How does this compare to a Canon 50mm 1.8 ? Was thinking to upgrade but not sure if i should get another 50mm if its not much difference
543319
I had a Nikon 50mm 1.8 and my nephew had a Canon 50mm 1.8, and we both got these and love them. Be both have noticed a difference.
543320
I had the 1.8 and switched to the sigma and LOVE IT!! My pictures are more colorful and sharper plus I love the depth of field!!!
543321
this lens beats Canon's L 1.2 Lens hands down, and the Canon 1.8 is a $99 piece of task junk, get this lends you won't be sorry,,,, if it doesn't focus the first day send it back, but if it does focus you got the best lends for a long time,
543322
I had a canon 50mm 1.8 and I wouldn't have bought a new one if my canon 1.8 didn't break. due to its cheap build quality and plastic treads it got stuck on my camera body and had to break it off. Anyways I thought of buying a better lens than canon 50 mm 1.8 this time atleast a better build. You can see my review about this lens at http://www.amazon.com/review/R26B2HYD7HEPS8/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN;=B0018ZDGAC&linkCode;=&nodeID;=&tag;=I did end up returning it due to inconsistent focus problem and bought a canon 50 mm 1.4. Canon has a much better and accurate auto focus hands down. I had a canon 50mm 1.8 and I wouldn't have bought a new one if my canon 1.8 didn't break. due to its cheap build quality and plastic treads it got stuck on my camera body and had to break it off. Anyways I thought of buying a better lens than canon 50 mm 1.8 this time atleast a better build. You can see my review about this lens at http://www.amazon.com/review/R26B2HYD7HEPS8/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN;=B0018ZDGAC&linkCode;=&nodeID;=&tag;=I did end up returning it due to inconsistent focus problem and bought a canon 50 mm 1.4. Canon has a much better and accurate auto focus hands... » Read More I had a canon 50mm 1.8 and I wouldn't have bought a new one if my canon 1.8 didn't break. due to its cheap build quality and plastic treads it got stuck on my camera body and had to break it off. Anyways I thought of buying a better lens than canon 50 mm 1.8 this time atleast a better build. You can see my review about this lens at http://www.amazon.com/review/R26B2HYD7HEPS8/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN;=B0018ZDGAC&linkCode;=&nodeID;=&tag;=I did end up returning it due to inconsistent focus problem and bought a canon 50 mm 1.4. Canon has a much better and accurate auto focus hands down. « Show Less
543323
Hi, I'm a Nikon user. I'm not sure about Canon's 50 1.8 but this Sigma is better than Nikon's 50 1.8, 1.4D, and even 1.4G in terms of the overall better IQ, contrast, and creamy bokeh. The only problem is to get a "good copy" with accurate AF. Sigma is infamous for the QC for this last generation lenses.
543324
My copy of the Sigma was horrendous. I had to send it back. Ended up buying the 35mm version of the Sigma (the new Artisan series) and that one's MUCH sharper than the equivalent Canon 1.4.
543325
No comparison! This lens even out performs Canon's 1.4 in most areas! One area it really blows a lot 50mm out of the water in is bokeh quality! It has 9 round blades that make a heck of difference and give it it's quality D.O.F. and bokeh. Some have compared it's build quality and performance more closer to Canon's 50mm 1.2L. I'm a fashion and beauty photographer and use this lens quite often, and I can confidently stand behind this glass! If you can buy it, buy it! To see some of the photos I've taken with this lens visit my site: www.richardanthonyevans.com.
910057
Go for it. This is an awesome lens. I use this lens along with my EF 70-200 L Series f/2.8 for all my wedding and other event shoots (including portraits, sports etc). But if money is not an object why not get the 50MM lens (along with this) as others have suggested. I am happy with the two lenses (ie EF 24-70 mm and EF 70-200 mm). I've taken thousands of pictures with these two lenses (almost 80% with the 24-70 Lens). Hope this helps.
575221
I agree and have noticed that as well. I bought the older version and have been pleased with it. I have also not read complaints about the newer version. It may be as simple as supply and demand or something we are not aware of. You might check review sites just to make sure the version 2 is well rated and then go for it if it's cheaper. The 20MM has been a great lens, I have received compliments about my photo's and 9 times out of 10, it's taken with the 20mm.
1163546
I have both lenses and while at first glance you may not notice the difference too much, if you spend some time comparing side by side and zooming in you'll notice the 50mm gives all round better results in crispness, colour and clarity.The 18-55mm is a decent lens for a kit lens and I still make use of it but I do side more with the 50mm when the situation calls for it, like street photography.
809691
In my experience, the 56mm 1.2 is every bit as sharp as the 18-55 at it's 55mm minimum aperture of f4, which is saying something. With the loss of depth of field in the crop vs. FF sesnor, I wouldn't care to own the 56mm 1.2 if I had to stop it down for sharpness and, fortunately, I do not have to. I use it frequently for wedding and commercial work and especially for the former, I am shooting wide open 80% of the time, and it is quite sharp. I find it to be the equal of my former Canon 85mm 1.2 II for sharpness wide open, while it, of course, behaves more like a 1.8 in terms of DOF.
935597
It's very close in quality to its 1.4 counterpart. The L version has a very slight edge in contrast and sharpness. I opted for the 35mm f2 IS because the difference wasn't large enough for me to justify spending twice as much for the 1.4.Hope this helps!
305766
The 28 1.8 is sharp starting at f2.2 and better corrected. At 1.8 it is a little soft. Distortion is better than 28-300 and the lens is significantly lighter but just as well made.
2175607
Just bought the Canon 14mm and the Rokinon 14mm manual focus. Returned the Canon. I need sharpness. The canon was soft at the edges at all f-stops. The manual focus is not a problem as I shoot mostly aerials. Great lens for the money.
987142
I owned the 50D and now own a 7D. I have had my 17-55 f/1.8 IS for over 2 years. I bought the 24-105 a year ago to replace my 17-55 hahaha yea let me say right now I am not selling my 17-55 and when shooting indoors the 17-55 f/2.8 is will be my first choice over the 24-105 f/4 IS. Indoors f/4 is slow period. I ended up buying a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to shoot indoors for low light and I LOVE it. Anyways on a crop body I would pick the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS for indoors unless its a really well lit room or I am using my 580 EXII. I am leaning to primes anymore and would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 for you. Another option is Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the Canon 85 f/1.8 and you spend less then either of those lenses heck you can throw in a 50 f/1.8 and have 3 lenses for the price of 1 if you don't mind switching lenses. Nick
358177
completely different lenses, especially for full frame. Why do you have a 50 f/1.8 on a 6D? that's almost a toy lens on a near professional camera. Although I don't have a full frame camera, if I did, I'd get the 24-70 L Zoom. If price is the issue, get the 24 2.8 IS for outdoor, landscape work and a 50 mm 1.4 for indoors, portraits, everyday use. Another nice lens is the 35 mm f/2 IS. bit wider, very sharp, with IS.
382374
I have both lenses and they are both pretty good. I probably like the 50mm a bit more than the 35mm. The real question for you to answer is what will I be my primary use for the lens ? Remember, we're shooting with a crop-sensor camera, so the lenses convert from a 35mm to a 52mm, and the 50mm converts to a 75mm lens. My recommendation for General Purpose Shooting would be to go with the 50mm ! A great bang for the buck and terrific bokeh !
990745
Congrats on the D5000 (and both great lenses you have). Be sure and get that 35mm down the road, believe me it will probably be the best 200$ you'll ever spend if you do any shooting indoors. I have tons of other lenses (including a 50mm f/1.4) so I held off for a while on getting the 35mm f/1.8, once I did finally get it I was kicking myself for not getting it sooner, it's that good. Happy shooting.
2251841
I do own a 18-50mm on my Rebel.. and this one is for my Nikon... But I really can't distinguish any differences since I am pretty new to the hobby. But I find it very easy now to just have one lens on all the time .. with my canon I would always have to keep changing from my 15-50mm to my zoom lens a lot and it takes too much time plus you have to carry another lens with you. So far so good.. its a really awesome lens.. and all my friends think its cool!
189737
Lighter weight. Better image. Works in a lot less light. The 50 is very inexpensive. I use the 85mm 1.8 quite a bit. Great lens, older metal version or newer plastic one.
1789044
The 2.8 works great for indoor pictures and the image quality difference is minimal. I've used both and I dont see any reason to buy the f/4 besides saving money. In April, Canon is updating the 2.8 lens with updated optics and the new IS. Alos the minimum focusing distance is shortened to just under 4 feet. I will be upgrading lenses at that time for sure. After having both lenses, my f/2.8 lens is the one that lives on the camera 95% of the time.
579921
It's a better lens. There are video tests on youtube of these two lenses against each other and this lens is considerably sharper. It's sharpness is somewhere between the Canon 85mm 1.8 and the Canon 85mm 1.2 L lens. This is a very powerful lens.
873452
Another option is getting the 50mm 1.8 for about a hundred bucks. Takes great shots and you can still buy the 28-135. I bought my 28-135 used and love having both lenses.