I was quite happy with my 50mm f/1.8 II on my 5D; the copy I had was excellent and superbly sharp even at wide open apertures. However, the AF was not so stellar and bokeh was pretty bad.
I decided to upgrade to the Canon 50mm f/1.4 recently for the better bokeh and better AF, but the results were quite disappointing. The amount of halation at f/1.4 was high, and the lens wasn't as sharp as my nifty fifty at the same apertures.
Having sold the f/1.4, I really don't have many options left. It seems like the good 50mm prime lenses are all manual focus (i.e. Zeiss Makro-Planar, Leica Summilux-R, Minolta Rokkor f/1.2, etc). In the AF camp, there are really only two other 50mm lenses that are faster than f/2: Sigma f/1.4 or Canon f/1.2L. The Canon f/1.2L is way too expensive, has focus shift issues, and is big and heavy, so I'm now thinking of getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4.
Has anyone tried the Sigmalux before? How was it out of the box? I keep hearing that many copies of this lens need to be sent in for calibration before it really performs well.
I decided to upgrade to the Canon 50mm f/1.4 recently for the better bokeh and better AF, but the results were quite disappointing. The amount of halation at f/1.4 was high, and the lens wasn't as sharp as my nifty fifty at the same apertures.
Having sold the f/1.4, I really don't have many options left. It seems like the good 50mm prime lenses are all manual focus (i.e. Zeiss Makro-Planar, Leica Summilux-R, Minolta Rokkor f/1.2, etc). In the AF camp, there are really only two other 50mm lenses that are faster than f/2: Sigma f/1.4 or Canon f/1.2L. The Canon f/1.2L is way too expensive, has focus shift issues, and is big and heavy, so I'm now thinking of getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4.
Has anyone tried the Sigmalux before? How was it out of the box? I keep hearing that many copies of this lens need to be sent in for calibration before it really performs well.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter