Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art and bokeh (new pics 4/11/2014)

Started Apr 11, 2014 | Discussions thread
HSway Veteran Member • Posts: 3,168
Re: Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art and bokeh (new pics 4/11/2014)

TQGroup wrote:

HSway wrote:

jtra wrote:

TQGroup wrote:
Hi Jtra

I have read your article previously and have recommended it to friends, so now is a good time to thank you for sharing your important work.

Thank you.

As to the Sigma 50 F1.4 ART, I am not so sure that I could call its bokeh "neutral". Of course, as I've said before, it is very early days and I want to see test photos from sites I know and trust before I can confirm a definite opinion.

For example, please consider the 100% crop from a Lens Tip photo posted above in this forum: (easy link) and let me know how you would describe the bokeh highlights of the black motor car.

I am interested in your "expert" evaluation.

I based my opinion on pictures I have seen here:

Bokeh of any lens can look bad when picture is too sharpened (in camera sharpnening or raw processing can do it).

Looking at the picture you talk about ( ), I see that bokeh is smoother near center and more edgy on image sides. You can see that on windows. Look at the windows just above statue. They are quite smooth but as you follow them to the left side, the edge of bokeh is more and more prominent. This is quite common. Older Sigma 50/1.4 DG HSM also has smoother background bokeh in about DX area than at sides.

Anyway this looks ok to me:

And it is way better than Nikon 50/1.4G here:
And this is Nikon 50/1.8G:

Comparison is the fastest way to find out, be it a known or yet unknown lens, as it illustrates the actual difference. Those mail box shots here, however useful they might be, make for rather poor comparison per se as the differences in light and the subject-to-camera distance (amount of the blur) influence the perception of bokeh.

Btw, I don’t mind the oof rendering of the 50/1.8G’s, or some other/older lenses with more structure to their technically less perfect bokeh, unlike in some other cases. Though this obviously doesn’t close the door for having one's own preferences. As we know the character of a lens isn’t possible to fit in a strictly technical description.

What I have seen so far the Sigma doesn’t look to be the instance for a generally accepted case of a bad bokeh. The lens looks more like a candidate for an average - good bokeh. - Success considering.

Otus vs Sigma mail box pics are more useful and reflect my impression of Otus being a bit smoother and creamier in the background -wide open to f2.8.

Thanks for posting this interesting link.

Very interesting and insightful comments, IMHO, Hynek. I totally agree with you about the value of comparisons, but they should not just be "apples to apples" but also "small red apples to small red apples" so a valid conclusion can be drawn without anyone trying to "game" the result.

+ 1 for your early assessment of the Sigma's bokeh as likely to be "average to good."

+1 again for your assessment of the Nikon 50 F1.8 G OOF rendering ... I regularlu use it as a light weight "nifty fifty" and it doesn't disappoint for its intended purpose.

The link to the Japanese review you have posted is very enlightening and probably shows why the Siggy first came out in Canon livery and its likely target market for immediate sales penetration. I am also impressed with the quality of their photographic comparisons.

Thank you Andrew, agreement is scarce in this type of threads so I am glad we agree. Otherwise jtra’s come with the link before, our thanks go to him

As you say great work done there.. sure not all, some things must be done out in the field etc.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow