Wanted to comment on the Zeiss lens: I’m a working wedding photographer and own the Zeiss 50 1.4. I rented a few copies before purchasing one and found it suffers from severe variance issues. The first copy I rented was so soft wide open that I thought the camera was having focusing issues. Months later I rented a different copy from my local camera store and was shocked at how sharp it was. I ended up purchasing that copy, and it’s served me faithfully ever since. All that to say that the Zeiss can be a great lens if you get a good copy. Just make sure to test it out first. Still, if I were purchasing news today, I’d definitely give the Sigma a long look.
I am pretty sure this is the case with a lot of Sony Zeiss lenses. They are one of the oldest E mount/mirrorless camera lenses so their quality control was iffy. If you get a good second hand copy however, they can be an outstanding value. The Sony alpha blog rates this Sony Zeiss lens outstanding in terms of sharpness.
@@DjimmyTrovy Yeah, that's something most gear-reviewers tend to leave out, even if the old one is "more expensive" at retail, you can usually find them for like half-price used.
But at $1500 it’s just not worth it. The 55 1.8 seems like a better deal. At $1500 you might as well cough up the $500 and get the Sony 1.2. If you’re on a budget then the sigma 1.4 seems great. I’m a big zeiss fan but some of their lenses on Sony are just laughable for the price. They’re being undercut with lighter, sometimes faster, and sharper lenses for less money. I almost feel like zeiss has a contract with Sony to not be better than Sony haha.
I don't know if your Zeiss lens have been dropped or what happened, but my own comparison with the Sony GM, is that it is just as sharp at 1,4 as the GM at 1,2. A fantastic lens. Made in 2016! Lens making have changed a lot since...
I got my Zeiss used (and rather battered) and can still agree: mine is a very sharp lens too. That being said, I have heard more than a few stories of Zeiss not always having batch to batch consistency on their other lenses.
@@Skipsul i think what you mean, is the Sony/Zeiss lenses… The 35mm 1,4 had a reputation of not being consistent. This is an issue of Sony, and have been also an issue on some other lenses. If you buy a “real” Zeiss lens, you will find a certificate in the box, signed by the employee who did the inspection. I believe Zeiss made some great lenses. Now lens industry have catch up on Zeiss, and more expensive lenses surpass them. I don’t think Zeiss will come back.
I had used Sigma 50 FE OG, 50ZA, 50GM, and in my own tests, i never seen this kind of softness coming from 50ZA. Gerald Undone did a comparsion with OG FE mount and also ZA mount as well and the result of the OG FE and ZA is similar to my personal experience with those two lens as well. And the kicker is, I had actually dropped my copy of 50ZA and still never seen this kind of softness.
That Zeiss lens has to be defective or a really bad copy. Every test and comparison I have seen with that lens, it has been stellar. Please retest with another copy.
Oh yeah, well I HAVE dropped my Zeiss 1.4 and it's STILL brutally sharp. Seriously, Tony saying that lens is soft pretty much goes against my, and everyone else I've seen talk about it's experience. In fact, I decided not to buy the 50GM because I love how sharp the Zeiss is, and the 50GM breathes like a mutha.
There's literally no way his example was correct. What a strange thing for him to show that example. It's obvious, even as an outsider, that its not a genuine comparison. Even a Yongou lens would perform closer.
@@CanditoTrainingHQ I know I'm late to respond but his results match my experience with the lens. I work at a camera store and took the ZA out for a gig and was really disappointed by the lack of sharpness
My copy of ZEISS is shaper than 50 1.2, also the review made by Gerald Undone seems to have ZEISS ahead of the new Sigma. it is definitely a problem with quality control at ZEISS for this lens.
I love the continued push to call out Canon and Nikon over lack of third party support. People who are going to spend almost $3k on a first-party prime are pros who are gonna do that anyway to get professional services and top of the line autofocus. But for people looking at these great Sigma lenses the first-party options were probably never going to be in reach so it's not a "competing" lens, it's just a lens that either allows you to buy into the system overall or not. And who knows, maybe someday you get to the level where you can afford a $3k prime and it makes sense, then you're going to buy it from the company that didn't shut the door on you with no affordable third party options. Canon and Nikon are only hurting themselves.
Can't really recommend Nikon or Canon, it's just mostly people going from DSLR to mirrorless versions of them and still they are bad choices. For now with E-mount I have 200-600mm but might as well get Tamron 50-400mm or the new Sigma 60-600mm. I still believe 200-600mm from Sony is the best zoom telephoto lens ever made but those other 3rd party choices bring other stuff to the table.
@@Bo_Hazem Totally. Sony still manages to make great lenses that people want to buy regardless. Tamron and Sigma haven't ruined that market for them. They're doing just fine with an open lens mount. 200-600 is a prime example of that.
@@roland.boyden Exactly, and above all priced competitively. Bought my 200-600mm G for around $1650 new. The Sigma brings insane macro and great wide angle at 60mm so it's better suited as a one lens hiking setup vs 200-600mm.
It's such a shame they couldn't reduce the size anymore. I loved my original one but I had to get rid of it because it's just too big especially when the tiny 55mm Zeiss is an option. I was really excited for this but Unfortunately I'll be giving this one a miss.
I know it falls outside of this focal range, but the one universally loved Sony/Zeiss is the 55mm f/1.8. It is a preposterous price for an f1.8, but it is offensively sharp, the focus is decent and it is tiny. It is a setup I sometimes bring for a night out with friends.
I've owned the 55 F1.8, and it's not exceptionally sharp by 2023 standards. It was phenomenal in 2012, but my cheaper Sigma 65mm F2 is very noticeably sharper. But everyone latched on to its "sharpest lens ever" reputation. It's not a bad lens, but for $1K, you're dealing with a lot of LoCA and just good sharpness. Also note that the 50mm F1.4 ZA lens in the video was reviewed to be a touch sharper than the 55mm F1.8.
@@HappyHubris Interesting response, thank you. I still find the 55mm to be sharp on a7r3 and a7r4 and I think it looks good beside my 70-200GM. But maybe I have had bad 70-200s. Sony had plenty of variation in the first generation of those lenses. I have missed the 50mm F1.4 ZA being sharper than the 55, that is interesting and had slipped past me completely.
last week I bought the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 lens, it is a great lens and focuses pretty fast. It was better than Sony's version for focus speed and lens noise.
Initially I bought the 85GM but it is significantly slower af compare to sigma dg dn. Exchange with 85 dg dn and I was blown away by the performance. A9 with sigma 85 my best combo ever.
That's because all you're looking at is sharpness and bokeh as if that's the only thing that matters in an image. Zeiss has that 3D-like rendering that makes images easier and more pleasing to look at and understand. That's more important than pixel peeping to see how sharp the image is or zooming in on bokeh... Normal people/clients wont even notice sharpness difference or bokeh difference but they will immediately notice when an image is easy on the eye and is rendered almost life like aka. in a 3D-like manner - something only a dozen lens manufacturers do and out of those dozen, most of them are cine/film lens and medium format lens manufacturers.
I’ve had my Zeiss 50mm 1.4 for 6 years now, and it’s the sharpest lens I’ve ever owned. It’s also the fastest focusing with the smoothest background… granted I love Sigma, and owned the original 50mm art for Canon, Nikon, and Sony… but the Zeiss is still way better than the Sigma…
I really wish Tamron or sigma would come out with a 600 F8 prime or an 800 F11 like cannon has for their lineup. I think a light 600 F8 prime would be good for small warblers high in trees
07:50 While the new Sigma 1,4/50mm DG DN is very likely better than the Sony-Zeiss 1,4/50mm, your sharpness results in the frame center shown here are totally implausible - whatever the reason behind it, the Sony-Zeiss should never ever be so blurry. The very source you mention, Lensrentals, has MTF-measured this lens showing sky high sharpness in the frame center.
Even with Canon's new R8 to be announced tomorrow I seriously don't think its gonna be a break through for many people. I was really wanting to see what all the hype is about but I've come to realize that no matter how much of an awesome camera Canon pulls out of the bag its the lens that counts. What good is camera if you can't afford their lens, and I'm not talking about settling for the cheap stuff either. Tony you said it yourself, this Sigma lens costs under $900.00!! How can you beat that? There is no way an RF 50mm can top that. It just makes more sense for an enthusiast to switch to Sony.
@@derbagger22 I would really really recommend to not go for the R series right now to FORCE Canon to allow 3rd party lenses. After all it is in your hands to bring Canon down from that horse they are riding thinking they can do everything they want.
By the way, I have compared the Sony Zeiss 50mm to the Zeiss Otus, which is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, and they are really close. I also compared the Otus to the first Sigma art 50mm and the Otus is better up to f/2.8. At f/4 they are about the same and since f/5.6 the old Sigma is even better than the Zeiss Otus. So the results also differ at different appertures. But anyhow-the Sony Zeiss 50mm is one of the sharpest lenses and it is as sharp, as the Sony G master.
The Sony GM F1.2 is an exceptional lens. Incredible colour, sharpness and micro contrast. I call it my 'magic' lens. I got it as a grey purchase which was considerably cheaper that RRP.
It's a shame that they couldn't recreate the feel and handling of the old 50/1.4 EX DG that I was used to with my old Canon dslr. Sure, the optics in these lenses are far superior and that 50 hunted like a mug, but it felt so good in the hand and I could carry it around with ease all day. Not to mention it was under $500 new. Fingers crossed that Sony will pull something cool later this month with their version.
Good overview. Price seems very reasonable, especially when compared to the Sony lens. Not certain it really fits my type of amateur photography that I do. I have a Sony a6500. With the 1.5 crop factor the 24mm, F1.8 Zeiss lens has produced good quality photos. I also have the Sigma 30mm F1.4 lens. It takes great photos, but indoors the focal length doesn’t give me the view that the 24mm does. Thanks for the video.
Out of all the Sony and Zeiss Lenses I own for my a7C, my zeiss milvus 50mm is my favourite lens. If it weren’t for lack of autofocus I’d use it way more often. It’s a bit hard hitting focus when it’s dark outside
While I've got all the lenses I need for now and I can adapt EF mount glass to my RF bodies, I really want Canon to open up to third party manufacturers so we can have choices like this.
@@DubYaJsWorld honestly considering the s1h is the video focused camera, I wouldn’t hold my breathe for a high megapixel sensor for pixel binning purposes. Maybe they will go 8k (I think 34-36) megapixels but really speculative.
@@QuietOC I just watched a review from Jason Morris. The Viltrox indoor AF was even worse than the Sony 50mm F1.8. Even the Samyang 45mm sounds like IQ lottery. Just like in football, the best ability is reliability.
I've been using Zeiss lenses since the mid 80's and have adapted them to my Sony cameras. The images I get are very sharp with excellent contrast all are T*
I have the SIgma 50mm 1.4 Art for Canon EF adapted to my R6 Mark II. It's INSANE! It's actually sharper than the RF Canon 50 1.2, and it focuses FASTER than the RF versions (or GM versions). This is why I prefer the Canon system (the bodies are better too).... the EF lenses adapt perfectly with no performance loss (unlike Sony and Nikon). The adapted EF lenses work BETTER on the RF system than they did natively on DSLRs. Oh and even with the adapter, the Sigma Art 50 1.4 is SMALLER than the native RF 50 1.2! AND, this lens was 1/3 the price of the Canon RF version. Also, Sigma Art lenses have 7 year warranty vs only 1 year from Canon.
Consumers don’t understand business, Nikon and Canon are perfectly capable of making top quality glass, I for one is not going to change my whole system for one or two lenses.
This is not exactly true. SONY and Zeiss has a non-compete agreement where Sony hire Zeiss to design part of their intercheangeable and integrated lenses and paying Zeiss a royalty for each, but Zeiss does not compete with Sony branded lens offerings. This is why Zeiss did the Batis line which DOES NOT have any competing lens with either the Sony FE, G, GM or Sony-Zeiss offerings. Competing meaning same focal, same aperture and similar price point.
I have the Zeiss and it is a very sharp lens. It is sharper than the old Sigma and the Zeiss 55mm-I had both of them. The Zeiss lenses have way better contrast when You shoot against a light source, like the Sun. So I really think there must be copy variation. The Zeiss doesn’t have that bad distortion of the Sigma, which in some cases may be a big deal-especially if You shoot video on a camera, which has no in-camera corrections. The focus pulls on the Zeiss feel better than on some Sigmas I had in my hand, like the 35mm DG DN, which doesn’t have a liner response (the old Sigmas were the best for manual focus pulls). I know that modern Sigma lenses are very sharp and I have few of them, but they are not perfect. If I would be buying now my 50mm lens, I would pick the Sigma, but as I have the Zeiss and I like the results very much, I will not trade it for the Sigma.
Third party lenses is the reason I just switched to Sony from Canon. Oh, and I've seen other reviews (i.e. Gerald Undone) where the Zeiss competes favorably. I think Tony has a bad copy of this lens. The Zeiss is sharp and has less fringing than this lens.
the Zeiss isn't worth the money, neither is the sigma. the canon 1.2 and the Nikon 1.2 are miles ahead of these lenses. (and of the Sony 1.2 for that matter)
Zeiss did the optical design, didn't they? So that only Zeiss would be responsible for sharpness and bokeh traits. I suspect though, that especially in the early days (when Zeiss lenses were far more prominent and relevant for the E mount lens ecosystem, due to not-yet-developed 3rd party support), Sony spoiled a lot of ZA lenses via introducing decentering in the early manufacturing days? So that this had spoiled the Zeiss quality image? That would be Sony's fault then.
@@tubularificationed The Zeiss 24-70mm F4 was a lottery to get a good copy. I am not sure if Zeiss did the lens design. I know if you look at the A-mount Minolta 85mm F1.4 and the Sony/Zeiss 85mm F1.4, they look pretty much the same.
Yet, here i am who bought Sigma 50mm 1.4 DG HSM, for around 600$ (brand new with 5 year warranty), and i am more than happy, pretty much those are small differences and probably none of your clients will see them in real world.
If the Sigma has a flatter field and more even focus/vignetting, the. that's the camera i'd take any day for video. The Sony had a significantly more pleasing rendering, however.
I have the older Sigma 50mm 1.4 and I won't be upgrading. The differences are tiny, imo. I'm surprised they couldn't get the new lens a little smaller.
I like your videos but I always try to find a similar from some else because you volume is lower than other youtubers and in some circumstances it is hard to hear you.
FYI, the concept of a 50mm as a "normal" lens stems from the average clear field of view of human vision (excluding peripheral vision). Actually, 43-45mm is more correct for this ideal. A "normal" lens of this type is predicated on a 35mm (36x24mm) frame or sensor. Assuming said sensor size, 85-100mm yields 'correct' head/shoulders portrait perspective and compression. 50mm distorts, especially at closer distances making noses too pronounced. This is based on both science and years of experience shooting tens of thousands of pictures.
No, the size of the nose is entirely predicated on the distance from the subject. And if you take a 50mm lens vs a 100mm lens, and you stand there with your own eyes as well, you will not have as similar of a nose in the 100mm as real life. If what you're saying was true, then our vision would be far more zoomed in than it actually is. Even if you exclude the periphial, we are literally closer from the subject than a 50mm lens. And nowhere near 85-100mm.
Would Sony actually charge ten times the price. For creating such a lense. That is created off of a foundation. That has already paid for itself? That would be an act that is both. Very shameful and sad. As well as personally insulting to isony"s customers. $7000 to $8,,000 should be close to reasonable. But if the $2,000 50mm F1.2 sony lense. Truly has already paid for itself. That really makes one think!!
Too many 50mm lenses out there for Sony. Sony APS-C line needs a compact quality 23mm f2 (35mm equiv) and 18mm f2 (28mm equiv). Something to rival lenses from the Leica CL and fujifilm lenses.
Hello awesome videos i want to ask you and the community. I am a amateur photographer like really amateur lol. However I really and always found it very amazing. I want to do Astro I was eyeing the A6400 and kinda torn between which lenses to get the Sonys or sigma I know I have to buy other stuff but I am not sure what to do. Also idk if I should get another camera like the 6600. I know there are better cameras but being that idk what I am doing I don’t want to spend a lot (yet) thank you all for any advice
YES - Buuuut, do you have the Samyang / Rokinon 50 1.4 II? NVM I JUST SAW IT YESSSSS! Haha, at any rate, I've had the Zeis 55 1.8 for years, I love it, but REALLY need just a tad bit more light transmission at times.
the Zeiss 55 1.8 is an actual Zeiss lens, this 50mm like most of the Sony Zeiss lenses are just branded Zeiss so Sony can gouge more money form their users and sell their overpriced subpar lenses. yey!
50-60mm is a true 1x magnification. I.e. in other words if you were holding a monocular to one eye you could have both eyes open and be able to see normally. Try it with one of your dslrs. All lens are a little different but the range should be around 50mm. Also as Tony has covered before focusing can change the effective focal length so try with something at least 6 feet away.
It depends on the viewfinder magnification. It is measured with a 50 mm lens (even on APS-C). If you have 1x magnification then it is the same size. However, this is just the viewfinder. It has nothing to do with the final image.
@@jon4715 I haven't received checked this, but I think they don't even provide the profile for popular open source editors like darktable even though I think most of them use the same profiling tool.
Why insist compare with the same faulty Zeiss Planar in all every review? Not serius at all. Selling my Planar to KEH maybe? as advice really? What a joke!! 😂
Would anyone know how does the new sigma compare to other 50mms for L Mount? I know that at MSRP clearly this is the best option, but on the used market, the panasonic 50 1.4 pro is around the same price
Look up the RUclips channel 3 Blind Men and an Elephant. He did review the L-Mount version, and compared it to other offerings all the way from the low end, on up to the Leica offerings.
I bought this lens in its EF mount iteration a while back. I had it mounted on my Sony with the MC11 adapter and the overall package was very cumbersome for a 50mm. While it is indeed very sharp and background separation is pronounced, I found it lacking character. I tried out the Zeiss Loxia and there was something about the lens that made me forget about the Sigma. It’s manual, F2 only, but the results I’d get would be more unique.
Sony "Zeiss"-branded lenses are just Sony lenses with lincensed coatings (and branding) from Zeiss, as far as I understand. So, basically, these lenses have nothing to do with actual Zeiss lenses.
50mm lens view angle equals to that of human single eye! But we use both eyes to see so in this regards you are right wide angle lens seems more natural or normal to our eyes.
@@TonyAndChelsea Tony: you have to be apple-to-Apple compared. The lens is fixed and don’t move, so then you will need to use human eye’s field of vision that is about 60 degree though. If eye truly focused then the true focus vision is about 30 degree. So this is why scientists called 50mm lens is Standard lens. The 120 degree of field of peripheral vision eye sees, in which only 45 degree view in middle are truly focused can be formed 3D in depth.
@@kwokycz 50 mm is too short for portraiture especially close-up, head only portraits. It distorts facial features. Nikkor 85mm 1.4 is fantastic. If you can afford to drop two grand USD the Zeiss 100mm Milvus Macro is phenomenal. No autofocus with Nikon which is not a problem for me.
@@fotticelli I agree, 50 mm is short for full frame cameras. 85 is better, 105 is the best. Some say, that 135 is the top focal length. I really think that 105 is the sweet spot.
What a shame🙄 when you made reviews with faulty lenses 🤦🏼. In all test you are using a “lemon” Zeiss Planar 🤷🏼♂️. “Plastic FE superior to the Zeiss Planar” 🤡🤣🤣🤣
Lol, really seemed like this was about getting people to flip their old lenses and get the new. The sponser will be proud. Even though they've made videos about that's not what they are doing. Stop the G.A.S. and gaslighting. Be happy with what you've got if it works for you. Lol. BTW love 99% of what they do.
all these reviews are commercials. Probably except for the Nikon and fuji reviews, they seem not to play the game of paying influencers that much, they still do, don't get me wrong.. but not as aggressive. If you look for it you'll see the same old: X comes out script: it's revolutionary, best ever.. unreal! than X2 comes out.. the know that X sucked, but they've listened to you! and X2 is revolutionary, best ever.. unreal! .. and repeat for X3... I'm sure this 50mm lens is an ok lens. it's hardly better than the other one.. and it has many faults like the other one had..
Before I even finish watching this, I just need to say, I really cannot wait for Canon to open up the RF mount. All of these great lenses from third parties coming out these days for Sony & Panasonic, and a few for Nikon. And I'm sitting here patiently and painfully waiting. Before you comment, no, I'm not switching. I am not even close to rich and can't afford it, firstly. Secondly, I otherwise love my Canon kit. It's just the lack of third party lenses that get me.
Wanted to comment on the Zeiss lens: I’m a working wedding photographer and own the Zeiss 50 1.4. I rented a few copies before purchasing one and found it suffers from severe variance issues. The first copy I rented was so soft wide open that I thought the camera was having focusing issues. Months later I rented a different copy from my local camera store and was shocked at how sharp it was. I ended up purchasing that copy, and it’s served me faithfully ever since. All that to say that the Zeiss can be a great lens if you get a good copy. Just make sure to test it out first. Still, if I were purchasing news today, I’d definitely give the Sigma a long look.
I am pretty sure this is the case with a lot of Sony Zeiss lenses. They are one of the oldest E mount/mirrorless camera lenses so their quality control was iffy. If you get a good second hand copy however, they can be an outstanding value. The Sony alpha blog rates this Sony Zeiss lens outstanding in terms of sharpness.
@@DjimmyTrovy Yeah, that's something most gear-reviewers tend to leave out, even if the old one is "more expensive" at retail, you can usually find them for like half-price used.
But at $1500 it’s just not worth it. The 55 1.8 seems like a better deal. At $1500 you might as well cough up the $500 and get the Sony 1.2. If you’re on a budget then the sigma 1.4 seems great. I’m a big zeiss fan but some of their lenses on Sony are just laughable for the price. They’re being undercut with lighter, sometimes faster, and sharper lenses for less money. I almost feel like zeiss has a contract with Sony to not be better than Sony haha.
@@mrwashur1991 For $1500, I totally agree. I bought mine used for around $900 which is why I’m very happy with it.
My Zeiss lens shoots very well, but it is extremely difficult to manually focus wide open. When I do get it focused it is as good as it gets.
I don't know if your Zeiss lens have been dropped or what happened, but my own comparison with the Sony GM, is that it is just as sharp at 1,4 as the GM at 1,2. A fantastic lens. Made in 2016! Lens making have changed a lot since...
I got my Zeiss used (and rather battered) and can still agree: mine is a very sharp lens too. That being said, I have heard more than a few stories of Zeiss not always having batch to batch consistency on their other lenses.
@@Skipsul i think what you mean, is the Sony/Zeiss lenses… The 35mm 1,4 had a reputation of not being consistent. This is an issue of Sony, and have been also an issue on some other lenses. If you buy a “real” Zeiss lens, you will find a certificate in the box, signed by the employee who did the inspection.
I believe Zeiss made some great lenses. Now lens industry have catch up on Zeiss, and more expensive lenses surpass them. I don’t think Zeiss will come back.
I had used Sigma 50 FE OG, 50ZA, 50GM, and in my own tests, i never seen this kind of softness coming from 50ZA.
Gerald Undone did a comparsion with OG FE mount and also ZA mount as well and the result of the OG FE and ZA is similar to my personal experience with those two lens as well.
And the kicker is, I had actually dropped my copy of 50ZA and still never seen this kind of softness.
That Zeiss lens has to be defective or a really bad copy. Every test and comparison I have seen with that lens, it has been stellar. Please retest with another copy.
Oh yeah, well I HAVE dropped my Zeiss 1.4 and it's STILL brutally sharp. Seriously, Tony saying that lens is soft pretty much goes against my, and everyone else I've seen talk about it's experience. In fact, I decided not to buy the 50GM because I love how sharp the Zeiss is, and the 50GM breathes like a mutha.
Strange. I had that Zeiss Sony 50mm f 1.4 ZA on my Sony A7RIII and it was incredibly sharp lens. Especially with pixel shift function.
There's literally no way his example was correct. What a strange thing for him to show that example. It's obvious, even as an outsider, that its not a genuine comparison. Even a Yongou lens would perform closer.
@@CanditoTrainingHQ I know I'm late to respond but his results match my experience with the lens. I work at a camera store and took the ZA out for a gig and was really disappointed by the lack of sharpness
They talked about it, it's QC, it's all over the place for that reason, Sony should have reached out to swap it out, but they didn't
My copy of ZEISS is shaper than 50 1.2, also the review made by Gerald Undone seems to have ZEISS ahead of the new Sigma.
it is definitely a problem with quality control at ZEISS for this lens.
I love the continued push to call out Canon and Nikon over lack of third party support. People who are going to spend almost $3k on a first-party prime are pros who are gonna do that anyway to get professional services and top of the line autofocus. But for people looking at these great Sigma lenses the first-party options were probably never going to be in reach so it's not a "competing" lens, it's just a lens that either allows you to buy into the system overall or not. And who knows, maybe someday you get to the level where you can afford a $3k prime and it makes sense, then you're going to buy it from the company that didn't shut the door on you with no affordable third party options. Canon and Nikon are only hurting themselves.
Can't really recommend Nikon or Canon, it's just mostly people going from DSLR to mirrorless versions of them and still they are bad choices. For now with E-mount I have 200-600mm but might as well get Tamron 50-400mm or the new Sigma 60-600mm. I still believe 200-600mm from Sony is the best zoom telephoto lens ever made but those other 3rd party choices bring other stuff to the table.
@@Bo_Hazem Totally. Sony still manages to make great lenses that people want to buy regardless. Tamron and Sigma haven't ruined that market for them. They're doing just fine with an open lens mount. 200-600 is a prime example of that.
@@roland.boyden Exactly, and above all priced competitively. Bought my 200-600mm G for around $1650 new. The Sigma brings insane macro and great wide angle at 60mm so it's better suited as a one lens hiking setup vs 200-600mm.
Canon & Nikon dont care
😂
It's such a shame they couldn't reduce the size anymore. I loved my original one but I had to get rid of it because it's just too big especially when the tiny 55mm Zeiss is an option. I was really excited for this but Unfortunately I'll be giving this one a miss.
Zeiss rep should immediately send you couple more lenses to test unless they know they are bad too.
I know it falls outside of this focal range, but the one universally loved Sony/Zeiss is the 55mm f/1.8. It is a preposterous price for an f1.8, but it is offensively sharp, the focus is decent and it is tiny. It is a setup I sometimes bring for a night out with friends.
I've owned the 55 F1.8, and it's not exceptionally sharp by 2023 standards. It was phenomenal in 2012, but my cheaper Sigma 65mm F2 is very noticeably sharper. But everyone latched on to its "sharpest lens ever" reputation. It's not a bad lens, but for $1K, you're dealing with a lot of LoCA and just good sharpness.
Also note that the 50mm F1.4 ZA lens in the video was reviewed to be a touch sharper than the 55mm F1.8.
@@HappyHubris You can get 55 1.8s used for like $400 - $500, honestly at this point the only thing I buy new are bodies lol
@@HappyHubris Interesting response, thank you. I still find the 55mm to be sharp on a7r3 and a7r4 and I think it looks good beside my 70-200GM. But maybe I have had bad 70-200s. Sony had plenty of variation in the first generation of those lenses.
I have missed the 50mm F1.4 ZA being sharper than the 55, that is interesting and had slipped past me completely.
It's definitely a defective Zeiss 50 1/4. My Zeiss 50 1/4 is as sharp as the 35mm GM.
last week I bought the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 lens, it is a great lens and focuses pretty fast. It was better than Sony's version for focus speed and lens noise.
The dg dn? It's the one lens I use the most, and I have 7 lenses.
Initially I bought the 85GM but it is significantly slower af compare to sigma dg dn. Exchange with 85 dg dn and I was blown away by the performance. A9 with sigma 85 my best combo ever.
wow how can you guys get a faulty zeiss. My Zeiss is super sharp on A7 IV
"Better than Zeiss" isn't such a high bar like it used to be anymore.
Yet, considering that new lenses are still comparable to 10 years-old lens says a lot.
Better than zeis is pretty good lol
That's because all you're looking at is sharpness and bokeh as if that's the only thing that matters in an image. Zeiss has that 3D-like rendering that makes images easier and more pleasing to look at and understand. That's more important than pixel peeping to see how sharp the image is or zooming in on bokeh... Normal people/clients wont even notice sharpness difference or bokeh difference but they will immediately notice when an image is easy on the eye and is rendered almost life like aka. in a 3D-like manner - something only a dozen lens manufacturers do and out of those dozen, most of them are cine/film lens and medium format lens manufacturers.
@@nogerboher5266 lol u over reacting over zeis >.>
@@Roysphotos8 Overreacting? 😁
I love how Tony always drops his products in his videos..KEH, Square space, Northrup Guides....lol...I see you Tony!
I’ve had my Zeiss 50mm 1.4 for 6 years now, and it’s the sharpest lens I’ve ever owned. It’s also the fastest focusing with the smoothest background… granted I love Sigma, and owned the original 50mm art for Canon, Nikon, and Sony… but the Zeiss is still way better than the Sigma…
Yup, and $100 cheaper on the used market. It’s a no-brainer.
The new Sigma lens is just objectively sharper than the old Zeiss.
Still using the original Sigma Art 50mm with an adapter on my Nikon Z5. Absolute beaut of a lens and my favourite ever.
Strange - my Zeiss 50 is almost sharp as my 35GM - which is super sharp lens.
I really wish Tamron or sigma would come out with a 600 F8 prime or an 800 F11 like cannon has for their lineup. I think a light 600 F8 prime would be good for small warblers high in trees
Woah, my ZA Planar is sharp wide-open. That rental is definitely subpar.
I am also using a 61 MP body....
Thanks for the great review. I'm thinking of going ahead and getting the Sigma f/1.4 DG DN Art for my A7 R2. 🙌
Beautiful lens. I would love to have it. Sigma really created a memorable brand when they came up with the Sigma Art Lens. Gorgeous.
I have 50za lines. This lines is great. The performance in f 1.4 It‘s not like you test result.
07:50 While the new Sigma 1,4/50mm DG DN is very likely better than the Sony-Zeiss 1,4/50mm, your sharpness results in the frame center shown here are totally implausible - whatever the reason behind it, the Sony-Zeiss should never ever be so blurry. The very source you mention, Lensrentals, has MTF-measured this lens showing sky high sharpness in the frame center.
Even with Canon's new R8 to be announced tomorrow I seriously don't think its gonna be a break through for many people. I was really wanting to see what all the hype is about but I've come to realize that no matter how much of an awesome camera Canon pulls out of the bag its the lens that counts. What good is camera if you can't afford their lens, and I'm not talking about settling for the cheap stuff either. Tony you said it yourself, this Sigma lens costs under $900.00!! How can you beat that? There is no way an RF 50mm can top that. It just makes more sense for an enthusiast to switch to Sony.
Or use an adapted EF 50mm until Canon either allows 3rd party lenses or comes out with an RF 50 1.4.
@@derbagger22 I would really really recommend to not go for the R series right now to FORCE Canon to allow 3rd party lenses. After all it is in your hands to bring Canon down from that horse they are riding thinking they can do everything they want.
A Canon R6II is $2500. Are you telling me you want to cheap out with a Sigma lens?
@@bngr_bngr I have a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary that I love. I also have an EF 135 f/2. The rest of my glass is a mix of RF primes and L zooms.
@@bngr_bngr No Sigma ART lens is a "cheap out". Have you seen their lineup the last 10 years?
Talked about autofocus, did not show examples in Sony video mode.
By the way, I have compared the Sony Zeiss 50mm to the Zeiss Otus, which is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, and they are really close. I also compared the Otus to the first Sigma art 50mm and the Otus is better up to f/2.8. At f/4 they are about the same and since f/5.6 the old Sigma is even better than the Zeiss Otus. So the results also differ at different appertures. But anyhow-the Sony Zeiss 50mm is one of the sharpest lenses and it is as sharp, as the Sony G master.
The Sony GM F1.2 is an exceptional lens. Incredible colour, sharpness and micro contrast. I call it my 'magic' lens. I got it as a grey purchase which was considerably cheaper that RRP.
It's a shame that they couldn't recreate the feel and handling of the old 50/1.4 EX DG that I was used to with my old Canon dslr. Sure, the optics in these lenses are far superior and that 50 hunted like a mug, but it felt so good in the hand and I could carry it around with ease all day. Not to mention it was under $500 new. Fingers crossed that Sony will pull something cool later this month with their version.
Good overview. Price seems very reasonable, especially when compared to the Sony lens. Not certain it really fits my type of amateur photography that I do. I have a Sony a6500. With the 1.5 crop factor the 24mm, F1.8 Zeiss lens has produced good quality photos. I also have the Sigma 30mm F1.4 lens. It takes great photos, but indoors the focal length doesn’t give me the view that the 24mm does. Thanks for the video.
Out of all the Sony and Zeiss Lenses I own for my a7C, my zeiss milvus 50mm is my favourite lens. If it weren’t for lack of autofocus I’d use it way more often. It’s a bit hard hitting focus when it’s dark outside
Appreciate the positive review! Great video 🫡
Do I NEED a comprehensive review comparing over a dozen 50mm lenses? No. Do I WANT that? That's what subscribing is for :-)
While I've got all the lenses I need for now and I can adapt EF mount glass to my RF bodies, I really want Canon to open up to third party manufacturers so we can have choices like this.
Buying 50/1.4 to shoot at f8? What for? Kit lens would be as good.
L mount has become more interesting than rf and z mount,considered pricepoint and variety of interesting fast glass
For Z there are already some Tamron lenses, I believe it's a matter of time to see Sigma lenses as well.
@@DubYaJsWorld honestly considering the s1h is the video focused camera, I wouldn’t hold my breathe for a high megapixel sensor for pixel binning purposes. Maybe they will go 8k (I think 34-36) megapixels but really speculative.
@@DubYaJsWorld as an s1h user, I’m glad people are taking a serious look at Panasonic . Super reliable cameras
I wish there was a good 50mm F1.8 lens. There is only one FF 50mm F1.8 for Sony E-mount and its pretty slow to AF.
There are three AF ones: Sony, Viltrox, and Yongnuo. Tony shows the Yongnuo in this video.
@@QuietOC Sorry, I meant from a well known brand. The Viltrox looks interesting though, if I can trust it to last.
@@QuietOC I just watched a review from Jason Morris. The Viltrox indoor AF was even worse than the Sony 50mm F1.8.
Even the Samyang 45mm sounds like IQ lottery. Just like in football, the best ability is reliability.
I have the Yongnuo. It is quite good. I made an offer on a used Viltrox. I rather liked the Sony.
@@QuietOC My main complaint on the Sony is the indoor/low light AF. I cant find many reviews on the Yongnou, so I will have to hold off on that one.
I've been using Zeiss lenses since the mid 80's and have adapted them to my Sony cameras. The images I get are very sharp with excellent contrast all are T*
I have the SIgma 50mm 1.4 Art for Canon EF adapted to my R6 Mark II. It's INSANE! It's actually sharper than the RF Canon 50 1.2, and it focuses FASTER than the RF versions (or GM versions). This is why I prefer the Canon system (the bodies are better too).... the EF lenses adapt perfectly with no performance loss (unlike Sony and Nikon). The adapted EF lenses work BETTER on the RF system than they did natively on DSLRs.
Oh and even with the adapter, the Sigma Art 50 1.4 is SMALLER than the native RF 50 1.2!
AND, this lens was 1/3 the price of the Canon RF version.
Also, Sigma Art lenses have 7 year warranty vs only 1 year from Canon.
That is a range of lenses I would love to use with my CANON EOS 450D XSI Digital Rebel.
The waiting is over, i have been saving money to buy sigma 50mm f1.4 hsm for sony, until i got this info, now i decided to buy this!
This is yet another example which confirms Sony has the advantage when it comes to lenses.
Consumers don’t understand business, Nikon and Canon are perfectly capable of making top quality glass, I for one is not going to change my whole system for one or two lenses.
This is not exactly true. SONY and Zeiss has a non-compete agreement where Sony hire Zeiss to design part of their intercheangeable and integrated lenses and paying Zeiss a royalty for each, but Zeiss does not compete with Sony branded lens offerings. This is why Zeiss did the Batis line which DOES NOT have any competing lens with either the Sony FE, G, GM or Sony-Zeiss offerings. Competing meaning same focal, same aperture and similar price point.
I have loved this lens.
I have the Zeiss and it is a very sharp lens. It is sharper than the old Sigma and the Zeiss 55mm-I had both of them. The Zeiss lenses have way better contrast when You shoot against a light source, like the Sun. So I really think there must be copy variation. The Zeiss doesn’t have that bad distortion of the Sigma, which in some cases may be a big deal-especially if You shoot video on a camera, which has no in-camera corrections. The focus pulls on the Zeiss feel better than on some Sigmas I had in my hand, like the 35mm DG DN, which doesn’t have a liner response (the old Sigmas were the best for manual focus pulls). I know that modern Sigma lenses are very sharp and I have few of them, but they are not perfect. If I would be buying now my 50mm lens, I would pick the Sigma, but as I have the Zeiss and I like the results very much, I will not trade it for the Sigma.
Every modern Sony camera does distortion and vignetting correction for video.
Third party lenses is the reason I just switched to Sony from Canon. Oh, and I've seen other reviews (i.e. Gerald Undone) where the Zeiss competes favorably. I think Tony has a bad copy of this lens. The Zeiss is sharp and has less fringing than this lens.
the Zeiss isn't worth the money, neither is the sigma. the canon 1.2 and the Nikon 1.2 are miles ahead of these lenses. (and of the Sony 1.2 for that matter)
i am pretty sure your zeiss lens defective one 😂 if you still not believe try zeiss 55 1.8 it can still near sharp with gm 50
Are going to review the Canon RF100-400?
Also, I dont think its fair to bash Zeiss for those Sony lenses. It got the coatings, but those are Sony made lenses.
Zeiss did the optical design, didn't they? So that only Zeiss would be responsible for sharpness and bokeh traits.
I suspect though, that especially in the early days (when Zeiss lenses were far more prominent and relevant for the E mount lens ecosystem, due to not-yet-developed 3rd party support), Sony spoiled a lot of ZA lenses via introducing decentering in the early manufacturing days? So that this had spoiled the Zeiss quality image? That would be Sony's fault then.
@@tubularificationed The Zeiss 24-70mm F4 was a lottery to get a good copy.
I am not sure if Zeiss did the lens design. I know if you look at the A-mount Minolta 85mm F1.4 and the Sony/Zeiss 85mm F1.4, they look pretty much the same.
Yet, here i am who bought Sigma 50mm 1.4 DG HSM, for around 600$ (brand new with 5 year warranty), and i am more than happy, pretty much those are small differences and probably none of your clients will see them in real world.
If the Sigma has a flatter field and more even focus/vignetting, the. that's the camera i'd take any day for video. The Sony had a significantly more pleasing rendering, however.
I have the older Sigma 50mm 1.4 and I won't be upgrading. The differences are tiny, imo. I'm surprised they couldn't get the new lens a little smaller.
Corner sharpness is a huge upgrade for those who need it wide open. Just depends on what you're shooting.
I like your videos but I always try to find a similar from some else because you volume is lower than other youtubers and in some circumstances it is hard to hear you.
I wonder if the Sony GM is still sharper than the Sigma in the center when shot wide open at f1.2.
thank you for sharing your knowledge of sigma art lens review
"Better than zeiss" is honestly not that big of a deal these days
when will sigma bring us the 105 dgdn?????
I don’t think you tested a good Zeiss 50mm I’ve had all the Zeiss lenses from Sony and they are great you just got a bad copy
How is the performance of Samyang 50 f1.4 ii ?
FYI, the concept of a 50mm as a "normal" lens stems from the average clear field of view of human vision (excluding peripheral vision). Actually, 43-45mm is more correct for this ideal. A "normal" lens of this type is predicated on a 35mm (36x24mm) frame or sensor. Assuming said sensor size, 85-100mm yields 'correct' head/shoulders portrait perspective and compression. 50mm distorts, especially at closer distances making noses too pronounced. This is based on both science and years of experience shooting tens of thousands of pictures.
No, the size of the nose is entirely predicated on the distance from the subject. And if you take a 50mm lens vs a 100mm lens, and you stand there with your own eyes as well, you will not have as similar of a nose in the 100mm as real life. If what you're saying was true, then our vision would be far more zoomed in than it actually is. Even if you exclude the periphial, we are literally closer from the subject than a 50mm lens. And nowhere near 85-100mm.
Now that there has been a mistake while typing those time stamps, I am waiting for a ‘500mm f/1.2 GM lens’ from Sony!
Haha thanks and fixed
Would Sony actually charge ten times the price. For creating such a lense. That is created off of a foundation. That has already paid for itself? That would be an act that is both. Very shameful and sad. As well as personally insulting to isony"s customers. $7000 to $8,,000 should be close to reasonable. But if the $2,000 50mm F1.2 sony lense. Truly has already paid for itself. That really makes one think!!
Zeiss is no where near as good when it was german, it was on par with Leica back then.
hi Mr. Tony, will you be selling any of your 50mm?
Sigma Art 40mm was beating 50mm in all tests..much better. The newer DG DN lenses having Aperture rings are beauties
The Sony 50 F1.2 is really a winner here.. It is cheaper than Nikon/Canon and it is so much smaller and lighter too.
i think the best Zeis lens for sony is the 55mm 1.8
I don't see any link to download the sample?
Too many 50mm lenses out there for Sony. Sony APS-C line needs a compact quality 23mm f2 (35mm equiv) and 18mm f2 (28mm equiv). Something to rival lenses from the Leica CL and fujifilm lenses.
04:35 Samyang AF 50mm f1.4 FE II?? How good or bad is it??
Hello awesome videos i want to ask you and the community. I am a amateur photographer like really amateur lol. However I really and always found it very amazing. I want to do Astro I was eyeing the A6400 and kinda torn between which lenses to get the Sonys or sigma I know I have to buy other stuff but I am not sure what to do. Also idk if I should get another camera like the 6600. I know there are better cameras but being that idk what I am doing I don’t want to spend a lot (yet) thank you all for any advice
YES - Buuuut, do you have the Samyang / Rokinon 50 1.4 II? NVM I JUST SAW IT YESSSSS! Haha, at any rate, I've had the Zeis 55 1.8 for years, I love it, but REALLY need just a tad bit more light transmission at times.
the Zeiss 55 1.8 is an actual Zeiss lens, this 50mm like most of the Sony Zeiss lenses are just branded Zeiss so Sony can gouge more money form their users and sell their overpriced subpar lenses. yey!
@@Juventinos haha like their DSLR 50 1.8? Haha that lens is SO BAD
L Mount Alliance!
8:04 kind of like Canon RF mount now!
50-60mm is a true 1x magnification. I.e. in other words if you were holding a monocular to one eye you could have both eyes open and be able to see normally. Try it with one of your dslrs. All lens are a little different but the range should be around 50mm. Also as Tony has covered before focusing can change the effective focal length so try with something at least 6 feet away.
No, it's 43mm.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 It can be on some lenses. At closer ranges you find that it's closer to 60mm
It depends on the viewfinder magnification. It is measured with a 50 mm lens (even on APS-C). If you have 1x magnification then it is the same size.
However, this is just the viewfinder. It has nothing to do with the final image.
@@okaro6595 Not to mention that not all viewfinders have 100% coverage.
@@okaro6595 Also most cameras have a diopter in the viewfinder which can further affect magnification.
How's the distortion handled? Does it rely on post to fix it similar to the new 85mm?
This is my biggest concern, and it's too bad so many companies just want to leave it to a correction algo.
@@jon4715 I haven't received checked this, but I think they don't even provide the profile for popular open source editors like darktable even though I think most of them use the same profiling tool.
no can RF 50mm f1.2?
Wow I didn't know Canon isn't allowing third party autofocus lenses on their platform.
Are you serious? Zeiss has sharpness comparable to GM, it's just that you probably have a defective piece.
Why insist compare with the same faulty Zeiss Planar in all every review? Not serius at all. Selling my Planar to KEH maybe? as advice really? What a joke!! 😂
Would anyone know how does the new sigma compare to other 50mms for L Mount? I know that at MSRP clearly this is the best option, but on the used market, the panasonic 50 1.4 pro is around the same price
Look up the RUclips channel 3 Blind Men and an Elephant. He did review the L-Mount version, and compared it to other offerings all the way from the low end, on up to the Leica offerings.
I have the Panasonic 50mm 1.4. The images are second to none in my opinion. 50mm SL lens is stellar as well but eye watering expensive.
You can feel all the Canon user's getting upset about the no third-party lenses right now 🤷📷
I bought this lens in its EF mount iteration a while back. I had it mounted on my Sony with the MC11 adapter and the overall package was very cumbersome for a 50mm. While it is indeed very sharp and background separation is pronounced, I found it lacking character. I tried out the Zeiss Loxia and there was something about the lens that made me forget about the Sigma. It’s manual, F2 only, but the results I’d get would be more unique.
Mate, this is a new lens. There is no EF version. You're talking about the old, outdated model.
Sony "Zeiss"-branded lenses are just Sony lenses with lincensed coatings (and branding) from Zeiss, as far as I understand. So, basically, these lenses have nothing to do with actual Zeiss lenses.
The Sony Zeiss AF lenses have always been crap sadly exept the Batis ones.
50mm lens view angle equals to that of human single eye! But we use both eyes to see so in this regards you are right wide angle lens seems more natural or normal to our eyes.
50mm is 45 degrees. A single human is about 120 degrees.
Tony explained it pretty well in a video on this topic within the last couple weeks.
@@TonyAndChelsea Tony: you have to be apple-to-Apple compared. The lens is fixed and don’t move, so then you will need to use human eye’s field of vision that is about 60 degree though. If eye truly focused then the true focus vision is about 30 degree. So this is why scientists called 50mm lens is Standard lens. The 120 degree of field of peripheral vision eye sees, in which only 45 degree view in middle are truly focused can be formed 3D in depth.
Sony has about 12% share in Tamron
I have had the chance to use the Sony 50mm f1.2. Now that's sexy. Very expensive, but sexy.
your copy za 50 1.4 certainly was a fault one
NO, Sony and Zeiss are better !
Thanks for sharing another wonderful video like always 👍
What is a good portrait lens for a d850 ?
If I had D850, I would buy Sigma 105 mm f/1,4 DG HSM Art. That is the greatest lens I've held in my hands. To be fair, it is heavy :)
Only 105mm nikkor F1,4, still best portrait lens that I have ever had
@@kwokycz 50 mm is too short for portraiture especially close-up, head only portraits. It distorts facial features. Nikkor 85mm 1.4 is fantastic. If you can afford to drop two grand USD the Zeiss 100mm Milvus Macro is phenomenal. No autofocus with Nikon which is not a problem for me.
@@fotticelli I agree, 50 mm is short for full frame cameras. 85 is better, 105 is the best. Some say, that 135 is the top focal length. I really think that 105 is the sweet spot.
Thanks....
What a shame🙄 when you made reviews with faulty lenses 🤦🏼.
In all test you are using a “lemon” Zeiss Planar 🤷🏼♂️.
“Plastic FE superior to the Zeiss Planar” 🤡🤣🤣🤣
"Panasonic, Leica, and anybody else..." yeah, the third member is Sigma, geez.
If the camera community revolted like the DnD community, canon may have capitulated.
Lol, really seemed like this was about getting people to flip their old lenses and get the new. The sponser will be proud. Even though they've made videos about that's not what they are doing. Stop the G.A.S. and gaslighting. Be happy with what you've got if it works for you. Lol. BTW love 99% of what they do.
all these reviews are commercials. Probably except for the Nikon and fuji reviews, they seem not to play the game of paying influencers that much, they still do, don't get me wrong.. but not as aggressive.
If you look for it you'll see the same old: X comes out script: it's revolutionary, best ever.. unreal! than X2 comes out.. the know that X sucked, but they've listened to you! and X2 is revolutionary, best ever.. unreal! .. and repeat for X3...
I'm sure this 50mm lens is an ok lens. it's hardly better than the other one.. and it has many faults like the other one had..
@@Juventinos Yeah, I know. Just surprised how dishonest this particular review is in parts. They are usually pretty good.
Better and cheaper? Nice.
** laughs in Canon 32mm f1.4 EF-M **
These Sigmas are nice but damn heavy and bulky
The sony zeiss is sharper than the zeiss otus guys
@te_xtmeontele_gramtonychelsea1 cool 😎
The GM is definitely not 1100$ better than the Sigma
Before I even finish watching this, I just need to say, I really cannot wait for Canon to open up the RF mount. All of these great lenses from third parties coming out these days for Sony & Panasonic, and a few for Nikon. And I'm sitting here patiently and painfully waiting.
Before you comment, no, I'm not switching. I am not even close to rich and can't afford it, firstly. Secondly, I otherwise love my Canon kit. It's just the lack of third party lenses that get me.