I purchased the Canon 50mm 1.8 a few years ago and am now looking at the Sigma 1.4 but was wondering if there is still a problem with the focusing.
447636
I have it in the Nikon version. Fast, quiet, and very sharp. Couldn't be more pleased
447637
My Sigma 1.4 lens isn't focusing properly. Purchased it Oct.9th. Won't focus past 6 feet. I have to send it to Markam Ontario for repairs. And it will cost me for repairs. No warranty?????
447638
I had heard about the focus problems but we have had no problems with it what so ever. At wide open apertures, the depth of field is extremely tight, so I am guessing that some people who have less photographic experience were the ones complaining, because even at those apertures we are producing tack sharp images, on auto-focus or in manual on our Canon cameras, a T5i and a 60D. Sigma has released an updated version of the 50mm in their new "Art" lineup, so if you still have concerns, save up for that one. I've played with it at our local camera store and it is beautiful!
447639
I've been using mine for a long time now and never had any focusing issues. One of my favorite lens. I was so pleased with it I also now have the 30mm f1.4
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.
1564625
I used this lens for one year until yesterday without any problems. Just yesterday I am experiencing the same issue: quite focus hunting when zoomed out at 70+ and when it stops it is not on focus! Any idea?
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
916479
So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's... » Read More So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider « Show Less
812304
Thanks for the additional info. I am primarily involved in shooting fencing matches, and can usually get fairly close to the action, so I'll probably be taking a good look at the Sigma lens.
1346887
I have the 85mm 1.8 and a digital rebel. With a crop sensor camera, the 85mm is really tough indoors - you have to stand across the room and then you likely will only get a little more than a face in the frame. I don't own the 1.4, but I'd guess it would be better for a lot of tight indoor shooting over the 85mm 1.8 on a crop camera.
24767
The 50-500 is a great lens...... but it is heavy!! I can't hand hold it to shoot birds. I now use the canon 100-400 for birding which is awesome. If you are gonna use a tripod, the sigma is great choice.
120648
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.
1774789
If soft depth of field and creamy bokeh are your principle aims, you're better off with the 50mm f/1.4. Its soft DOF is unbeatable for this standard lens focal length.
2028038
No. I have had no problems with lens setting at 24mm or 105 mm. My friend who has a canon 24-105 thinks my sigma is much better than his lens.
987142
I owned the 50D and now own a 7D. I have had my 17-55 f/1.8 IS for over 2 years. I bought the 24-105 a year ago to replace my 17-55 hahaha yea let me say right now I am not selling my 17-55 and when shooting indoors the 17-55 f/2.8 is will be my first choice over the 24-105 f/4 IS. Indoors f/4 is slow period. I ended up buying a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to shoot indoors for low light and I LOVE it. Anyways on a crop body I would pick the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS for indoors unless its a really well lit room or I am using my 580 EXII. I am leaning to primes anymore and would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 for you. Another option is Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the Canon 85 f/1.8 and you spend less then either of those lenses heck you can throw in a 50 f/1.8 and have 3 lenses for the price of 1 if you don't mind switching lenses. Nick
662611
I have not had exposure issues but I have had focus issues. Not really issues, as much as just not being happy with the focal range at all, or the autofocus system. If you are shooting auto I can see you having problems as the auto systems just do not seem to be up to par compared to other platforms
264636
I have the Canon 50 f1.4, the Canon 100 f2.0, the Canon 135 f2.0L, and this lens. I recently sold my 24-105 f4L. I use primarily the sigma 35 art or the 135L, it depends on what I am shooting. I do love this lens though. It is sharp and fast.
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.
809691
In my experience, the 56mm 1.2 is every bit as sharp as the 18-55 at it's 55mm minimum aperture of f4, which is saying something. With the loss of depth of field in the crop vs. FF sesnor, I wouldn't care to own the 56mm 1.2 if I had to stop it down for sharpness and, fortunately, I do not have to. I use it frequently for wedding and commercial work and especially for the former, I am shooting wide open 80% of the time, and it is quite sharp. I find it to be the equal of my former Canon 85mm 1.2 II for sharpness wide open, while it, of course, behaves more like a 1.8 in terms of DOF.
757263
Is the cannon macro/telephoto? That could be a factor. Im not sure. I dont have this lens yet. Though it will be my next lens once I get this return issue with the Sigma resolved.