A special thank you to Sigma for allowing me to test and use this lens for a couple weeks, it was a real pleasure to shoot with. A link to some of the photos I took is in the description. Thanks for watching!
Well it sounds like an intriguing lens. I've always been partial to 50mm and have found over the years that they seem to have the best versatility and robustness as an overall lens. I actually like the heavier solid feel of a metal lens as opposed to plastic. There's a certain amount of comfort there knowing that the build quality won't let you down. Your description and testing make it seem tantalizing enough, to the point of wanting to give this lens a shot to see its true potential. Thanks for taking the time to broaden our horizons.
It's nice to see a NC photographer on RUclips. I had a Canon EF mount Sigma 50 1.4 DG HSM adapted to Sony and eventually upgraded to the Sony 50 1.2GM. If either of the newer Sigma DG DN options were out, I'm certain I would have gone that route instead.
Thanks for the comment! Similar situation here. I didn't have the 50mm HSM though, I actually had the 40mm 1.4 HSM, which is in my opinion one of the best lenses ever designed. I don't mind its 3 pound weight and huge size, but I suspect that's why it sold poorly. This newer 50mm 1.2 is the first lens they've made where I feel like it's close to as good as the 40mm. It's actually better in chromatic aberrations, but the color, saturation, and sharpness of the 40 is still untouched by anything on the market. For what it's worth the Sony 50mm 1.2 is a stellar 50, and perhaps the best of the premium brand-name lenses. I have the smaller Sony 50mm 1.4 GM and regularly shoot portraits with it, and the Sony has the best colors of any brand. The Canon's, Nikons, whatever else are all great too, but that Sony lens has color similar to Cooke glass, skin-tones are just perfect. Happy shooting!
Beautiful photos! I'm really impressed by the sharpness and the excellent handling of low light. Having been there and seen where the photos were taken, I know you're not kidding when you say those museum shots were in low light. I had to squint and had a hard time reading things when I toured that exhibit. It's amazing how much detail and light is captured in these shots and during editing you're able to pull a lot of that out from the raw image. I've done photo shoots with just phone cameras before in a pinch, but seeing these photos, I can see the benefit of using a professional level camera and high quality lense. You were able to capture moments that will truly be treasured forever. Thanks for sharing more of the photos on Flickr. For others viewing, keep in mind you have to download the photo to see the real quality and detail. Flickr only displays a lower resolution version on the surface. These photos are so crystal clear. I don't know how you could get sharper detail on the points of focus.
Yeah I thought the photos turned out really nice, especially the low light ones when you consider how bad the lighting was. A lot of the photos turned out way better than I expected. Thank you!
Hi Josh! Your sentences are well-composed. There is sufficient peices of information in each sentence so that it is constantly interesting, but without being too difficult to follow. Nice flow, in short. How do you manage to remember your lines? Do you have cue cards on screen, or similar? Thanks!
Thanks a lot, Lars. :) I really appreciate the compliment. I don't memorize lines or anything like that, no teleprompter. I simply write down bullet points of the topics I want to talk about and in-between cuts I look at the bullet point, then I just talk.
Sigma is quickly introducing RF mount lenses. I think it's just contemporary lenses for now, but I'm sure that over time they'll expand that to other lines. I'd love to see Art lenses on the new Canon mount.
Yeah it's a bit warmer. Other lens was the 40mm 1.4 Sigma which is redder, perhaps a bit better color on skin tones. That 40mm is likely the best mass produced lens ever made though.
Perfect question for me because I owned it for a while. The Panasonic 50mm f/1.4 S Pro is a brilliant lens, but it's also vastly overpriced for what it is in my opinion, which is why I sold it. I couldn't see paying more than $1000 for it, and it's more than double that price new. Color rendition and saturation from the Panasonic lens was better than the Sigma, and perhaps better than almost any other lens on the market, that's where it truly excelled. There is always a slight warmth and yellow tinge you get with many Sigma lenses (except the 40mm marvel). However, it was worse in every other measurable way. It's distinctly less sharp wide open, the bokeh isn't quite as smooth and creamy, and I noticed more issues with chromatic aberrations as well. This is all due to the fact that there is less glass inside of it for light-corrections. (13 elements instead of 17 of the Sigma). Generally more glass and more lens elements allow for more internal corrections for the way light passes through the glass. It's also an older design, as the Sigma is basically brand new, so that is a factor to consider as well. Similar to much of the glass that Leica manufacturers it's really good when it comes to color, but it's subpar in many other categories, especially when you consider the price. Sigma, Tamron, and other third party brands are really bringing exceptional optics at much lower prices to the market these days. I personally would rather have the Sigma 50mm 1.2. If you haven't looked at it yet and are willing to deal with a huge 3 pound beast then look at the Sigma 40mm 1.4 HSM, which is likely the finest mass produced lens ever made by any company. That thing is SO good in every single way that it makes me not want to use any other lens.
What a great review! I have a question, Considering the aperture which gives great lighting for the photos, do you think this is the right lens for street and city photography? I am going to Japan and I want a great lens for street and building photography at night and I think this is suitable, what do you think?
I would argue that a good 35mm or 50mm are the best lenses for street photography. If your goal is more just shooting environments, buildings, things like that, then go for a 35mm. But if your emphasis is more on portraits, profiles, people, and objects (like bread being baked at a bakery you visit for example), then I'd go 50mm. The 50mm is arguably a little bit more "general" in its scope, because it's similar to the human eye. The human eye is very close to 50mm, so it's a nice natural length, but it can cut out environments in small quarters. Japan is a small country, lots of interiors, buildings, exteriors, streets etc. are all very compact, and if environment is the goal then definitely go 35mm. But for all other general purposes this is a great lens for a few reasons. 1. It's very small and relatively light for what it is. Very few 1.2's are as compact as this, so that alone makes it worth it if you're traveling. 2. Optical quality is super high-end, right up there with Sony's 50mm 1.2. 3. It's not insanely expensive. Meaning if it gets stolen, or it breaks or whatever, you won't take as much of a financial hit during your trip. There is a strong argument to be made for traveling with cheaper gear... Though Japan being as safe as it is it probably matters a lot less in that country. If I were you I'd either get this lens, or the 50mm 1.4 GM from Sony. Both are compact, both are optically brilliant, and both are similar prices. I think the Sony has SLIGHTLY better color rendition, and the Sigma is slightly sharper, more contrasty, and brighter. Hopefully this helps. Good luck on your trip!
@@JoshChristiane THANK YOU VERY MUCH! I really appreciate your response and all the details you mentioned, I read it more than once and all the details you mentioned already were on my mind. Thanks again.
This particular one does not, because D850 isn't mirrorless and the mounts available are only for mirrorless. But the older HSM lenses from Sigma are almost as good and those have mounts for DLSR's. However, generally speaking Sigma doesn't make lenses for Nikon mounts without special adapters, you will likely need to look at the Nikon brands. Tokina and Tamron usually make Nikon F and Z mount lenses.
Great question. The Leica is nice, but it's got less glass in it. Less elements in less groups, smaller lighter body, it's really more designed to be a luxury product from a luxury name brand than a practical tool. It suffers from worse chromatic correction, and possibly worse color accuracy depending on who you ask. Is an Hermes purse really worth 100 times the cost as a standard Coach purse? You're paying for name brand more than anything else with most Leica glass. Check dxomark for ratings, the $5,000 Leica 50mm ranks below the older $800 Sigma 1.4 on every mark. You don't always get what you pay for.
I think it is sharper and slightly more contrasty than the Canon. It also has more lens elements and glass internally so it likely handles corrections better. My experience with both is anecdotal since I haven't tested both side by side. But it seems as good or better for less money. It feels more solid too, particularly because it's a metal body and more compact.
A nifty fifty. Depends on your mount though. For L mount get the Panasonic 50mm.1.8. for E mount get the Sony 50mm 1.8. both are cheap plastic lenses, but they're very sharp nonetheless.
There are plenty of amazing little nifty 50 lenses. Those small plastic fantastics aren't going anywhere anytime soon. But we have to ask ourselves what the difference between cheap and expensive lenses really is. A cheap, small, plastic, lightweight 50mm lens will likely have very few glass elements inside of it for light correction. It might be super sharp, but it will have bad ghosting, bad chromatic aberrations, lower quality bokeh, and also allow less light in. With an expensive lens you're not necessarily getting a "sharper" image, but you're getting better saturation, better color balance, less LoCa, more aperture blades for smoother bokeh, bigger glass elements letting in more light, among many other factors. When you consider it from this perspective then cheap nifty fifties will never compete. But if sharpness is your only measure of a good lens and what you want to worry about the most then there's no reason to be worried about more expensive heavier lenses. In the end you can still take some amazing photographs with tiny $200 50mm lenses.
It's definitely the best for the price, that much is obvious. If we are talking about really expensive cinema 50's maybe not, but for regular mass produced lenses I do think this is the best. On paper it's better than the Nikon, Canon and Sony options while being a good bit cheaper.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
Be my friend on X at: x.com/Josh_Christiane
literally the best review for a lens i've ever watched
Thank you :D!
A special thank you to Sigma for allowing me to test and use this lens for a couple weeks, it was a real pleasure to shoot with. A link to some of the photos I took is in the description. Thanks for watching!
Well it sounds like an intriguing lens. I've always been partial to 50mm and have found over the years that they seem to have the best versatility and robustness as an overall lens. I actually like the heavier solid feel of a metal lens as opposed to plastic. There's a certain amount of comfort there knowing that the build quality won't let you down. Your description and testing make it seem tantalizing enough, to the point of wanting to give this lens a shot to see its true potential. Thanks for taking the time to broaden our horizons.
Thank you for leaving another nice comment. Much appreciated!
It's nice to see a NC photographer on RUclips. I had a Canon EF mount Sigma 50 1.4 DG HSM adapted to Sony and eventually upgraded to the Sony 50 1.2GM. If either of the newer Sigma DG DN options were out, I'm certain I would have gone that route instead.
Thanks for the comment! Similar situation here. I didn't have the 50mm HSM though, I actually had the 40mm 1.4 HSM, which is in my opinion one of the best lenses ever designed. I don't mind its 3 pound weight and huge size, but I suspect that's why it sold poorly. This newer 50mm 1.2 is the first lens they've made where I feel like it's close to as good as the 40mm. It's actually better in chromatic aberrations, but the color, saturation, and sharpness of the 40 is still untouched by anything on the market. For what it's worth the Sony 50mm 1.2 is a stellar 50, and perhaps the best of the premium brand-name lenses. I have the smaller Sony 50mm 1.4 GM and regularly shoot portraits with it, and the Sony has the best colors of any brand. The Canon's, Nikons, whatever else are all great too, but that Sony lens has color similar to Cooke glass, skin-tones are just perfect. Happy shooting!
Beautiful photos! I'm really impressed by the sharpness and the excellent handling of low light. Having been there and seen where the photos were taken, I know you're not kidding when you say those museum shots were in low light. I had to squint and had a hard time reading things when I toured that exhibit. It's amazing how much detail and light is captured in these shots and during editing you're able to pull a lot of that out from the raw image. I've done photo shoots with just phone cameras before in a pinch, but seeing these photos, I can see the benefit of using a professional level camera and high quality lense. You were able to capture moments that will truly be treasured forever.
Thanks for sharing more of the photos on Flickr. For others viewing, keep in mind you have to download the photo to see the real quality and detail. Flickr only displays a lower resolution version on the surface. These photos are so crystal clear. I don't know how you could get sharper detail on the points of focus.
Yeah I thought the photos turned out really nice, especially the low light ones when you consider how bad the lighting was. A lot of the photos turned out way better than I expected. Thank you!
great review I loved all of the photos you showed off crazyyy sharp
Thanks 👍🏻 I thought so too. 🙏🏻😁
Great photos, I really want this lens so badly.
Your audio quality is insanely good, probably the best i have seen on this platform.
Thank you, I'm always trying to find ways to improve. :)) I appreciate you noticing.
Thank you! Loved the video especially cause I'm in the market for a new lens.
Glad it was helpful! Thanks for watching!
Hi Josh! Your sentences are well-composed. There is sufficient peices of information in each sentence so that it is constantly interesting, but without being too difficult to follow. Nice flow, in short.
How do you manage to remember your lines? Do you have cue cards on screen, or similar? Thanks!
Thanks a lot, Lars. :) I really appreciate the compliment. I don't memorize lines or anything like that, no teleprompter. I simply write down bullet points of the topics I want to talk about and in-between cuts I look at the bullet point, then I just talk.
@@JoshChristiane Works well! Thanks!
Thanks for such a thorough review with real tests and examples. Just wish they had an RF mount...
Sigma is quickly introducing RF mount lenses. I think it's just contemporary lenses for now, but I'm sure that over time they'll expand that to other lines. I'd love to see Art lenses on the new Canon mount.
The 50m looks greener and more yellow than whatever else you were using
Yeah it's a bit warmer. Other lens was the 40mm 1.4 Sigma which is redder, perhaps a bit better color on skin tones. That 40mm is likely the best mass produced lens ever made though.
Have you tried the panasonic 50 f1.4? Would it compare to this Sigma?
Perfect question for me because I owned it for a while. The Panasonic 50mm f/1.4 S Pro is a brilliant lens, but it's also vastly overpriced for what it is in my opinion, which is why I sold it. I couldn't see paying more than $1000 for it, and it's more than double that price new.
Color rendition and saturation from the Panasonic lens was better than the Sigma, and perhaps better than almost any other lens on the market, that's where it truly excelled. There is always a slight warmth and yellow tinge you get with many Sigma lenses (except the 40mm marvel).
However, it was worse in every other measurable way. It's distinctly less sharp wide open, the bokeh isn't quite as smooth and creamy, and I noticed more issues with chromatic aberrations as well. This is all due to the fact that there is less glass inside of it for light-corrections. (13 elements instead of 17 of the Sigma). Generally more glass and more lens elements allow for more internal corrections for the way light passes through the glass. It's also an older design, as the Sigma is basically brand new, so that is a factor to consider as well.
Similar to much of the glass that Leica manufacturers it's really good when it comes to color, but it's subpar in many other categories, especially when you consider the price. Sigma, Tamron, and other third party brands are really bringing exceptional optics at much lower prices to the market these days. I personally would rather have the Sigma 50mm 1.2.
If you haven't looked at it yet and are willing to deal with a huge 3 pound beast then look at the Sigma 40mm 1.4 HSM, which is likely the finest mass produced lens ever made by any company. That thing is SO good in every single way that it makes me not want to use any other lens.
What a great review!
I have a question, Considering the aperture which gives great lighting for the photos, do you think this is the right lens for street and city photography? I am going to Japan and I want a great lens for street and building photography at night and I think this is suitable, what do you think?
I would argue that a good 35mm or 50mm are the best lenses for street photography. If your goal is more just shooting environments, buildings, things like that, then go for a 35mm. But if your emphasis is more on portraits, profiles, people, and objects (like bread being baked at a bakery you visit for example), then I'd go 50mm. The 50mm is arguably a little bit more "general" in its scope, because it's similar to the human eye. The human eye is very close to 50mm, so it's a nice natural length, but it can cut out environments in small quarters. Japan is a small country, lots of interiors, buildings, exteriors, streets etc. are all very compact, and if environment is the goal then definitely go 35mm. But for all other general purposes this is a great lens for a few reasons.
1. It's very small and relatively light for what it is. Very few 1.2's are as compact as this, so that alone makes it worth it if you're traveling.
2. Optical quality is super high-end, right up there with Sony's 50mm 1.2.
3. It's not insanely expensive. Meaning if it gets stolen, or it breaks or whatever, you won't take as much of a financial hit during your trip. There is a strong argument to be made for traveling with cheaper gear... Though Japan being as safe as it is it probably matters a lot less in that country.
If I were you I'd either get this lens, or the 50mm 1.4 GM from Sony. Both are compact, both are optically brilliant, and both are similar prices. I think the Sony has SLIGHTLY better color rendition, and the Sigma is slightly sharper, more contrasty, and brighter. Hopefully this helps. Good luck on your trip!
@@JoshChristiane THANK YOU VERY MUCH! I really appreciate your response and all the details you mentioned, I read it more than once and all the details you mentioned already were on my mind. Thanks again.
You're very welcome, thanks for the kind comments :)
What camera are you using for the photos and for the video?
The Panasonic S5IIX for both.
Does this lens work on Nikon D850 cameras?
This particular one does not, because D850 isn't mirrorless and the mounts available are only for mirrorless. But the older HSM lenses from Sigma are almost as good and those have mounts for DLSR's. However, generally speaking Sigma doesn't make lenses for Nikon mounts without special adapters, you will likely need to look at the Nikon brands. Tokina and Tamron usually make Nikon F and Z mount lenses.
What about the Leica APO summicron how can this be better than that?
Great question. The Leica is nice, but it's got less glass in it. Less elements in less groups, smaller lighter body, it's really more designed to be a luxury product from a luxury name brand than a practical tool. It suffers from worse chromatic correction, and possibly worse color accuracy depending on who you ask. Is an Hermes purse really worth 100 times the cost as a standard Coach purse? You're paying for name brand more than anything else with most Leica glass. Check dxomark for ratings, the $5,000 Leica 50mm ranks below the older $800 Sigma 1.4 on every mark. You don't always get what you pay for.
I feel like this would be the perfect lens for me if it were a little cheaper
Well Sigma sells the 50mm 1.4 which is a lot cheaper and still optically amazing. I'd look into that.
how does this compare to the 50 f/2 that Sigma sells? I don't need the 1.2
The 50mm f/2 is awesome. It's lighter and smaller and very sharp open wide. You'll have no issues with it at all, a very good lens for the money.
Okay so it's insanely sharp but is it sharper than the Canon RF 1.2?
I think it is sharper and slightly more contrasty than the Canon. It also has more lens elements and glass internally so it likely handles corrections better. My experience with both is anecdotal since I haven't tested both side by side. But it seems as good or better for less money. It feels more solid too, particularly because it's a metal body and more compact.
What do you recommend if I can't afford this?
A nifty fifty. Depends on your mount though. For L mount get the Panasonic 50mm.1.8. for E mount get the Sony 50mm 1.8. both are cheap plastic lenses, but they're very sharp nonetheless.
🥇🏆🥳🎈☺️
Thanks for watching! 🎉🎉
How would this compare to a nifty fifty cause all I have is that
There are plenty of amazing little nifty 50 lenses. Those small plastic fantastics aren't going anywhere anytime soon. But we have to ask ourselves what the difference between cheap and expensive lenses really is. A cheap, small, plastic, lightweight 50mm lens will likely have very few glass elements inside of it for light correction. It might be super sharp, but it will have bad ghosting, bad chromatic aberrations, lower quality bokeh, and also allow less light in. With an expensive lens you're not necessarily getting a "sharper" image, but you're getting better saturation, better color balance, less LoCa, more aperture blades for smoother bokeh, bigger glass elements letting in more light, among many other factors. When you consider it from this perspective then cheap nifty fifties will never compete. But if sharpness is your only measure of a good lens and what you want to worry about the most then there's no reason to be worried about more expensive heavier lenses. In the end you can still take some amazing photographs with tiny $200 50mm lenses.
is this really the best 50 or are you just saying that?
It's definitely the best for the price, that much is obvious. If we are talking about really expensive cinema 50's maybe not, but for regular mass produced lenses I do think this is the best. On paper it's better than the Nikon, Canon and Sony options while being a good bit cheaper.