Nice review of this lens. If I hadn't been lucky enough to grab a barely used XF56mm V1.0 at nearly the same price recently I would probably consider this lens. Love that you're taking your son out to shoot and learn!! Happy New Year!!
thanks for the effort and sharing. sigma 56/1.4 vs older fuji 56/1.2. based on image quality alone, what would you chose? thanks in advance. thumbs up.
I tried the Fuji 56 (new version) and that was better than the Sigma. I have not tried the original one but from what I understand it is extremely sharp too.
Great video! Getting one of these myself to use with my X-T30, managed to get it for £340 in the UK, as much as I'd love the Fuji 56 1.2, I feel like for a third of the cost the Sigma is unbeatable.
Hey Rod, yes I would have no issue using this lens for a headshot session. In terms of performance and quality, I found it to be on par with my Fuji 16-55 f/2.8. Recently, I tested the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and used that on a few location shoots and I was super impressed with that one as well.
Thanks! Both the focal length and the aperture value need to be multiplied by 1.5 in order to get the equivalent values on a full frame camera. So, the 56mm is an 84mm equivalent and 1.4 is really a 2.1 equivalent.
@@dimpap1370 Yes that's always how I understood it too but I have seen quite a few people talking about the aperture changing as well and it seeped into my brain lol. I think the confusion is in "equivalence" between the cropped sensor and the full frame sensor at the exact same focal length. Thanks for setting me straight!
@@PeteCocoPhoto The easy way of thinking about it is that the crop conversion is only relevant for "field of view" and "depth of field", but NOT "exposure". So yes it is 84 mm f/2.1 equivalent in terms of the bokeh you'd get and the field of view AT THE SAME distance. The only reason full frame gives you shallower depth of field is because you have to get closer to your subject for the same field of view. But a 1.4 lens on any sensor will still collect an exposure of 1.4 t-stop (technically depends on the lens, but approximately). Also, a 50 mm lens on APSC and 50 mm on full frame will still have the same compression effect, the only difference is the field of view (and indirectly, depth of field because you have to step closer).
Nice review of this lens. If I hadn't been lucky enough to grab a barely used XF56mm V1.0 at nearly the same price recently I would probably consider this lens. Love that you're taking your son out to shoot and learn!! Happy New Year!!
Thanks, Charlie! Great snag on the 56mm, that is an amazing lens. Thanks for watching and for the kind comment. Happy New Year!
Excellent review, very entertaining video with great information. I think I have to get this lens.
Thank you! This lens impressed me a lot!
thanks for the effort and sharing. sigma 56/1.4 vs older fuji 56/1.2. based on image quality alone, what would you chose? thanks in advance. thumbs up.
I tried the Fuji 56 (new version) and that was better than the Sigma. I have not tried the original one but from what I understand it is extremely sharp too.
Great video! Getting one of these myself to use with my X-T30, managed to get it for £340 in the UK, as much as I'd love the Fuji 56 1.2, I feel like for a third of the cost the Sigma is unbeatable.
Good choice! And thanks for watching!
Why pay more
Ok, the big question is would you use this professionally on one of your headshot sessions paired with the XT4?
Hey Rod, yes I would have no issue using this lens for a headshot session. In terms of performance and quality, I found it to be on par with my Fuji 16-55 f/2.8. Recently, I tested the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and used that on a few location shoots and I was super impressed with that one as well.
Is Sigma lens much better than Viltrox 56mm 1.4? I'm considering switching to Sigma.
I have not tried the Viltrox so I can't tell you for sure. I can tell you that the Sigma is an excellent lens.
Great video. One thing I don't understand is when you say the f1.4 is really an f2 on a Full Frame!!!
Thanks! Both the focal length and the aperture value need to be multiplied by 1.5 in order to get the equivalent values on a full frame camera. So, the 56mm is an 84mm equivalent and 1.4 is really a 2.1 equivalent.
@Pete Coco Photography I think you got it a little wrong. A f1.4 lens will always be a f1.4 lens!
@@dimpap1370 Yes that's always how I understood it too but I have seen quite a few people talking about the aperture changing as well and it seeped into my brain lol. I think the confusion is in "equivalence" between the cropped sensor and the full frame sensor at the exact same focal length. Thanks for setting me straight!
@Pete Coco Photography Lots of youtubers say different things but this one explains it quite well. ruclips.net/video/rNdR-k28vZ8/видео.html
@@PeteCocoPhoto The easy way of thinking about it is that the crop conversion is only relevant for "field of view" and "depth of field", but NOT "exposure". So yes it is 84 mm f/2.1 equivalent in terms of the bokeh you'd get and the field of view AT THE SAME distance. The only reason full frame gives you shallower depth of field is because you have to get closer to your subject for the same field of view. But a 1.4 lens on any sensor will still collect an exposure of 1.4 t-stop (technically depends on the lens, but approximately). Also, a 50 mm lens on APSC and 50 mm on full frame will still have the same compression effect, the only difference is the field of view (and indirectly, depth of field because you have to step closer).
I love this lens. I also have the 16mm.
The 16 is excellent as well. Sigma hit a home run with the entire series.
It's excellent. Get it.
💯