Pentax DA* 55mm 1.4 vs Sigma 50mm 1.4

Pentaxor · 03-09-2010, 10:39 AM - **1 Like**

I agree with Peter. eventhough you consider it as a joke, branding people as fanboys just because they prefer using another brand is quite unethical, especially if you try to find faults in a lens that owners don't mind at all. it is not a matter of being blind but rather a matter of compromising.

the Pentax for that matter is really slow, and I concur with Peter with a great extent of affirmation. the first time that I held a Pentax 55/1.4, the first thing I noticed with it is it's slow focus, and have trouble locking on a moving subject. it is silent alright, but slow. and I find that shortcoming of the lens more critical than a set of onion rings. now, can I accuse that Pentax 55 owners are fanboys because they want an underperforming slow-focusing lens?

don't worry, I'm not a Sigma fanboy. and I prefer Pentax lenses as much as possible. but I won't deny the fact that some Sigma lenses can do some real damage as well. plus they are cheaper and offer some focal lengths, and focusing performance that Pentax doesn't offer. of course, there are compromises.

asdf · 03-09-2010, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

I agree with Peter. eventhough you consider it as a joke, branding people as fanboys just because they prefer using another brand is quite unethical, especially if you try to find faults in a lens that owners don't mind at all. it is not a matter of being blind but rather a matter of compromising.

Cool story, bro.

Peter Zack · 03-09-2010, 10:57 AM

Ok We can all move back to the topic at hand. As the OP says, I'd really like to see some direct comparisons and thoughts from anyone who's owned the Sigma especially if they have the FA50mm to compare against. Since so many people own the FA, it's a great benchmark to judge the Sigma or the 55mm against. Focus speed, bokeh and wide open sharpness.

Pentaxor · 03-09-2010, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by asdf

Cool story, bro.

you're welcome.

Pentaxor · 03-09-2010, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

Ok We can all move back to the topic at hand. As the OP says, I'd really like to see some direct comparisons and thoughts from anyone who's owned the Sigma especially if they have the FA50mm to compare against. Since so many people own the FA, it's a great benchmark to judge the Sigma or the 55mm against. Focus speed, bokeh and wide open sharpness.

my only complaint about the 55 is focusing speed. other than that, it is better than the FA50.

about the Sigma, it's a darn fat lens. other than that, it is better than the FA50.
I had no complaints with the bokeh, wide open sharpness and focusing speed. but it appears that the Sigma maybe slightly sharper, IMO.

anyway, I have to consider size because I have issues with fat lenses.

MCR · 03-09-2010, 04:38 PM

Hi Sigma owners! To much words, to little photos....

Pentaxor · 03-09-2010, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by MCR

Hi Sigma owners! To much words, to little photos....

you can use search menu.

NeverSatisfied · 03-09-2010, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

I'm simply trying to decide on the best lens upgrade from the FA50mm....
There may not be a worthwhile upgrade.

I'm kinda thinking along the same lines as Peter, although for me it's just a hobby and he's the one who has to make a living at it. I recently sold my FA-50/1.4, it just didn't impress me and besides, I have three other lenses (zooms, admittedly) that cover 50mm. I mostly thought the DA*50-135 would suffice, but there is that lure of a fast prime. I do like Pentax equipment but I'm also practical, so I'm not averse to trying other brands, and I thought perhaps the Sigma might fit the bill. But it seems none of the choices is "perfect"...

(So at present my LBA remains unmitigated!)

**Clinton** · 03-09-2010, 08:37 PM

I think the biggest differentiator between the lenses is the bokeh. The sigma bokeh at wide open is just bizarre.

I'd love to see some bokeh examples with a Pentax body though, as the examples above, and also the photozone.de samples aren't from a Pentax.

Jewelltrail · 03-09-2010, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Pentaxor: anyway, I have to consider size because I have issues with fat lenses.

Understandable, but you get something in return for the fat front element of the Sigma: excellent vignetting numbers.

Jewelltrail · 03-09-2010, 09:34 PM

Bokeh may be subjective, but comparing it need not be. If you want to compare bokehs of 2 lenses, you need to shoot the same scenes. Distance from subject to background needs to be stable, from lens to lens. In general, the bokeh will look nicer if there is a larger distance between the subject and what is behind it.

It is silly to have someone post examples of what they see as "bad" bokeh with a lens, when they purposefully seek out shots which will be unflattering to a lens. Night shots. especially, with people holding lights, will of course generate circular highlights in the shot, because slower shutter speeds are going to detect the motion of the light (candle for example) and highlight that in the shot.

You can post shots under these conditions but, to be fair, you need to subject both lenses to the same, stressful bokeh conditions. Once again it all boils down to the Apples to Apples Equation.

Pentaxor · 03-10-2010, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Jewelltrail

Bokeh may be subjective, but comparing it need not be. If you want to compare bokehs of 2 lenses, you need to shoot the same scenes. Distance from subject to background needs to be stable, from lens to lens. In general, the bokeh will look nicer if there is a larger distance between the subject and what is behind it.

It is silly to have someone post examples of what they see as "bad" bokeh with a lens, when they purposefully seek out shots which will be unflattering to a lens. Night shots. especially, with people holding lights, will of course generate circular highlights in the shot, because slower shutter speeds are going to detect the motion of the light (candle for example) and highlight that in the shot.

You can post shots under these conditions but, to be fair, you need to subject both lenses to the same, stressful bokeh conditions. Once again it all boils down to the Apples to Apples Equation.

I believe this is more of a fair comparison. showing the lens at it's worst it's more like fault finding. it's better to show what the lens is capable of both in good and bad as to avoid any signs of favoring one lens over the other. I understand asdf's sentiments, but I never seen him post or acknowledge a good image coming from the Sigma. and more like saying that the Sigma can't produce any good images by doing so. it's a matter of what people are willing to compensate and not dismiss the fact that they won't like the lens entirely because of one person's OOF bokeh circle preference. pros and cons must be presented rather than cons.

TKH · 03-10-2010, 11:24 AM

I havnt owned the Sigma lenses, but I have owned the DA*55 and the FA43 and FA77 and the Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZK. So my answere for price and sharpness and bokeh is a Voigtländer NOKTON 1,4/58mm SL II.
Rainer

Lance B · 03-10-2010, 08:46 PM

Sorry, but more DA*55 samples. The DA*55 can have that 3D look in certain situations.

crop

Jewelltrail · 03-11-2010, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Pentaxor: I believe this is more of a fair comparison. showing the lens at it's worst it's more like fault finding. it's better to show what the lens is capable of both in good and bad as to avoid any signs of favoring one lens over the other. I understand asdf's sentiments, but I never seen him post or acknowledge a good image coming from the Sigma. and more like saying that the Sigma can't produce any good images by doing so. it's a matter of what people are willing to compensate and not dismiss the fact that they won't like the lens entirely because of one person's OOF bokeh circle preference. pros and cons must be presented rather than cons.

I think your point is spot-on! If all someone ever does is roam the forum, posting only negative information about a particular lens or two, that person then resembles more of a "troll" than a Pentaxian.

Clearly, all lenses have their pluses and minuses (some more of one than the other). To only focus on one end of the picture is silliness, suggesting the person needs a focus adjustment. Nobody tolerates ff/bf in lenses, how much less so in people should it be tolerated?

03-10-2010, 11:24 AM	#43
TKH Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 371	I havnt owned the Sigma lenses, but I have owned the DA55 and the FA43 and FA77 and the Zeiss Planar T 1.4/50 ZK. So my answere for price and sharpness and bokeh is a Voigtländer NOKTON 1,4/58mm SL II. Rainer Last edited by TKH; 03-19-2010 at 09:35 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax 55mm Vs. Sigma 50mm	Ouroboros	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	06-15-2010 05:55 PM
Sigma 50mm f.14 or DA* 55mm 1.4 ?	jmc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	06-08-2010 07:12 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax *ist DL, FA 50mm f/1.4, DFA 100mm f/2.8 macro, DA 18-55mm, A 50mm f/2.0	chemxaj	Sold Items	14	05-31-2010 09:34 AM
For Sale - Sold: A 50mm 1.7; M 28mm 2.8; M 50mm 1.4; 18-55mm II; Sigma AF 24mm 2.8 II.	thomasxie	Sold Items	4	03-05-2010 06:33 AM

03-09-2010, 10:39 AM - 1 Like	#31
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	I agree with Peter. eventhough you consider it as a joke, branding people as fanboys just because they prefer using another brand is quite unethical, especially if you try to find faults in a lens that owners don't mind at all. it is not a matter of being blind but rather a matter of compromising. the Pentax for that matter is really slow, and I concur with Peter with a great extent of affirmation. the first time that I held a Pentax 55/1.4, the first thing I noticed with it is it's slow focus, and have trouble locking on a moving subject. it is silent alright, but slow. and I find that shortcoming of the lens more critical than a set of onion rings. now, can I accuse that Pentax 55 owners are fanboys because they want an underperforming slow-focusing lens? don't worry, I'm not a Sigma fanboy. and I prefer Pentax lenses as much as possible. but I won't deny the fact that some Sigma lenses can do some real damage as well. plus they are cheaper and offer some focal lengths, and focusing performance that Pentax doesn't offer. of course, there are compromises.

03-09-2010, 10:51 AM	#32
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Pentaxor I agree with Peter. eventhough you consider it as a joke, branding people as fanboys just because they prefer using another brand is quite unethical, especially if you try to find faults in a lens that owners don't mind at all. it is not a matter of being blind but rather a matter of compromising. Cool story, bro.

03-09-2010, 10:57 AM	#33
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Ok We can all move back to the topic at hand. As the OP says, I'd really like to see some direct comparisons and thoughts from anyone who's owned the Sigma especially if they have the FA50mm to compare against. Since so many people own the FA, it's a great benchmark to judge the Sigma or the 55mm against. Focus speed, bokeh and wide open sharpness.

03-09-2010, 11:26 AM	#34
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by asdf Cool story, bro. you're welcome.

03-09-2010, 11:40 AM	#35
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Peter Zack Ok We can all move back to the topic at hand. As the OP says, I'd really like to see some direct comparisons and thoughts from anyone who's owned the Sigma especially if they have the FA50mm to compare against. Since so many people own the FA, it's a great benchmark to judge the Sigma or the 55mm against. Focus speed, bokeh and wide open sharpness. my only complaint about the 55 is focusing speed. other than that, it is better than the FA50. about the Sigma, it's a darn fat lens. other than that, it is better than the FA50. I had no complaints with the bokeh, wide open sharpness and focusing speed. but it appears that the Sigma maybe slightly sharper, IMO. anyway, I have to consider size because I have issues with fat lenses.

03-09-2010, 04:38 PM	#36
MCR Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Torun, POLAND Posts: 119	Hi Sigma owners! To much words, to little photos....

03-09-2010, 04:45 PM	#37
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by MCR Hi Sigma owners! To much words, to little photos.... you can use search menu.

03-09-2010, 07:16 PM	#38
NeverSatisfied Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 688	Originally posted by Peter Zack I'm simply trying to decide on the best lens upgrade from the FA50mm.... There may not be a worthwhile upgrade. I'm kinda thinking along the same lines as Peter, although for me it's just a hobby and he's the one who has to make a living at it. I recently sold my FA-50/1.4, it just didn't impress me and besides, I have three other lenses (zooms, admittedly) that cover 50mm. I mostly thought the DA*50-135 would suffice, but there is that lure of a fast prime. I do like Pentax equipment but I'm also practical, so I'm not averse to trying other brands, and I thought perhaps the Sigma might fit the bill. But it seems none of the choices is "perfect"... (So at present my LBA remains unmitigated!)

03-09-2010, 08:37 PM	#39
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,912 Original Poster	I think the biggest differentiator between the lenses is the bokeh. The sigma bokeh at wide open is just bizarre. I'd love to see some bokeh examples with a Pentax body though, as the examples above, and also the photozone.de samples aren't from a Pentax.

03-09-2010, 09:12 PM	#40
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Pentaxor: anyway, I have to consider size because I have issues with fat lenses. Understandable, but you get something in return for the fat front element of the Sigma: excellent vignetting numbers.

03-09-2010, 09:34 PM	#41
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Bokeh may be subjective, but comparing it need not be. If you want to compare bokehs of 2 lenses, you need to shoot the same scenes. Distance from subject to background needs to be stable, from lens to lens. In general, the bokeh will look nicer if there is a larger distance between the subject and what is behind it. It is silly to have someone post examples of what they see as "bad" bokeh with a lens, when they purposefully seek out shots which will be unflattering to a lens. Night shots. especially, with people holding lights, will of course generate circular highlights in the shot, because slower shutter speeds are going to detect the motion of the light (candle for example) and highlight that in the shot. You can post shots under these conditions but, to be fair, you need to subject both lenses to the same, stressful bokeh conditions. Once again it all boils down to the Apples to Apples Equation.

03-10-2010, 10:29 AM	#42
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Jewelltrail Bokeh may be subjective, but comparing it need not be. If you want to compare bokehs of 2 lenses, you need to shoot the same scenes. Distance from subject to background needs to be stable, from lens to lens. In general, the bokeh will look nicer if there is a larger distance between the subject and what is behind it. It is silly to have someone post examples of what they see as "bad" bokeh with a lens, when they purposefully seek out shots which will be unflattering to a lens. Night shots. especially, with people holding lights, will of course generate circular highlights in the shot, because slower shutter speeds are going to detect the motion of the light (candle for example) and highlight that in the shot. You can post shots under these conditions but, to be fair, you need to subject both lenses to the same, stressful bokeh conditions. Once again it all boils down to the Apples to Apples Equation. I believe this is more of a fair comparison. showing the lens at it's worst it's more like fault finding. it's better to show what the lens is capable of both in good and bad as to avoid any signs of favoring one lens over the other. I understand asdf's sentiments, but I never seen him post or acknowledge a good image coming from the Sigma. and more like saying that the Sigma can't produce any good images by doing so. it's a matter of what people are willing to compensate and not dismiss the fact that they won't like the lens entirely because of one person's OOF bokeh circle preference. pros and cons must be presented rather than cons.

03-10-2010, 08:46 PM	#44
Lance B Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 593	Sorry, but more DA55 samples. The DA55 can have that 3D look in certain situations. crop

03-11-2010, 10:20 PM	#45
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	Quote: Pentaxor: I believe this is more of a fair comparison. showing the lens at it's worst it's more like fault finding. it's better to show what the lens is capable of both in good and bad as to avoid any signs of favoring one lens over the other. I understand asdf's sentiments, but I never seen him post or acknowledge a good image coming from the Sigma. and more like saying that the Sigma can't produce any good images by doing so. it's a matter of what people are willing to compensate and not dismiss the fact that they won't like the lens entirely because of one person's OOF bokeh circle preference. pros and cons must be presented rather than cons. I think your point is spot-on! If all someone ever does is roam the forum, posting only negative information about a particular lens or two, that person then resembles more of a "troll" than a Pentaxian. Clearly, all lenses have their pluses and minuses (some more of one than the other). To only focus on one end of the picture is silliness, suggesting the person needs a focus adjustment. Nobody tolerates ff/bf in lenses, how much less so in people should it be tolerated?