Wondering if anyone has done some hands on with these 2 lenses. I'm in the market for a mid-range 50mm prime (I currently have the cheap 50mm Canon f/1.8 mkII but want to move up a bit in the world -- not liking the bokeh so much anymore on this lens now that I can see the difference). I don't have the budget for the Canon f/1.2 L Also I don't make any money from my photo work, just a serious hobby so I don't want to go too far into the poor house for it!

I've read a bunch of reviews online and looked at quite a few samples for both, but looking for opinions for people that have done some hands on with these lenses. I am hoping to get something I can use at larger apertures and still get some decent sharpness in lower lighting situations.

I'm using an APS-C sensor camera (EOS 350D but likely soon a 50D). Aside from the 50mm f/1.8 mkII my other glass are all L series (and look fantastic!) but I don't have the budget to do L series here

Both have been reviewed by Andy Westlake over at Dpreview.com. You might want to use their lens compare feature.

The sigma is a huge lens.

Yep have read the reviews for both already but am still torn on which way to go.

I used the Canon 50/1.4 for a long time. I purchased a Sigma 50mm/2.8 DG macro a couple of months ago and did a lot of personal tests with it vs. the Canon. I sold the Canon. I don't need the 1.4 speed, the AF is adequate for my shooting, and the occasional macro opportunity prompted my decision. My copy of the Sigma is sharper, but not by leaps and bounds. I am very pleased with it.

Interesting, just read a couple of brief reviews of it. Not sure that 2.8 would be enough for my needs, but thanks for the suggestion.

I have the canon f/1.4, I like it, and it is generally well-regarded. But, after looking at the comparisons at DPReview, I am under the impression that the sigma f/1.4 is substantially superior in sharpness and comparable in color. I don't wear a 50mm prime that often, so it isn't really worth replacing for me, but if I were to buy again, the samples push me strongly towards the sigma--even though it is a tank compared to the diminutive canon 50 f/1.4.

I currently have the Canon 1.4 and do like it, but am about to upgrade.

If Autofocus is not important to you, the new EF mount Planar T 1.4/50 is going to sell for about $900 (provided the $US doesn't tank!!)

http://www.zeiss.com/photo

I bought Sigma 50 /F1.4 , because of the nice Sharpness reviews on the net .
Unfortunately the lens I got was a lemon ,
much inferior to my canon L 50mm F1.2 , that I thought was not so sharp anyway.
With blind test I chose 100% images from canon lens compared to Sigma.

the good thing is I got back confidence for my L 50 / 1.2 .....
So I will be shooting with it ...


Sigma went back to the reseller .
I asked them if it was just a bad sample ......
No answer so far ...

My experience is that the difference between brands/ construction is equally important as
difference between different samples of the same brand .

Good advice all. I think what I'm going to do is to rent both of the lenses for a day or two and A/B them myself for my needs and see what happens! It seems that Vistek rents both.

Now the dilemma will be a used 5D (which should be coming down in price very soon methinks!) vs. a new 50D I guess I will wait until the 50D sees the light of day before I make that choice. I'm starting to see people selling used 5D's all over the place now that the mkII is announced.

Check this out:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...s.aspx?Lens=473

You can select both lenses and compare them at the same aperture. The Sigma looks good but I would go with the Canon 1.4.

my copy of the ef 50 1.4 was crap.... my ef 50 f2.5 macro is superb.... my CZ contax 50mm f1,7 is also superb and was only $100 + $40 for the adapter.... also... the contax 1.7 is very sharp wide open, and appears to be as bright as a 1.4.... nice bokeh as well.

here's some quick snaps from the CZ T* contax 50mm f1.7 this morning out my back door.... landscapy shot at F8, flower at f1.7 on a 1ds3

http://www.witzke-studio.com/_W8E5702.jpg

http://www.witzke-studio.com/_W8E5707.jpg

I have the canon ef 50/1.4, having passed up sigma's due to their quality control. It's a crap shoot and you have to thoroughly test the lens within any return policy period. I have friends whom are willing to put up with returns to find 'the one'.

We can argue the merits of f1.4, but at 1.4 the canon ef is not a sharp tool. Years ago 1.4 was an advantage if getting the shot was more important than being tack sharp. Today you crank up the ISO and get extra stops with stabilization.

The reviews of the sigma look sharp, and if I should have to replace my 1.4, I will certainly consider it.

<deleted due to not reading properly>

sorry!

I have 2 Sigma lenses, no more for me, nasty colour and contrast. I do have the Canon 50mm f1:4. Sharp stopped down from f3:5 onwards. Much to soft at 1:4. I'm going to give the Zeiss a long look.

Kevin.

Just to follow up I ended up going with the Canon 50mm 1.4 and am very happy with it. It's a bit too soft at 1.4 but when stopped down a bit it sharpens up nicely and works great for my needs (and the soft look of 1.4 could be useful in some situations when you're going for that sort of thing).

I've taken some of my most beautiful portraits with the canon 50mm 1.4. Personally I'm not after extreme sharpness with a 1.4 lens, but rather the character of extremely shallow DOF.