What is the difference between this lens for $400 and the similar Sigma lens that says Art for about $1000?
123475
Good question. The difference is better optics at 1.4f stop, or wide open. If you shoot wide open all the time, then you might want to consider that extra expense. On the other hand, if you shoot occasionally wide open, this lens (400) is great and I have liked shooting with it.
123476
It seems the art lens has higher quality optics which give better contrast and sharper images, although to the average photographer the difference would be slight. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 for $400 works great, and I have no complaints at all.
1794470
One thing that hasn't been addressed by others, is that the APD version won't work with phase detection autofocus, so not only its it "slower" with light gathering, but also slower with focusing. And it's $500 more. Unless you're shooting in a studio, I don't think most will be interested in this lens.
155655
Love my Sigma. It is fantastic lens for the money. If video is a requirement, I recommend the Sony. The OSS makes for much better video. BTW - when I shoot video, I change to 16-50 lens with OSS.
1646078
Both lenses are excellent and brilliantly sharp. The Sigma is less expensive. The Canon focuses more quickly, a little, no macro lenses are fast. It should come down to what focal length you want. Canon offers an IS version of the macro. The stabilization is nice if you hand hold, but doubles the price and weight.
579923
I love that lens it's more comparable to a Ziess 85mm. The bokeh at 1.5 is awesome! I would highly recommend it over the canon 1.8
725613
Yes, it's as sharp and contrasty as the Canon. However, don't expect it to last quite as long. I've been using some of my Canon L glass since 1990. I'm rough on gear and suspect the build quality of Sigma lenses isn't as good as Canon. I have 24, 35, 50 and 85 Sigmas and all are good.
1183538
The canon has 1.2 vice 1.4 and slightly less chromatic aberration (purple color fringing) when wide open. The sigma is much faster to focus and just as sharp. It's not so much a "quality" as paying a premium for the canon L red ring and the extra glass needed to achieve 1.2.
110371
Actually, I did sell my 12-60 to help pay for this lens -- they're about comparable w.r.t. image quality. The 12-40 doesn't have as wide a range of focal lengths, but is optically faster. I've also heard about a couple of examples of this lens having structural issues. But mine is holding up nicely, even in spite of a bit of accidentally rough treatment (I slipped on a muddy slope and landed on the lens).
245019
The one I received was a USA lens with Sigma warranty. It was NOT a "grey market" lens.
1886675
I don't know about the other lens and how it compares but this lens works great for portraits.
160523
I wasn't aware Sigma made this same lens in a "macro" version? Becarefull believing the discriptions as some "used" products are misrepresented. Any how, macro will allow for a shorter minimum focus distance. Good luck
1966950
I haven't tried the 28mm, but I can see it costs about $100 more than the Sigma. I just bought the Siggy and I love it. I have not had any focus issues and it is quite sharp wide open for my purposes (low-light indoor shots of food and people).
632572
I own the 18-250mm and it is really sharp and a good lens. I was very surprised. Not sure of the Sigma but I know with the Tamron it is a bargain at that price.
1966949
I almost decided in favor of Sigma, but then I realized that Sigma is made for a crop camera only. While I'm not looking to buy an FF one any time soon, when I do, it will be costly, so I wouldn't have the money to follow it up with expensive lenses, not to mention that a good prime is a good prime, which I expect to last me a long while... So that is becoming a big drawback for me...
1746182
I don't have experience with those other lenses but I can tell you it is an amazing lens and worth every penny. I use it to shoot weddings and also do a lot of artistic shooting with it of flowers and stuff like that. The background blur is incredible.
1679834
http://www.flickr.com/groups/d40slr/discuss/72157602509321717/?search=sigma+vs.+nikon i know it's been a while but that may give some insight. i have the sigma version and it's great value for the price paid.
725612
Hello, this is a great lens. I shoot weddings with it but outdoors or in a big church since it is 70mm. If you need group shots or wider shots you'll need a backup wide lens. But the quality of this glass is excellent. I have never used the canon version but I researched it and they both are close with the cannon having a slight edge.I decided to go with the sigma due to the price difference.