Rubo Aristakesyan , Mar 28, 2009; 11:37 a.m.
I know this topic is beat to death, but my question is purely about performance of these lenses wide open and stopped down until f/2.8. I don't care how well they perform beyond f/2.8, i need it for low light work.
The lenses in question are Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and i threw in Canon 50mm f/1.8 just because it's so cheap.
What i would like to know is from people who have used them and real life result (not test charts).
The most important is the sharpness (CA, colors and distortion i can fix post).
How do Sigmas stock up to Canon 1.4? Are they as sharp or sharper?
Also, how is the AF with Canon 1.8? is it is fast as 1.4 or the Sigmas?
Thank you in advance.
Harry Joseph 
, Mar 28, 2009; 11:50 a.m.
Why dont you just get a Sigma camera !
Rubo Aristakesyan , Mar 28, 2009; 11:58 a.m.
Bruce Muir , Mar 28, 2009; 12:18 p.m.
I've owned the EF 50 1.8 II and use the EF 50 1.4 now (on FF and 1.3).
The 1.8 hunts for focus is noisy (as if that matters) and slow to lock on.
The 1.4 is nice by f/ 2.2 but any wider and....you live with it but it's soft and has barrel distortion at closer focussing distances.
The EF 1.4 also has an older micro motor? ? ? and the front element moves so it's fragile. Hope it's updated soon.
I'm wondering if I should try the siggy because so many like the boke or whatever you want to call it.
Bruce Muir , Mar 28, 2009; 12:19 p.m.
sorry double post if you hit back...
Faleh Alshirsawy , Mar 28, 2009; 12:33 p.m.
i got the sigma over canon after reading so many reviews and almost every one one review this lens and compere to the canon one agrees on the sigma is the better lens in bulid quality and it is sharper wide open but it is alot biger and heavier the boukh is beautiful ,much better than canon 1.4 lens,the HSM is very fast and extremely quite,some people complain about front and back foucs in earlier copys but my copy is right on target and yeah it cost alot more but it is worth every penny to me.hear read more from other peoplehttp://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=367
JDM von Weinberg , Mar 28, 2009; 01:12 p.m.
I've never had the focus problem with the 50mm f/1.8 Mx II that Bruce describes. It seems crisp and quick to me and works well in low light. Noisy, a little. Has a sort of pentagonal bokeh, but if you use it wide open it's not a problem either.
How can you lose with a lens that goes used on eBay for around $50 if you are patient? It's the lightest lens available for the EOS, or close to it. I've bought two of them and both are still working just fine on 1.6x and 1x bodies.
Mark Pierlot 
, Mar 28, 2009; 01:45 p.m.
Rubo, I use Canon FD and EOS gear. My best primes for low light work are the FD 50/1.2 L, the FD 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical, and the FD 85/1.2 L. I've never found the IQ of the FD or the EF 50/1.4 to be good wide open, as much as I love those lenses.
So, by extension, the EF primes that'll work best in low light are the EF 50/1.2 L and the 85/1.2 L. I'd never consider buying a Sigma lens, largely because of their lack of backwards compatibility and generally inferior IQ. I am, however, thinking of picking up a Tamron 85/1.4 Aspherical in EF-mount, which is reportedly a reasonable surrogate for the EF 85/1.2 II, which costs six times as much.
Jay F , Mar 28, 2009; 01:53 p.m.
Hello Rubo
I am wondering the same thing.
I haven't tried the Sigma. None of the camera shops in my area has one yet. It better be good because here in Southwestern Ontario Canada, it is $275.00 more than the Canon EF50/1.4 (with lens hood).
Both my kids have the EF50/1.8 and I don't like the out of focus backgrounds when the lens is used close-up and wide open. They seem a little harsh and ragged to me.
I tried an EF50mm/1.4 at a camera store the other day and the sample image below was taken in the store @ 1.4. The subject (my 35 f/2.0 lens) was on top of a a glass display case and was backlit by the light in the display case. I wanted to see the "halation" effect that is so often mentioned about this lens. I focused on the centre of the exposed metal lens mount (looks like a chrome ring in the photo).
Cheers! Jay
Jay F , Mar 28, 2009; 01:57 p.m.
Here is another shot at f/4.5
