The price of the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens: around $1,300

If you are to believe this Australian website, the price of the new, "crazy good" Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens (see specs and more info here) should be 1,499 AUD with tax (around 1,350 USD). Sigma has not officially announced the price or the release date, but the lens is expected to be significantly more expensive than the 35mm f/1.4 Art.

This entry was posted in Sigma and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • RMFearless

    too much

  • lee

    Hopefully this is the MSRP price… in the past ‘street price’ of Sigma lens is always about 30% less than MSRP. Making this lens in the $900 range. Hopefully! : )

    • unyi3lding

      my thoughts exactly. The 35mm f/1.4 is posted with a $1400 MSRP on their own website, “discounted” to $899. Hopefully the 50mm will be the same price!

      • solomonshv

        if this 50mm lens is anything like the 35mm art i have, i might even dump my canon 50mm 1.2L

  • He-man

    Want it. I need it. Give it to me. NOW!

  • Miguel

    Am I missing something? Nikon version of this lens is almost $500. Canon version is about $400. Who in their right mind would buy this lens over the Canon/Nikon etc?

    • Anthony

      Sigma has said they are gunning for the Zeiss Otus, a $4,000 lens. If that is true, and this new Sigma 50mm F/1.4 has the performance to back it up then $1300 is a steal. But yes, anyone hoping for a cost effective upgrade to their current Canon/Nikon/Sigma 50mm F/1.4 lens will be upset over this.

      • Miguel

        Ohh alright that was the part I was missing. makes sense now.

    • This lens is supposed to be very sharp with many glass elements similar to the Zeiss 1.4/55.

    • preston

      I know your question has been answered, but I wanted to add that Sigma already had a competitor for the Canon/Nikon 50/1.4 that was priced at $500 which was a fair price considering that every review I’ve seen of it (check out for a reliable one) claims it is sharper than both the Canon and Nikon versions.

      Sigma’s current 50/1.4 – that is better than the brand name ones – has 8 elements in 6 groups. This new version has 13 elements in 8 groups, so surely a more expensive lens for them to produce. Also, this new “Art” series is supposed to have much better build quality and feel than their previous efforts which also suggests a higher cost.

    • solomonshv

      this lens does not compete with first party entry primes, like the nikon 50mm 1.4G and canon ef 50mm f1.4. it competes with lenses like canon’s 50mm 1.2L. and if the performance of the sigma 35mm Art lens is any indication, it will smoke the canon and nikon lenses.

      • josh

        Its apparently competing with a $4000 zeiss lens as well..

    • Jay

      I’d say so… This thing walks all over the Canon L series 50 mm… I cannot wait to get one! Its aspiration is the Zeiss Otus.

  • dgr

    Seems odd that the 50 would cost more than a 35.

    • johnny

      It does. This 50/1.4 art shared similar design as 35/1.4 art. They should be in the same price range.

  • a.g.

    there’s also another australian site that lists it for $899…so why not believe that one?

  • a.g.

    hmm…i don’t see the post i made, maybe it’s because i included a link…anyways, there’s another australian site that lists it for $899…

    • I guess the spam filter did not like the link. I manually approved it.

    • Ant

      Yeah, I posted the same link as well, must be a spam filter or something.

    • So how can those retailers just guess the price and take pre-orders for the lens? I don’t get it. Anyone from Australia here? Are those reputable dealers?

      • a.g.

        on Photography-on-the-net, someone from australia claimed that the $899 site was a legit site.

      • Davo

        Australian dealers often do placeholder prices. They seem to make a stab at a price, often without explanation. The sites you’re quoting are quite legitimate sites. As legitimate as any US site. But they don’t have info over and beyond what anyone else does. So the question is – why quote sites that are running placeholder info?

        • Because this is not common in the US – if I see a price on a website, it is valid.

      • Jeffrey

        Hi I’m from AUS. Camerapro ($1499) and other sites with pre-order prices $899 and $999 are all legit and reputable retailers. These pre-order prices are up there for about a week or 2. My friends and I were discussing about it last week.

        • Jeffrey

          Most of these sites have physical retail stores and I’ve purchased sigma lenses from them myself.

        • Thanks!

  • $1300 makes me think about the Nikon. ~$900 would be the sweet spot.

  • Phil

    I’ve purchase many products from camerapro in brisbane before, they actually have a store you can go to and try the product. They have the cheapest prices on non grey import gear in OZ. The sales person there is fantastic to, she’s young but knows her stuff and is very helpful. Anyway what I was going to say was that when the sigma 18-35 1.8 was announced they had a price on their website listed at about $1400 but when it came in stock they sold it for about $800. I’m sure it will be the same in this case.

  • rt-photography

    $1300? wtf? for a 50mm? fuck that. wheres that amazon link for the 50mm1.4g ?

    • solomonshv

      apples to oranges.

      • rt-photography

        dude, youre talking nonsense. 50 is 50 when you look at the photos. shoot wih the 1.4g and shoot with this sigma. print them a4 and I highly doubt youll see a difference. if your technique is good, theres no difference. this lens is not worth $1300. not even $900. $600 and no more. only because it has more elements and a so called “complex” design.. its a fuckin sigma, not zeiss. the 35 art sells for less than the nikon at $900 vs $1700, so how the fuck is this sigma selling for $1300 over nikons $400 lens? you know how many people who bought sigma and left because of disappointment? tons. I was a sigma user. so now they make 3 good lenses and their hasselblad? dude IMO their QC reputation is still garbage . everyone still knows buying sigma is a mixed bag. youre never sure if youll get a lemon or a diamond. and what about camera capability issues? have you forgotten that? they put out 3 lenses and all of sudden im supposed to forget the years of garbage they released into the world. they still have a LONG way to go before I consider them a high quality lens MFR. they were selling horrible lenses, and till now, still are. $1300, pfff, get off your high horse sigma. youre not nikons level yet. 3 good stellar lenses out of 60 in your lineup doesnt make you high quality. what pisses me off more is they had the ability (as we see now) to deliver stellar optics but only till recently decided to. so that s a big red mark in my book. I swore after selling my tons of sigma glass and buying nikon that I would never buy it again. and the most ill pay for a sigma 50mm lens is $600. the HSM sells for $400 so the new one is $1300 because of more glass and a so called “complex” design (hearesay)? anything more and they can kiss my ass. 50 is 50. people are suckers, naive and gullible. the most basic, boring, uninspiring, uncreative focal length lens in photography. its just a must have in the bag lens for backup situations. theyre not nikon, not zeiss, not hasselblad and not canon. they have a long way to go till they get some rep scores in my book. $1300..fuck off.

        • solomonshv

          judging from all this garbage you just wrote, “rep scores” in your book wont mean jack shit. i’m not going to try to prove a point to you because you are obviously clueless.

          and before you start knocking on sigma lenses, do some research on the sigma 35mm 1.4 Art lens and how it compares to the canon, nikon and zeiss competition. then you can put your foot in your mouth.

          • rt-photography

            absolute gibberish from an amateur. 3 lenses doesnt make them zeiss. lets talk about all their negatives first before you can say that sigma is so great. theyre on the right path. about fuckin time. where the fuck were they till now? even now theyre still selling mediocre glass. they have a while before many nikon snobs consider them quality. I know full well about the 35. thats one lens. the other is the 18-35. im happy they finally decided to join the party of quality. from a person who had only sigma glass, I know who they are. I can school you in photography. so now 3 lenses makes them zeiss? its still sigma. its not not nikon. ask people what they think of sigma (not specific lenses) and most will say budget lenses, bad QC, decent IQ. if you have no money buy them, compatability issues. and nothing else. I hope they make the right decision for their sake. selling the “complex” art 18-35 for $800 and then selling a boring 50mm for $1300. 3 times more than the nikon..wheres the logic? for that money, ll buy the $800 18-35 1.8 and use that as my 50. just a perfect solution. better selling resale wise as well.

          • outkasted

            Mercy, remind me not to piss you off…lol.

          • rt-photography

            Hahaha. Just venting. I think $1300 for a boring 50mm focal length is crazy.
            Ill just get the 50 from nikon. Either the 1.8 or 1.4g. Havent decided.

          • solomonshv

            and yet you write more garbage. this time you curse a lot more but you still haven’t proven anything.

            first off, yes, i have seen difference in detail between the 50mm 1.8 i used to have and the 50mm 1.2L i have now, especially away form the center, when printing shots. cheaper lenses also produce a lot of distortion and chromatic aberration, which sticks out when you print a blown up portrait. if you really can’t see a difference between cheap and professional lenses, you either don’t know how to use your camera, have poor eye sight, or you are a poor sap who never even touched the lenses in question. and judging from the way you write, i’m guessing it’s the third.

            second, neither you nor i have used the 50mm sigma lens in question so drawing any conclusions is meaningless. it’s like saying the 2016 BMW 3 series is going to destroy the current model mercedes C class. how do we know that? we don’t.

            the only thing we DO know is that sigma’s “over priced” $900, 35mm Art lens performs leaps and bound better than canon’s $1500 35mm 1.4L as well as nikon’s equivalent, and ever more so when compared to their cheaper variants. it also has better build quality than any of canon’s prime lenses. so i won’t be surprised if the 50mm manages to do the same. and if can do that at $1300, it would be amazing because the competition it is aiming for costs north of $2000.

            as far as compatibility issues go between different bodies from the same manufacturer, that can be fixed easily with Sigma’s USB dock, which allows users to update lenses to the newest firmware in their own homes and even fine tune focus settings.

          • rt-photography

            shlomke, lech dizdayen. homo motzetz zaeen.

          • John Cole

            why paying any USD for a boring lens ??

          • rt-photography

            A 50mm is must have lens. it has its uses. I need to have it for backup lens in case my 28-70 AFS decides to have a seizure.

          • tedtedsen

            BINGO im a great fan of sigmas i own 12 lenses for my d800 d4 and 8 is sigmas my newest is 35mm 1.4A and the New 24-105mm f4A they also have one of the best fisheye and macros on the marced i have them al 15mm Fish 8mm Fish circular and they are pinsharp and wide open and my working horse the 150-500mm is also Sharp if corected in AF micro adjustment fin me sharper and better maco than my 150mm os hsm and i bye it and the comming 50mm A is gona stay in my colection SIGMA is oferin theyr custemer the USB dock so every one can fintune the lens in every focal range sorrey for my bad inglish

        • jB

          you say there is no different between lenses “a 50 is a 50” and then say “its a fuckin sigma, not zeiss” You sir have gone the full retard, nobody is talking about sigmas reputation they are talking about the latest couple of lenses, I have only got the 35 1.4 but it is stella, better than every nikon lens I have except the 105 macro for straight up sharpness if you are into that thing the 50 1.4g which I love is total garbage compared to the sigma 35mm, doesn’t really bother me as I think each lens is what you make of it, I just stop it down a bit and carry on, but I would love a 50 that I can shoot wide open and be sharp like the 35 is and I don’t care who makes it if it works then it works I don’t give a monkeys its its ziess or tokina. As for 50 being boring, calm the fuck down, we all gravitate towards different focal lengths, I love 50 and could shoot it all day, like some people love a zoom lenses but i just can’t stand them, each focal length is what you make of it, sounds like you need to do some more practice 🙂

  • Jedy

    If this is true then bye bye any reasonably priced 50mm from Sigma!

  • Fan

    Can Sigma make a 42m f 1.8 lens? Something still not yet available in the market.

  • Back to top