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.
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..
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.
Len_Gee: What lens is Zack using in the opening shots? Looks like some kind of pancake lens?Also, his camera bag? Not a Fuji X user yet, but looking to move up,from MFT kit.
I wouldn't, Fujifilm's lenses aren't that great.
W4YNE 1: Very nice second image of the boy playing on the beach. Looks like another winner in this lens from Sigma, and probably no doubt considerably cheaper than the big boys equivalent lenses.
Still one of the very few good photos in this gallery.
ppando: Too bad Sigma doesn't offer it in the Sony FE mount!
And they never will. This lens has a motor for PDAF,
flyto9: It might be a dump question to ask. Should I get 50mm or 32mm? I tried 50mm (Fullframe) and 40mm (20mm m43). Whenever I see a picture and want to capture it. 50mm seems to be a bit limited that I need to step back to capture the picture. It might be that I was used to my 20mm m43? I personally also whan to get the 85mm for good portrait. So would the 32mm be more appropriate in this case?
The 50mm art seems to have a better review than the 32mm art. Is it that much better? optically? IP? Bokeh?
There is no 32mm Art obviously.
ageha: The lenses still look like designed by Panasonic...
I own Pana Leica lenses for m43 and the newer ones are good. I'm not too happy about the 45/2.8 but it's one of the first ones. Anyway, the design looks misplaced on the T. I'm just complaining about the cheap plastic look at this price point.
Dirk Nuary: $7700 for just BW camera? You are too bad panda.... Just go for D4s that win in every aspects.
The DP Merrills actually have a pretty good B&W output, I like it.
I rather take the M Monochrom with me.
Interesting but pricy.