new 50mm1.4.sigma art lens

[macmich]

first try with the sigma art 50mm. heavily cropped

[Steve Axford]

Why so heavily processed? It could be taken with any 50mm lens.

[macmich]

i really did not process it that much, i only cropped it hard as the old girl would have killed me if i put the full head shot up

[William W]

Oh?

It appears to have quite a lot of post processing on my monitor too, not just cropping - that was my first thought, also.

Can you re-post the crop as from a JPEG SOOC?

Also notes on the lighting are relevant.

Are you happy with the lens?

WW

[macmich]

happy as larry with the lens, i will put the original up this evening and the lighting was mid afternoon outside no lights , no flash

- - - Updated - - -

this is the original
cheers macca

[MissionMan]

I think the reason the crop probably looks bad is it may be over sharpened. I'm guessing here so I may be wrong.

What sharpening settings did you use? I lens like that will be incredibly sharp so you may not need to do much to it

Are you shooting raw?

[macmich]

shooting raw, but new to photoshop i normally have been using lightroom, now i use lightroom and finish in photoshop and am not sure on the sharpening i used but looking at the shot now i tend to agree it was to much

[William W]

Thanks.

EXIF reveals F/1.6 using a 6D.

As much as one can determine on low res it has very nice general IQ and acutance, especially at the edges with the lens used at F/1.6: no wonder you are happy as Larry.

I cannot get that out of my EF50/1.4 using her at F/1.6, she kicks in at F/2.2~2.5.

WW

[macmich]

thanks William, i have been flat out with organizing an open day for the retirement village to really get out and give it a go

[dwolrige]

I have only heard great things with the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 ART. I own the Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART and it is sooo sharp from wide open!

[HughD]

I am also interested in the Sigma 50 Art but it does seem a little expensive for a third party lens. Is it worth the money?

[ameerat42]

I am also interested in the Sigma 50 Art but it does seem a little expensive for a third party lens. Is it worth the money?

So only home brands can make expensive lenses:D - regardless of quality?:cool:

[macmich]

do the check on the write-ups for the lens

[ameerat42]

Actually, I'm rather interested in the 18-35 f/1.8 ART. Oh, well! It's good to have an interest:o:o

[macmich]

im looking at the new wide angle art

[MissionMan]

I am also interested in the Sigma 50 Art but it does seem a little expensive for a third party lens. Is it worth the money?

It almost matches the Canon 50 f1.2 which costs over $2k so yes, it's worth it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swifty]

Zeiss Otus 50mm 1.4 is rather expensive for a third party lens :P
Sorry, couldn't help it :)
Only you can decide what the value is worth.
Some objective measurements have the Sigma ART lines competing and exceeding some of Canon and Nikon's best.
Subjectively, there are aspects such as the feel, how the lens draws, colour rendition etc. that you have to decide on and is largely a matter of taste.
But a quick gander around the web would indicate a large number of satisfied Sigma ART users so I dare say the answer is yes, it's worth the money.

[HughD]

So only home brands can make expensive lenses:D - regardless of quality?:cool:

Point taken. I have another Sigma lens which I am really happy with so it is not the issue more relative value.

- - - Updated - - -

Ouch. I definitely can not afford a Zeiss, unless I can sell the Children for Medical Experimentation.