Canon 50mm f1.4/Sigma 50mm f1.4 I am caught in between purchasing these 2 lenses -- the Canon is about $350 and the Sigma is $499. However, the reviews on the Sigma are really good and make that lens more attractive than the Canon.If I chose the Canon, could anyone suggest what other accessories I need to purchase (filters, lens hood, etc.)?If I chose the Sigma, what are the necessary accessories?Thanks. Canon 50mm f1.4/Sigma 50mm f1.4 I am caught in between purchasing these 2 lenses -- the Canon is about $350 and the Sigma is $499. However, the reviews on the Sigma are really good and make that... » Read More Canon 50mm f1.4/Sigma 50mm f1.4 I am caught in between purchasing these 2 lenses -- the Canon is about $350 and the Sigma is $499. However, the reviews on the Sigma are really good and make that lens more attractive than the Canon.If I chose the Canon, could anyone suggest what other accessories I need to purchase (filters, lens hood, etc.)?If I chose the Sigma, what are the necessary accessories?Thanks. « Show Less
46359
the sigma 50mm f1.4 and i put a Hoya Super HMC 77mm UV filter on it. i love the lens.
46360
May I ask what lens you went with? I am debating the same issue. Thank you.
46361
Sigma, 1) Like the build and larger glass, 2) Sharp!, 3) Great focus, 4) Delivers like a lens that should cost double than the price.
46362
To clarify - and I know this is an old post - leaving the hood reversed will do nothing to protect the delicate af - it must be left on as if shooting.
46363
thank you for your recommendations. i've bought the hoya shmc filters for my lenses. they're great.do you have the sigma 50mm f1.4 lens? if yes, what are you shooting? do you flickr?thanks again.
2041778
There are a couple of differences, but the real question is what are your needs as a photographer? I'm guessing that since you are asking what the differences are between these lenses, your needs are not of the professional nature, but I don't want to assume. The F1.2 is a pro lens. It is a stop faster, has sharper optics, manual focus override with just a twist of the lens, and from what I've heard nicer bokeh. Generally Canon puts everything it has into its "L" lenses. Better optics, build quality, and finish. I do not own the F1.2. I don't need it. To quote a friend of mine that shoots models all day in L.A., "If someone hadn't stolen my F1.4, I would not have purchased the F1.2". For someone who shoots portrait and magazine covers all day and makes a living at it, the subtle differences of the F1.2 are worth the extra money. For someone like me, who shoots portraits on occasion or shots for web sites etc., the F1.4 is a wonderful lens. It's very fast, handles well, and produces great photos. Not to discount the F1.2; it is an amazing lens and if money were no object of course I would own it. Hope this helps. Happy shooting!
632567
hi .. had the same choice to make.. but finally went with the sigma.. 50mm shorter but i think the OS capability will eventually make the sigma a more worthwhile purchase.. I live in Singapore.. Price for the tamron is about $750 and the sigma at $840 (singapore dollars). hope this helps
8522
Hardy,Thanks for the info about getting better lenses. I just "bit the bullet" and bought the 24-105mm L lens. I have heard this same wise advice from other photographers, and I am looking forward to getting sharper photos with the new lens, and I will try to get only L lenses from now on. In the end, you truly get what you pay for.
1346890
These are 2 different focal lengths and on a crop camera it makes a big difference. I have both, and find the 50 f1.4 works best for indoors, portraits, etc. I use the 85 outside but must admit the 50 is a lot more used. Both wonderful--probably should get the 50 first.
1262995
The nifty fifty (50mm f1.8) will do the same at 100 bucks :) However, you will constrained to shoot with it in tighter/smaller spaces due to longer focal length.
725617
I use my Sigma religiously! It has actually become my favorite lens! As far as a comparison, I do not own a Canon version and have not tried one. Many reviews here http://reviews.cnet.com/lenses/sigma-apo-70-200mm/4505-13038_7-35643871.html
1526809
I am a professional photographer and I considered both before buying the Canon. I plan to use the lens regularly and for a long time and I need my images to be the best they can be. That uptick in quality is worth far more than $800, especially when spread out over years of ownership.
36856
Yes, I also bought my 50mm around $80's about a year ago. This flash unit was also cheaper (around $350) before Canon increased the U.S. prices on all Canon products (adjusting for Yen - $ rates?).
759246
Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier... » Read More Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. « Show Less
123476
It seems the art lens has higher quality optics which give better contrast and sharper images, although to the average photographer the difference would be slight. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 for $400 works great, and I have no complaints at all.
1183536
I have not had a chance to compare both but this sigma is the first non canon lens I have put in my bag. Have 6 different ones and the sigma is a great value. I have not regretted it.
387101
This is a matter of personal choice, and finances....the Canon lens is about twice the price of the Sigma. You gain a stop of light. I use this lens for portraits, and get spectacular results. The bokeh is beautiful. However, at 1.4, it is entirely possible to lose focus on the subject's back eye. I did use it for an event, too....and opened it all the way up....beautiful shots.
632572
I own the 18-250mm and it is really sharp and a good lens. I was very surprised. Not sure of the Sigma but I know with the Tamron it is a bargain at that price.
1966952
Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated.
1922083
The 50 is probably more often referred to as a "standard" lens and works great. The 35 is slightly wider and often used for portraits of more than just one person (when you need to fit more people in the frame). Keep in mind that if you have a camera with an ASP-C sensor (or a "crop sensor"-- this is the Rebel line of Canon canons as well as the 7D, etc), the 50mm is closer to a (1.6 x 50 =) 80mm due to the smaller sensor and a 35 looks closer to a (35 x 1.6=) 56mm lens. What I would suggest before dropping a lot of money on the 35L or 50L is to see what range you use more or what looks better on your camera. Most Canon cameras come with an 18-55 or 24-105 lens. Zoom that lens to the 35mm mark and use that for a day and see how it works. Then do the same thing with the lens at the 50mm mark. If you find that 50 is too narrow or 35 is too wide, there is no sense in dropping $1000+ on a focal length you aren't likely to use.
632569
I have the same question, but will probably go with the Sigma because the OS will come in handy. I go to many concerts and need a lens that will allow me to get into the concert. A Canon L lens may be too big for a concert. The OS will allow me to take better shots with less light.If you dont need the OS and want the xtra 50mm then you must go with the Tamron. Quality wise, they seem close.I was looking at the Canon 55-250 with IS but it is large compared to the Sigma.