DPR review of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4

[Art Vandelay II]

Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

That s one massive lens; I was shocked to see how it dwarfs every other 50mm 1.4, especially Pentax's.

I'm also trying me best to get Andy to stop highlighting in-lens stabilization as a bonus on their comparison charts but he is having none of it. I think it makes Pentax, Sony, & Olympus look bad to those that don't realize they have SR built into the bodies, but he's having none of it:

Sigma 50mm f1.4 review [Page 1]: News Discussion Forum: Digital Photography Review

[Gooshin]

would be intresting to know if this lens would appeal to the pentax crowd?

[Art Vandelay II]

Not to me, it's just too massive. It may have better IQ then the Pentax 50 1.4, but its not worth the extra money or bulk to me.

[paolojackson]

Wow that really does dwarf the FA50/1.4. I would hate lugging one of those around knowing I could use the FA50. And for the price of $200, the Pentax is hard to beat.

[little laker]

Originally Posted by Gooshin

would be intresting to know if this lens would appeal to the pentax crowd?

Shoot, my second camera is a Sigma and I'll keep my Super Tak 50mm f1.4 instead of buying their newest version.

However if Sigma starts giving me lenses, instead of my present deal there's a good chance it'll be the first one added to my collection

[8540tomg]

Looks like an interesting lens to me. It is quite a bit lighter than the K 200 2.5 and K 300 f4 I carrry around most of the time. Might be worth taking a serious look.

Tom G

[MikeH]

I think Andy is right! If you are using a Canon body, then in-lens stabilization is a feature. If you have a Pentax K10D, then in-body stabilization is a feature!!!

[Art Vandelay II]

Originally Posted by MikeH

I think Andy is right! If you are using a Canon body, then in-lens stabilization is a feature. If you have a Pentax K10D, then in-body stabilization is a feature!!!

That's fine until he starts comparing lenses. If he leaves Canon lenses alone in their world, and Pentax lenses alone in theirs then he can highlight shake reduction as a bonus in the canon reviews. However, when he compares the two lenses and he highlights SR as a bonus on the Canon lens and doesn't even put an asterisks in the Pentax column to let unaware readers know that Pentax lenses don't need lens based stabilization then I have an issue.

[sinus007]

Hi Art,
I read the review and one of the threads where one of the posters (you?) asked about *. Frankly, I couldn't make my mind who's right. On the one hand you're right: C & N 50s don't have and can't be stabilized while Pentax can. And this should be noted: lens without body is like a bullet without gun. On the other hand, 99% people who go for 50mm 1.4 know that C&N don't have in-body stabilization while P&S do.
As for the new Sigma 50 - great lens but I don't get it: why would I (as nonprofessional or not having clinical case of LBA) want to pay $500 instead of $200 for almost the same?
Just my $0.02

[Art Vandelay II]

Originally Posted by sinus007

Hi Art,
On the other hand, 99% people who go for 50mm 1.4 know that C&N don't have in-body stabilization while P&S do.

Yeah, I was more hoping to get them to adopt an asterisks policy for future comparisons more so then this one. For example when they inevitability compare 70-300mm consumers zooms. I guarantee a large portion of the entry level Canikon base has no idea Pentax has stabilization built into the bodies, so when they see that the Pentax 55-300mm does not have a stabilizer and the Canikon 70-300mm does that will further cement their belief that Canikon is the "best".

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay II

Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

That s one massive lens; I was shocked to see how it dwarfs every other 50mm 1.4, especially Pentax's.

I'm also trying me best to get Andy to stop highlighting in-lens stabilization as a bonus on their comparison charts but he is having none of it. I think it makes Pentax, Sony, & Olympus look bad to those that don't realize they have SR built into the bodies, but he's having none of it:

Sigma 50mm f1.4 review [Page 1]: News Discussion Forum: Digital Photography Review

Art,

That review and the one from photozone shows a pretty complete lens with best in class resolution. I'll wait see DA* 55 before taking any decission but for sure this is an impresive lens!

Radu

[pasipasi]

Heh that review explains the size of the lens which is was wondering.. 77mm filter thread is huge for a 50mm.

[Art Vandelay II]

Originally Posted by RaduA

Art,

That review and the one from photozone shows a pretty complete lens with best in class resolution. I'll wait see DA* 55 before taking any decission but for sure this is an impresive lens!

Radu

I almost think they should have compared it to the Canon f/1.2 L. That's about the only other 50mm I know of close to the size of the Sigma. From reviews I've seen of it is also right up there with the Sigma. But for me, the bulk and price simply isn't worth the small increase in IQ over the other 50's.

[audiobomber]

I found the review a bit frustrating because they mention the FA 50mm and it's in the photo, but they don't talk about it at all in the review except for its size. There are several comparisons of the Canon and Nikon IQ to the Sigma, but no direct comparisons of the Pentax lens IQ with any of the others. How does the Pentax 50mm compare to the Canon and Nikon equivalents? I guess I'll have to check that elsewhere.

[cpopham]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay II

I'm also trying me best to get Andy to stop highlighting in-lens stabilization as a bonus on their comparison charts but he is having none of it. I think it makes Pentax, Sony, & Olympus look bad to those that don't realize they have SR built into the bodies

Nice try on convincing him though - frankly, reading threads like that, and the crap the dpreview 'reviewers' spewed out when the K20 review was late is exactly why I don't even bother with that site anymore.