ageha: The lenses still look like designed by Panasonic...
Seriously, just because the Leica has two dials next to each other? The cameras don't look alike at all on that posted photo. Yeah sure, both look like cameras.
The Leica's body looks more like a copy of Samsung's NV series: http://www.fotopolis.pl/media/obrazki/NV10bisPrzod.jpg
Ralf B: This lens definitely needs controlled backgrounds for its bokeh characterhttps://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/2897503.jpg?X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJ7ICBHXPIPPMTNCQ/20140529/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20140529T115209Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=a835a6936ab75fd16bb32e0232442f2daeee86d8a132a904c164540ac3e80dc5The Sony FE 55/1.8 appears as having much smoother bokeh. I prefer the CZ 135/1.8 for my Sony Alpha A mount FF for its combination of sharpness matching this lens a n d silky smooth bokeh. It appears as much more forgiving if you cannot avoid a busy fore/background.http://kurtmunger.com/sony_135mm_f_1_8_carl_zeissid266.html
Nope but who cares...
Minus all the buttons. Not really...
pwmoree: So 1000 euro equals 1390 usdollar. Why is this lens 39 percent more expensive here in Europe? The 390 $ difference almost buys you a plane ticket to the USA to go and get one and have a weekend in NY included..
Fortunately the VAT standard rate isn't allowed to be lower than 15% under EU law in any EU state. :)
In the end it doesn't matter, demand will be higher than stock. Prices are just arbitrary numbers, they aren't related to the product value in any way. Sigma is simply trying to get the highest possible price out of your pocket like any other manufacturer. :)
I guess the quality is OK for a 1/2.3"...
ThePhilips: Pana produces real nice P&S.
I wish I have started with Pana and not Canon.
Why does it matter? It's a P&S, not a system. You can switch anytime.
Yup, throwing the CZ 135/1.8 in here is pointless. If I'm looking for a 50mm I don't care about 135mm.
Jahled: I've never bought a Sigma because some people say there is no guarantee they will work with future models of the camera brands they are reverse engineered to work with. I've also heard to many people bemoan the 'Sigma lottery,' of getting a nice copy of a lens. I expect a 'nice copy' of a lens on my first purchace from Canon, and bar one in 2007, have always got one.
Is this me missing out on some lovely glass though?
If it stops working with a future camera body, simply update the lens firmware. That's possible for decades.
In Singapore the lens is actually only US$800 in stores and that includes the 7% sales tax. :)
MarshallG: I know it's a lot of work, but I sure wish you'd taken some of those test images side-by-side with the Canon 50mm f/1.4. It would make it far easier to decide whether this expensive lens is worth it.
As it is... I have a lot of respect for all of the work (you did an excellent job), but the result are a lot of "take my word for it" accolades, and it's hard to see for myself if the praise is justified, because there's no baseline.
I don't think it's worth it. The EF 50mm f/1.4 just isn't sharp enough especially in the corners. Why even bothering doing a comparison if they're worlds apart?
Bill T.: This new lens can almost compete with a 35 year old 55mm f2.8 AIS Nikkor for sharpness and CA! I think I'll keep the 55 and buy a tripod to cover those rare f1.4 moments.
The Nikkor isn't very sharp for an f/2.8 prime to begin with.
Scorpius1: The fact we even compare Sigma to Zeiss now shows how far Sigma have come!!Well done Sigma,
I'm more looking forward to a lighter and more fall proof polyvinyl carbonate version at 2/3 the price. :)
Reilly Diefenbach: I guess I just don't get the point of an expensive, heavy, bulky 1.4 lens if the bokeh is as hideous as what I'm seeing on these DPR sample shots. The chap with the bridge behind him is a truly ugly, discombobulated looking shot, to single out one.
Would be nice if people would post examples how it should look like. :)
Oh no, please no limited editions ever!
Robert Newman: 50mm is a focal length that most professional photographers seldom use. Regardless of its optical merits, it is just not something I would ever consider buying especially at the price point at which it is being introduced.
Exactly, 50mm is neither here nor there. Anyway, it's a great lens but I would prefer the lighter 58mm F1.4 Nikon.
eyeswideshut: I really don't know what to admire more. Someone who - one hundred years ago - achieved roughly similar performance with four lenses in three groups at F/2.8 or a corporation which - a century later - achieves marginally better performance corner to corner with the aid of cad/cam and thirteen lenses in four groups at a whopping 800g and a thousand dollars.
Which lens are you talking about?
beavertown: It is almost half price of the Nikon 58mm f1.4 and a lot cheaper than the Carl Zeiss 50mm.
It's a pro, not a con for its price.
This lens is not in the same class of the Nikon 50mm f1.4, it is a much more superior lens.
Really? Who would have thought...
Just another Canon shooter: Your bokeh test is useless - background well separated from the foreground or closeups. The problems usually are in the transition area. Some lenses, like the S35 are particularly bad there.
You could have included this shot: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2897503/f1-4_01img_5736?inalbum=sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-canon-preview-samplesin the bokeh section, and compared it to the Nikon and the Canon.
I have the feeling that you know more than you say but you do not want to be more critical. You mention AF problems with cheap bodies and off center AF points and then dismiss it - who really used that lens on cheap bodies? How about off center focusing with the 5D3 and the D800?
Yeah, the hokey could be better. Well, at least the lens is sharp even wide open.