@BurnetRhoades

And "I think it has tons of character" means nothing at all.

"It has lots of character" is in the same category as "it is cinematic" or "it has an organic feel." They are meaningless because they can not be measured and compared objectively. They're all terms that people throw around to make "I like this" or "I don't like this" sound smarter. If you can come up with an objective set of criteria for determining the amount of character that a lens has, then I'm sure someone out there will be glad to make a website to benchmark and measure lenses using it. Otherwise, I could just as easily describe my 90/2 Summicron-R as having tons of character and someone else could come along and say that it's cold and clinical.

Anyway, I'm pretty excited to see Sigma emerging as a company who is capable of making amazing lenses and I'm completely astounded to find myself looking forward to probably buying one of their lenses in the near future and deciding that they're a pragmatic and inexpensive trade-off to Canon's lenses like when I bought my 70-200/2.8 EX like 10 years ago.

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.

Complaints?

@last_SHIFT

Yeah. I want to go there - if I didn't, I wouldn't have said anything.

Every lens has "character" and is a tool suited to a particular job. There are times when one might want to shoot with an insanely sharp astonishingly perfect lens. There are other times when one might choose a Lomo Petzval or Dog Schidt-modified Helios. Heck, I 3D print lens adapters to use lenses harvested from antique folding cameras on my DSLR because I like the way they look.

I will stand by my statement to the end that making statements like "this lens has character" are useless without defining what things about the lens' character that you like.

In the example of your older-generation Sigma, the model of camera and lack of AF issues don't sound like the sort of things that would matter to people looking at the images. Center sharpness and pleasant bokeh sound nice, though. Once you start using terms like that, it becomes clear to other people what you like. :)

Really?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/97470426@N06/sets/72157643654332185/

http://reframe.gizmodo.com/sigma-50mm-f-1-4-art-review-great-glass-that-doesnt-c-1561863011

Sigma have created a lens which performs well in terms of sharpness and other optical attributes, for a fairly reasonable price.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-50mm-f-1-4-dg-hsm-art-lens-review-24892

Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM is a fast and tack-sharp lens, both in the center and at the edges of the frame, with virtually no evidence of chromatic aberrations and very little distortion.

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_50mm_f1_4_dg_hsm_review/

http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-1893/objectif-sigma-50mm-f14-dg-hsm-mires-3.html

Sigma's latest 50mm is one of the very best lenses. It's impressively sharp wide open, with none of the 'haze' or 'glow' from spherical aberration that's normally associated with this kind of fast prime. Stopped down, it just gets better; we've been shooting with it mainly on a 20MP Canon EOS 6D, and it's impressively sharp right across the frame at apertures from F2.8 - F11. Indeed it seems pretty clear that the Sigma will continue to give excellent results on higher resolution sensors for some time yet, and is likely to be utterly untroubled by the D800's 36MP sensor.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-50mm-f1-4-dg-hsm