Comparing the new Sigma vs Sony 50mm f/1.4 lenses
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- Let's see how these two new lenses, released barely weeks apart, directly compare.
Sony FE 50mm f/1.4 GM
Original review: • Sony FE 50mm f/1.4 GM ...
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG DN 'Art'
Original review: • Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG DN...
All pictures taken by me on a Sony a7R III and Sony a5100 camera.
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonEOSR5Body
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonEFtoRF
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma50mm14Art
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonRF35mm18Macro
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/MarumiFitSlim77
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020USBPlusMic Rode Smartlav+
Microphone: geni.us/RodeSmartLavalierPlus
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC3MicAdaptor
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1nMiniRecorder
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMini2FlyMore
Music: 'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b... 
Хобби
This should be the standard for lens comparisons. Absolutely world-class. Thanks, Chris.
Great comparison! My memory on people complaining about the size and weight of Sony 50 1.2 is still fresh. While under this review, people seems not care too much anymore. I guess price shows its magic here.
Thank you. Sweet and short and very much to the point - no unwanted waffling. Thanks once again.
Very nice and useful comparison. Thank you.
What an exiting time to be shopping for an E-mount 50mm prime!
So it really comes down to the convenience of a smaller lens for the additional 500 dollars. In my opinion you're among the best reviewers on RUclips. I always want to see what you and abbot have to say. I guess if money were no object, then I would go with Sony, but just from a practical standpoint, it would still give me pause to shell out an additional 500 dollars.
If you are a1 user, the Sony would give you 30fps, whereas the Sigma only gives you 15fps. But for everyone else, maybe the Sigma is a much more reasonable choice.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 i have never shot above 10 fps. And never felt the need to. But im not a sports photographer. But i have taken some great sport images even with 5 fps. So for me 15 fps would be plenty enough. For me it would only come down to weather or not the smaller size and weight were worth an extra $450.
The Sony has less CA, less vignetting, and less distortion while being physically smaller and lighter.
Focus breathing compensation only on the Sony.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 Yes, if you're primarily going to use the lens more for sports and fast action, then the Sony makes sense. However for me, it would be more for portraits.
Great comparison, thank you.
It's quite apparent Sony is sharper, but Sigma is not a bad choice either if money is a concern.
I'll pay the extra $500 for the smaller size and weight, focus breathing compensation and faster shutter speeds on the Sony. I hope Tamron comes out with a similar lens, chances are it will be as small and lightweight as the Sony but at Sigma's price point.
Thanks a lot for your excellent work ! Do you plan to review the Nikon Z 17-28 F2.8 ? I would love a comparison with the 14-30 F4 :)
still waiting for your samyang v-af series review, btw nice video as always 🥳
You won't be waiting long at all :-)
Hello Christopher. I need a lens hood for my Sony E 3.5-5.6/PZ 16-50 OSS lens. Can you help identify which hood will fit?
Thank you for your wonderful review as always.
Nicely designed lens from Sony.
But Sigma is also great, and both lenses are stunning!
For events and weddings the sigma would do perfectly fine and I don’t think anybody can’t tell the difference between the two. I would probably get the sigma and invest the rest of the money in a second body or another lens. Great job sigma! Can’t wait to see how Tamron will answer with a faster lens as well.
how do they compare to the Samyang AF 50mm F1.4 II?
Can you compare 20mm lenses? Thanks.
Thinking of switching from canon to sony because of the lens size and weight. I like to have a lot of primes, and canons rf pro lenses are freaking massive.
True these Sony f1.4 are very nice. I sold my canon gear due to size weight and very expensive very heavy bulky glass.
I sold my A7iv and 35mm 1.4 gm to go to R6 II and 50mm 1.2. The RF lens is heavy as hell and now I want to go back. 😢
@@kifley19 why did you do that?
@@paultaylor5513 eye auto focus was bad on the A7iv, overheating, plus didnt like ibis and color science. I like the gm lenses though
@@kifley19 The eye af on the A7iv was only wide open and at minimum focusing distance. At 1.4 you'd have barely the eye in focus at that point. It was definitely an issue, but it has been completely fixed.
I hope you can do another 50mm comparison vid. Esp w samyang..
Thanks, Chris. We are spoiled for choice on the Sony platform.
The Sony fits perfectly on any small gimbal.
The look of the lenses is extremely subjective. You said that Sigma looks cooler - in my opinion GM looks much better ;-)
I especially do not like these oversized lens hoods on Sigmas…
A real showdown!!!
Hi Chris. May I ask what’s the difference in terms of “lens breathing”between these two lens?
you can see that in the individual reviews ;)
I couldn’t agree more about the build quality. I have the 35mm 1.4 GM lens from Sony and I can’t help but feel like at 1400 dollars it should feel a little more premium. The sigma lenses may be a little larger and weigh more but they feel better made in my opinion. I’ll personally be buying the art lenses from here on out.
I also have the 35GM and feel the same way, just so dang expensive. I ended up eventually also getting the 24mm 1.4 sigma because of this. And I would say the biggest thing that bothers me is the different filter thread sizes, but that’s a small issue
Somewhere else I read that the Sony can go to full fps on say the A9, whereas the Sigma is more limited, I assume due to the max focusing speed on each lens. So that's another area the Sony is likely superior, although few people probably fall into the category to need this type of focusing speed.
I think the fast shooting is important for footbal or sports but i don't know why you would use a 50mm for sports or bird photography. So it's nice to know and if you standard shoot on ful fps then the sony is great. Thanks for mentioning in your comment
I don't like the 50mm focal length and the last 50 I ever had came with a Minolta X370 I purchased in the 90s. Once I learned the normal focal length is precisely 43mm, that stuck to me. If I'm to ever have a prime normal FF lens, it will be anything between 40 and 45, but never 50. I know, I have some issue.
Is this repost , as I am sure I saw this comparison of those two lenses from you few days ago ?
I have 1.4 Zeiss Plannar, how does it compare to the two lenses in your review?
What about 1.2 GM? Can its $$$$ price be justified?
It will be great to see 50mm shoot down between the 4 lenses
Gerald Undone has compared all of those lenses in two of his recent videos, I believe
Plot twist: they’re the same lens in a different construction
I would like to know how it compares GM1.4 vs Zeiss Planar. Chelsea, the youtuber, said the GM is waaaaay better than Zeiss…apear to be a missleading image from the plastic FE 1.8 or “lemon” Zeiss. I think Zeiss must be optically waaaaaaaay on par with the new GM1.4 😉.
Cheers, nice reviews like allways.
Sony lens design is much more beautiful imo. But then again an extra $500 in my wallet is also beautiful!
Hello! Would really love to see some more vintage lens tests. Takumars, Helios, etc.
this is impressive
The Sigma looks Amazing for the Price, especially the close up performance and flare resistance.
I think sigma looks even better at $400..
Very high price in both..
This is interesting - it does appear that the top 3rd party manufacturers (like Tamron and Sigma) are now (and perhaps for sometime) have been making lenses that are fully competitive with the OEM brands. In this case, as you clearly point out image IQ is hardly the issue - this simply comes down to one point - does the size and weight difference for the Sony, which is smaller and lighter but not incredibly so, worth a premium of $450, which is literally 50% more than the Sigma?
I am a Nikon shooter, but putting myself imagining my decision in this situation, I am not sure what I would do - I guess the other advantage to OEM is that there can be no excuses for things not working together in the future due to firmware updates etc...
On a separate note, please review the new 85mm 1.2 S lens for Z mount as soon as possible - it would be interesting to see it put up against the Canon version - just as you did with the 50mm 1.2 lenses.
Thanks for the great reviews - I really do believe you are the best lens reviewer on RUclips - at least that I know about - please keep up the good work!
-PD
It's not new that third partys are making very good and sometime better lenses that SoCaNikon for less expensive! Of course propaganda from the dinosaurs seems to work for some of you...
@@xmj6830 Your comment makes no sense and you are obviously a troll - goodbye.
Are you yourself still using the EF Sigma 50mm these days, as I recall you'd mentioned before? I'm an RF user and I still like that lens, I must say. My brother uses that one on his Sony camera; how do you feel the older Sigma stacks up? I like the corners of the new one, but the older model still holds up to my eyes on my 45MP sensor!
I exchanged the 50mm for Sigma's 40mm ART lens. It's even sharper and I prefer the wider angle. I'll probably be making a special video about it soon 🙂
@@christopherfrost Yeah I love Sigma 40Art so much I think it is the best and best value lens to buy in this range
@@christopherfrost I have both and they're both quite nice. I use both since I like both 40 and 50 (and they have different "feels" to me), but I will probably be using the 40mm for an upcoming video production I'm working on in a few weeks due to its excellent handling of CA. The HSM Sigma lenses are excellent on the R5...
It would be excellent, I think, to see a comparison of it with other options (both EF/RF and FE), too...
And with how consistent your video openings are, I wonder, are you shooting half on a Canon and half on a Sony (since the camera you use for the lens review is shown in the opening shot)? Nice consistency in look between them...
Nice
Great side by side reviewing. Very striking how identical they are. In my opinion, the saving of £600 with the Sigma easily wins against the more compact dimensions of the Sony.
Someone needs to have a fitness issue to consider 100+ grams a nuisance or I could be wrong maybe they just like smaller camera bags.
@@johnnynighthawk156 It might not be the weight directly but rather how it is distributed on a camera body. The Sigma is longer and the camera+lens combo becomes more front-heavy, which can make a difference in how you hold it or how your wrists feel after a couple of hours holding it. It won't necessarily and then the price of the Sigma lens is just great, especially with the new HLA AF motor and especially in Europe vs the GM.
Sigma: 949 EUR, Sony: 1699 EUR - go figure ! Crazy, to pay that much more for Sony, for a little less lens size, and subtle better IQ. But for these 2% perhaps that much more money is insane. You won't see this in real life shots, only when pixel pooping, err -peeping 1:1 which is crazy, just saying.
The biggest advantage on the Sony is that it unlocks the 15+FPS in burst shooting on the likes of the A1 or the electronic shutter modes of the A7siii. While the Sigma technically might still be up to the task, Sony simply doesn't allow for it and thus the Sony is pretty much your lens of choice if you intend to shoot any fast moving subjects in serial images. Otherwise, except maybe for the added fringing until f2.8 and the extra weight, the Sigma is pretty much the same.
Nobody shoots sports events or very fast moving objects with a 50mm lens.
Not all Sony lenses can take advantage of the 30FPS. Besides what Sheppy said, I find I have to delete a huge number of images at frame rates beyond 10FPS.
@@HarryPowerColt Sure they do. YOU might not, but plenty of people do.
After running around for 2 months now nearly every day with a 600mm Telezoom, every other lens is just small and lightweight now. :D Great comparison. Thanks :)
Nice review as always! To my knowledge Chris is not an action shooter and doesn’t mention a very big selling point of the Sony vs Sigma on and A1 or A9 camera…frames per second…sigma capped at 15 while Sony lens will get 20 on A9 and 30 on A1. If you shoot sports/action (indoor Basketball for example) on a A1 or A9 the choice is clear…at least to me. 😊
Why would you use 50 mm for sports and action though!!
@@atanuhalder7750 Indoor High School Basketball , Wrestling and Volleyball to name a few. Super low light in most high school gyms and you can get real close to action so 50 1.4 is great to keep iso down well under 12800. On Sony A1 with lots of crop room it works well and you get good subject / background separation.
I’m buying the Sony. Exactly what I need right now and ina price range I can afford. Probably going to buy that 20-70 f4 lens too. Love the close focusing and f4 is more than enough as a travel and daily carry lens.
The prices nowadays are being insane. Just for the record, my 50/1.4 MD Minolta is being considered of one of the very best 50s, for manual focus. And it's still good enough, i do care about the composition - but i am not a pixel pooper, -peeper..never was...to compare 1:1 or watch pictures at 100..200...or 400%. Never all my life. Therefore, i don't need AF, or that kind of lenses. YMMV. 🙂
Yo you still scaring that lady with the scary maze game
The Sigma is warm (yellow)，as always.
There is one other key difference: Sony does hamstring the FPS on cameras like the A9 and A1 series for 3rd party glass. If you need the best stills frame rate, you'll have to spring for the Sony. If you're not shooting action, you won't notice, but if you are shooting sports or action (e.g. wildlife, dance, etc.) this could be a key factor.
Nobody shoots sports events or wildlife with a 50mm lens, so both lenses are equally good in real life scenarios.
@@HarryPowerColt You are totally right! Sometiems it's even hard to do with my 70-200mm (on an apsc body!)
Lucky you, Sony shooters! :D
I feel like I’d have to crop in 20x to even see that chromatic aberration that I could correct with a simple edit in post. Sigma looks strong here and it’s basically a no-brainer at that price.
I think I’d prefer smaller lens eventhough it produces worse image I wouldnt care 😅
Great job by Sigma for getting that level of performance for a significantly lower price.
Great to see Sigma making such good lenses. If I didnt have canon I would definitly go with Sigma.
Hopefully canon will lisyen to its customers and integrate 3rd party options to their systems.
On my screen it seems there is some minor colour fringing in the corners on the Sony?
Only difference is the fast fps you get with the GM.. the only issue is that at 50mm you won’t be shooting sports or wildlife so the Sigma is a no brainer
Why do some lenses get better contrast tan others? My understanding of optics needs improvement 😅
To me, Sigma seems to have the edge on bokeh smoothness from every comparison and test I've seen so far. Not a huge difference, but enough to be noticed. Especially in more challenging backgrounds. I think this will be my deciding factor, in addition to price. And when I want to go small and light, I will always have my Voigtländer Nokton 40mm f/1.2 SE (which I will NEVER get rid of - my favourite lens of all time). And I have also the Sigma 85mm f/1.4, which is one of my favourite lenses of all time as well.
Miss the time when a 50/1.4 only costs 200 bucks.
To be fair, those $200 f1.4's weren't sharp in the centre at f1.4, and the edges were pretty terrible even at f5.6. Both of these lenses are in a very different optical class to the lenses from the olden days™.
Day 1 of asking Chris to review the nikon Z 70-200 f2.8
damn it's 1500 in UK? jesus...
Sigma 💪
I have Fujifilm cameras with excellent Fujinon WR primes for "compactness". On Sony I'll stick with DG DN Art Sigmas.
If you want a compact lens on your Sony A7 - get the I series Sigma 65mm 2.0 - super sharp.
I have been eyeing this lens since it came out. From what I've seen it's an outstanding lens both in build and in IQ.
sony has two customisable buttons...with same function!!! u cant have two separate functions even if you have 2 buttons...so sony has one, 2 times, for landscape and portrait mode, easier to reach
Damn, I would get the Sigma lense if I was a Sony shooter. 500$ is a lot of money 🤔
Sad that the Samyang wasn‘t part of this. It should have been. Other than that I like your tests!
I would like to note that this particular comparison is quite a bit more direct, and IMO far more interesting than the DPR TV one. Mostly in the sense that the Sigma came off much better in this one, or, maybe, the Sony came off worse. Now we just need Roger Cicala to test 500 of each to see which review is more accurate.
With the 24-70 GM ii being sooooo good, I’d be hard pressed to justify buying either of them. Paired with the excellent 35 GM prime for low light situations, I think I’m all set. If I didn’t have the 24-70, I’d opt for the Sigma - it’s a better value.
theres a huge difference between f1.4 and f2.8
@@alyousuf Agreed - that’s why I have the 35 1.4 GM. And if I want tighter framing, I just flick it over to APS-C mode.
@GalaxyLava I bought the Sigma ART 24-70 and returned it the following day. My copy was quite soft in the corners, nearly identical to the Sigma 28-70 that I already had. Much happier with the Sony 24-70 GM ii. But for primes, I still prefer the Sigmas because they are a better value.
Depends what you shoot. I definitely use the 24-70 GM ii far more than the 35 1.4 GM and Sigma 85 1.4. On that note I'll be buying the 70-200 GM ii next instead of the 135 GM.
Amazing how good the Sigma is compared to the Sony. The smaller size en lighter body of the Sony are more important to me. You think the Sigma looks cooler? I find it a " not so pretty" lens. Well, a matter of taste, I guess.
I prefer the Sigma as the larger front allows for less cats eye bokeh balls compared to the GM, although there's the yellow shift with some colours from the Sigma.
At almost half the price, I'd go with Sigma lens any time.
I'd definitely choose the Sigma.
No not just because I have an L mount camera.
Sony are starting to take the p now with their lens pricing, especially in the UK. All it will do is encourage us to buy grey.
The sigma 50 1.4 is optically better than the 50 1.2 from the mtf charts. Smaller and more compact top.
As for the Sigma, it really does look like they jammed a very similar optical formula (Sony from Sigma) That is rather common in the camera industry, things get rebranded eith the same optics. Although notably the Sony is mpre compact.
At this point is just weight and size for money
The difference in price is fairly vast here. Sigma is the clear choice if Sony doesn't lower the price a few $100.
The sony has better image quality in the center wide open
Nearly halve the cost, Hello!
there's no point in spending more on the sony g master
Sigma lens : Sigma male
Sony lens : Alpha male
There is really no compelling reason to choose the Sony.
If you don’t shoot video. I agree. However, the focus breathing feature is one of those things that you think you don’t need, that is, until you use it! Then you can’t go back.
Higher frame rates on the A1 and A9 is another reason to chose the Sony.
@@Bayonet1809 True.
using these with my Fx6 I much pfrefer GM: 24mm. 35mm and now 50mm all the same filter diameter, pretty teh same size and weight. Focus breathing compensation. On GM when I am in AF mode I can just pull the focus ring and it autmatically switch to manual focus, costomizable button is much better on Sony when using during shooting. Focus pulling is almost linear on GM.
If we will still buying Sony for this price, they will never drop this price. Sony is better but not for this price.