How does this compare to a Canon 50mm 1.8 ? Was thinking to upgrade but not sure if i should get another 50mm if its not much difference
543319
I had a Nikon 50mm 1.8 and my nephew had a Canon 50mm 1.8, and we both got these and love them. Be both have noticed a difference.
543320
I had the 1.8 and switched to the sigma and LOVE IT!! My pictures are more colorful and sharper plus I love the depth of field!!!
543321
this lens beats Canon's L 1.2 Lens hands down, and the Canon 1.8 is a $99 piece of task junk, get this lends you won't be sorry,,,, if it doesn't focus the first day send it back, but if it does focus you got the best lends for a long time,
543322
I had a canon 50mm 1.8 and I wouldn't have bought a new one if my canon 1.8 didn't break. due to its cheap build quality and plastic treads it got stuck on my camera body and had to break it off. Anyways I thought of buying a better lens than canon 50 mm 1.8 this time atleast a better build. You can see my review about this lens at http://www.amazon.com/review/R26B2HYD7HEPS8/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN;=B0018ZDGAC&linkCode;=&nodeID;=&tag;=I did end up returning it due to inconsistent focus problem and bought a canon 50 mm 1.4. Canon has a much better and accurate auto focus hands down. I had a canon 50mm 1.8 and I wouldn't have bought a new one if my canon 1.8 didn't break. due to its cheap build quality and plastic treads it got stuck on my camera body and had to break it off. Anyways I thought of buying a better lens than canon 50 mm 1.8 this time atleast a better build. You can see my review about this lens at http://www.amazon.com/review/R26B2HYD7HEPS8/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN;=B0018ZDGAC&linkCode;=&nodeID;=&tag;=I did end up returning it due to inconsistent focus problem and bought a canon 50 mm 1.4. Canon has a much better and accurate auto focus hands... » Read More I had a canon 50mm 1.8 and I wouldn't have bought a new one if my canon 1.8 didn't break. due to its cheap build quality and plastic treads it got stuck on my camera body and had to break it off. Anyways I thought of buying a better lens than canon 50 mm 1.8 this time atleast a better build. You can see my review about this lens at http://www.amazon.com/review/R26B2HYD7HEPS8/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN;=B0018ZDGAC&linkCode;=&nodeID;=&tag;=I did end up returning it due to inconsistent focus problem and bought a canon 50 mm 1.4. Canon has a much better and accurate auto focus hands down. « Show Less
543323
Hi, I'm a Nikon user. I'm not sure about Canon's 50 1.8 but this Sigma is better than Nikon's 50 1.8, 1.4D, and even 1.4G in terms of the overall better IQ, contrast, and creamy bokeh. The only problem is to get a "good copy" with accurate AF. Sigma is infamous for the QC for this last generation lenses.
543324
My copy of the Sigma was horrendous. I had to send it back. Ended up buying the 35mm version of the Sigma (the new Artisan series) and that one's MUCH sharper than the equivalent Canon 1.4.
543325
No comparison! This lens even out performs Canon's 1.4 in most areas! One area it really blows a lot 50mm out of the water in is bokeh quality! It has 9 round blades that make a heck of difference and give it it's quality D.O.F. and bokeh. Some have compared it's build quality and performance more closer to Canon's 50mm 1.2L. I'm a fashion and beauty photographer and use this lens quite often, and I can confidently stand behind this glass! If you can buy it, buy it! To see some of the photos I've taken with this lens visit my site: www.richardanthonyevans.com.
1135873
We carried both on our European honeymoon. The 50 mm f/1.8 lens is GREAT for portraits when you want to blur the background, but it is not good for landscapes or where you need to stand pretty close to the subject but want a normal field of view. We found that it was hard to just carry the 50 mm lens without having the 18-55 lens in back-up, but the pictures with the 50 mm lens are our favorites. If you really wanted to just carry one lens, you could probably get by with the 50 mm lens plus a camera phone.
2251841
I do own a 18-50mm on my Rebel.. and this one is for my Nikon... But I really can't distinguish any differences since I am pretty new to the hobby. But I find it very easy now to just have one lens on all the time .. with my canon I would always have to keep changing from my 15-50mm to my zoom lens a lot and it takes too much time plus you have to carry another lens with you. So far so good.. its a really awesome lens.. and all my friends think its cool!
763550
Hi, actaually I have this lens and had the 16-50. I got the nex 6 last year and sold the 16-50 lens because I felt the pics came out better in the 18-55. The focus was better and pics seems crisp to me in 18-55. Yes it's much heavier and the smaller to travel with. 16-50 made it really nice to go our the city with.... But I just couldn't take a good pic with the 16-50. I got the 18-55 for about $100 used. So I'm happy.
101688
If you're looking for good quality and use a canon the 50mm f1.8 is a great and cheap lens. If you're looking for a macro lens I use the canon macro lens EF.S 60mm. I liked it better then the sigma macro lens.
155654
I'm 50/50 on it. There are a lot of plusses for the 35 (1.3 stops faster, shallower DOF, phase detect autofocus points on the entire frame, image stabilization), but one big negative (twice the price). It's also less sharp, but it's not soft by a long shot. If you shoot in very low light, fast subjects, or video, the 35 is the better choice. Otherwise, the 30 is an excellent deal.
1579847
I have both and the 85mm has a much better build quality, longer focal length, and more robust colors and image quality is significantly better. I rarely use my 50mm anymore. I keep it because of its low price and the resale value isn't worth it.
1796676
It's more plasticy ten the 50mm 1.4. I got the 35mm bc I have the Canon 70D which cropped senor dslr. I like the 1.4 better for quality of shots in door but eith a cropped sensor it made the lense closer to 80mm. The 35mm is closer to 45mm on the crop sensor dslr
32352
If money is a concern, try the "fantastic plastic" or sometimes called the "nifty fifty". That's the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8. Great lens. Best optics per dollar, for sure. Only complaint people have had has been about the quality of background blur when shooting wide open. I haven't had an issue personally, it's acceptable for the price. It IS rather ugly compared to the quality of bokeh on the f/1.2L .. But you can buy 15 of the 1.8s for the price of the 1.2, so that's to be expected.The 1.4 has had some great reviews as well.
1509565
I have shot 3 weddings with this lens and I haven't had a problem with it, it's been great. I have used the 70-200 and its just a bit faster that the 80-200 but I can't really tell the difference.
2109069
I am using it with my X-E1. I do not have any problems with the speed thus far for my uses (enthusiast photography, architectural and stills). I do like the quality, very sharp and great colors. I am not sure what kind of speed you are looking for and unfortunately I have not used the Canon lens you mention. If speed is desired, F2.8 is desirable, but as far as performance and price point is concerned; this is the sweet spot for me. Also, read some of the reviews on the purchase page. Very good info there as well. Good luck!
1456961
I've owned both lenses and the 50 1.4 has a better build quality, the larger aperture will also give you shallower DOF which might help with portraits, and it should focus faster. Unless you plan on doing a lot of macro photography with your lens I'd go with the 50 1.4.
1346884
The 50mm f/1.4 doesn't offer enough of an image quality boost over the 50mm f/1.8 to justify buying it. The 85mm f/1.8 offers faster ring type USM focusing, the 50mm f/1.8 does not. The 85mm f/1.8 has a rich and creamy bokeh that is as good or better than the 50mm f/1.4. While still being a great traditional portrait lens, the extra reach of the 85m f/1.8, makes it great for concerts, plays, and gymnasium sports. I like to say the 85mm f/1.8 is the lens that every parent should own (and anyone who wants to sell photos to parents too).
1723237
I like the SL 1 for general photography, the smaller size and lighter weight would be good for packing in the field. It has a 'cropped' sensor which gives a telephoto factor of 1.6, so a 50 MM lens acts like an 80 MM and 200 MM like a 320 MM, but smaller sensor size means less 'light on film' and might be a problem in low light situations. You might need a longer lens for birds 'a couple hundred feet away' it would be nice to check the lens out in a store or if you know someone with a similar set up.
735070
As far as build quality goes the 40 beats it without question, also a lot smaller. The 50 on the other hand does have a larger aperture for more blurred backgrounds and better in low light. They are both very sharp. I do perfer the auto focus on the 40 over the 50. If you want to save 100$ go with the 50. You won't be let down with either lenses. I own both
1820412
The 1.8 is similar in build quality to the kit lens--probably a slight bit below the XSI kit. If you're happy with the kit lens, you should be happy with the 1.8.There's a reason why 93% of the reviews here are 4 or 5 stars--this lens takes great pictures. For $80, what do you have to lose?
1922083
The 50 is probably more often referred to as a "standard" lens and works great. The 35 is slightly wider and often used for portraits of more than just one person (when you need to fit more people in the frame). Keep in mind that if you have a camera with an ASP-C sensor (or a "crop sensor"-- this is the Rebel line of Canon canons as well as the 7D, etc), the 50mm is closer to a (1.6 x 50 =) 80mm due to the smaller sensor and a 35 looks closer to a (35 x 1.6=) 56mm lens. What I would suggest before dropping a lot of money on the 35L or 50L is to see what range you use more or what looks better on your camera. Most Canon cameras come with an 18-55 or 24-105 lens. Zoom that lens to the 35mm mark and use that for a day and see how it works. Then do the same thing with the lens at the 50mm mark. If you find that 50 is too narrow or 35 is too wide, there is no sense in dropping $1000+ on a focal length you aren't likely to use.