November 6, 2004
Battle of the 50mms
I had an opportunity to try out 3 different 50mm prime lenses. Since I was always vaguely unhappy about my 50mm 1.4 I was curious to see if there is a big difference between these lenses. The three lenses that were compared were Canon 50mm f1.4, Canon 50mm f2.5 macro (1:2) and Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro (1:1). I chose to look at these lenses at f/2.8. This is wide open for the Sigma but somewhat closed down for the Canon 50mm 2.5 and well closed for the Canon 50mm 1.4. Images were taken using Canon 20D, manual focussing, tripod, mirror lock up, no sharpening applied. I must also mention that the 50mm 1.4 is the most expensive of the lot.
So what did my images look like?
This is the full sized image.
A 100% crop of the image comparing Canon 50mm 1.4 on the left and the Canon 2.5 macro on the right.
Now a 100% crop of the image comparing the Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro on the left and the Canon 50mm 2.5 macro on the right.
What do I think? The Canon and Sigma macros appear to beat the Canon 50mm 1.4 easily. I don't know how this is possible. The Sigma appears to be very sharp, but has some color shift. (Still a good value for the money)
So what did my images look like?
This is the full sized image.
A 100% crop of the image comparing Canon 50mm 1.4 on the left and the Canon 2.5 macro on the right.
Now a 100% crop of the image comparing the Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro on the left and the Canon 50mm 2.5 macro on the right.
What do I think? The Canon and Sigma macros appear to beat the Canon 50mm 1.4 easily. I don't know how this is possible. The Sigma appears to be very sharp, but has some color shift. (Still a good value for the money)
Comments:
<< Home
Thats pretty consistent with what I have seen on my informal lens tests. Although Canon has a great lineup of lenses, their 50mm primes (except for the macro) are pretty lackluster. I would much rather by the F2.5 macro than the 1.4 since the macro is just so much sharper and more versatile to boost!
Was auto white balance used for the test? It looks like the main difference is color may have been due to the camera changing white balance?
Canon 1.4 have softening effect until apperature f5.6 It makes kind a retouche like effect for skin on portraits ;-)
Macro lenses are designed differently to meet more exacting demands on image qualit at short object-to-lens distances. You might need to repeat your comparison with focus-on -infinity instead. Macro lenses are generally very sharp, but smaller aperture, more expensive and heavier. The new Canon EF-S 60/2.8 looks to be remarkably sharp.
I don't think the 1.4 prime and the 2.5/2.8 marco are targeted for the same usage... if sharpness in short distance image is required, why consider a large aperature prime?
you'd get vastly different comparison results if you shoot portraits... where colour, contrast, bokeh, etc are equally important as the sharpness
you'd get vastly different comparison results if you shoot portraits... where colour, contrast, bokeh, etc are equally important as the sharpness
Clearly the Sigma stinks next to the Canon. I, personally, use a Nikon 50mm 1.8 lens. Its cheap and clear and crisp. I love it. And it weighs nothing. Its all most people really need to take super sharp shots. I think the 50mm fixed lenses are sharper than any zoom. I just don't believe anyone buys Sigma or Tameron. They are never excellent, only mediocre..
Post a Comment
<< Home
