excellent for what I use it for, portraiture and full body images of people. For that focal length it is about the best for that subject type. It is soft in the corners on full frame cameras but is much better in the corners with crop sensor. Unless there is a focusing problem with the combination(which can be seen if lens caused by viewing LiveView shots to see if the same lack of sharpness is detected), that lens is not going to be intrinsically soft. Perceived sharpness involves human perception characteristics more than absolute optical resolving power of the lens. Local contrast and edge radius influence whether we think something is sharp. Viewing scale of familiar subjects are perceived to have different apparent sharpness than unfamiliar objects at unusual scales. Are you shooting RAW or JPG in-camera processing? If RAW, which post processing and rendering software are you using? If you are shooting JPG, what custom Picture Control settings are you using?
Tirza
August 12, 2013 1:30 pm
Hi Nasim,
I’m using the SIgma 50mm 1.4 on a NIkon d5100.
I want to buy the NIkon 50mm 1.8 or the 35mm 1.8, because I want my images to be sharper than what I’m getting from the sigma right now.
Would you recommend that I replace the SIgma with the NIkon 50mm 1.8? But if the difference between the NIkon 50 1.8 and the SIgma 50 1.4 isn’t that dramatic (in terms of sharpness), I’ll continue using my sigma for a 50mm, and get the NIkon 35mm 1.8 in addition to this.
What I’m asking, is whether the added value of a sharpess I gain with the Nikon 50mm 1.8, exceeds the added value of having a wider lens in addition to my current 50mm.
Ujwal
August 5, 2013 7:19 am
Hi Nasim, I have used two copies of the lens….the first one was really good lens ( crinkle finish). Sold it because the crinkle finish started looking yucky after 2 years and thought i would go and spend on a 50L but decided against and decided to spend the extra on a Canon 70-200mm F4L IS which is a massive steal at about $750 lightly used!
Bought another copy ( this one with the newer smooth finish) and its a brilliant lens. AF is spot on on my both 5D and 5dMkII… I use it as a F2 lens because its hits the sweet spot at f2. Couldn’t be more happier with a 50mm lens that cost me $355 new last year. Fantastic bokeh, spot on AF and amazing sharpness. I think the lens you recieved must have been a lemon.
I love my version but I think the comments point to the fact that Sigma had some major quality control issues when this lens was released. Contemporary reviews either raved about it or found it to be unreliable , over priced junk.
I am currently on my second copy of this lens , the first was destroyed in a natural disaster . I have found mine to be slightly less sharp wide open (but still usable) , but at f/2-2.8I have no complaints , and chromatic aberration is negligible.
Both copies required micro adjustment on my Canon bodies to get the best results.
Like most lens testers you seem to judge lenses solely by mtf scores. My guess is that you are not a portrait specialist…. There are a few lenses that manufacturers have consciously designed in such a way and not in a different way – nikkor af-s 58/1.4, zeiss plannar t* 50/1.4, fujinon xf 35/1.4, pentax-fa 43/1.9 and probably others which I have not had the pleasure to use. The listed lenses have one feature in common, the curvature of the focus field. It is especially noticeable at maximum aperture. This allows you to take photographs, which with lenses rated as excellent, for example, by the author of the test, is simply impossible. For an informed user who does not like ‘dermatological’ photos, these lenses are unusual, unique and ‘magical’. But indeed, to photo technicians and photo sharpness geeks I do not recommend….
Regards
JH
Very information article and equally rich comments. My own experience matches with results narrated on bokeh and sharpness.
Have a weird observation – is it my lens or others have observed the same? The center focused subject that is slighter far (say 20 feet) is not sharp in the frame. If the subject was say 10 feet, then sharpness is there. Please share if you have some insights.
Thanks – Guru.
It seems that your lens is front focusing. Most modern DSLR’s allow adjustment of focusing for several individual lenses. I had this problem with my Sigma 50mm F/1.4 as well. After adjustment the focusing is perfect.
Maybe you had a bad copy? Mine was very sharp at f/1.4. Only in the corners, wide open, is the newer Art version noticeably sharper and more free of aberrations, but that does not matter much as at wide apertures you usually want blurred backgrounds. It is a great lens, if you get a well-put-together example. I no longer have mine, but that is not because of any shortcomings in the lens itself. it is because a 24-70 is my main lens and, as I shoot a lot more at stopped down apertures than f/2 and below, I do not want to double up on the 50mm focal length at the cost of an extra half kilo in my camera bag.
I wish I had read this review years ago when I got my Sigma 50 1.4. I do like the lens, but it was a pricey upgrade from my first “nifty fifty” (Canon 1.8) that didn’t really deliver for me. It had pretty severe front focusing and was definitely soft. I felt really let down and wished I had read more reviews.
That said… Sigma has stepped up their game since this article was written, from the sounds of things. Also, you can’t beat their customer service. 10 year warranty, speedy repairs and a very responsive service department. My Canon 100mm 2.8L Macro IS has a ONE year warranty, for comparison.
So I’m torn on whether I would purchase another Sigma. Honestly, I do think I would give them another chance.
This is a great lens, it sounds like you got a bad copy. The bokeh and sharpness is better than my 1.8G most certainly.
It makes no sense at all that this lens, which you do not recommend, rates higher (4.4 stars) that the 50mm f/1.4 ART lens (4.3 stars), which you heartily recommend. Something is off here…
Yes….
While I am rather late to the party, I noticed the same thing.
Other reviews by other “Pro’s” indicate that the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM is very close to the “Art” version.
Glad I am not the only one to notice the inconsistency.
I suspect there is also a bias toward Camera MFG’s judging from the opening remarks.
@paulski, good catch!
George, please see my response to Paul.
As for your bias remark, I recommend that you take a look at my other Sigma reviews, where I praise Sigma very highly compared to Nikon. I love their Art series lenses, but many of their older lenses were sub-par, especially when it came to QA issues. AF performance reliability was a huge concern in the past and it has gotten much better with the newer Art series lenses.
That’s what happens when you look at numbers and don’t look at what was written. The overall rating is just a number, it does not have any special meaning. The Art is superb optically that the older Sigma 50mm cannot match. But it does come at a much heavier weight, bulkier construction and higher cost, which is why the numbers for those criteria were lowered.
The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is a very different lens compared to its predecessor. Shoot both side by side and see for yourself – there is simply no comparison. When you look at regular lenses in the $500 range though, the older Sigma is not my top choice. I personally prefer the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G, as stated in the review.
Tirza, sharpness deficiency is seldom caused by lenses, mostly the remedy is technique, lighting and post processing. If all your LiveView focused images suffer from the same lack of sharpness in good light, while mounted on a tripod and shooting at a moderately high shutter speed.
Assumed lack of sharpness is also related to how you are viewing the images. If you are judging the images on a computer monitor, be aware that monitors have rather low resolution. If you are pixel peeping to judge, you will never be satisfied with any camera or lens combination unless possibly using files from a low resolution camera, where pixel density of the sensor is closer to the native resolution of the screen.
Images are intended to be viewed at a reasonable distance from a print or display showing the entire image.
I have the Sigma 50, and in the center, it is excellent for what I use it for, portraiture and full body images of people. For that focal length it is about the best for that subject type. It is soft in the corners on full frame cameras but is much better in the corners with crop sensor. Unless there is a focusing problem with the combination(which can be seen if lens caused by viewing LiveView shots to see if the same lack of sharpness is detected), that lens is not going to be intrinsically soft.
Perceived sharpness involves human perception characteristics more than absolute optical resolving power of the lens. Local contrast and edge radius influence whether we think something is sharp. Viewing scale of familiar subjects are perceived to have different apparent sharpness than unfamiliar objects at unusual scales.
Are you shooting RAW or JPG in-camera processing? If RAW, which post processing and rendering software are you using? If you are shooting JPG, what custom Picture Control settings are you using?
Hi Nasim,
I’m using the SIgma 50mm 1.4 on a NIkon d5100.
I want to buy the NIkon 50mm 1.8 or the 35mm 1.8, because I want my images to be sharper than what I’m getting from the sigma right now.
Would you recommend that I replace the SIgma with the NIkon 50mm 1.8? But if the difference between the NIkon 50 1.8 and the SIgma 50 1.4 isn’t that dramatic (in terms of sharpness), I’ll continue using my sigma for a 50mm, and get the NIkon 35mm 1.8 in addition to this.
What I’m asking, is whether the added value of a sharpess I gain with the Nikon 50mm 1.8, exceeds the added value of having a wider lens in addition to my current 50mm.
Hi Nasim, I have used two copies of the lens….the first one was really good lens ( crinkle finish). Sold it because the crinkle finish started looking yucky after 2 years and thought i would go and spend on a 50L but decided against and decided to spend the extra on a Canon 70-200mm F4L IS which is a massive steal at about $750 lightly used!
Bought another copy ( this one with the newer smooth finish) and its a brilliant lens. AF is spot on on my both 5D and 5dMkII… I use it as a F2 lens because its hits the sweet spot at f2.
Couldn’t be more happier with a 50mm lens that cost me $355 new last year. Fantastic bokeh, spot on AF and amazing sharpness.
I think the lens you recieved must have been a lemon.