i want to get a fast prime for my 40D and have been looking at the Canon 50mm 1.4 and the Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSMreally leaning towards the Sigma due to better performance wide open (i'm buying this lens mostly for low-light stuff) but a bit concerned about these focus issues ppl keep mentioningbeen reading so many different opinions i am now just exhaustedit's got a good review here: http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=837772and also from dpreview itself - who dont mention focus issues at all...........!yet lots of unhappy users all over the internet...and have also been reading about focus issues being inherent to fast lenses, for reasons my brain isn't in a state to fully digest it seems...so...... should i go for the Sigma and risk sending it back 800 times if it doesnt focus properly?

the focus issue is too much for me to go for the sigma.I like my 50 f1.4 on my 40dcloud monkeywrote:i want to get a fast prime for my 40D and have been looking at the Canon 50mm 1.4 and the Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSMreally leaning towards the Sigma due to better performance wide open (i'm buying this lens mostly for low-light stuff) but a bit concerned about these focus issues ppl keep mentioningbeen reading so many different opinions i am now just exhaustedit's got a good review here: http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=837772and also from dpreview itself - who dont mention focus issues at all...........!yet lots of unhappy users all over the internet...and have also been reading about focus issues being inherent to fast lenses, for reasons my brain isn't in a state to fully digest it seems...so...... should i go for the Sigma and risk sending it back 800 times if it doesnt focus properly?

correction to my opening post:dpreview DO mention focus issues:"However focusing was noticeably slower than Canon's own EF 50mm F1.4 USM and EF 50mm F1.8 II lenses, so this is still an area in which Sigma can improve. Focus accuracy was generally impressive, although with a certain tendency towards slight front-focus at close distances and F1.4, especially with low-contrast subjects. The lens also shows some evidence of a slight focus shift to the rear on stopping down, which meant our sample focused correctly when set to F2."still i hear ppl with the Canon 50mm 1.4 complain about focus issues, so am still no closer to deciding..

map your focus to the * on back of 40dpunch * with thumb on contrasy edgeyou'll hit it at a very high %cloud monkeywrote:correction to my opening post:dpreview DO mention focus issues:"However focusing was noticeably slower than Canon's own EF 50mm F1.4 USM and EF 50mm F1.8 II lenses, so this is still an area in which Sigma can improve. Focus accuracy was generally impressive, although with a certain tendency towards slight front-focus at close distances and F1.4, especially with low-contrast subjects. The lens also shows some evidence of a slight focus shift to the rear on stopping down, which meant our sample focused correctly when set to F2."still i hear ppl with the Canon 50mm 1.4 complain about focus issues, so am still no closer to deciding..

Just one comment which probably is not relevant because my experience with Sigma is so many years old. I bought a Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 zoom with my then new EOS A2. It worked fine for a year or so (may have shot 6 or 7 weddings), but then the AF just quit. Returned it to Sigma for repair, they advised that they had repaired it. Still would not work. At that point I swore off Sigma and bought Canon's 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS which I am still using, now on my 40D. I don't like Sigma. -- Fred

I use a Canon and like it for up close pictures of my 3 year old grandaughter. It does the job and I try to keep it at least f2 but if I do f1.4, I get a nice dreamy effect - not necessarily out of focus, but not crystal clear either. As liong as I can get that sprarkle in her eye, that's all that matters. I've captured her.I've been very interested in the Sigma 50 but not overly compelled yet to get it due to price (I don't know if the added margin is worth the cost at this point) and weight (the Canon is much more portable and convenient to keep in the camera bag).

I was in the same dilemma. The Sigma 50, according to others, has better IQ. I chose the Canon because I tried both under low light shooting conditions (concert, show) and the canon 50mm 1.4 acquired focus faster and with more accuracy. IQ is nothing if you miss focus. And my copy of the canon 50 1.4 is pretty sharp wide open, at least for my uses of online and 5x6/12x8 size prints.And if you want to see what it can do, go here. I shot the whole event through the canon 50 1.4. http://brenansalgado.com/mylife/?p=329

nice examples of what can be done with the tool!frameofmindwrote:I was in the same dilemma. The Sigma 50, according to others, has better IQ. I chose the Canon because I tried both under low light shooting conditions (concert, show) and the canon 50mm 1.4 acquired focus faster and with more accuracy. IQ is nothing if you miss focus. And my copy of the canon 50 1.4 is pretty sharp wide open, at least for my uses of online and 5x6/12x8 size prints.And if you want to see what it can do, go here. I shot the whole event through the canon 50 1.4. http://brenansalgado.com/mylife/?p=329

The Sigma is of course much better... but if you are concerned about focus already, get the Canon and live with its limitations. If you get OOF shots then, you can at least sleep assured it wasn't Sigma's fault

I bought the Sigma 50mm 1.4, did not like it due to it's focusing issue, I returned it and got Canon 50mm instead. Canon's AF is much precise than Sigma.Canon's sample at f/1.4Good luck. -- Rod40D, XTi, G10 & SX10 cameras. Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS, Canon EF 85mm f/1.8, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MK (I).Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 SP and 90mm f/2.8 SP macro lenses.

After trying a few samples, I finally decided to keep the sigma 50 f/1.4. I shoot wide open – it is sharp & has amazing bokeh, although I am not sure how much better it is when compared to the canon.All copies I tried had the same AF inconsistency issue [Inconsistency grows with the subject distance] – even the copy I have in hand has this trouble – but, I simply love this lens that I am willing to work through its limitations. At portrait distance this is not much of a problem.Samples: http://flickr.com/photos/thousandhills/sets/72157604150676242/Good luck with your choice, -Mike.

The size of the Sigma lens killed it for me as well as the focussing issues. I wanted a lightweight lens with a better build than my Canon 50mm f/1.8. Couldn't justify the big bucks for the f/1.2 which is also quite large.

If you're interested in macros at all, I would consider the EF-S 60 f/2.8 macro. It's a very sharp, fast focusing lens that is excellent for portraits as well as 1:1 macros and the focal length isn't too far off from the 50mm.cloud monkeywrote:i want to get a fast prime for my 40D and have been looking at the Canon 50mm 1.4 and the Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSMreally leaning towards the Sigma due to better performance wide open (i'm buying this lens mostly for low-light stuff) but a bit concerned about these focus issues ppl keep mentioningbeen reading so many different opinions i am now just exhaustedit's got a good review here: http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=837772and also from dpreview itself - who dont mention focus issues at all...........!yet lots of unhappy users all over the internet...and have also been reading about focus issues being inherent to fast lenses, for reasons my brain isn't in a state to fully digest it seems...so...... should i go for the Sigma and risk sending it back 800 times if it doesnt focus properly?

just got the cannon 50mm f/1.4 late last year.It is a great lens. I was worried about it not being sharp wide open as I'd done a bit of reading on the forums etc.But the performance seems excellent to me - see below.It is also cheaper than the sigma, and lighter....and potentially better chance of getting a good copy out of the box (note I also own a sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 which is a great lens, so I have gone the sigma path previsouly).Here are some shots @f/1.4, followed by a one @f/1.6@f/1.4@f1.4@f1.4@f.1.6more from the lens if you're interested..... http://www.flickr.com/photos/markforbes/tags/ef50mmf14/

Just a little but enough to ruin picture when wide open.

If you need a fast lens for low light and you are not buying a prime because of the shallow DOF, an IS lens might solve your problems .With a lens like 17-55f2,8 you can use f4 in lowlight shots instead of f1,8 and you get also deeper DOF and focusing "issues" are not that big.If you need f1,4 for the nice effect (it really can be nice), the focusing problems are there with every lens - mainly because there is not enough contrast for the AF system to do it right and the DOF can be just 1-4 cm - and a small error comes visible very easily.Adjusting the 40D with the lens in a service center can help - i do not know how much it will cost, but some pros let calibrate their gear before they even start using a new lens ( so they say).

is a stunner !!! -- Best regards, JimGallery at: http://www.pbase.com/borderrose/viewgallery

KariPwrote:If you need a fast lens for low light and you are not buying a prime because of the shallow DOF, an IS lens might solve your problems . With a lens like 17-55f2,8 you can use f4 in lowlight shots instead of f1,8 and you get also deeper DOF and focusing "issues" are not that big.If you need f1,4 for the nice effect (it really can be nice), the focusing problems are there with every lens - mainly because there is not enough contrast for the AF system to do it right and the DOF can be just 1-4 cm - and a small error comes visible very easily. Adjusting the 40D with the lens in a service center can help - i do not know how much it will cost, but some pros let calibrate their gear before they even start using a new lens ( so they say).Kari,Unless you're photographing dead bodies, or objects there's no comparing an F1.4 with an F4 lens, IS or no IS.Take the 50 1.4 for instanceRule of thum on hand-holdability ... 1/effective focal range ... so with a 1.6x multiplier we're looking at 1/(50*1.6) = 1/80th1/80th happens to be just about where you need to be in terms of shutter speed to take a portrait of a relatively still human.Bottom line is that under most circustances you would notneedIS to get a portrait shot with a 50mm lens because the shutter speeds where IS would really pay off (1/60th and slower) are too slow for the portrait anyway.And of course, no amout of IS will give you back the two full stops of light you give up going from F1.4 to F2.8 (not that 2.8 is slow or anything ).I look at things this way:with a 2.8 lens I have 6 usable apertures I can get creative with: 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16with my 50 1.4 I have 8 usable apertures ... a full 33% more!Add to that the fact that I find the ethereal bokeh at and around 1.4 to work well with the high ISO noise (especially in B/W conversions!) and I end up with usable ISO 3200 and sometime ISO 6400 from my 40D.IS can't touch that.(not that I'd complain if Canon were to put IS in my 50 1.4 of course)Alessandro

I have the sigma 50 1.4 and love it. Maybe I just got a good copy but I won't ever get rid of it. Here is my sports gallery all shot at a local MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) event in dismal lighting. All shot at iso 1250 or higher at f/1.8 through the cage which made focusing very hard on the lens and camera. The lens performed great, never hunting. Any problems I had with it were due to user error or just the conditions of the shoot. See what you think.Photos are in the sports section:http://www.jp40photography.com/portfolio.shtml

HiTo me motion blur caused by shaking hands - that will happen with 50mm and times slower than 1/30 - is much more disturbing than the motion blur caused by something that moves naturally.A dancing persons cloth or some other movement can be much more esthetic than a totally "frozen" dancer with minimal DOF. Can look good too if you know what you are doing.but it really depends on what you want capture , it can be that you want to capture the movement and not the still pose . That is the idea of photography to me . I do not take portraits that often - and if it is a group of more than one you need more DOF always.Of course f 1,4 is beautiful - i have a EF 50mmf1,4 and some IS lenses like 24-105IS (my favorite) and i have compared results and possibilities (for myself).I was (one example) shooting a group of firedancers in a situation where the only available light was the fire. With 50mmf1,4 it was quite hopeless - DOF was too short or my handshake ruined images ( tripod was not possible) . 24-105 and f4 or 5,6 gave much better results - for ME and that situation ! A special - still- portrait could have been fine with a f1,4. But with f 4-5,6 the success rate with times like 1/8 -1/15 was reasonably good - and the rotating fire looked better with slower time With 1/30-60 sec the fires looked just bad, f 1,4 was hopeless for focusing(too shallow DOF)Same with landscapes - if water is slowly moving the results with deeper DOF and motion blur just can look better - very often . Using tripod of course makes things different. If it is a situation where a handheld shot is the only possibility, i will take my 24-105IS always firstSo - nice bokeh and some nice DOF effects are possible only with f1.4 - 2,0 . But if you need more DOF , a tripod or an IS is the only solution. And shallow DOF looks even better in good light. F1,4 EF is a great lens for portraits and isolating the subject - even better in daylightIf i must do something handheld under streetlights without any flash , or shoot in a church without tripod , i would prefer an IS lens . But if it is a need for a nice portrait of one person at dusk , a 1,4 sure looks great.I can not say that an IS lens is better - but to me it seems to be usable much more often ( it is also the versatility of a zoom ) . To you a f1,4 is the lens .OP must make his own decisions because he should know what kind of images he needs. That is the information needed here - to make a choice.With longer tele lenses there is not very much to discuss. It is a tripod or an IS question.Good luck -- Kari SLR photography for 40 years 60°15´N 24°03´ E