I sold my canon RF mount bodies a while ago - i like sony but was also annoyed by the third party ban. As time goes on and more lenses like these are released i find myself feeling even better about my choice to switch systems. Also a fan of the 35-150 f2 tamron
I own Sony 14 1.8 and I shoot ton of astro. Let me tell you guys. If you only shoot astro, then go for the Sigma. But if you happen to shoot astro, landscape and video work, then go for the Sony. Why? Because you can use H&Y 100x100 mm filter system on the Sony. And there are tons of 100x100 mm filter you can choose. I own NDs, Polarizer, Black Mist 1/4 and Black Mist 1/8 100x100mm filters. They are very convenient to use on the Sony. You can’t do this on the Sigma.
The center sharpness of the GM actually looks a bit sharper than the Sigma to me. However, in the corners, I am not sure if one is better than the other. Sony appears to show more smaller, finer details, but there is a kind of motion blur that deterioriates the corner image quality. The Sigma doesn't have that motion blur thing but doesn't show that extra finer details at f1.4 or f2. I am not trying to defend the Sony, but curious if anyone has similar observation, and understands the reason for such differences.
Yeah, sony is noticably sharper in the center and a touch sharper in the corners but it also has astigmatism in the corners which gives this motion blur effect. But I was most surprised with the awful false color bloom sony gives the point lights ( 6:05 ) even though it's much darker in the corners I can imagine this being super annoying for astrophotography.
@@wefhy there is no colour bloom of the sigma test because that colourful light was not turned on in Sigma scene at that moment he tested I am pretty sure.
Christopher: At what magnification ratio do you test your lenses? It would be interesting if you did a video showing your test setup/procedure sometime. Thanks for the work you do!
I never buy these lenses, but your voice is so suiting and sometimes also use your videos for falling asleep - comforting voice! Best lens reviews ever! And I did buy some lenses, after your reviews. Thank you!
In the center the Sony looks a touch sharper om right upper, while Sigma left side of target looks a touch sharper. Just before that the collage of images, Sigma looks like it has more contrast
Sony is resolving more of the higher lpmm in the center, and it is a bit more contrasty too. Sigma dominates the corners here but I would take it with a grain of salt, Dustin Abbott tested 2 copies and the corners were nowhere as good as shown here and worse than Sony's. So this is most likely the best possible copy you're getting.
@@anonymousl5150 Maybe, but Sigma does offer to swap the lens for the copy you are happy with. I wont be investing in Sony Anything with the issues that always manage to sneak up. I am switching back to Canon body anyway.
I agree by what you presented , sigma hands down if you don’t need the closeup wide open sharpness or mind the extra weight . Thanks for your review . Always liked and owned sigma lenses . The company just keeps making better lenses , it is their goal !
If the sigma closer to 700g and was cheaper than the sony it would be a clear winner but since it isnt. Then the Sony wins for me Sigma is overall better in image quality
Any difference is so small its really not worth worrying about. The only questions are - do you need f1.4 over f1.8, and are you ok with the extra weight. I'll stay with the Sony GM myself.
The Sony is a good performer in the infrared spectrum . I haven’t tried the sigma 14mm 1.4 - the sigma 14mm 1.8 version was absolutely hopeless in ir .
The difference in weight is an instant deal breaker for me in that case, since the image quality is pretty much the same, so does the price - the answer is clear
Sigma is going to sell a lot of these lenses, and it won't just be to Astro photographers. If you shoot landscape a wide lens is always useful though stitching is an option in many cases. If you shoot architectural photography or indoor work this lens is going to be a real treat. The Sony will still be preferred for close up work or if you have to hike.
It would be nice to know the shutter speed and ISO to have a better idea how much brighter the Sigma 1.4 is over the Sony 1.8. Great video overall but I am still undecided for Aurora picutures.
I got the Sigma for aurora and astro photos. I think both lenses would provide satisfactory results for that type of photography, but I will say the 'quality of life' features for astro shooters on the Sigma are awesome and it's a shame the Sony and others don't incorporate the same ones. The manual focus lock is so useful, the switches have white highlights for seeing their position in the dark, the arca swiss tripod mount allows you to easily switch from landscape to portrait without fumbling with your tripod in the dark. The user experience is fantastic and makes life easier when you just want to be capturing photos in the dark where things are more difficult to adjust. The lense is also clearly optimized for astro shooting based on the results.
Michael Kuhneisen, only in certain newer Sony models, NOT available in my three expensive Sony A1, A7RIV, A7SIII for example. So no breathing compensation for me at all. Ridiculous.
Especially if you're out for a whole day carrying the equipment and usually for my case at least.. I dont just carry 1 camera and 1 lens.. so every weight and size really matters.
I don't agree with the coma comments. I can clearly see sagittal astigmatism and a bit of coma in the Sigma corner at f/1.4 and f/2. I could live with f/2 but f/1.4 would bother me; and 1.4 is the whole point so its a shame. Whereas the Sony corner is perfect at f/1.8.
Now I believe it, Chris Frost's review is the definitive. Now will wait for the secondhand market to heat up, in the meantime will the sigma 14mm decentre itself?
There is no way I would ever consider such a heavy lens. I shoot a lot of astro, but have to travel by air most of the time to get to dark locations which makes carry on weight a real issue. I can take the Sony 14mm GM and 20mm G (another great lens for astro) and still be much lighter than the Sigma. Even if I include a 20-70G for other situations, it is not a lot heavier. Sigma makes good lenses but this one is not for me.
I have the excellent Sony 14mm 1.8 GM which I can recommend, but I wish for a bit more compact Lens, fx a APO-Lanthar Voigtländer or similar with at least the same optical performance as the Sony, but I can live a 14/15mm Lens with max aperture of 4.0/5.6
I think XA lens elements use ED glass. That is the secret sauce for correcting spherical aberrations and color aberrations at the same time while staying smaller than competition. Other manufacturers also can create ashpericals without onion bokeh but not on ED or low refraction type glass usually. I chose Sigma 20mm DG DN over 20mm G because Sigma had better overall sharpness across the frame for my astro or low light handheld landscape use cases. In case of 14mm lenses, the size and weight difference is too much sadly. Sony really miniaturized.
I like shooting wide, however, it's not all that often I would need a 14mm prime. I would appear to be one of those for whom the semi standard 16-35, & other wide angle zoom of these general focal lengths invariably suffice. Love Sigma glass, even some of their heavy Art primes, but just couldn't see myself lugging this ,qualty, beast around. The real deal breaker for me is the inability to readily attach the Cpl and Nd filters to the front element. Often shooting landscapes, flowing creeks and rivers sees me often using filters.No desire to attach, or attempt to, filters to rear of the lens. Also, have zero interest in astro, though each of these may appeal to those who like this genre.
As this lens will be added to my travel kit, and not used as often as my other lenses weight is a huge consideration. This is why I went with the already amazing Sony lens.
Sigma created a compelling and remarkable 14mm lens, no doubt. But I don’t think I heard mention of the other advantages of the Sony lens, which are: focus breathing compensation, active image stabilization, and the ability to shoot faster fps on supported cameras.
@@YanFries It seems odd to me that Sony blocks the higher framerate for photography when you can shoot 8k video which is 33 megapixels (obviously not the same due to heavier compression, but you could turn shutter speed way up and essentially have 30 FPS still photos albeit compressed).
Also in night shot the SOny showed light stars across the hanging lights off the start without stopping down. That can be annoying, and I wonder how that could interfere in astro,...coma I think its called? You do great to the point work, and I love you for it!! I think the clear winner here is the one that gets sold for 30% less used :-)
What would you do if you could get the Sony 14mm 1.8 GM for 1133€ and on top 200€ Summercashback and 100€ Welcome to Alpha Cashback? So that's 833€ for it at the end. The sigma would cost 1599€ in Germany and i could use a 125€ coupon so 1474€ for the Sigma 14mm 1.4. I want to photograph Nightsky so astro and landscape with the lens on my A7R V. The weight is not important for me
@@sgpork You're right. My bag is already stuffed with the camera, Sony 16-35mm F2.8 GM, Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8 and Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 Sports so a lightweight lens with good quality like the Sony 14mm 1.8 GM would probably be better. And of course the price because i think i won't use it as often like the other ones.
All this just means that as Sony users, we have options which is really why I'm glad to be in the ecosystem. Based on the comments below, we all have our preferences and it's great that we have a couple of different lenses to choose from.
The Sony is the slightly sharper lens in real world use. Both lenses aren’t suited to be tested on short range image charts. Overall they seem to be fairly similar, except that one is an unwieldy brick.
Stick with Sony GM lightweight, compact, everyday use & carry. 1.4 is not a top priority for me. Back to DSLR sigma art line is heavy. I know that feeling on that day. I don't want to carry extra weight from the lens. So, if 1.4 is the top priority go with sigma art. Everyday use or carry to shoot all day go with GM. 1 Kg len is not good for video at all. So considering what you paid for.
Hi Christopher, I was looking for a comparison of these two lenses and came across your channel. If I could offer up one opinion for possible improvement, I definitely agree it's important to discuss the size and heft of lenses, but I don't think "build quality" is really the appropriate term. Especially for modern lenses, there are so many design decisions that can impact the long-term reliability and functionality that you just cannot ascertain without completely taking the lens apart. A few years ago Roger and Aaron over at LensRentals published a teardown of a Lumix S Pro 70-200mm f/2.8, and I found it extremely illuminating. There were so many examples of robust (but expensive) mechanical design decisions that they applauded (like how the halves of the inner core are connected), but then wrapped up with a failed glue joint on an electromagnetic coil which was impacting OIS reliability, noting that Panasonic could have learned from Sony/Zeiss who had the exact same issue years prior (and subsequently fixed it). I'd highly recommend giving it a read if you haven't come across it already. My main point is I think, for modern lenses at least, I think we need to start reserving the term "build quality" for times we've done a full disassembly to look for potential areas for mechanical and electronic failures, or at least adding a disclaimer that even if it feels good in the hand, there are still many things inside that could fail. I'm just afraid manufactures of manufacturers making design decisions that "review" well but end up being a detriment to the long-term functionality.
It seems to me that the Sony lens is sharper, contrary to your assessment. The Sony resolves the lines better than the Sigma. On the flip side, it seems that the Sigma has better light transmission.
The Sigma costs $ 1,310 and the Sony costs $ 975. Should I pick the sony? Or the difference in performance is substantial and go with the sigma instead?
take sony ! chris make small mistake in this video he dont do all tests to show everything what can do sony where it just smash sigma ! if you care corners for photos take sigma but really i dont think everyone will zoom in your corners to see them
I believe, that you`re getting "selected lens versions" from the individual lens manufacturers for testing! Therefore, your very good test results, can be only valid for the individual lens you have tested!
While this definitely could be the case it's worth noting that reviewers who use rentals or purchase their own lenses still find similar results. A manufacturer would burn their reputation quickly if their production lenses were worse than the review copies.
I do prefer the warmer colors of the Sigma, but I just can't get over the size/weight. Unless you are shooting astro or fine art architecture where you plan to use every pixel, the Sony 14 seems like the smarter buy.
I also wonder how does transmission look on both of those lenses. Sigma has 19 elements compared to 14 on Sony. Each of these lose some transmission (when light "enters" and "leaves" the glass). It might be so, that Sigma isn't much brighter when it comes to images taken at same exposure settings... The difference in DoF of course is still there.
This frustrates me coming from video into photography because the assumption is that f stops are generally equal. They can be quite close in terms of transmission but you raise such a good point about there being more elements. The coatings on modern lenses allow them to transmit 99.9% of the light or more which is pretty impressive to me. A 0.1% loss per 19 elements would still only be a couple percent overall loss and that would only be a tad more than Sony, but with diameters of ~7.7mm and ~10mm (difference of 20-30%~) you'll see that there's ~50% more area.
It's the physics of the thing. If the Sony lens were to be an f/1.4 lens then it would have to be wider and heavier. The difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is approximately 28% in diameter for the inlet pupil so right off the bat a 28% increase in weight - however lens elements are 3 dimensional so the thickness will change and the shape changed as well to have similar optical properties and focus motors/rails have to be stronger to move more glass. In addition to that, Sigma is 19 elements (I believe for coma control) whereas Sony is 11 - so if you did scale up the Sony to f/1.4 it would likely be a tad lighter than the Sigma, but still much heavier than the Sony currently is at f/1.8. I'd reckon close to 800 grams. You might need additional elements to correct for aberrations and coma as more light is permitted into the lens. An example is the Sony 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 coming in at 186g and 516g, respectively. Another example is Sony 35mm f/18 and f/1.4 coming in at 280g and 524g, respectively.
Different horses for different courses. I have the 14 GM which I primarily use for cityscape, architectural and some landscape. I'm happy with the size, weight and it's "sharp enough". It's easy to bring along as a 2nd or 3rd lens in the bag. I don't shoot night sky, although if I was really into that, I would be all over the new Sigma. That being said, it would never be brought along as a 2nd or 3rd lens in the bag.
I often find that what I see as a viewer doesn't match the conclusions by Christopher. In this case, the Sony lens is clearly way sharper based on the video. I find it hard to believe that the reverse would be true when pixel peeping.
@@christopherfrost Absolutely. I just wonder why what I see clearly differs from what you see. I can't rule out that the actual details don't transfer well to video, so that what I see isn't representative of the real image quality.
@@Xetenor Have you even read my comments? This isn't about my own pictures (I don't even have a Sony camera), but that the examples shown in some videos (not all!), to me don't seem to match up with what Christopher says about them. He might say "excellent sharpness and contrast" when what I see on the screen is decent sharpness and mediocre contrast. In most cases, I agree with what he says, as it matches what I see in the video, but in other cases I don't. Something obviously happens when the test shots are made into a video, and that process is probably a bit random.
Don’t agree with your recommendation .. the only thing considerably better with sigma is aperture other than that I see Sony is better .. the sharpness is very close that it becomes irrelevant( although I see Sony in this test sharper in the center wide open ) however what’s important than that is contrast, which will eventually affect coma .. I see the sigma is not really good at 1.4 or even f2 for Astro if that’s how the contrast is but we need more testing .. and btw I’ve seen the MTF charts for both companies the Sony was sharper but that’s your conclusion .. plus that lens is a lot bigger which something should be a selling point for most photographer
You're forgetting the external lens features of the lens. It was designed specifically for Astro, the Sony GM wasn't. So in view of what lens is better for Astro, Sigma wins if you don't mind the weight and size. If you're just looking for an everyday-cary type wide prime, Sony wins for the fact its smaller and lighter. Optical performance between the two in general, the sigma is better. Just depends on what matters to you more, Size/weight or Optics. They're both good lenses, though at the end of the day
@@izzydo3494 it’s literally just the lock focus button which no body ask for but with over 2/3 of weight ? Although I liked the idea but still No go lens for me, sorry! A body who tell me eight shouldn’t matter clearly not moving a lot .. weight and compatibility is as important as sharpness shutter speed contrast etc .. I don’t think I’ll buy 1599$ tank just because is 60% brighter and ignore every other thing unless I’m wealthy and fast shutter speed is number 1 priority .. and btw i encourage you to watch other reviewers like Dustin Abbott, Marc alhadeef their conclusion was the Sony lens was better in sharpness and contrast wide open, you can see it even here at 1.4 and 1.8 how bad it was when he was filming the clock!
Chris i look on your videos usually when buy lenses or thinking about upgrades but in this video you make mistake !!! there win Sony because in real life outside on the street if you will do same photos with 2 lenses from same place same angle same light then sony will wins in sharpness for far subjects and Sony have better colors - Sigma press colors out too much - really i dont know how to explain that ! and you say sigma take more light with that 1.4 - now i have question - whats the point from that 1.4 if sharpness is on 0 ????
I sold my canon RF mount bodies a while ago - i like sony but was also annoyed by the third party ban. As time goes on and more lenses like these are released i find myself feeling even better about my choice to switch systems. Also a fan of the 35-150 f2 tamron
I own Sony 14 1.8 and I shoot ton of astro. Let me tell you guys. If you only shoot astro, then go for the Sigma. But if you happen to shoot astro, landscape and video work, then go for the Sony. Why? Because you can use H&Y 100x100 mm filter system on the Sony. And there are tons of 100x100 mm filter you can choose. I own NDs, Polarizer, Black Mist 1/4 and Black Mist 1/8 100x100mm filters. They are very convenient to use on the Sony. You can’t do this on the Sigma.
Great work, Christopher 💪
That comparison was what everybody was waiting for! 🥳
Awesome tre review as always
The center sharpness of the GM actually looks a bit sharper than the Sigma to me. However, in the corners, I am not sure if one is better than the other. Sony appears to show more smaller, finer details, but there is a kind of motion blur that deterioriates the corner image quality. The Sigma doesn't have that motion blur thing but doesn't show that extra finer details at f1.4 or f2. I am not trying to defend the Sony, but curious if anyone has similar observation, and understands the reason for such differences.
Yeah, sony is noticably sharper in the center and a touch sharper in the corners but it also has astigmatism in the corners which gives this motion blur effect.
But I was most surprised with the awful false color bloom sony gives the point lights ( 6:05 ) even though it's much darker in the corners
I can imagine this being super annoying for astrophotography.
@@wefhy I don't think the colour lights are false colour. They were probably turned on for a festival when Chris was testing Sony.
@@serena-yu Oh, that makes sense then, I thought it's something like color flares. Well, still it has a noticeable bloom to it
totally agree with that center sharpness !!
@@wefhy there is no colour bloom of the sigma test because that colourful light was not turned on in Sigma scene at that moment he tested I am pretty sure.
Christopher: At what magnification ratio do you test your lenses? It would be interesting if you did a video showing your test setup/procedure sometime. Thanks for the work you do!
Just had the thought yesterday of him doing a set up/testing rig tour
@@phillipgregorymortoniii4113 Sounds like something that would be on Patreon, if he makes one.
I never buy these lenses, but your voice is so suiting and sometimes also use your videos for falling asleep - comforting voice!
Best lens reviews ever!
And I did buy some lenses, after your reviews.
Thank you!
Thank you! You’re doing the videos that actually matter! Appreciated! 🙏🏻
At $1599 USD, the Sigma is currently $100 more expensive than the Sony. Still, the Sigma is less expensive per pound :-)
Return of Bigma
Distortion is crazy on this sigma
In the center the Sony looks a touch sharper om right upper, while Sigma left side of target looks a touch sharper. Just before that the collage of images, Sigma looks like it has more contrast
Sony is resolving more of the higher lpmm in the center, and it is a bit more contrasty too. Sigma dominates the corners here but I would take it with a grain of salt, Dustin Abbott tested 2 copies and the corners were nowhere as good as shown here and worse than Sony's. So this is most likely the best possible copy you're getting.
@@anonymousl5150 Maybe, but Sigma does offer to swap the lens for the copy you are happy with. I wont be investing in Sony Anything with the issues that always manage to sneak up. I am switching back to Canon body anyway.
@@anonymousl5150good point.
I agree by what you presented , sigma hands down if you don’t need the closeup wide open sharpness or mind the extra weight .
Thanks for your review . Always liked and owned sigma lenses . The company just keeps making better lenses , it is their goal !
If the sigma closer to 700g and was cheaper than the sony it would be a clear winner but since it isnt. Then the Sony wins for me
Sigma is overall better in image quality
Any difference is so small its really not worth worrying about.
The only questions are - do you need f1.4 over f1.8, and are you ok with the extra weight.
I'll stay with the Sony GM myself.
The Sony is a good performer in the infrared spectrum . I haven’t tried the sigma 14mm 1.4 - the sigma 14mm 1.8 version was absolutely hopeless in ir .
omg, the center sharpness on the GM is insane
I see the center sharpness of Sony is sharper .... which is not what the reviewer mentions in the video by the way ....
Two super nice lenses to choose from...a nice "problem" to have. 🙃
The difference in weight is an instant deal breaker for me in that case, since the image quality is pretty much the same, so does the price - the answer is clear
Awesome! Exactly what I was looking for.
Sigma is going to sell a lot of these lenses, and it won't just be to Astro photographers. If you shoot landscape a wide lens is always useful though stitching is an option in many cases. If you shoot architectural photography or indoor work this lens is going to be a real treat. The Sony will still be preferred for close up work or if you have to hike.
Chris, how does the 1.4 Sigma compare to the 1.8 Sigma 14mm?
Just want to get something for Nikon, but there is none at the 1.4 aperature…
It would be nice to know the shutter speed and ISO to have a better idea how much brighter the Sigma 1.4 is over the Sony 1.8. Great video overall but I am still undecided for Aurora picutures.
I got the Sigma for aurora and astro photos. I think both lenses would provide satisfactory results for that type of photography, but I will say the 'quality of life' features for astro shooters on the Sigma are awesome and it's a shame the Sony and others don't incorporate the same ones. The manual focus lock is so useful, the switches have white highlights for seeing their position in the dark, the arca swiss tripod mount allows you to easily switch from landscape to portrait without fumbling with your tripod in the dark. The user experience is fantastic and makes life easier when you just want to be capturing photos in the dark where things are more difficult to adjust. The lense is also clearly optimized for astro shooting based on the results.
Great comparison. Just one addition for the focus breathing: with the GM you can use Sony's automatic breathing correction in camera.
Michael Kuhneisen, only in certain newer Sony models, NOT available in my three expensive Sony A1, A7RIV, A7SIII for example. So no breathing compensation for me at all. Ridiculous.
Not on the Alpha 1
Thank you Chris - that hurts every GM owner, but I will never carry a 1.2 kg brick around
Especially if you're out for a whole day carrying the equipment and usually for my case at least.. I dont just carry 1 camera and 1 lens.. so every weight and size really matters.
you must be weak. Oh my lord
I don't agree with the coma comments.
I can clearly see sagittal astigmatism and a bit of coma in the Sigma corner at f/1.4 and f/2. I could live with f/2 but f/1.4 would bother me; and 1.4 is the whole point so its a shame. Whereas the Sony corner is perfect at f/1.8.
Now I believe it, Chris Frost's review is the definitive.
Now will wait for the secondhand market to heat up, in the meantime will the sigma 14mm decentre itself?
There is no way I would ever consider such a heavy lens. I shoot a lot of astro, but have to travel by air most of the time to get to dark locations which makes carry on weight a real issue. I can take the Sony 14mm GM and 20mm G (another great lens for astro) and still be much lighter than the Sigma. Even if I include a 20-70G for other situations, it is not a lot heavier. Sigma makes good lenses but this one is not for me.
Is the Sigma 14mm f1.4's light transmission brighter than the GM lens at their widest aperture?
I have the excellent Sony 14mm 1.8 GM which I can recommend, but I wish for a bit more compact Lens, fx a APO-Lanthar Voigtländer or similar with at least the same optical performance as the Sony, but I can live a 14/15mm Lens with max aperture of 4.0/5.6
I think XA lens elements use ED glass. That is the secret sauce for correcting spherical aberrations and color aberrations at the same time while staying smaller than competition. Other manufacturers also can create ashpericals without onion bokeh but not on ED or low refraction type glass usually. I chose Sigma 20mm DG DN over 20mm G because Sigma had better overall sharpness across the frame for my astro or low light handheld landscape use cases. In case of 14mm lenses, the size and weight difference is too much sadly. Sony really miniaturized.
I am more interested in the Viltrox 16 f1.8. for Sony FE. allot smaller and lighter and way less money but with excellent image quality.
Wow the Sigma turns that clock psychedelic at f1.4 yellow numbers below purple numbers on top how grooovy!
I like shooting wide, however, it's not all that often I would need a 14mm prime. I would appear to be one of those for whom the semi standard 16-35, & other wide angle zoom of these general focal lengths invariably suffice.
Love Sigma glass, even some of their heavy Art primes, but just couldn't see myself lugging this ,qualty, beast around.
The real deal breaker for me is the inability to readily attach the Cpl and Nd filters to the front element. Often shooting landscapes, flowing creeks and rivers sees me often using filters.No desire to attach, or attempt to, filters to rear of the lens.
Also, have zero interest in astro, though each of these may appeal to those who like this genre.
It’s specifically made for Astro- and it was officially mentioned by sigma itself. If you’re not interested in Astro, why bother anyway ?
@@atanuhalder7750 I won't, as my post clearly states.
As this lens will be added to my travel kit, and not used as often as my other lenses weight is a huge consideration. This is why I went with the already amazing Sony lens.
The Sigma is much too big for my bag.
FYI, Haida make an adapter for the GM to suit their M10 system.
Sigma created a compelling and remarkable 14mm lens, no doubt. But I don’t think I heard mention of the other advantages of the Sony lens, which are: focus breathing compensation, active image stabilization, and the ability to shoot faster fps on supported cameras.
Not sure how often anyone would need faster fps for such a wide lens..
@@YanFries I don’t disagree. But the option is there, nevertheless.
@@YanFries It seems odd to me that Sony blocks the higher framerate for photography when you can shoot 8k video which is 33 megapixels (obviously not the same due to heavier compression, but you could turn shutter speed way up and essentially have 30 FPS still photos albeit compressed).
Come on, Canon, get with it!
Also in night shot the SOny showed light stars across the hanging lights off the start without stopping down. That can be annoying, and I wonder how that could interfere in astro,...coma I think its called? You do great to the point work, and I love you for it!! I think the clear winner here is the one that gets sold for 30% less used :-)
What would you do if you could get the Sony 14mm 1.8 GM for 1133€ and on top 200€ Summercashback and 100€ Welcome to Alpha Cashback? So that's 833€ for it at the end. The sigma would cost 1599€ in Germany and i could use a 125€ coupon so 1474€ for the Sigma 14mm 1.4.
I want to photograph Nightsky so astro and landscape with the lens on my A7R V. The weight is not important for me
If weight is ok for you. What about the size. Size matter too because it can affect the bag you need to use and portability as well.
@@sgpork You're right. My bag is already stuffed with the camera, Sony 16-35mm F2.8 GM, Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8 and Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 Sports so a lightweight lens with good quality like the Sony 14mm 1.8 GM would probably be better. And of course the price because i think i won't use it as often like the other ones.
All this just means that as Sony users, we have options which is really why I'm glad to be in the ecosystem. Based on the comments below, we all have our preferences and it's great that we have a couple of different lenses to choose from.
The Sony is the slightly sharper lens in real world use. Both lenses aren’t suited to be tested on short range image charts. Overall they seem to be fairly similar, except that one is an unwieldy brick.
Stick with Sony GM lightweight, compact, everyday use & carry. 1.4 is not a top priority for me.
Back to DSLR sigma art line is heavy. I know that feeling on that day. I don't want to carry extra weight from the lens.
So, if 1.4 is the top priority go with sigma art. Everyday use or carry to shoot all day go with GM.
1 Kg len is not good for video at all. So considering what you paid for.
Another great video - easy choice for me though, I can't afford either!
Hi Christopher, I was looking for a comparison of these two lenses and came across your channel.
If I could offer up one opinion for possible improvement, I definitely agree it's important to discuss the size and heft of lenses, but I don't think "build quality" is really the appropriate term. Especially for modern lenses, there are so many design decisions that can impact the long-term reliability and functionality that you just cannot ascertain without completely taking the lens apart.
A few years ago Roger and Aaron over at LensRentals published a teardown of a Lumix S Pro 70-200mm f/2.8, and I found it extremely illuminating. There were so many examples of robust (but expensive) mechanical design decisions that they applauded (like how the halves of the inner core are connected), but then wrapped up with a failed glue joint on an electromagnetic coil which was impacting OIS reliability, noting that Panasonic could have learned from Sony/Zeiss who had the exact same issue years prior (and subsequently fixed it). I'd highly recommend giving it a read if you haven't come across it already.
My main point is I think, for modern lenses at least, I think we need to start reserving the term "build quality" for times we've done a full disassembly to look for potential areas for mechanical and electronic failures, or at least adding a disclaimer that even if it feels good in the hand, there are still many things inside that could fail. I'm just afraid manufactures of manufacturers making design decisions that "review" well but end up being a detriment to the long-term functionality.
good video mate! thxxx
It seems to me that the Sony lens is sharper, contrary to your assessment. The Sony resolves the lines better than the Sigma. On the flip side, it seems that the Sigma has better light transmission.
Sigma sigma sigma u makin me fall in love although my r6 sucks cause it cant take 3rd party lenses💔 aside from ef
The Sigma costs $ 1,310 and the Sony costs $ 975. Should I pick the sony? Or the difference in performance is substantial and go with the sigma instead?
take sony ! chris make small mistake in this video he dont do all tests to show everything what can do sony where it just smash sigma ! if you care corners for photos take sigma but really i dont think everyone will zoom in your corners to see them
Great again.. You're the best lens reviewer ever. Thanks Chris.
I believe, that you`re getting "selected lens versions" from the individual lens manufacturers for testing! Therefore, your very good test results, can be only valid for the individual lens you have tested!
While this definitely could be the case it's worth noting that reviewers who use rentals or purchase their own lenses still find similar results. A manufacturer would burn their reputation quickly if their production lenses were worse than the review copies.
I would get the Sigma for astro and nigh sky photography and the Sony for everything else.
Why? Im trying to figure out which one to buy . I do quite a bit of astro photography as well as a type of real estate
I'm happy with my Laowa 15
I do prefer the warmer colors of the Sigma, but I just can't get over the size/weight. Unless you are shooting astro or fine art architecture where you plan to use every pixel, the Sony 14 seems like the smarter buy.
Well it's definitely suited for astro and aurora photography
Looking good
Sigma ftw 😊.
Spoiled for choice, eh? I wish Sigma would make a super wide fast lens for Fujifilm.
I also wonder how does transmission look on both of those lenses. Sigma has 19 elements compared to 14 on Sony. Each of these lose some transmission (when light "enters" and "leaves" the glass). It might be so, that Sigma isn't much brighter when it comes to images taken at same exposure settings... The difference in DoF of course is still there.
This frustrates me coming from video into photography because the assumption is that f stops are generally equal. They can be quite close in terms of transmission but you raise such a good point about there being more elements. The coatings on modern lenses allow them to transmit 99.9% of the light or more which is pretty impressive to me. A 0.1% loss per 19 elements would still only be a couple percent overall loss and that would only be a tad more than Sony, but with diameters of ~7.7mm and ~10mm (difference of 20-30%~) you'll see that there's ~50% more area.
Chris - Pepsico should pay you.
For me this proves one thing : that the sony engineers were able to produce such a nice performing lens in such a small package!
It's the physics of the thing. If the Sony lens were to be an f/1.4 lens then it would have to be wider and heavier. The difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is approximately 28% in diameter for the inlet pupil so right off the bat a 28% increase in weight - however lens elements are 3 dimensional so the thickness will change and the shape changed as well to have similar optical properties and focus motors/rails have to be stronger to move more glass. In addition to that, Sigma is 19 elements (I believe for coma control) whereas Sony is 11 - so if you did scale up the Sony to f/1.4 it would likely be a tad lighter than the Sigma, but still much heavier than the Sony currently is at f/1.8. I'd reckon close to 800 grams. You might need additional elements to correct for aberrations and coma as more light is permitted into the lens.
An example is the Sony 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 coming in at 186g and 516g, respectively.
Another example is Sony 35mm f/18 and f/1.4 coming in at 280g and 524g, respectively.
This is a review a lot of Sony users including me have been wondering now for about a day since Sigma's 14mm f1.4 was released.
Great Thank You!!!!!!!
Beast wins ! 😎😎😎
Thanks!-)
Sony wins the center image sharpness, but why not test the center image sharpness at different apture
Different horses for different courses. I have the 14 GM which I primarily use for cityscape, architectural and some landscape. I'm happy with the size, weight and it's "sharp enough". It's easy to bring along as a 2nd or 3rd lens in the bag. I don't shoot night sky, although if I was really into that, I would be all over the new Sigma. That being said, it would never be brought along as a 2nd or 3rd lens in the bag.
I often find that what I see as a viewer doesn't match the conclusions by Christopher. In this case, the Sony lens is clearly way sharper based on the video. I find it hard to believe that the reverse would be true when pixel peeping.
That's why I include all the test shots: so that you are free to look and disagree :-)
@@christopherfrost Absolutely. I just wonder why what I see clearly differs from what you see. I can't rule out that the actual details don't transfer well to video, so that what I see isn't representative of the real image quality.
@@mytube001Easy. Sample variation. You might have a better or worse copy. it's all a game of copy variation :/
@@Xetenor Have you even read my comments? This isn't about my own pictures (I don't even have a Sony camera), but that the examples shown in some videos (not all!), to me don't seem to match up with what Christopher says about them. He might say "excellent sharpness and contrast" when what I see on the screen is decent sharpness and mediocre contrast. In most cases, I agree with what he says, as it matches what I see in the video, but in other cases I don't. Something obviously happens when the test shots are made into a video, and that process is probably a bit random.
I will still take the GM over this new sigma. Because its so much smaller and lighter.
In the middle of the frame. I see Sony a little bit sharper to my eye ........
Sony fanboys clearly owned.....
Don’t agree with your recommendation .. the only thing considerably better with sigma is aperture other than that I see Sony is better .. the sharpness is very close that it becomes irrelevant( although I see Sony in this test sharper in the center wide open ) however what’s important than that is contrast, which will eventually affect coma .. I see the sigma is not really good at 1.4 or even f2 for Astro if that’s how the contrast is but we need more testing .. and btw I’ve seen the MTF charts for both companies the Sony was sharper but that’s your conclusion .. plus that lens is a lot bigger which something should be a selling point for most photographer
You're forgetting the external lens features of the lens. It was designed specifically for Astro, the Sony GM wasn't. So in view of what lens is better for Astro, Sigma wins if you don't mind the weight and size. If you're just looking for an everyday-cary type wide prime, Sony wins for the fact its smaller and lighter. Optical performance between the two in general, the sigma is better.
Just depends on what matters to you more, Size/weight or Optics. They're both good lenses, though at the end of the day
@@izzydo3494 it’s literally just the lock focus button which no body ask for but with over 2/3 of weight ? Although I liked the idea but still No go lens for me, sorry! A body who tell me eight shouldn’t matter clearly not moving a lot .. weight and compatibility is as important as sharpness shutter speed contrast etc .. I don’t think I’ll buy 1599$ tank just because is 60% brighter and ignore every other thing unless I’m wealthy and fast shutter speed is number 1 priority .. and btw i encourage you to watch other reviewers like Dustin Abbott, Marc alhadeef their conclusion was the Sony lens was better in sharpness and contrast wide open, you can see it even here at 1.4 and 1.8 how bad it was when he was filming the clock!
Great🎉
Chris i look on your videos usually when buy lenses or thinking about upgrades but in this video you make mistake !!! there win Sony because in real life outside on the street if you will do same photos with 2 lenses from same place same angle same light then sony will wins in sharpness for far subjects and Sony have better colors - Sigma press colors out too much - really i dont know how to explain that ! and you say sigma take more light with that 1.4 - now i have question - whats the point from that 1.4 if sharpness is on 0 ????
Sigma is hands down, the better lens!