Sigma 45mm F2.8 DG DN vs Sigma 50mm F2 DG DN

Johan Borg

Senior Member
Messages
3,771
Solutions
10
Reaction score
1,440
Location
NO
Somewhat inspired by this thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4765185

While considering buying Sigma 50mm F2 DG DN, I wasn't able to find a single user report or review that compares it directly to the 45mm F2.8 DG DN, so I thought I should write a few words now that I have both.

Before buying the Sigma fp with its 45mm F2.8 bundle in 2020, I came from a sequence of 41-45mm fixed lens cameras: Sigma DP2, DP2 Merrill and dp2 Quattro. All of them have spectacularly sharp lenses, corner to corner.

The 45mm F2.8 was a change, as it has two deliberate personalities: Wide open and up close it has a slightly softer, dreamy rendering, which makes it a lot more suitable for portraits than shooting test charts. Give it more distance or stop it down a bit and it sharpens up nicely.

One of the presumably good things about the 45mm is that the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus at F2.8 is super smooth, resulting in very natural looking photos. From the DP2 cameras I was used to - and appreciated - a more defined transition, so I often stop down to F4 for portraits with the 45mm to emulate that. This made me curious about the 50mm F2, with a hope that I could use it wide open more of the time.

First impression with the 50mm F2 is that it's very contrasty compared to the 45mm. So much so, that I may have to adjust down contrast even in the Sigma fp's Portrait Mode. It's also very sharp wide open, similar to the feeling from the Sigma dp2 Quattro.

One of the benefits of that sharpness is that I sometimes set my fp to APS-C mode, getting a 75mm equivalent focal length from the 50mm. For even more range, I have a Sigma FT-1201 1.2x teleconverter, giving the equivalent of 90mm F2.8 without changing the main lens. Then you *really* want the center to be truly sharp, and this is where I feel the 45mm was slightly lacking, wide open at portrait distance. The 50mm F2 on the other hand, is super sharp when combined with the FT-1201 and the TC is perfectly usable both in FF and APS-C modes, just adding a bit of vignetting in FF.

I have a Canon 250D (the close-up lens, not the camera) which I've rarely used with the 45mm, since it has a useful magnification for near-macro, but I'm going to need it a lot more often with the 50mm F2, since it has a longer minimum focus distance. The combination with the close-up filter works well, though. What - you may ask - are you using the 45mm for macro, isn't it soft at close range?! No, it's actually really sharp, you just have to stop it down, which you want anyway for macro.

I expected the 50mm F2 to have busier bokeh than the 45mm F2.8, and that seems to be the case, but of course you get a shallower depth of field at F2 than F2.8, so that compensates somewhat. With both cameras at F4, the 45mm wins.

It's hard to pick a winner between the two, as they have different strengths. For travel, the 45mm is a bit lighter and the wider angle is more versatile for city scenes. On the other hand, the tighter perspective of the 50mm (and sharper crops wide open) is better for people shots, which I do a lot of since I became father.

My engineer brain would choose the 50mm F2 DG DN for its overall quality, but my heart is with the one of a kind 45mm F2.8 DG DN. So no, I don't regret buying both, despite the obvious overlap.
 
A new Panasonic and a new extremelly happy owner of S9 here. I've just placed an order for a used (like new) Sigma 45mm at MPB for a decent price. The 50f2 costs new in my local store double. I already have the 17f4 (bought new along with S9), and considering 90f2.8 What is/would be your trio for S9?
 
A new Panasonic and a new extremelly happy owner of S9 here. I've just placed an order for a used (like new) Sigma 45mm at MPB for a decent price. The 50f2 costs new in my local store double. I already have the 17f4 (bought new along with S9), and considering 90f2.8 What is/would be your trio for S9?
I also considered a 45+90 combination, but don't like changing lenses in the field, so try to cover portraiture with a 50mm F2 and the 1.5x crop mode that you can set with the quick menu on my Sigma fp.

I'm really a normal lens guy, so the 45mm is my wide angle ;-) For special scenes I may bring a small tripod for panorama.
 
don't like changing lenses in the field, so try to cover portraiture with a 50mm F2 and the 1.5x crop mode that you can set with the quick menu on my Sigma fp.
Oh that is absolutely reasonable, hmmm, I hate changing lenses on the field, too, so what I usually do is that every morning I pick a lens anticipating my need for the day. I was about to buy the FP, too, but the lack of PDAF, after being so long on Sony, I skipped L mount until today with S9, its AF seems to be reasonably OK.
 
Really good description of the Sigma 45mm's capabilities and character.

Being mostly a rangefinder guy I've ended up with a whole bunch of 50mms over the years. When I got into L mount I picked up Panasonic's 50/1.4 S-Pro, a fantastic lens but one I seldom used due to size, weight and an increasing desire to stay away from the standard 35/50/75/90mm options. In the 1990s & early 2000s I'd used a Zeiss 45/2.8 Tessar on Contax film SLRs and liked it, so I decided to give Sigma's 45/2.8 a shot. Glad I did as it and the 105/2.8 macro have become my fav L lenses.

I particularly like how the 45 renders up close at f/4. In a pinch, with some cropping, it can sub for a proper macro too.

 Sigma 45/2.8 @ f/4. Mild crop.
Sigma 45/2.8 @ f/4. Mild crop.

-Dave-
 
The only remotely helpful advice I have is that the 45mm f/2.8 is supposed to be weakest at minimal focus distance. I am not an engineer, but from what I understood from an inteview with the Head Honcho at Stigma, the 45mm lens isn't as corrected spherical aberations as other lenses.

Hope this helps.
 
Great write-up and excellent observations.

Among my Sigma “I series” lenses, I like the 45 and the 65 the most for their “artistic” characters.

In this family, I would personally use the 65 instead of the 50.
 
Last edited:
The only remotely helpful advice I have is that the 45mm f/2.8 is supposed to be weakest at minimal focus distance.
Correct, but ONLY wide open at F2.8. At F4 it's sharp even at MFD, as proved by the example flower above.
 
Not that I "need" another lens for my new fp L, but I've been researching the options and costs of eventually going wider than full frame 24. (As reference, I really like Sigma DP1Merrill view with the Ricoh x.75 extender which takes the DP1Merrill 19mm to about 21mm.)

I'm also thinking about size, since I can get to 16mm with one of my Canon lenses, but it's big and heavy, not my fp L goal of less size and weight.

So the Sigma 17mm f/4 intrigues me. Does anyone use it? Or the least expensive of the 20mm's, the f/2? Anyone care to comment?

The 24mm range I can get to with the Canon 24-105 I have (big) or my Sigma 18-300m (C), which is a crop sensor lens,not small either, which would be 27mm equivalent on the wide end on my fp L. Might be my best bet for general use, plus I have one already. I use the Canon's and Sigmas with converters for the fp L.
 
Last edited:
So the Sigma 17mm f/4 intrigues me. Does anyone use it?
Yes, this is the only lens I have for S9 now. 45mm F2.8 is on its way.
 
I don’t have Sigma 50mm f2 but 45mm Sigma is probably an underrated lens. Its light gathering ability is so good with Sigma FP camera, it produces lovely three dimensional and true colour images. It is very compact easy to carry around.
 
I don’t have Sigma 50mm f2 but 45mm Sigma is probably an underrated lens. Its light gathering ability is so good with Sigma FP camera, it produces lovely three dimensional and true colour images. It is very compact easy to carry around.
That is good to hear.

Even though I have a TON of lenses in the 50mm range, I think the Sigma 45mm f/2.8 might be a possibility for its unique rendering style (particularly in terms of bokeh, as none of my 50mm lenses have particularly smooth boekh).
 
Not that I "need" another lens for my new fp L, but I've been researching the options and costs of eventually going wider than full frame 24. (As reference, I really like Sigma DP1Merrill view with the Ricoh x.75 extender which takes the DP1Merrill 19mm to about 21mm.)

I'm also thinking about size, since I can get to 16mm with one of my Canon lenses, but it's big and heavy, not my fp L goal of less size and weight.

So the Sigma 17mm f/4 intrigues me. Does anyone use it? Or the least expensive of the 20mm's, the f/2? Anyone care to comment?
I started with the digital Leica CL & 18-56mm Leica kit lens. Then I tried a couple of Panasonic L-Mount lenses and while they were light, probably due to copious amounts of plastic, they felt too large on the CL. so Then I got the Sigma 17mm f4 DG DN C, 24mm f3.5 DG DN C, and 45mm f2.8. All three are excellent, both in build and optical quality.

Next I traded the Leica kit for a Sigma FP, 65mm f2 DG DN C, and a 90mm f2.8 DG DN C. plus I have an FP-L arriving tomorrow. To answer your question, I usually leave the house with the FP and one lens, Today was the 45mm, yesterday was the 24mm. I have to say that the 17mm has become my least used lens, only because I've seemed to loose interest in that wide of an angle lens. I very briefly thought about the 20mm f2 DG DN C, but like my 65mm, it's larger than the rest. Right now I'm thinking about a two or at most three lens kit, for me that would be the 24mm, 45mm, and 90mm, selling the 17mm & 65mm. For a two lens kit I would either keep the 45mm and 90mm and sell the rest, or buy the 20mm f2, keep the 65mm, and sell the rest.
 
Great review on the lens!

wrote:

Somewhat inspired by this thread: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4765185

While considering buying Sigma 50mm F2 DG DN, I wasn't able to find a single user report or review that compares it directly to the 45mm F2.8 DG DN, so I thought I should write a few words now that I have both.

Before buying the Sigma fp with its 45mm F2.8 bundle in 2020, I came from a sequence of 41-45mm fixed lens cameras: Sigma DP2, DP2 Merrill and dp2 Quattro. All of them have spectacularly sharp lenses, corner to corner.

The 45mm F2.8 was a change, as it has two deliberate personalities: Wide open and up close it has a slightly softer, dreamy rendering, which makes it a lot more suitable for portraits than shooting test charts. Give it more distance or stop it down a bit and it sharpens up nicely.

One of the presumably good things about the 45mm is that the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus at F2.8 is super smooth, resulting in very natural looking photos. From the DP2 cameras I was used to - and appreciated - a more defined transition, so I often stop down to F4 for portraits with the 45mm to emulate that. This made me curious about the 50mm F2, with a hope that I could use it wide open more of the time.

First impression with the 50mm F2 is that it's very contrasty compared to the 45mm. So much so, that I may have to adjust down contrast even in the Sigma fp's Portrait Mode. It's also very sharp wide open, similar to the feeling from the Sigma dp2 Quattro.

One of the benefits of that sharpness is that I sometimes set my fp to APS-C mode, getting a 75mm equivalent focal length from the 50mm. For even more range, I have a Sigma FT-1201 1.2x teleconverter, giving the equivalent of 90mm F2.8 without changing the main lens. Then you *really* want the center to be truly sharp, and this is where I feel the 45mm was slightly lacking, wide open at portrait distance. The 50mm F2 on the other hand, is super sharp when combined with the FT-1201 and the TC is perfectly usable both in FF and APS-C modes, just adding a bit of vignetting in FF.

I have a Canon 250D (the close-up lens, not the camera) which I've rarely used with the 45mm, since it has a useful magnification for near-macro, but I'm going to need it a lot more often with the 50mm F2, since it has a longer minimum focus distance. The combination with the close-up filter works well, though. What - you may ask - are you using the 45mm for macro, isn't it soft at close range?! No, it's actually really sharp, you just have to stop it down, which you want anyway for macro.

I expected the 50mm F2 to have busier bokeh than the 45mm F2.8, and that seems to be the case, but of course you get a shallower depth of field at F2 than F2.8, so that compensates somewhat. With both cameras at F4, the 45mm wins.

It's hard to pick a winner between the two, as they have different strengths. For travel, the 45mm is a bit lighter and the wider angle is more versatile for city scenes. On the other hand, the tighter perspective of the 50mm (and sharper crops wide open) is better for people shots, which I do a lot of since I became father.

My engineer brain would choose the 50mm F2 DG DN for its overall quality, but my heart is with the one of a kind 45mm F2.8 DG DN. So no, I don't regret buying both, despite the obvious overlap.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top