Canon 50mm f1.4/Sigma 50mm f1.4 I am caught in between purchasing these 2 lenses -- the Canon is about $350 and the Sigma is $499. However, the reviews on the Sigma are really good and make that lens more attractive than the Canon.If I chose the Canon, could anyone suggest what other accessories I need to purchase (filters, lens hood, etc.)?If I chose the Sigma, what are the necessary accessories?Thanks. Canon 50mm f1.4/Sigma 50mm f1.4 I am caught in between purchasing these 2 lenses -- the Canon is about $350 and the Sigma is $499. However, the reviews on the Sigma are really good and make that... » Read More Canon 50mm f1.4/Sigma 50mm f1.4 I am caught in between purchasing these 2 lenses -- the Canon is about $350 and the Sigma is $499. However, the reviews on the Sigma are really good and make that lens more attractive than the Canon.If I chose the Canon, could anyone suggest what other accessories I need to purchase (filters, lens hood, etc.)?If I chose the Sigma, what are the necessary accessories?Thanks. « Show Less
46359
the sigma 50mm f1.4 and i put a Hoya Super HMC 77mm UV filter on it. i love the lens.
46360
May I ask what lens you went with? I am debating the same issue. Thank you.
46361
Sigma, 1) Like the build and larger glass, 2) Sharp!, 3) Great focus, 4) Delivers like a lens that should cost double than the price.
46362
To clarify - and I know this is an old post - leaving the hood reversed will do nothing to protect the delicate af - it must be left on as if shooting.
46363
thank you for your recommendations. i've bought the hoya shmc filters for my lenses. they're great.do you have the sigma 50mm f1.4 lens? if yes, what are you shooting? do you flickr?thanks again.
189243
J. ONeill says: Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated. If you own a camera with micro focus adjustment like the 50D or 7D, Sigmas front or back focusing is a non-issue. Also, even if you don't own a camera with micro focus adjustment, if you get a Sigma lens that front or back focuses, you can send it to Sigma for calibration.
406
Yeah buying a zoom lens for indoor low light shooting is where photography starts to become expensive. Canon's 70-200 f2.8L is over a thousand dollars, so depending on how far away from the subject you are, I'd suggest a prime lens at any one of several focal lengths offered at apertures of f1.4, f1.8, or f2.8. I've personally had great success using the 50mm f1.8, but since you're asking about telephoto zoom lenses, it seems you might need a little more reach. The Canon 200mm f2.8L lists for $750, and the 100mm f2 is about $400, and that's about the same price as the 85mm f1.8. So it depends on your needs pretty much. Yeah buying a zoom lens for indoor low light shooting is where photography starts to become expensive. Canon's 70-200 f2.8L is over a thousand dollars, so depending on how far away from the subject you are, I'd suggest a prime lens at any one of several focal lengths offered at apertures of f1.4, f1.8, or f2.8. I've personally had great success using the 50mm f1.8, but since you're asking about telephoto zoom lenses, it seems you might need a little more reach. The Canon 200mm f2.8L lists for $750, and the 100mm f2 is about $400, and that's about the same price as the 85mm f1.8. So it... » Read More Yeah buying a zoom lens for indoor low light shooting is where photography starts to become expensive. Canon's 70-200 f2.8L is over a thousand dollars, so depending on how far away from the subject you are, I'd suggest a prime lens at any one of several focal lengths offered at apertures of f1.4, f1.8, or f2.8. I've personally had great success using the 50mm f1.8, but since you're asking about telephoto zoom lenses, it seems you might need a little more reach. The Canon 200mm f2.8L lists for $750, and the 100mm f2 is about $400, and that's about the same price as the 85mm f1.8. So it depends on your needs pretty much. « Show Less
24765
I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos at effective focal length of 1000mm. This does require use of manual focus mode. I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos... » Read More I have no experience with Nikon or Nikon lenses. I do have & use regularly Canon 75-300 usm & canon is usm lenses. Both are fine lenses with beautiful results in situations where the subject is close enough for the focal lengths available. I also have & use more often a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.56.5 with Hsm & os. I am an avid birder & the Sigma is my choice. The added reach gives capability to get shots at longer distances with excellent results. The Sigma has a disadvantage in its weight. I regularly get excellent handheld shots even with Sigma 2X teleconverter giving excellent quality photos at effective focal length of 1000mm. This does require use of manual focus mode. « Show Less
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
2103068
Its really a budget decision. Both produce sharp images and good in low light, but with the sigma your packing more focal range without having to swap lenses.
1966952
Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated.
846335
Check eBay for a used Minolta 50mm f1.7 prime. Should be about $100. Other Minolta lenses are also available at a very reasonable cost compared to Sony branded lenses. Possibly domething in the range of a 70-200mm zoom would be a great addition to the kit lens that comes with the camera.
357410
The Sigma 50mm f/1,4, as sent from the factory, comes with both caps, a generous hood and a sturdy cubic, or virtually cubic, lens case. IMHO, this lens is excellent value for the money and performs exceptionally well. I own one of these lenses and would recommend this lens to a close friend. Good shooting!
840152
Thank you guys, really appreciate you help. I was in confused state in selecting sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 or tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 macro, but after a week study i have selected this sigma 50-150mm which is exactly in my budget. Once again thank you guys.
382374
I have both lenses and they are both pretty good. I probably like the 50mm a bit more than the 35mm. The real question for you to answer is what will I be my primary use for the lens ? Remember, we're shooting with a crop-sensor camera, so the lenses convert from a 35mm to a 52mm, and the 50mm converts to a 75mm lens. My recommendation for General Purpose Shooting would be to go with the 50mm ! A great bang for the buck and terrific bokeh !
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.
1732814
Not sure what kit you have. I have Pentax. From what I read, and judging by the price, the 18-35 1.8 may be better, but the 17-70 has a longer reach which comes in handy for a walkaround lens. I have the Pentax FA 50 1.4 prime, and the Sigma can match it at 50mm, so long as there is enough light and you can shoot faster than say 1/20. I have almost retired my 35mm 2.4, 40mm2.8 and 50mm 1.4 primes since I got the sigma, since I have on the Pentax K3 most of the time. Of course I will use the primes under certain conditions, but for a walkaround, the sigma does an excellent job. I considered the 18-35mm, but since I already have this one, I will be interested if the improve IQ is worth the extra money, since the 17-70 has the extra reach.
759246
Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier... » Read More Hi John,I second what Sean said about not needing the F2.8. It's only one stop faster, and not worth the financial hit you'd take on trading your 17-40 for one of the other options. The 17-40 is a great lens. You're not giving up any quality by sticking with it. The one thing I might add is that you should pick up a 50mm F1.8 for those indoor, low-light situations. It's one of the best bargains on the planet, it's two stops faster, and the IQ (image quality) is amazing, especially for a lens that costs 1/10th as much as your 17-40. The build quality is much flimsier than your L Series lenses, but it gets the job done. Just don't bounce it off rocks, and it will last a long time. « Show Less
1582486
Brandon. It doesn't say when you asked this question but I figured the answer out. First, I just purchased the last one that a storefront had for $289, so i'm sorry if I stole the lens from you :X. Second, the price is going to be interesting on this lens from here on out. It has been discontinued due to a recently announced new model. The question is how much will this new model cost? To my knowledge that hasn't been answered. I decided to snag it at this price because if the new model is upwards of $400 then it out of my price range anyway. If the new model comes out sub $400 this older model might tank in price. Supply and demand will dictate based on that information. As for big stores, I don't see you having much luck. Most did firesales and liquidated their stock already to mitigate the price risk. I can tell you that this is my first fixed lens for general photography. It hasnt even arrived yet, but when it does I plan to test it out. If its not to my liking I can resell it to you at the price I purchased + the tax I paid + shipping. I would generally just return it but that lowers your chance of it ending up in your hands. If this was a recent post just come back to me and I can show you proof that it hasn't even arrived yet :). Take care!
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.
537013
TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the cards too. TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the... » Read More TVM,Thanks for the heads-up on the Sigma. A popular photo mag just this month had a review on a Sigma lens - 18mm/250mm. They gave it a big thumbs up so I'll keep checking up on Sigma for quality and suitability/cost-effectiveness for the T1i. I'll already start some reading up on the 150mm/500mm. BTW - that "500" # sounds juicy. Per Tech's comment (and I educated myself more on what he was talking about) what with a 1.4 or 1.6 mag ratio that 500mm max zoom should be more like in the 700's. I guess that means a quality tripod (read "triple digits") is in the cards too. « Show Less