Sigma 50-100/1.8 vs…
A Canon EF mount Sigma 50-100/1.8 arrived in the mail recently and I thought after the previous ‘Bokeh Bonanza’ blog (which seemed well received in the forums it was presented) I might as well do a quick and dirty part 2 bokeh comparison (with what glass I still have left before I sell off).
Alas the Christmas tree (and Nutcracker) is packed away for another year, so we’ll have to make do with booze bottles instead. Similar framing to last time (with my kitchen shelves providing the backdrop) we’ll have to contend with less specular highlight bokeh and instead just appreciate general out of focus rendering.
About the Test
Just like last time, a tripod was used and connected to the camera body vs lens collar as this would affect framing quite a bit and throw off comparable FoV (Fields of View) comparisons. This was super annoying to do because I needed a second tripod to prop up the lens weight of the 50-100, however I am glad I did it this way because if anything the take away message here is the FoV differences between this lens and Fuji primes is substantial (I gather the 50-100 focus breathes super heavy). RAW files used with a mild edit to help see the traits better and of course synced to being the same across the lot. Any differences in WB noticed will be likely glass traits. All shots taken wide open.
Out Of Focus Area Comparison (moving the tripod to compensate for FoV differences)
Same as last time, let’s just look at the differences first when comparable framing exists between the shots (i.e. shifting the tripod about).
Sigma 50-100 vs XF90/2
Not much to report on here. Again what bokeh balls exist with the 90/2 appear far more circular than the Sigma. The final image on the right (50-100@90mm) is maybe a tad unfair as the bottle appears a fair bit larger (despite trying to get similar framing). Overall I would say the bokeh is smoother on the Sigma because the XF90 is showing a little more contrast (not a bad thing). Let’s move on…
Sigma 50-100 vs XF50/2
This one was quite a surprise (and even more so if you see the section below highlighting FoV differences). Once I tried to match up the 50/2 to having similar framing to that of the 50-100, we can see it clearly sucking in way more of the environment context.
Sigma 50-100 vs XF56/1.2RWR
I was just curious to see how things looked when setting the Sigma to 56mm @1.8 vs the new XF56/1.2RWR.
Again despite my greatest efforts to match similar framing, there is a clear FoV difference, with the XF56/1.2 taking in more environmental context, and even with this still manages to render the second ‘Vok’ bottle more out of focus, impressive. Still… not at all a bad effort from the Sigma set to the same focal length, it’s 1.8 performance is very impressive, dreamy and ‘Artful’.
FoV (Field of View) Differences
Sigma 50-100/1.8 vs XF90/2
So the differences you are seeing here is me keeping the camera and tripod/s where they are and simply unmounting the Sigma and replacing with the XF90/2. Makes sense.
90mm
What you’re seeing here (on the left) is me shifting the camera and tripod when it still had the XF90/2 attached so that I better matched the framing of the original Sigma 50-100 shot when it was set to 100mm/1.8 (i.e. the opening shot). After getting this shot I unmounted the XF90/2, replaced with the Sigma 50-100/1.8, left the tripod where it was, set the lens to 90mm (f1.8) and took a shot and that is the result you see on the right (quite a lot more ‘zoomy’).
50mm
So after I took the shots above, I left the 50-100/1.8 on the camera, set it to 50mm and framed up similar to before. Then I uncoupled the lens and switched to the XF50/2 and this is what I got (on the right), wowzer… quite a substantial difference.
56mm
What you’re seeing here is me correctly framing up for the XF56/1.2 shot (to compare with the original Sigma 50-100 @100mm opening shot), and then changing the lens (without moving the tripod) to the Sigma 50-100 and setting it to 56mm (confirmed in EXIF). Again we see that similar trait, that all the Sigma 50-100/1.8 shots are more ‘zoomier’ than their XF prime counterparts.
I guess what’s kinda interesting about this shot is that if you were to crop the XF56/1,2 shot to that of the Sigma version on the right… you’d end up with quite similar oof rendering/intensity.
Conclusion
A more in-depth review on both the 18-35 and 50-100 will be forthcoming. This test is a bit silly, but I just wanted to see how the 50-100 range was comparing with the 50 and 90 primes, I guess the FoV differences are quite substantial making this a tough comparison to make. Anyone owning a 50mm f2 thinking the 50-100 set to 50mm will give the same environmental context should take this as a warning perhaps…
Any questions or comments welcome below, cheers.
