Canon 50mm f/1.8 vs Sigma 50mm f/1.4

I currently own the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and thinking about getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Anyone have any experience with this lens? www.amazon.com/Sigma-50mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0018ZDGAC

Would it be worth the $459 for the f/.4 difference?

Dunno. Have you visited these -

forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3136876

www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=367

photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1250579

Kelly

The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is now $299, so is there is a reason you are considering the Sigma over it? Just curious, as I am still learning about lenses.

I can say I own both the f/1.8 and f/1.4 Canon lenses, and for me it was worth paying for. The focusing alone was worth it. I do like the f/1.8, but there are times that it frustrated me when trying to focus.

The focusing alone was worth it. I do like the f/1.8, but there are times that it frustrated me when trying to focus.

Err, Auto focus or Manual focus?

Sorry, autofocus

50 1.8 from Canon is sharp enough, but the bokeh is not very good. For the price it's OK. The Nikon 50 1.8G is way better albeit about double the price... and for another camera.

Sigma 50 1.4 is nice and sharp and the bokeh is amazing. THOUGH if you use a high MP camera it can seem a little soft (I'm talking 36MP from the D800 here) at 12MP it looks perfect. Not sure about 18-22). I'd personally take the amazingly good Sigma 35 1.4 over the Sigma 50 1.4). ANOTHER problem that Sigma users on Canon have experienced is the sometimes shoddy Quality Control. If you can get a perfect copy out of the box (not likely) you'll have a great lens. Most people need to get it recalibrated. On Nikon this doesn't seem to be much of an issue if you have micro adjust. But for some reason, on Canon if you micro-adjust it to focus correctly up close, it won't focus properly on things in the distance (and vice versa)... I suspect this is something to do with them reverse engineering Canon's focusing system wrong on this lens... the 35 1.4 doesn't have this problem and SIGMA have fixed their QQ problems with this lens. I did have to adjust my 35 1.4 (for Canon mount) by +2, but this is a minor adjustment compared to what is usually needed for Sigma, it's more like a Canon Calibrated L lens in that way... so yeh, go for the Sigma 35 1.4, similar look, just a bit wider).

The Canon 50 1.4 is better than the 1.8 for sure. The build is way better and the bokeh is much less nervous. I'd recommend this over the 50 1.8 if you can afford it.

The Canon 50 1.2 is special, but suffers from focus shift and is overdue for a replacement IMHO.

So my recommendations (I've owned a Canon 50 1.8, Canon 50 1.4, Sigma 50 1.4 (Nikon) and a Sigma 35 1.4 (Canon) ) in order from best to worst IMHO

1. Sigma 35 1.4 (35 is the new 50mm ). This lens beats the Canon 35 L in every aspect except it only stops down to f/16 (the Canon will go to f/22) and it doesn't have weather sealing. Even if you need to micro adjust this lens, it won't be by much at all and it will actually work on Canon bodies, unlike with the Sigma 50 1.4) Also early next year Sigma will bring out a USB connector for this lens so you can do permanent re-calibrations yourself (no need for in Camera micro adjust).
2. Canon 50 1.4 (bokeh isn't as good as the Sigma 50 1.4, but it's a bit sharper and you don't get the QQ problems that come from the Sigma)
3. Sigma 50 1.4 (expect to send it to Sigma for re-calibration as micro adjust won't work)
4. Canon 50 1.2 (very good, but has some focus shifting problems. Expensive, so I can't put it ahead of the Sigma despite it techically being better.
5. 50 1.8 (Cheapest, great for the price, but worst overall).

Nice to know!