Lol his top 3 lenses are literally the only 3 lenses I have. And I bought them because I watched everyone of his video :) The 16-55 is my to go video lense.
I have the Sigma 56 and the Sony 16-55; absolutely adore both. Although unless I really need that extra lowlight performance, I generally stick with the 16-55 just for the versatility.
I find the 30mm not very sharp!! Everything just gets kind of blurry and comparing with my sony 50mm 1.8. i like the focal length but this puts me down... But maybe I just got a bad copy
@@AndrevanDrunenMusic I think the 30mm is the least sharpest out of the 3 lenses i own i think i use it the most because of i prefer the focal length. the 50 1.8 is around 75mm on apsc so too tight for me to use majority of the time
Thank you so much for this video! Your recommendations are always spot-on! I'm new to photography but my Sigma 56 1.4 blows all my professional photographer friends away when they see the photos it can take. Your reviews are invaluable - keep 'em coming!
I use the 85mm on my A6400 and it's excellent, but just a tad long at times. The only caveat is that if you go full frame some day you will probably buy that 85mm anyway.
Some sigma 56 1.4 owners say that the autofocus hunts a lot in low light conditions...even for photos...that is the only thing that is making me oscillating between the sony 50 and sigma...surprised to not having the sony 50 in your list...
I would recommend the Viltrox 85mm 1.8 over the Sony. It’s only $400 and to me, noticeably sharper. It’s my favorite lens and I have a few. My other portrait choices are Helios lenses made in Soviet Russia. Incredible optics for ridiculous prices.
This is a very good selling point for APS-C cameras in general. The Sigma 56mm F1.4 lens is excellent, costs about $400, and weighs 0.6lbs. The equivalent in Full Frame (perhaps the Sigma 85mm F1.4) costs $1200 and weighs 1.4lbs. Basically FF costs and weighs twice as much.
When I purchased the Sigma (rattling) 60 for my A6000, there was no 56 on the market. I am a hobby photographer and have shots portraits with it at wide open without any issues whatsoever. Not only portraits but also some bird shots in the backyard came out crisp and clear. I have only this one out of your list of 5.
There's no question the Sigma 56 1.4 is my favorite portrait lens. It's simply super sharp. I like the photos that come off this lens. I had the Sony 85mm FF which is a great lens. However the focal length made me stand back too far from my subject, and often I would run out of room backing up to get a shot. I finally sold that lens. My second most favorite portrait lens is the Tamron 70-180. It can easily replace the Sony 85mm in focal length and it is quite sharp; perhaps not as sharp as the 85 but plenty sharp enough. But the advantage is I can use it at 70mm and not have to be as far away as with the 85. It's a good compromise, and actually it is sharp enough that I don't consider it a compromise at all. It's an extraordinary zoom. In third position is the Sigma 30mm 1.4. It isn't as sharp as the 56 nor the Tamron but the extra wider angle is right in many situations. I also have the Sony 35mm 1.8 which is a small decent lens but the main reason I keep it (with the Sigma 30 as the other prime I have) is because it is stabilized which helps when mounted on my a6400. This is the combination my wife uses while acting as second shooter for family portraits.
Aside from the distortion on the Sigma 56mm, the lens is a solid performer on my Sony a6400/a6000. By far my favorite lens along with the Sigma 30mm. It’s very sharp at f/1.4.
I see you take a lot of your photos on a tripod (as you should). But from a backpacker's perspective, how feasible is it to take high quality, sharp photos handheld with, say... a non stabilised camera such as the a6100 and a non stabilised lens, like the sigma 56mm? Would you say it works fine most of the time? What about in low light conditions? Actually mind if I suggest a video on this topic, haha.
In my opinion I think you will find that IBIS and OSS lenses are not a must for handheld photography. If you are reasonably stable, not shacking like a leaf, and using an f1.4 to f2.8 your shutter speed should be plenty fast. The images you get should have no problem being usable. That being said you will always be more consistent with a tripod or other stabilizing assistance. If you are really set on having a tripod and also not hindering your minimalist backpacking weight their are options out there but fair warning they come at some extreme premiums.
The Sigma 30/1.4 is also a very good lens, you got a bit more environment in the photos, I shot nice portraits with it! Where would you place the sony 50/1.8, I think it's cheap and a good lens also!
I guess if you redid this video today, that expensive Sony zoom would be replaced by the excellent Sigma 18-50 f2.8, although it doesn't have quite the same reach at the tele end. Great video and thanks for your work and enthusiasm.
I have both your number 1 & 2 lenses (Sigma 56 and Sony 85) and love em' both. Using them on my a6600. I also have the Sigma 60 f2.8 but haven't used it in a long time.
I have a question. I wanna start doing ''proffesional'' full body photos for instagram. will this lens do the job? i have Sony a6000. i want it to make the body sharp and the background blurry. Thanks in advance :)
Zeiss Sonnar 55 F1.8 with FE-Mount is a good alternative and should be nr.1 in this list. Because of the crop and the FE-Lens you get a great image with perfect sharpness overall, the edges and a stunning bokeh.
My Portrait Favorites on my (sold) A6400 are the Samyang 35mm 1.4 AF, Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 and the Sony 85mm 1.8 (wich i use now on the a7 III) & The Sigma APSC Lenses 30mm & 60mm 2.8 i had, are also nice but i prefer full frame lenses.
Just bought the Sigma 56/1.4 for my EF-M camera. It's awesomely fucking good. Incredibly sharp, strong bokeh and very fast focusing. The pincushion distortion sucks, but everything else is excellent, really worth the price.
Hi Arthur, I'm a big fan of your channel. I have a request for a future video. I would like to see a video focused mainly on comparing the size and portability of apsc walk around zoom lenses. I currently have the 18-105, but find it a little too big and cumbersome (I use it on my a6000 to take pictures of my toddlers age 2 and 3). I'm curious how it compares to the 16-70, 18-135 and 16-55g.
He has plenty of these videos... based on what he said in multiple videos: 16-70 is the worst and awful considering its value in price; the 18-135 vs 18-105 was a legit comparison video which you can check out (spoiler: both are great, its about what you want: corner sharpness vs center, the zoom ring vs internal zoom), and in his 16-55 videos he mentiond that its the best zoom lens for sony apsc, with image quality comparable to the sigma primes
@@stantheman3674 I agree he's reviewed all of these lenses before in detail. I still think it would be worthwhile to see all four side by side, with an emphasis on size and portability in addition to IQ and value.
I had the kit lens bought the 35mm 1.8 used it mostly and now bought the 56mm sigma can't wait to try it out! I think the best combo would be 56mm Sigma, 35mm 1.8 Sony, 85mm 1.8 Sony and a wide lens (around 16mm). The tele lenses for regular portrait, 35mm for environmental portrait and the wide for some more unique portraits and some environmental portrait
I like my Sony 85mm f/1.8 - especially for shots of women... As far as MF lenses go - the Auto Sears (Tomioka) 55mm f/1.4 is no slouch for portrait work.
Sigma 56 is simply superb for the portrait shoots and I bought it for Sony A6000 just because I trust your review than others and I feel it is the a best choice for Sony APS-C !! Thank you So much Arthur !!
Awesome, thank you so much for this video! I litterally was looking for a portrait lense for my A6300 yesterday! Saw the Sony 50/1.8 and Sigma 56mm at the local electronics store... Your video is very helpful for my decision what to pick!
I had the sigma trio but sold the 30mm and 56mm simply because I plan on going full frame in the future... I picked up the Viltrox 85mm and it is amazing on the a6400. It’s hard to switch to full frame though with that sigma 16mm 1.4....
Hey Corey, No it really won’t, there may be a very slight difference but not a really big difference. Until you get past 100mm then the stability is not an issue, unless you are shooting primarily video then I wouldn’t stress about it. Hope that helps.
I know that you primarily review Sony cameras, or Sony mount lenses. But I think it will be interesting if you could compare the sharpness of the Sigma 56mm f1.4, with Sony's APS-C rival, the Fuji 56mm f1.2. Both APS-C (1.5x crop), and both 56mm.
As of 2021, would you still recommend the a6000 over a canon m50 II or dslr, like the 850d? They are currently a similar cost range, and you're earlier video has swung me around to believing in Sony, I'll be using it for photography whilst on walks/hikes, so landscapes, and close-up's of plants/animals. What comes off to me as important, is usability, which the mirror-less exceed in with their light weight and compact designs, and battery life, which is where they tend to fall flat. The newer sony A series are out of the price range, but the A6000 is within, what are you're thoughts?
I have tried 85mm 1.8 sony with a6500. Im not satisfied with the video performance. auto focus is slow & inaccurate at wide open & long distances. Tried to capture moving full motorcycle at slow speed, its hunting focus back & front not nailing the focus at all. It only works in short distance.
Yeah, 30 mm is way too short. Nobody can stop you from using it for portraits, of course, but you'll have to get close to the model, and facial proportions will become distorted. I wouldn't call any lens with a focal distance shorter than 70 mm a portrait lens; my own standard even says 100 mm.
Fantastic job as usual! You left out the Sony Sonar T FE 55mm 1.8 ZA, that is perhaps the sharpest Sony lens, it got to be in any top 5 rankings. The A6000 is the oldest in the 6000 series how dose that sensor compared to the more recent Sony APSC cameras?
Rick Mentore Similar sensor since A6000, but dynamic range is a bit better on the newer cameras (starting A6300 onwards) if you shoot RAW. For jpegs, the colours are nicer on the 3 latest bodies. All in all, very small difference; and might not even be worth putting much weight on. The real difference is the processing speed of the newer cameras, allowing faster & more accurate auto focus. So if you shoot a lot of candid & a lot of moving subjects, the newer bodies will fare better. In terms of pure resolving power of the sensors, they’re practically the same.
Its not a portrait lense but it would do in a pinch, but the 16mm from Sigma should get some recognition. Its literally one of the best do it all lenses a person can buy. Also, the Sigma 56 is just amazing.
I really like my Sony 50, so, I'm glad to hear that the Sigma is even better. I'll probably sell the Sony and go with the Sigma. The only complaint that I have with the 50 is that it's a bit short, so a touch longer at 1.4 with sharp focus sounds perfect.
@@waltervanlille2263 Sony 55 and sigma 56 is 2x and 3x more expensive than the sony 50mm They just made that lens for beginners for portraits...... The 55 and sigma is way sharper and faster to focus..... Also build way better
Monica The sony fe 50mm might be weak, but the sony e 50mm is far from trash. For quite a low price, you’ll get one of the sharpest sony aps-c native prime. A bit slower to focus in low light, but pair it with a more recent body and it’s not too bad of a choice. The 55 is better performing, but it is also significantly more expensive.
Saif Aldin Yea i agree w you the 50 mm is not trash at all lol sigma is just better. If that’s your price range of affordability i say go with it for sure
Tamron 28 75 is quite the swiss army knife capable of coming close to the primes. I said close. Not better.. at a constant 2.8 it has plenty of versatility
Sharp portrait lenses are ok if your subjects are young and beautiful, otherwise lots of post processing. Perhaps you could do a video on the most flattering lenses. Excellent video channel.
Dave Taylor Get it. OSS is always useful to have, but the 56 will not dissappoint. When i first shot with the 56, i totally forgot about how good the 50 was (and that was a good lens for portrait)
I'm wondering if it's worth to replace my Sony 85mm F1.8 with Sigma 56mm F1.4. I'd highly appreciate a video comparing these lenses (their photos) side by side! And no, I'm not going to have purchased both! :D
Great video. I'm already seriously considering the Sigma 56mm F1.4 for my Sony a6600. I've never really done any portrait work however I'd love to give it a go. The 56mm F1.4 will be put to use in other fields, low light etc. The only other e-mount lens I currently have is Sony's 30mm F3.5 macro which is lovely and sharp and light too. An excellent 30mm general-purpose lens really. The 56mm F1.4 should compliment that really well. I'm just struggling on the 18-105 vs 18-135mm zoom lens....
Great video as always Arthur! I was and still am looking foward for your review of the new Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 autofocus lens. I was sure i'd encounter some mention of it in this video, since its the first low cost autofocus kinda portrait lens we got on the APS-C E-mount side of things. Please be sure to take a look at it!
Probably the sharpest lens available at any price. I was lucky enough to borrow the 1.8 G Master and was highly impressed. I’ll still hold off on the $2100 price though.
@@keystonebrotherb Unless photography brings in money, $2100 is way too much for most people. Actually, I have five 135mm lenses, 4 of them are f/2.8, and one is f/2.5. They're all vintage lenses and cost $19-$100 each from eBay. I collect them over the years. With the Fotodiox Pronto adapter on my Sony A7ii, I get autofocus for all these lenses. They're decently sharp for portraits, and the classic image and color rendition is amazing. Give it a try.
I have a few Soviet 135’s. A Tair and a Jupiter, but my Helios 100 is my favorite. So much fun to shoot old Russian glass. Of course a Vivitar and Pentax 135 are a great bargain too! Collecting vintage lenses is a sickness.
@@keystonebrotherb It's GAS. I got a little over 40 vintage lenses so far and my collection is still growing, but slowly now. I really enjoy shooting with vintage lenses. I'll have to check out that Helios 100. :)
Sigma 56mm is truly a boss. I do own one, it's a fantastic piece of engineering art. But most of the rest is kinda questionable for me. And it's weird not to see a Sony SEL-50F18 here. It would be for sure my second place. It's sharp, stabilized, fast, sufficiently well build, and super-duper cheap. For someone on a budget it is imho even more a no-brainer/musthave than a 56mm from Sigma.
Hi Arthur! One more time: great material! Just a question, if I may... I have the opportunity to buy a Sony 50mm 1.8 half a price of the Sigma 56mm 1.4. It is a huge difference here in Argentina, so my question would be: Is there so much difference between those two? Or I can go to Sony and have great results yet? Here in my country I am talking about a difference of $300 (sony costs $300, and sigma $600). Thanks in advance!
The 35mm is good, but it isnt what I would consider a "portrait" lens - its a street lens - you can use it for portraits - but its a bit too wide in many situations.
The Sigma 56mm f1.4 blows away the competition, but might I add I had not heard of that 7 Artisan lens before, and was quite impressed with its quality for $100! That would be my pick for anyone who couldn't afford the Sigma and was on a super tight budget
I just got an a6100 with the shorter kit lens. ($150 CAD off the MSRP of $1100 for the kit). It would be fun to see the kit lens compared to the incomprehensibly expensive Sony G series with the same focal range.
Lol his top 3 lenses are literally the only 3 lenses I have. And I bought them because I watched everyone of his video :)
The 16-55 is my to go video lense.
Just snagged the Sigma 56 for $340 on that adorama deal last week and that thing is DAMN SHARP
Same here! I'm blown away by the sharpness. Best bang for the buck!
Mithinco Was it the Deal of the Day?
@@purplecorde Yes, deal of the day on Adorama
Mithinco I can't believe I missed that 😭
@@purplecorde Sign up for their emails or look on deal sites. Just need to be patient and keep an eye out
I have the Sigma 56 and the Sony 16-55; absolutely adore both. Although unless I really need that extra lowlight performance, I generally stick with the 16-55 just for the versatility.
I have the sigma trio but to my surprise I find that I use the oldest 30mm 1.4 the most. The 45mm equivalent is just a great/versatile focal length
Sigma 30 1.4 and sigma 16 1.4
I find the 30mm not very sharp!! Everything just gets kind of blurry and comparing with my sony 50mm 1.8. i like the focal length but this puts me down... But maybe I just got a bad copy
@@AndrevanDrunenMusic I think the 30mm is the least sharpest out of the 3 lenses i own i think i use it the most because of i prefer the focal length.
the 50 1.8 is around 75mm on apsc so too tight for me to use majority of the time
Thank you so much for this video! Your recommendations are always spot-on! I'm new to photography but my Sigma 56 1.4 blows all my professional photographer friends away when they see the photos it can take. Your reviews are invaluable - keep 'em coming!
Do you have social media to see your pics?
I watched all your videos and bought the sigma 56mm 1.4 as my first prime. And man it's the best lens I've ever bought. I just love it.
Can I just say that your wife is stunning!❤️
Thanks
He bought the portrait lenses for his wife. He said that he's collecting to capture her best picture 😉.
No, you can't. Lying is a bad habit
@@peoplesvoice3355 🤣🤣🤣
@@thevijayraj34 just need to find a wife for my portrait lenses
I was eyeing the 85mm for my A6400 before, but after watching this video I think 56mm would be the best choice for my portrait photography.
Thanks!
To go Sigma 56mm, it’s an amazing lens, I really love mine.
I use the 85mm on my A6400 and it's excellent, but just a tad long at times. The only caveat is that if you go full frame some day you will probably buy that 85mm anyway.
@@slimphotog will the 85mm f1.8 produce more background separation and bokeh? please I'm hesitant between the 2
Love it that you still make videos for the a6000. I have been watching your videos for a couple years.
I’m still in love with my 16-55, thanks for the recommendation
I use the sigma 30mm 1.4 for portraits and all around lens. Its awesome. Would love to get the 56 and 16mm sigma next.
Some sigma 56 1.4 owners say that the autofocus hunts a lot in low light conditions...even for photos...that is the only thing that is making me oscillating between the sony 50 and sigma...surprised to not having the sony 50 in your list...
I have to agree 100%. That 56mm is a fantastic lens. Hands down best portrait lens for APS-C.
I would recommend the Viltrox 85mm 1.8 over the Sony. It’s only $400 and to me, noticeably sharper.
It’s my favorite lens and I have a few.
My other portrait choices are Helios lenses made in Soviet Russia. Incredible optics for ridiculous prices.
what about the samyang 85mm 1.4?
IS
I haven’t used the Samyang 85, it’s $600 vs. Viltrox $400. The Viltrox is butter!
This is a very good selling point for APS-C cameras in general. The Sigma 56mm F1.4 lens is excellent, costs about $400, and weighs 0.6lbs. The equivalent in Full Frame (perhaps the Sigma 85mm F1.4) costs $1200 and weighs 1.4lbs. Basically FF costs and weighs twice as much.
When I purchased the Sigma (rattling) 60 for my A6000, there was no 56 on the market. I am a hobby photographer and have shots portraits with it at wide open without any issues whatsoever. Not only portraits but also some bird shots in the backyard came out crisp and clear. I have only this one out of your list of 5.
There's no question the Sigma 56 1.4 is my favorite portrait lens. It's simply super sharp. I like the photos that come off this lens.
I had the Sony 85mm FF which is a great lens. However the focal length made me stand back too far from my subject, and often I would run out of room backing up to get a shot. I finally sold that lens.
My second most favorite portrait lens is the Tamron 70-180. It can easily replace the Sony 85mm in focal length and it is quite sharp; perhaps not as sharp as the 85 but plenty sharp enough. But the advantage is I can use it at 70mm and not have to be as far away as with the 85. It's a good compromise, and actually it is sharp enough that I don't consider it a compromise at all. It's an extraordinary zoom.
In third position is the Sigma 30mm 1.4. It isn't as sharp as the 56 nor the Tamron but the extra wider angle is right in many situations.
I also have the Sony 35mm 1.8 which is a small decent lens but the main reason I keep it (with the Sigma 30 as the other prime I have) is because it is stabilized which helps when mounted on my a6400. This is the combination my wife uses while acting as second shooter for family portraits.
Great video! I recently picked up a Sigma 30mm because of your videos for my a6000. I'm really loving it!
Aside from the distortion on the Sigma 56mm, the lens is a solid performer on my Sony a6400/a6000. By far my favorite lens along with the Sigma 30mm. It’s very sharp at f/1.4.
I want to take portraits at my home studio for my a6000 which one u recommend? 56 or 30
@@ariadne6104 Both work great in studio
I have 56mm lens and it is excellent. I am a zoom guy, but switch to this for portraits. Great video! Keep them coming.
I see you take a lot of your photos on a tripod (as you should). But from a backpacker's perspective, how feasible is it to take high quality, sharp photos handheld with, say... a non stabilised camera such as the a6100 and a non stabilised lens, like the sigma 56mm? Would you say it works fine most of the time? What about in low light conditions? Actually mind if I suggest a video on this topic, haha.
In my opinion I think you will find that IBIS and OSS lenses are not a must for handheld photography. If you are reasonably stable, not shacking like a leaf, and using an f1.4 to f2.8 your shutter speed should be plenty fast. The images you get should have no problem being usable. That being said you will always be more consistent with a tripod or other stabilizing assistance. If you are really set on having a tripod and also not hindering your minimalist backpacking weight their are options out there but fair warning they come at some extreme premiums.
U said 'F1.4' instead of "F4" for ziess 16-70
Hope u can correct it .
The Sigma 30/1.4 is also a very good lens, you got a bit more environment in the photos, I shot nice portraits with it!
Where would you place the sony 50/1.8, I think it's cheap and a good lens also!
Your video on sigma 16mm 1.4f convinced me to buy it. Couldn’t be happier with it! A great addition for vlogging and photography 🙌
Great to hear!
I guess if you redid this video today, that expensive Sony zoom would be replaced by the excellent Sigma 18-50 f2.8, although it doesn't have quite the same reach at the tele end. Great video and thanks for your work and enthusiasm.
7artisan 55 f1.4 or the Kamlan 50mm f/1.1 Mk2 or the BrightinStar 50mm f/1.4 ?? I'm confused between these manual lenses...
"Creamy" is the reason I subscribed
I have both your number 1 & 2 lenses (Sigma 56 and Sony 85) and love em' both. Using them on my a6600. I also have the Sigma 60 f2.8 but haven't used it in a long time.
can you tell me which one do you like best, 56 or 85. Any problems when you use 85 for shoting, something like stand away far from your model ?
Could you make a video on the settings you use for your A6000 I'd like to know what would give my camera the best image quality.
I've got the Sigma 56 F1.4 for the equivalent of 386$. It worths every cent of the purchase
I'm debating selling my Sigma 30mm 1.4 for the 56mm... 🤔... You're happy with it?
@@albert333pool i have both lens. I prefer 30 mm is easier to use.
@@werapatrattasatwarin4143 Thank you
I have a question. I wanna start doing ''proffesional'' full body photos for instagram. will this lens do the job? i have Sony a6000. i want it to make the body sharp and the background blurry.
Thanks in advance :)
@@werapatrattasatwarin4143 So do I, 16mm 30mm 56mm, 30mm is my most commonly used.
The size of the Sigma 56 is very nice. Most of the Sigma Art primes for full frame are ridiculous big and heavy.
yea I wonder why those art lenses are humongous ahaha
Jeruz Gabriel they are made for dslr and then adapt to mirrorless. Ive been using the 135mm f1.8 and it’s a dream, but a bit too heavy
@@khoifoto I see
Zeiss Sonnar 55 F1.8 with FE-Mount is a good alternative and should be nr.1 in this list. Because of the crop and the FE-Lens you get a great image with perfect sharpness overall, the edges and a stunning bokeh.
Arthur did comparison sigma 56 v zeiss 55. The sigma performs better on APSC.
7:04 i think you meant constant f4 not 1.4
You are right - CONSTANT F4!
Please do top lens for Sony APSC video
My Portrait Favorites on my (sold) A6400 are the Samyang 35mm 1.4 AF, Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 and the Sony 85mm 1.8 (wich i use now on the a7 III) & The Sigma APSC Lenses 30mm & 60mm 2.8 i had, are also nice but i prefer full frame lenses.
Zeiss 55mm f1.8 great for both worlds.
What happened to the Sony 50mm 1.8 OSS? That's a phenomenal sharp lens.
The sigma 56mm 1.4 is a lot better than the Sony 50mm. The Sony 50mm is still a beast though.
??????? It’s like a prime kits lens. The 55mm 1.8 is a far superior lens.
@@davidflo_86 true sir true
Just bought the Sigma 56/1.4 for my EF-M camera. It's awesomely fucking good. Incredibly sharp, strong bokeh and very fast focusing. The pincushion distortion sucks, but everything else is excellent, really worth the price.
Nice I got number 1,2 and 5 of your ranking.
What about the Sony 55mm F1.8?
Hi Arthur, I'm a big fan of your channel. I have a request for a future video. I would like to see a video focused mainly on comparing the size and portability of apsc walk around zoom lenses. I currently have the 18-105, but find it a little too big and cumbersome (I use it on my a6000 to take pictures of my toddlers age 2 and 3). I'm curious how it compares to the 16-70, 18-135 and 16-55g.
He has plenty of these videos... based on what he said in multiple videos: 16-70 is the worst and awful considering its value in price; the 18-135 vs 18-105 was a legit comparison video which you can check out (spoiler: both are great, its about what you want: corner sharpness vs center, the zoom ring vs internal zoom), and in his 16-55 videos he mentiond that its the best zoom lens for sony apsc, with image quality comparable to the sigma primes
@@stantheman3674 I agree he's reviewed all of these lenses before in detail. I still think it would be worthwhile to see all four side by side, with an emphasis on size and portability in addition to IQ and value.
Also would like to see comparison of this trio..
I had the kit lens bought the 35mm 1.8 used it mostly and now bought the 56mm sigma can't wait to try it out!
I think the best combo would be 56mm Sigma, 35mm 1.8 Sony, 85mm 1.8 Sony and a wide lens (around 16mm). The tele lenses for regular portrait, 35mm for environmental portrait and the wide for some more unique portraits and some environmental portrait
You should definitely check out the sigma 105 f1.4. Its for full frame but its stunning
I use a Canon FD 50mm f1.2 lens and its awesomely vintage giving photo portraits that unique glow surrounding with bokeh.
No 50mm 1.8 OSS?
I only use 50mm 1.8 & 28mm f2 for all situation on my a6000
I like my Sony 85mm f/1.8 - especially for shots of women... As far as MF lenses go - the Auto Sears (Tomioka) 55mm f/1.4 is no slouch for portrait work.
Sigma 56 is simply superb for the portrait shoots and I bought it for Sony A6000 just because I trust your review than others and I feel it is the a best choice for Sony APS-C !! Thank you So much Arthur !!
Last week I spent a lot of time looking for another portrait lens. I choosed and buyed Viltrox 85 1.8 (1.6) yesterday... Six hours before your video.
I think that is a lens that is still flying under the radar a little bit. It’s a solid lens for sure!
Your top three are the exact ones I am looking at. Good to know I'm on the right line.
Awesome, thank you so much for this video! I litterally was looking for a portrait lense for my A6300 yesterday! Saw the Sony 50/1.8 and Sigma 56mm at the local electronics store...
Your video is very helpful for my decision what to pick!
The Samyang 75mm f/1.8 is super small and super amazing!
I had the sigma trio but sold the 30mm and 56mm simply because I plan on going full frame in the future...
I picked up the Viltrox 85mm and it is amazing on the a6400. It’s hard to switch to full frame though with that sigma 16mm 1.4....
If you have the budget for 24GM then sigma 16 is nothing compared to that
Try M i have the sigma 24-70 f2.8 and love it! Is the 24mm 1.4 or 1.8?
What about tamron 28-75?
Do you find that the lack of image stabilization on the sigma 56 makes a difference when shooting hand held?
Hey Corey, No it really won’t, there may be a very slight difference but not a really big difference. Until you get past 100mm then the stability is not an issue, unless you are shooting primarily video then I wouldn’t stress about it. Hope that helps.
Love this channel. I switched to fuji for awhile now but still love seeing your content
I know that you primarily review Sony cameras, or Sony mount lenses. But I think it will be interesting if you could compare the sharpness of the Sigma 56mm f1.4, with Sony's APS-C rival, the Fuji 56mm f1.2. Both APS-C (1.5x crop), and both 56mm.
As of 2021, would you still recommend the a6000 over a canon m50 II or dslr, like the 850d? They are currently a similar cost range, and you're earlier video has swung me around to believing in Sony, I'll be using it for photography whilst on walks/hikes, so landscapes, and close-up's of plants/animals. What comes off to me as important, is usability, which the mirror-less exceed in with their light weight and compact designs, and battery life, which is where they tend to fall flat. The newer sony A series are out of the price range, but the A6000 is within, what are you're thoughts?
I have tried 85mm 1.8 sony with a6500. Im not satisfied with the video performance. auto focus is slow & inaccurate at wide open & long distances. Tried to capture moving full motorcycle at slow speed, its hunting focus back & front not nailing the focus at all. It only works in short distance.
You need a faster body, the situation you wanted to capture cannot be done with an older gen
Minimum reqirement is a6400 / a6600
Why no words about 30mm sigma 1.4? To small focal length? On road side or inside the bar i thing this is more universal lens...
Yeah, 30 mm is way too short. Nobody can stop you from using it for portraits, of course, but you'll have to get close to the model, and facial proportions will become distorted. I wouldn't call any lens with a focal distance shorter than 70 mm a portrait lens; my own standard even says 100 mm.
Fantastic job as usual! You left out the Sony Sonar T FE 55mm 1.8 ZA, that is perhaps the sharpest Sony lens, it got to be in any top 5 rankings. The A6000 is the oldest in the 6000 series how dose that sensor compared to the more recent Sony APSC cameras?
Same sensor. They never upgraded it on the latest models.
Rick Mentore Similar sensor since A6000, but dynamic range is a bit better on the newer cameras (starting A6300 onwards) if you shoot RAW. For jpegs, the colours are nicer on the 3 latest bodies. All in all, very small difference; and might not even be worth putting much weight on. The real difference is the processing speed of the newer cameras, allowing faster & more accurate auto focus. So if you shoot a lot of candid & a lot of moving subjects, the newer bodies will fare better. In terms of pure resolving power of the sensors, they’re practically the same.
Great video as always. My question is; have you done a zoom lens comparison? I'm looking for a good zoom for my A6400.
Which one would be better for videos at home (make up videos)?
You should also mention the Viltrox 85mm F1.8. It's cheaper then the Sony FE 85mm 1.8 and delivers similar results, but anyway great Video.
I have the Rokinon 85mm 1.4 and it’s freaking AWESOME!
From indonesia...soo happy hearing ur explanation
Master of lens comparison.
I just ordered the Sigma 56mm lens and I’m very excited about it!
You would probably need to add the recent Tamron 17-70 2.8 to this list? The near equal of the Sony zoom.
Its not a portrait lense but it would do in a pinch, but the 16mm from Sigma should get some recognition. Its literally one of the best do it all lenses a person can buy. Also, the Sigma 56 is just amazing.
If you can embrace/deal with the distortion then it's a good and unique potrait lens.
Otherwise don't bother with it or you'll get frustrated
@@trym2121 Indeed
I’ve owned both the Sony 50mm 1.8 and the Sigma 56mm 1.4. no question at all sigma is definitely better. Its also my #1 lens on my a6400. 👌🏾
Sony 50mm is trash we all know that
If u want a to challenge the sigma 56, go buy the sony 55mm which is way better than 50mm
I really like my Sony 50, so, I'm glad to hear that the Sigma is even better. I'll probably sell the Sony and go with the Sigma. The only complaint that I have with the 50 is that it's a bit short, so a touch longer at 1.4 with sharp focus sounds perfect.
@@waltervanlille2263
Sony 55 and sigma 56 is 2x and 3x more expensive than the sony 50mm
They just made that lens for beginners for portraits......
The 55 and sigma is way sharper and faster to focus..... Also build way better
Monica The sony fe 50mm might be weak, but the sony e 50mm is far from trash. For quite a low price, you’ll get one of the sharpest sony aps-c native prime. A bit slower to focus in low light, but pair it with a more recent body and it’s not too bad of a choice. The 55 is better performing, but it is also significantly more expensive.
Saif Aldin Yea i agree w you the 50 mm is not trash at all lol sigma is just better. If that’s your price range of affordability i say go with it for sure
Thanks for your compassion I finnaly bought my portrait lens which of course Sigma 56 ❤
Tamron 28 75 is quite the swiss army knife capable of coming close to the primes. I said close. Not better.. at a constant 2.8 it has plenty of versatility
Im using the tamron 17-70mm 2.8 and I must to say that I love it!!!
Nice video! I found your channel from that original lens collection video (back in your mafia days), glad you made an updated version! 👌🏼
Sigma 56 f1.4 is my favorite lens!!😁😁😁
Sharp portrait lenses are ok if your subjects are young and beautiful, otherwise
lots of post processing.
Perhaps you could do a video on the most flattering lenses.
Excellent video channel.
Leonard Davis Try the sony 90mm macro sometime.. even portraits of young and beautiful subjects would require touchups.. 😂
I have the 50mm SEL and been seriously considering the 56mm Sigma for my A6400.
Well worth it if you shoot people! (photographically)
Arthur R “photographically” lol hahahah
Btw, I bought the Sigma 56, after watching a bunch of Arthur videos. And boy...Arthur is 100% right. The lens is amazing!
@@ArthurR I get that. I just have not wanted to loose the OSS from the 50mm. The 56mm does seem to be a fantastic lens
Dave Taylor Get it. OSS is always useful to have, but the 56 will not dissappoint. When i first shot with the 56, i totally forgot about how good the 50 was (and that was a good lens for portrait)
I'm wondering if it's worth to replace my Sony 85mm F1.8 with Sigma 56mm F1.4. I'd highly appreciate a video comparing these lenses (their photos) side by side! And no, I'm not going to have purchased both! :D
Going to buy the 56mm sigma as soon as i can to go with my recently purchased 6600 body
Great video. I'm already seriously considering the Sigma 56mm F1.4 for my Sony a6600. I've never really done any portrait work however I'd love to give it a go. The 56mm F1.4 will be put to use in other fields, low light etc. The only other e-mount lens I currently have is Sony's 30mm F3.5 macro which is lovely and sharp and light too. An excellent 30mm general-purpose lens really. The 56mm F1.4 should compliment that really well. I'm just struggling on the 18-105 vs 18-135mm zoom lens....
Great video as always Arthur! I was and still am looking foward for your review of the new Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 autofocus lens. I was sure i'd encounter some mention of it in this video, since its the first low cost autofocus kinda portrait lens we got on the APS-C E-mount side of things. Please be sure to take a look at it!
135mm f/2.8 lenses on a full-frame camera can create some stunning portraits.
Probably the sharpest lens available at any price. I was lucky enough to borrow the 1.8 G Master and was highly impressed. I’ll still hold off on the $2100 price though.
@@keystonebrotherb Unless photography brings in money, $2100 is way too much for most people. Actually, I have five 135mm lenses, 4 of them are f/2.8, and one is f/2.5. They're all vintage lenses and cost $19-$100 each from eBay. I collect them over the years. With the Fotodiox Pronto adapter on my Sony A7ii, I get autofocus for all these lenses. They're decently sharp for portraits, and the classic image and color rendition is amazing. Give it a try.
I have a few Soviet 135’s.
A Tair and a Jupiter, but my Helios 100 is my favorite. So much fun to shoot old Russian glass. Of course a Vivitar and Pentax 135 are a great bargain too! Collecting vintage lenses is a sickness.
@@keystonebrotherb It's GAS. I got a little over 40 vintage lenses so far and my collection is still growing, but slowly now. I really enjoy shooting with vintage lenses. I'll have to check out that Helios 100. :)
You do have a Helios 44-2?
The sigma lens is definitely awesome, in 2021 i would also recommend the Tamron 17-70mm for me it’s the better choice then the 16-55 Sony
Sigma 56mm is truly a boss. I do own one, it's a fantastic piece of engineering art. But most of the rest is kinda questionable for me. And it's weird not to see a Sony SEL-50F18 here. It would be for sure my second place. It's sharp, stabilized, fast, sufficiently well build, and super-duper cheap. For someone on a budget it is imho even more a no-brainer/musthave than a 56mm from Sigma.
Hi Arthur! One more time: great material! Just a question, if I may... I have the opportunity to buy a Sony 50mm 1.8 half a price of the Sigma 56mm 1.4. It is a huge difference here in Argentina, so my question would be: Is there so much difference between those two? Or I can go to Sony and have great results yet? Here in my country I am talking about a difference of $300 (sony costs $300, and sigma $600). Thanks in advance!
I think if your on a tight budget. The Kamlan 50mm f1.1 ii is far better than the 7artisans 55mm. Well made and well built for the price.
No love for the Sony 35mm 1.8? the lens has never been off my A6000 in years
Same here. I recall Arthur mentioned the 35mm as one of the most versatile lens out there especially for the A6xxx series.
The 35mm is good, but it isnt what I would consider a "portrait" lens - its a street lens - you can use it for portraits - but its a bit too wide in many situations.
OSS on the 35 makes it appealing for video
The 85 is a great lens!
Great video Arthur thank you. I am going to buy Sigma 56 F1.4 for my A6000 very soon, and hopefully by the end year upgrade to A6100
Спасибо за видео, согласен с топами. Да Сигма 56 крутой объектив. Сам удивился, когда выставил F1.4 и сделал портрет был в шоке от резкости.
How about Viltrox 8.5 mm 1.4?
I missed the sigma 30 f1.4 in that comparison. I use it a lot for portraits.
I do more video than photo, and for that purpose I find the Sony 50mm F1.8 OSS to be superior, mainly due to the oss.
Def gonna have to save for the sigma 56 and 16-55 f2.8 G lenses I think. I love the Sigma 16mm 1.4 and the Sony 35mm 1.8
The Sigma 56mm f1.4 blows away the competition, but might I add I had not heard of that 7 Artisan lens before, and was quite impressed with its quality for $100! That would be my pick for anyone who couldn't afford the Sigma and was on a super tight budget
Thank you for making this video. I'm really looking forward to getting the 56mm.
I just bought the new (and tiny) Samyang 75mm 1.8 and wishing to see what it is capable of!
I just got an a6100 with the shorter kit lens. ($150 CAD off the MSRP of $1100 for the kit). It would be fun to see the kit lens compared to the incomprehensibly expensive Sony G series with the same focal range.
I wonder how the Fuji 56mm 1.2 compares to the Sigma 56mm 1.4? I know you can't get the Sigma for the Fuji system but I'm curious anyway. 🙂
I have the 85, would like to get the 56, but I will probably go full frame in the future so holding off.