Sigma 50/1.4 vs 50/1.4G vs 50/1.4D vs 50/1.8AF vs 50/1.8E + Bonus (Many Pictures)

[thebac]

I figured I could do a comparison shoot between these lenses just for kicks.

Note that I'm not a professional tester. This wasn't a wholly controlled environment. My vision isn't exactly perfect, so I might have misfocused on the MF shots. I tried to use magnified LV to confirm focus, but again, it's not perfect.

Or, to put in a legal disclaimer, results may not be typical.

Anyway, on to the shots. They were all shot from a tripod with mirror lockup using a remote. I focused on the first shot, for the subsequent shots, focus was not changed. Exposure wasn't locked, I used AE, and being outside, you've got other changes as well. The first set was shot on AWB, the others on 5000K. The first and second sets were shot with matrix metering, the third and fourth with spot metering (the E series lens was shot in manual because it didn't do spot). Sometimes, the first exposure might be a bit hot (blown) because I can't shoot faster than 1/8000s. Also, only the third set was shot on ISO 200, the others were shot on the low setting (ISO 100 equivalent). I shot naked (no filters), though that's not my usual habit. These are straight out of camera JPEG from a D700.

These shots are (at most) useful for a comparison between the lenses, not representative of what these lenses can do. I'm pretty sure that few people take landscape type shots wide open.

Before you chime in with "this thread is worthless without 100% crops," they're coming.

For the first set of pictures, the focus is on the memorial on the left.

Sigma full picture, f/1.4:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

50/1.4G full picture, f/1.4:

View attachment 736889

50/1.4D full picture, f/1.4:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

50/1.8AF full picture, f/1.8:

View attachment 736891

50/1.8E full picture, f/1.8:

View attachment 736893

Bonus: CV58 full picture, f/1.4:

View attachment 736895

 

[avyoung]

It's a 50's party in this thread!
How do you rank them?

 

[Domdog31]

I guess we all get bored sometimes - :biggrinn: really though I can appreciate the time you took to try and compare some lenses (50mm tests are always welcome) but I cannot see how anyone can get any useful data out of your test - you add disclaimers that you know people are going to come at you with so why not take these into consideration prior to undertaking such a test?

 

[Thorsten]

The 50/1.8AF looks best by far, since the little treadmill boats are so nicely aligned on the lake. So that's the lens to get. :tongue:

 

[Randy]

is anything in focus ?
no offense intended but they all look bad to my eyes

 

[darkone]

I would be more interested in this if the subject was something else. I don't think you can make any arguments with this type of shot done at f1.4 or f1.8.

 

[jonh68]

I concur. This doesn't tell us much, regardless if its 100% crop. Most photographers are going to get something in the 50 mm range for portraits or objects up close, not landscape. A better test would have been something up against the sea wall which would show detail of the subject and the bokeh of the background.

 

[thebac]

I'm merely providing comparison shots from the lenses shooting the same subject, so people can see how these lenses shoot relative to each other. They weren't shot under ideal conditions, so none of the shots are "good." I'm not much of landscape photographer, either.

I'm not trying to win any arguments--I personally like the Sigma best, and the comparison wasn't going to change anything about that.

It's a 50's party in this thread!
How do you rank them?

I like almost everything about the Sigma. If the CV58 were AF, it would give the Sigma a run for the money, but it's not. As I noted above, this has nothing to do with the comparison shots, I liked the Sigma before these shots, and nothing in the comparison could have changed that.

I guess we all get bored sometimes - :biggrinn: really though I can appreciate the time you took to try and compare some lenses (50mm tests are always welcome) but I cannot see how anyone can get any useful data out of your test - you add disclaimers that you know people are going to come at you with so why not take these into consideration prior to undertaking such a test?

Well, short of laser eye surgery, my vision isn't going to magically improve, so the focus could always be iffy. The other conditions, I agree with you, but I'm not a professional lens tester, so I just didn't think of them at the time. Also, shooting outside, the conditions just won't be perfect. These are far from perfect, but I find these comparison shots to be more useful than people taking shots of different things and then proclaiming that lens (A) is so much better than lens (B).

And if I shoot a test chart or a newspaper indoors people will just complain that no one shoots test charts in real life. I think the rendering is one thing people can see (especially with some later sets) that will continue to hold.

But your point is well taken.

The 50/1.8AF looks best by far, since the little treadmill boats are so nicely aligned on the lake. So that's the lens to get. :tongue:

Haha, thanks for that.

is anything in focus ?
no offense intended but they all look bad to my eyes

Well, it's not a good picture. It was in bright sunlight, shooting a subject hundreds of yards away in the corner, on a hot summer day. Stopping down helps, a CP would have helped, leveling the horizon would have helped. A more interesting subject would have helped, and cooler weather, too. Not quite sure what your point is. Yes, the pictures aren't good--I'm not a landscape photographer, and this is certainly not how I would have shot a landscape. But it does (albeit in a limited fashion) show differences in the lenses.

I would be more interested in this if the subject was something else. I don't think you can make any arguments with this type of shot done at f1.4 or f1.8.

I'm not making any type of argument. I'm simply providing comparison shots.

I concur. This doesn't tell us much, regardless if its 100% crop. Most photographers are going to get something in the 50 mm range for portraits or objects up close, not landscape. A better test would have been something up against the sea wall which would show detail of the subject and the bokeh of the background.

I have something like that for later.

 

[jonh68]

It isn't that the pictures are not "good" as landscapes. I think we all appreciate the effort. The point is, these lenses are not typically used as landscapes because most people buy them for the bokeh at 1.4 and 1.8 for use as portraits.

There are not too many times the conditions are perfect. The point we are trying to make is the subject itself isn't a good judge of what the lenses are capable of regardless if the conditions were perfect for landscape. A stuffed teddy bear on the ledge with you being 3 ft away from it is a better test.

The differences showed in these samples don't mean much because the lenses are not going to be used like this anyway.

 

[darkone]

It isn't that the pictures are not "good" as landscapes. I think we all appreciate the effort. The point is, these lenses are not typically used as landscapes because most people buy them for the bokeh at 1.4 and 1.8 for use as portraits.

There are not too many times the conditions are perfect. The point we are trying to make is the subject itself isn't a good judge of what the lenses are capable of regardless if the conditions were perfect for landscape. A stuffed teddy bear on the ledge with you being 3 ft away from it is a better test.

The differences showed in these samples don't mean much because the lenses are not going to be used like this anyway.

Like John said, we appreciate the effort you made in trying to show everyone the differences between these lenses. I just don't believe you can use the information provided to make any distinctions or decisions.

Thanks though.

 

[thebac]

It isn't that the pictures are not "good" as landscapes. I think we all appreciate the effort. The point is, these lenses are not typically used as landscapes because most people buy them for the bokeh at 1.4 and 1.8 for use as portraits.

There are not too many times the conditions are perfect. The point we are trying to make is the subject itself isn't a good judge of what the lenses are capable of regardless if the conditions were perfect for landscape. A stuffed teddy bear on the ledge with you being 3 ft away from it is a better test.

The differences showed in these samples don't mean much because the lenses are not going to be used like this anyway.

Like John said, we appreciate the effort you made in trying to show everyone the differences between these lenses. I just don't believe you can use the information provided to make any distinctions or decisions.

Thanks though.

Fair enough. I'll refrain from posting the 100% crops then.

I have two more sets at closer distances. If there's any interest in them, I can post either of both of those (from wide open to f/8).

Set 1:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Set 2:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[lovecolt]

As what others had mentioned, closer subject's a better judgement of what these babies can do. Therefore, pls show more on the 2nd set, thanks

 

[thebac]

As what others had mentioned, closer subject's a better judgement of what these babies can do. Therefore, pls show more on the 2nd set, thanks

Sure thing. Here are the full-sized pictures (resized) wide open and at f/2.8.

Note that the samples for the 50/1.8E look really bad--not sure if something went wrong or if it just does terribly at close distances. This is more evident in the 100% crops.

Sigma, f/1.4:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Sigma, f/2.8:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

50/1.4G, f/1.4:

View attachment 736908

50/1.4G, f/2.8:

View attachment 736910

50/1.4D, f/1.4:

View attachment 736912

50/1.4D, f/2.8:

View attachment 736916

50/1.8AF, f/1.8:

View attachment 736917

50/1.8AF, f/2.8:

View attachment 736918

50/1.8E,f/1.8:

View attachment 736919

50/1.8E,f/2.8:

View attachment 736921

CV58, f/1.4:

View attachment 736923

CV58, f/2.8:

View attachment 736924

 

[jonh68]

Again, I appreciate the effort, but a blown out background and high contrast scene still don't give good samples of what these lenses are capable of. Potential users want to see what a close up shot DOES with the background. Your shot of the sign is the closest to given a good test, but the sign itself has no detail in it.

To me they all look bad in regards to sharpness. I don't know if its the way you are downsizing or your website hosting, but they all look soft.

 

[thebac]

Again, I appreciate the effort, but a blown out background and high contrast scene still don't give good samples of what these lenses are capable of. Potential users want to see what a close up shot DOES with the background. Your shot of the sign is the closest to given a good test, but the sign itself has no detail in it.

To me they all look bad in regards to sharpness. I don't know if its the way you are downsizing or your website hosting, but they all look soft.

Hi Jon,

I appreciate the feedback. Gives me a lot to think about in case I want to redo this. Obviously, I hadn't put enough thought into this. And I thought taking simple sample shots was easy.

Cheers!