So happy to see the old intro again! Sony is killing it with their GM lenses, and Sigma is a fantastic price/performance balance for everyone else. Those on E mount are absurdly lucky with the available choices.
Lucky? The open and closed camera systems are well known for years. I bought into Sony because of that, even though in terms of camera bodies, I think that Nikon and Canon have the edge. But this edge disappears quickly if you have to downgrade your lenses to stay within budget.
I love how Gerald says “if you’re seriously considering buying one…” You know we just watch you as entertainment at this point. I haven’t even owned a Sony since 2021!
Saving everyone a bunch of time for this and every subsequent G master vs Sigma review: “Overall the Sony is better optically and feels lighter and is a little smaller. However it costs 50% more but it’s not 50% better. Buy the Sony if you have the money, otherwise get the Sigma”
@@nightdonutstudio yeah I really wish the 50mm 1.8 was better because its really not that good, which doesn't leave a good impression for those starting out
The 50mm 1.8 was never a great lens and had not aged well in my opinion. Sony needs a good nifty fifty to complete with how affordable the canon RF 50mm 1.8
Whenever there's a new piece of gear hitting the RUclips release embargo I mosey my way over to Gerald's video to get the testing and opinions I can trust!
4:41 What's happening with the exposure as you are racking focus? Please tell me that's auto exposing based on focus point, because if not, Houston, we have a problem.
Lens design and manufacturing has gotten so good over the last few years, that if by some miracle, lens reviewers couldn't compare lenses at 200%, the only differentiators would be cost, size, weight, aperture range, and features. That would make for very short reviews.That being said, you really do great reviews.
True. It's simply because computer models are so good at calculating the behavior of light nowadays. In earlier years, engineers had to find the perfect lens design pretty much by trial and error, while nowadays they can get an immediate result within a few hours. It's amazing how cheap lenses have become that are better than anything produced in the 20th century.
Edit: Just looked at some MTF charts. The 50 f1.4 actually outperforms the 50 1.2 in the center and kills it from midframe to corners. So if you don't need the 1.2, it is a no brainer imo to go for the cheaper and lighter 50 1.4. Sharpness is so close between the lenses that weight is becoming a far more crucial issue. The Sony 50 f/1.2 is ridiculously heavy for a prime and I hate carrying it. Will probably get the 50 f/1.4 which is more practical and some other lens with the extra money.
Lens design has gotten so good?! You do realize that lens design of 85%> of modern lenses has not changed for decades upon decades now?! You do realize that over 85% of all modern day lenses still to this day use aka. ''copy'' the ancient ''Planar'' and ''Sonnar'' lens designs from Zeiss, right?! Some copied it better and improved on it and some copied it just to copy it and make mediocre lenses... (Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, Laowa, etc...) Also; Fun fact; The only reason ''GM'' line of lenses even exists in the first place is thanks to Zeiss-Sony partnership contract.
@@nogerboher5266 Really? That's a little like saying automobiles haven't changed over the last 100 yrs. You know, 4 wheels, steering wheel, seats, roof and an internal combustion engine, same ole same ole.
@@j16m02 I mean, that's objectively true too. Cars are incredibly regulated and uncreative now vs the past. The most popular colors are white and black now too.
I own the 50mm 1.2 GM and I would easily prefer this one: 1.2 version is bigger and heavier, and for amateur photographer like me size & weight is more important then an aperture difference
Appreciate you making the point that, under laboratory conditions, the GM is the better lens but that for general photography (ie for 99% of your viewers), there isn't much in it. At one point it was like you were comparing the same lens against itself! I love your technical breakdowns but we mustn't forget that, ultimately, these lenses are being used for photography, not pixel peeping. With this in mind, I assume the Sigma is a better choice if budget is your main priority. Money no object? The GM. Another top notch review, thank you.
I can see this on Sigma but not that much, even the 50mm 1.2 ver and 35mm gm light changing when change focus is hard to noticeable. Hope thay still can fix it
i love that you put your recording trigger under the table in that spot because for a moment I was confused what you were reaching for. That was an entertaining moment.
The 50 1.2 is my favourite lens I’ve ever owned and I’ve not had a single issue with him. Happy to hear they’re expanding their range though. Now if they’d just release an updated 16-35…
Hi Evan glad to see you like Gerald's videos too. I found the GM 16-35mm to be super sharp, but haven't used it in a while so my opinion might be out of date. What would you like to see improved?
You are my one stop site for equipment reviews. I especially like when you do comparisons between lenses or cameras like you did in this video. You present the facts and dig into the features, especially IQ and give us examples. There are too many reviewers who sound like fan boys or sales persons. I like it when you give camera manufacturers some pushback. The way that they manipulate the release of features in one camera versus another to promote sales is a joke.
I'm glad Sony is making a quality 50mm for a much more approachable price point than the 1.2. The 1.2 is one of my favorite lenses, but the price tag is pretty steep and makes it out of reach for many photographers and videographers.
Unless you are in Europe. Here the 1.4 is priced at 2000 Euros and the 1.2 is priced at 2300 Euros. 300 Euros difference makes little sense, should be around 500 Euros difference
@@nothingtobeconcernedabout7477 That is wild, here in the US the 1.4 is about 1300, while the 1.2 is 2000 USD. Can I ask a silly question, why are the prices so different? Is it because it's a new product? Import taxes? Would it be a "better" deal to buy in the US and pay the import taxes?
@@keith-knittel I think it is because of the timing of the release. The 1.2 was released when the Euro was stronger when compared to the dollar and the 1.4 is coming out now when the Euro is weak against the dollar. I think in Europe the lenses are always priced regarding conversion rates, never relative to the other products, so the heavy fluctuation influences the prices on top of the premium we pay in Europe. If you would import it you would probably face 35-40% import tax and fees as well as having a grey market lens which you could not get serviced here because it was bought in a different region than your residence
@@keith-knittel Our prices also include VAT, which is up to 27% depending on the country, so keep that in mind when comparing prices between US and EU. In Poland 50 1.4 GM is 1700€ with 23% tax and 1.2 is ~2150€. Hope for some cashback deals.
Nice thorough comparison (and I liked the bloopers at the end : ) . The close up sharpness relationship seems the opposite of the 35/1.4GM vs the 35/1.4DN. +50% cost is more like 100% in Euroland..well alternatives are nice
I bought the F1.2 about a month ago, kinda wish I bought this lens, the 1.2 is big and heavy, I would have saved a bit of cash buying this one but having said that, I'm not planning on selling the 1.2 for this.
Big same. Just got the 1.2 in december. I got lucky and got my 1.2 for lower price than this 1.4 but it only makes me want to sell it and buy the 1.4. The 1.2 is one thicc boi
Thanks for great comparison. It's sad to see that sigma has still that CA issue that it had with 1st version of 50 1.4 hsm art...CA is so obvious on the shots, disturbingly. GM did a great job, superior sharpness even at corners, almost none CA and shorter, lighter..it's just a better choice.
I have the Zeiss too, but damn, I want that F1.4 as I often shoot low light (F1.2 is just a tad too expensive). I wonder if the bokeh is much better too and whether the subject separation is noticeably better fully open.
@@sydneydance bokeh wise, you really have to pixel peep in photos to find any difference. that extra 5mm compensates for the separation and there are many videos comparing the 1.2 to 1.8. At 1.2 the bokeh is footballed so you're gonna want to shut down to 1.8 to get the 1.2 round lol. So the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 will be even smaller than between 1.8. Low light and 67mm filter size are the pros of the 1.4 imo. I would go 1.4 over 1.2 for sure due to size, but the 55mm is the travel king. It's a non factor when packing basically so I'm not upgrading yet. So many other cool lenses to spend money on
I think the only reason to go with the GM is if you’re a video shooter & need the focus breathing compensation (coming from someone who owns 4 GM’s). If you only shoot stills or don’t care about breathing, sigma is always a fantastic value 😁 I love my 85 DG DN
@@johndavidtackett Not in video mode though , really the same , and the manual dampening / size of the sigma focus ring is is vastly better than the Sony's , they seem to have abandoned any sort of dampening for manual focus on their lenses , this is fine for stills of course , but not video.
I’ve got the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM, just started watching this out of curiosity, wondering why release this one except I’m guessing it’s hundreds of dollars cheaper & a little lighter/smaller. LOVE the 1.2 and won’t change but love the content & being in the loop!
I’ve been looking at that one too. Love to see a comparison of the two squatty 50s! I’m sure Sony will be optically better, but Samyang seems to get overlooked by the other S’s.
From all I saw the main downside of the Samyang is the way slower AF. If you´re mainly shooting portraits in a controled setting that might not be a big deal and go for the Samyang. But I´m shooting weddings and other events and would definitely go for the new Sigma instead because I need fast AF.
I'm thankful Mr. Gerald came along long before the now upon us generation of content where the presenter may or may not even be human. Otherwise, wouldn't we ALL have to ask ourselves "Is this man a machine, or is the machine a man, or....
At this point I think the options are so close, there's really only one sensible consideration when choosing: Are you a professional and a member of Sony Pro Services? If yes - get the Sony. If no - get the Sigma (or Tamron) equivalent.
@Pat's Production Hacks You're missing the point, which was that the image quality differences are so minor to be nonexistent. Therefore it would be sensible for a hobbyist to go with the third party options, because they deliver equal quality for less money. A professional, who, should disaster strike, depends on the fast repair turnarounds that Sony Pro Services offer may want to stick with the GMs for that reason. If you're a hobbyist who wants to waste money on the name brand to compensate for their small genitalia though - go right ahead. :D
Hey man, I need your thoughts on something. I bought the ZV-e10 about a year ago. It is 24mp and obviously an apsc camera. I just purchased the Sony a7 IV, but I only have apsc lenses, so if I were to use my current lenses with it I would have to put in apsc mode at 16mp. Are the mega pixels what I should focus on, meaning I should use the ZV-e10 until I get FF lenses? OR since the a7 IV is a far superior camera otherwise, use it with the apsc lenses?
Hi Gerald !! I am a family photographer here in Australia and I am struggling to find a new lens to bring my work into a next level !!! I currently have a Sony a7iii with a 85mm 1.4 and a 35mm 1.8 lenses. I really love the 35 (I use 80% of the time) but I prefer the quality and the depth of the 85 😅😅 Im looking for something between 35-50mm or a zoom lens with a very high standard, sharpness and quality image.. Any recommendations ??? I was going to sell my actual sony 35mm to buy the new sigma 35mm f1.4. but your video changed my mind hahahahha
I called it... Actually Sony went cheaper than I thought. I was so sure about they will price it $1398 have the same size and weight as my 35 f1.4 GM. Great job Sony, now this is a lens I am very interested in purchasing...
Hi Gerald, great comparison. Sorry for newbie question, I was wondering whether to invest in this 50mm/f1.4 or rather just take Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM II instead. I know prime lenses usually better and f1.4 is superb. But looking at the cost if needed to choose between 50mm/f1.2 and 50mm/f1.4, I'd probably choose 50mm/f1.4, however the 24-70mm f2.8 GM II kinda more options and need to sacrifice the f1.4, yet the price different can be justified and I tested the 24-70 GM OSS II sharpness using A7RV is amazing. Which one do you think you might choose? or none of them. 😀
SONY is INSANE. They have Seven (7) 50mm lenses in their line up; nine (9) if you count the 40 and 55 which many will consider "standard" lenses. Sony 40mm/2.5 G Sony 50mm/2.8 Macro Sony 50mm/2.5 G Sony 50mm/1.8 OSS E Sony 50mm/1.8 FE Sony 50mm/1.4 ZA Zeiss Sony 50mm/1.4 GM Sony 50mm/1.2 GM Sony 55mm/1.8 ZA Zeiss
Nice comparison with real world vs benchmark testing. Did you do any low-light / astrophotography tests? It seems like the sony might be better than the sigma when you're are at F1.4-1.8, but then again you can process the RAWs.
Really like this video! (and all your others) Could you make a review on Sony FE 50 mm F2.8 Macro Lens (SEL50M28) interested to see your opinion on it, maybe even a comparison between that and the 90mm and/or sigma alternatives?
the sigma is $739 and I picked up a brand new Sony 50mm 1.4GM for $998 OTD at my local camera shop by stacking all 3 holiday promos for Sony they have. I went in to buy the Sigma 24-70 DG DN ii but when I realized how much I can save on the 50mm 1.4 prime I can get the 24-70 later on.
In Europe the price difference is 79% (!) 1699 € vs. 949 € incl. VAT. You actually get the 35 1.4 + the new 50 1.4 from Sigma for just 90 € more than what you pay for the Sony GM 50 1.4 alone.
Question... Is it worth shooting f4 for the OSS? or... more worth it if I shoot f2.8 or lower for better Image quality and low light performance? A7IV wedding videographer.
Hey Gerald, I just realized you never do Tamron lenses reviews right? Any reason why? Most of my lenses are Tamron which for the price/value that are usually the best option for E Mount
@@geraldundone ah sorry I remember that one about the 35-150mm review now! Also saw a cpuple other videos you did already. I haven't seen you reviewed others like the 28-200 which I found it to be a great travel lens, also those prime ones they released some time ago? Anyhow, I also saw they will soon release a 20-50 f2.0 so I hope you get to review that one too 😃 cheers from Germany!
The contrast of the sigma actually seems better, which creates the illusion of sharper images when viewing at normal sizes. I’d call the sigma lens the more character rich lens. It would have been nice to see some stills in here, thanks for the video
Is there a major difference between this one and the 50mm f/ 1.2 GM? I'm looking to get a 50mm and it would be mainly used for video. Would the better focus breathing make it a better option to go with the new f/ 1.4?
@@caleb.chosen Me too. I keep going back and forth. I rented the 1.2 recently and loved it... used it on a gimbal for about 5 hours. That being said, it was heavy compared to my other gimbal lenses and am trying to figure out if I want to sacrifice the 1/3 stop to have less sore arms.
I always have a question：every time Gerald would look at the side before he is getting undone, what is he looking at .?.????? before he gets undone?.?.??.?
9:17 That's a remarkable amount of longitudinal chromatic aberration on the sigma lens. Dark text has become red 😅 It seems that Sony 50 1.4 GM is worse on close distance, but its longitudinal may be better at a far distance.
Some points to make for anyone considering the two. The CA differences absolutely show up in the real world. In daylight the CA for the Sigma is absolutely terrible. It will fringe on the strange of edges, even on portrait work. Fingers, on the inside of jackets on the side of faces. (Which you can kind of fix in post, sometimes) But the price difference isn't 50%. The Sony version is DOUBLE the price of Sigma's variant. For someone who shoots photos for a living, I'd say it might be worth it to pick up Sony's because of the CA alone. But as a low light option, I think the Sigma does really well, and at half the price!
If we pixel-peep, yes, the Sony wins, however in the more real-life scenarios you presented, the sigma's image looks more natural to my eye, so i would probably take the sigma
This is just an FYI, OK? There is also an other 50mm e-mount lense, that you should consider and that is the Samyang 50mm 1.4 FE II. It's smaller than the new Sony GM 1.4 and lighter. it's aldo much less expensive. By the way, it's razor sharp. Here's the specs: weight: 419g. 80mmwide and 90mm long. The filter is 71mm. The cost is $589.00 list price...Not too shabby! Lastly, don't forget about the Sony 55mm 1.8. It's only 280grams, 70mm long and 64mm wide. Even if it's a little "long in the tooth" it's a razor sharp optic. You can pick up a used one for $550.00.
For the record sir you are BY FAR the best and most comprehensive photography channel IMO. Your attention to detail appeal to my engineering mind sir. Keep up the great work!
I am unsure if it makes sense to buy it in Europe. The 1.4 is 2000 euros and the 1.2 is 2300 euros. I think in Europe the 300 euros difference makes little sense... it should be closer to 500 euros to actually make sense
Interesting review. The fact that Sony is not publishing the MTF charts is ridiculous. I really wonder why. Maybe the charts don't look as good, because they rely too much on their in camera correction. They should have adopted the practice of publishing proper lens data sheets including mtf charts and other lens metrics as Zeiss has been doing for decades now. You can still download the data sheets for ancient Contax Zeiss lenses from the official Zeiss homepage. Of course Sony is not the only manufacturer that doesn't publish proper information, most don't do it nowadays.
I think the Sigma is around $900 and the Sony is around $1300? So I think it's not 50% less? Great review by the way. I always come here first. Always the best.
I have the Sony A7RIV and loads of GM lens. Why are all the images so clinical and all of the lens give the same clinical look and all images are characterless. My Leica M11 with summilux lens gives more character. What do you think about this ?
wow!!! and now Gerald has his video out... So fasT!!!!! oh hey, I love the NG section toward the end.... truly undone until you have NG parts in... and ya now you have done the 50mm ;) for price tag review I am looking forward to the Sigma F/2, but otherwise... Gerald's review is the one I like the best :P
So happy to see the old intro again!
Sony is killing it with their GM lenses, and Sigma is a fantastic price/performance balance for everyone else. Those on E mount are absurdly lucky with the available choices.
Lucky? The open and closed camera systems are well known for years. I bought into Sony because of that, even though in terms of camera bodies, I think that Nikon and Canon have the edge. But this edge disappears quickly if you have to downgrade your lenses to stay within budget.
I love how Gerald says “if you’re seriously considering buying one…”
You know we just watch you as entertainment at this point.
I haven’t even owned a Sony since 2021!
Saving everyone a bunch of time for this and every subsequent G master vs Sigma review:
“Overall the Sony is better optically and feels lighter and is a little smaller. However it costs 50% more but it’s not 50% better. Buy the Sony if you have the money, otherwise get the Sigma”
Always a joy watching Gerald's reviews and this one is no exception. Truly great lens by the way :)
The bloopers before the actual “aight, I’m done” made me smile. Keep Killin it Gerald ❤️
Sony should release a new 50mm 1.8 for under 600 bucks.....
And then they should release a 50mm f4 pancake at $200… and then a 50mm f1.0 at $3000 lolol
Right, there is no alernative for the $250 50mm 1.8. You still have to spend $1300 for their next 50mm. The gap is too large.
@@nightdonutstudio yeah I really wish the 50mm 1.8 was better because its really not that good, which doesn't leave a good impression for those starting out
The 50mm 1.8 was never a great lens and had not aged well in my opinion. Sony needs a good nifty fifty to complete with how affordable the canon RF 50mm 1.8
They have it. It's called the Sony Sonnar T FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA Lens
Whenever there's a new piece of gear hitting the RUclips release embargo I mosey my way over to Gerald's video to get the testing and opinions I can trust!
4:41 What's happening with the exposure as you are racking focus? Please tell me that's auto exposing based on focus point, because if not, Houston, we have a problem.
Lens design and manufacturing has gotten so good over the last few years, that if by some miracle, lens reviewers couldn't compare lenses at 200%, the only differentiators would be cost, size, weight, aperture range, and features. That would make for very short reviews.That being said, you really do great reviews.
True. It's simply because computer models are so good at calculating the behavior of light nowadays. In earlier years, engineers had to find the perfect lens design pretty much by trial and error, while nowadays they can get an immediate result within a few hours. It's amazing how cheap lenses have become that are better than anything produced in the 20th century.
Edit: Just looked at some MTF charts. The 50 f1.4 actually outperforms the 50 1.2 in the center and kills it from midframe to corners. So if you don't need the 1.2, it is a no brainer imo to go for the cheaper and lighter 50 1.4.
Sharpness is so close between the lenses that weight is becoming a far more crucial issue. The Sony 50 f/1.2 is ridiculously heavy for a prime and I hate carrying it. Will probably get the 50 f/1.4 which is more practical and some other lens with the extra money.
Lens design has gotten so good?! You do realize that lens design of 85%> of modern lenses has not changed for decades upon decades now?! You do realize that over 85% of all modern day lenses still to this day use aka. ''copy'' the ancient ''Planar'' and ''Sonnar'' lens designs from Zeiss, right?! Some copied it better and improved on it and some copied it just to copy it and make mediocre lenses... (Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, Laowa, etc...)
Also; Fun fact; The only reason ''GM'' line of lenses even exists in the first place is thanks to Zeiss-Sony partnership contract.
@@nogerboher5266 Really? That's a little like saying automobiles haven't changed over the last 100 yrs. You know, 4 wheels, steering wheel, seats, roof and an internal combustion engine, same ole same ole.
@@j16m02 I mean, that's objectively true too. Cars are incredibly regulated and uncreative now vs the past. The most popular colors are white and black now too.
You’re the most objective camera gear reviewer on RUclips. Thanks
I own the 50mm 1.2 GM and I would easily prefer this one: 1.2 version is bigger and heavier, and for amateur photographer like me size & weight is more important then an aperture difference
Size and weight matter for a pro as well, if you're lugging your crap around all day. I too have the 1.2 and wish I got this instead
Appreciate you making the point that, under laboratory conditions, the GM is the better lens but that for general photography (ie for 99% of your viewers), there isn't much in it. At one point it was like you were comparing the same lens against itself! I love your technical breakdowns but we mustn't forget that, ultimately, these lenses are being used for photography, not pixel peeping. With this in mind, I assume the Sigma is a better choice if budget is your main priority. Money no object? The GM. Another top notch review, thank you.
Thanks for yet another great video Gerald. The best part of the videofor me was the bloopers at the end. Have a great day dude!
4:25 Could sb tell me why light changed when focus changed (so much) with GM lens?
Could be peripheral illumination correction? The lens corrections were active when I was shooting the breathing test.
I can see this on Sigma but not that much, even the 50mm 1.2 ver and 35mm gm light changing when change focus is hard to noticeable. Hope thay still can fix it
i love that you put your recording trigger under the table in that spot because for a moment I was confused what you were reaching for. That was an entertaining moment.
The 50 1.2 is my favourite lens I’ve ever owned and I’ve not had a single issue with him. Happy to hear they’re expanding their range though. Now if they’d just release an updated 16-35…
Hi Evan glad to see you like Gerald's videos too. I found the GM 16-35mm to be super sharp, but haven't used it in a while so my opinion might be out of date. What would you like to see improved?
That should be coming later this year according to SonyAlphaRumors.
I'd love them to do their version of Canon's RF 15-35/2.8 L lens.
Good lens, just kinda big
That's a poor lens lol. U need to do more research. That lens trash
You are my one stop site for equipment reviews. I especially like when you do comparisons between lenses or cameras like you did in this video. You present the facts and dig into the features, especially IQ and give us examples. There are too many reviewers who sound like fan boys or sales persons. I like it when you give camera manufacturers some pushback. The way that they manipulate the release of features in one camera versus another to promote sales is a joke.
I'm glad Sony is making a quality 50mm for a much more approachable price point than the 1.2. The 1.2 is one of my favorite lenses, but the price tag is pretty steep and makes it out of reach for many photographers and videographers.
Unless you are in Europe. Here the 1.4 is priced at 2000 Euros and the 1.2 is priced at 2300 Euros. 300 Euros difference makes little sense, should be around 500 Euros difference
Fx30 and iv
@@nothingtobeconcernedabout7477 That is wild, here in the US the 1.4 is about 1300, while the 1.2 is 2000 USD. Can I ask a silly question, why are the prices so different? Is it because it's a new product? Import taxes? Would it be a "better" deal to buy in the US and pay the import taxes?
@@keith-knittel I think it is because of the timing of the release. The 1.2 was released when the Euro was stronger when compared to the dollar and the 1.4 is coming out now when the Euro is weak against the dollar. I think in Europe the lenses are always priced regarding conversion rates, never relative to the other products, so the heavy fluctuation influences the prices on top of the premium we pay in Europe. If you would import it you would probably face 35-40% import tax and fees as well as having a grey market lens which you could not get serviced here because it was bought in a different region than your residence
@@keith-knittel Our prices also include VAT, which is up to 27% depending on the country, so keep that in mind when comparing prices between US and EU. In Poland 50 1.4 GM is 1700€ with 23% tax and 1.2 is ~2150€. Hope for some cashback deals.
Nice thorough comparison (and I liked the bloopers at the end : ) . The close up sharpness relationship seems the opposite of the 35/1.4GM vs the 35/1.4DN. +50% cost is more like 100% in Euroland..well alternatives are nice
I bought the F1.2 about a month ago, kinda wish I bought this lens, the 1.2 is big and heavy, I would have saved a bit of cash buying this one but having said that, I'm not planning on selling the 1.2 for this.
Big same. Just got the 1.2 in december. I got lucky and got my 1.2 for lower price than this 1.4 but it only makes me want to sell it and buy the 1.4. The 1.2 is one thicc boi
Any thoughts on light transmission? Is the 1.2 a true 1.2, where it gives an extra 1/3 of a stop of light compared to the 1.4?
Great comparison Gerald and loved the outtakes at the end 😊
I wanted to comment and give you your 200th comment. Thanks for great reviews.
Size, weight, being able to use focus breathing compensation and 30 fps shooting does the GM more attractive. Although the Sigma looks very good too
Thanks for great comparison. It's sad to see that sigma has still that CA issue that it had with 1st version of 50 1.4 hsm art...CA is so obvious on the shots, disturbingly. GM did a great job, superior sharpness even at corners, almost none CA and shorter, lighter..it's just a better choice.
Great work Gerald. Thanks for all your hard work. I was wondering how do they compare in video af response?
so the a1 still doesn't have breathing compensation for sony lenses
If they are that close it is hard to spend that extra 50% for this lens. Thanks Gerald for another great review.
Gerald last blooper part was hilarious lol.. I didn't even notice when it ended.
I cannot wait to get this! The 500m f1.2 was just a little too heavy too me but finally the f1.4 seems like a great in between.
Man... Where did you get 500 meters focal lens lens? I bet it has 0,001mm depth of field and is quite big 😋
So sad I just bought the 1.2 LOL
The 50mm 1.2 GM was more like a 46mm or 47mm. I wonder if that's the case with the 50mm 1.4 GM.
Hello Gerald, a few 24-70 2.8 and 28-70 2.8 lenses were released since your last 24-70 video. Can we count on seeing a part two?👉👈
Oh Gerald I've ordered this and the 35mm 1.4 because of you, my wife's not happy but I'll just avoid her for the month
The size of the 1.4 is a bit more attractive vs the 1.2, but I'm going to stick with my Zeiss 55mm 1.8. Sharp, compact and reliable
I have the Zeiss too, but damn, I want that F1.4 as I often shoot low light (F1.2 is just a tad too expensive). I wonder if the bokeh is much better too and whether the subject separation is noticeably better fully open.
@@sydneydance bokeh wise, you really have to pixel peep in photos to find any difference. that extra 5mm compensates for the separation and there are many videos comparing the 1.2 to 1.8. At 1.2 the bokeh is footballed so you're gonna want to shut down to 1.8 to get the 1.2 round lol. So the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 will be even smaller than between 1.8. Low light and 67mm filter size are the pros of the 1.4 imo.
I would go 1.4 over 1.2 for sure due to size, but the 55mm is the travel king. It's a non factor when packing basically so I'm not upgrading yet. So many other cool lenses to spend money on
I too would do that same in your situation. The 55 is awesome
I think the only reason to go with the GM is if you’re a video shooter & need the focus breathing compensation (coming from someone who owns 4 GM’s). If you only shoot stills or don’t care about breathing, sigma is always a fantastic value 😁 I love my 85 DG DN
Overall agree, I do think GM’s autofocus faster & more accurately particularly for movement. 😉
@@johndavidtackett that’s a good point! I believe that 3rd party lenses are caped at lower FPS in high bursts as well, relating to AF.
@@johndavidtackett Not in video mode though , really the same , and the manual dampening / size of the sigma focus ring is is vastly better than the Sony's , they seem to have abandoned any sort of dampening for manual focus on their lenses , this is fine for stills of course , but not video.
Great review.
Thanks Gerald.
I love the new dg dn but if you already have the a1 and other GMs, best to grab the Sony. Wondering if the AF goes to 30
I’ve got the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM, just started watching this out of curiosity, wondering why release this one except I’m guessing it’s hundreds of dollars cheaper & a little lighter/smaller. LOVE the 1.2 and won’t change but love the content & being in the loop!
haha I'm the opposite. I wish I had the 1.4 instead of the 1.2
Samyang 50 1.4 ii is definitely worth considering for the price (40%), weight (100g lighter), and focus breathing control.
I’ve been looking at that one too. Love to see a comparison of the two squatty 50s! I’m sure Sony will be optically better, but Samyang seems to get overlooked by the other S’s.
From all I saw the main downside of the Samyang is the way slower AF. If you´re mainly shooting portraits in a controled setting that might not be a big deal and go for the Samyang. But I´m shooting weddings and other events and would definitely go for the new Sigma instead because I need fast AF.
The bloopers at the end made my day😂😂😂
I ordered it. Its to good.❤ Their GM lenses are fantastic!
Note ProAVtv had published their video comparing against the Samyang/Rokinon 50mm and the Sigma as well
I'm thankful Mr. Gerald came along long before the now upon us generation of content where the presenter may or may not even be human. Otherwise, wouldn't we ALL have to ask ourselves "Is this man a machine, or is the machine a man, or....
At this point I think the options are so close, there's really only one sensible consideration when choosing: Are you a professional and a member of Sony Pro Services? If yes - get the Sony. If no - get the Sigma (or Tamron) equivalent.
@Pat's Production Hacks You're missing the point, which was that the image quality differences are so minor to be nonexistent. Therefore it would be sensible for a hobbyist to go with the third party options, because they deliver equal quality for less money. A professional, who, should disaster strike, depends on the fast repair turnarounds that Sony Pro Services offer may want to stick with the GMs for that reason.
If you're a hobbyist who wants to waste money on the name brand to compensate for their small genitalia though - go right ahead. :D
What about resale value? Which one would do better?
Hey man, I need your thoughts on something. I bought the ZV-e10 about a year ago. It is 24mp and obviously an apsc camera. I just purchased the Sony a7 IV, but I only have apsc lenses, so if I were to use my current lenses with it I would have to put in apsc mode at 16mp. Are the mega pixels what I should focus on, meaning I should use the ZV-e10 until I get FF lenses? OR since the a7 IV is a far superior camera otherwise, use it with the apsc lenses?
Could you compare the Sony 1.2 GM and 1.4 GM?
If you care about size and weight, 1.4 is the obvious choice
Wow Sony GM ❤
Hi Gerald !!
I am a family photographer here in Australia and I am struggling to find a new lens to bring my work into a next level !!! I currently have a Sony a7iii with a 85mm 1.4 and a 35mm 1.8 lenses. I really love the 35 (I use 80% of the time) but I prefer the quality and the depth of the 85 😅😅
Im looking for something between 35-50mm or a zoom lens with a very high standard, sharpness and quality image.. Any recommendations ???
I was going to sell my actual sony 35mm to buy the new sigma 35mm f1.4. but your video changed my mind hahahahha
I wonder if the Sigma lns on a Sony body loses any camera features. I also wonder which is better for video. (I have an FX30).
I called it... Actually Sony went cheaper than I thought. I was so sure about they will price it $1398 have the same size and weight as my 35 f1.4 GM. Great job Sony, now this is a lens I am very interested in purchasing...
Hi Gerald, great comparison. Sorry for newbie question, I was wondering whether to invest in this 50mm/f1.4 or rather just take Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM II instead. I know prime lenses usually better and f1.4 is superb. But looking at the cost if needed to choose between 50mm/f1.2 and 50mm/f1.4, I'd probably choose 50mm/f1.4, however the 24-70mm f2.8 GM II kinda more options and need to sacrifice the f1.4, yet the price different can be justified and I tested the 24-70 GM OSS II sharpness using A7RV is amazing. Which one do you think you might choose? or none of them. 😀
I would definitely pass on the 1.2 unless you get a killer deal
SONY is INSANE. They have Seven (7) 50mm lenses in their line up; nine (9) if you count the 40 and 55 which many will consider "standard" lenses.
Sony 40mm/2.5 G
Sony 50mm/2.8 Macro
Sony 50mm/2.5 G
Sony 50mm/1.8 OSS E
Sony 50mm/1.8 FE
Sony 50mm/1.4 ZA Zeiss
Sony 50mm/1.4 GM
Sony 50mm/1.2 GM
Sony 55mm/1.8 ZA Zeiss
Nice comparison with real world vs benchmark testing. Did you do any low-light / astrophotography tests? It seems like the sony might be better than the sigma when you're are at F1.4-1.8, but then again you can process the RAWs.
Thank you for all of your hard work over the years!
Can you do Zeiss 55mm vs new SONY 50mm 1.4 GM
Really like this video! (and all your others)
Could you make a review on Sony FE 50 mm F2.8 Macro Lens (SEL50M28) interested to see your opinion on it, maybe even a comparison between that and the 90mm and/or sigma alternatives?
Hi Gerald, Which camera and microphone do you use to film your youtube videos?
the sigma is $739 and I picked up a brand new Sony 50mm 1.4GM for $998 OTD at my local camera shop by stacking all 3 holiday promos for Sony they have. I went in to buy the Sigma 24-70 DG DN ii but when I realized how much I can save on the 50mm 1.4 prime I can get the 24-70 later on.
I was so confused at the end with why it seemed like he was putting his hands down his pants....hahaha then realized must be a stop/start trigger..😂🤣
In Europe the price difference is 79% (!) 1699 € vs. 949 € incl. VAT. You actually get the 35 1.4 + the new 50 1.4 from Sigma for just 90 € more than what you pay for the Sony GM 50 1.4 alone.
Question... Is it worth shooting f4 for the OSS? or... more worth it if I shoot f2.8 or lower for better Image quality and low light performance? A7IV wedding videographer.
Hey Gerald, I just realized you never do Tamron lenses reviews right? Any reason why? Most of my lenses are Tamron which for the price/value that are usually the best option for E Mount
Type "Gerald Undone Tamron" into RUclips. You'll see my videos on those lenses. 👍
@@geraldundone ah sorry I remember that one about the 35-150mm review now! Also saw a cpuple other videos you did already. I haven't seen you reviewed others like the 28-200 which I found it to be a great travel lens, also those prime ones they released some time ago? Anyhow, I also saw they will soon release a 20-50 f2.0 so I hope you get to review that one too 😃 cheers from Germany!
Question is, how the sigma AF holds up in the field in comparison. Eye-AF on a couple shoot, ...
The contrast of the sigma actually seems better, which creates the illusion of sharper images when viewing at normal sizes. I’d call the sigma lens the more character rich lens. It would have been nice to see some stills in here, thanks for the video
Is there a major difference between this one and the 50mm f/ 1.2 GM? I'm looking to get a 50mm and it would be mainly used for video. Would the better focus breathing make it a better option to go with the new f/ 1.4?
I’m wondering this as well
@@caleb.chosen Me too. I keep going back and forth. I rented the 1.2 recently and loved it... used it on a gimbal for about 5 hours. That being said, it was heavy compared to my other gimbal lenses and am trying to figure out if I want to sacrifice the 1/3 stop to have less sore arms.
The only review I am watching!
This is off topic but, do you still recording your youtube videos using HLG?
There are now two awesome 50/1.4 options on E mount.
I always have a question：every time Gerald would look at the side before he is getting undone, what is he looking at .?.????? before he gets undone?.?.??.?
9:17 That's a remarkable amount of longitudinal chromatic aberration on the sigma lens. Dark text has become red 😅 It seems that Sony 50 1.4 GM is worse on close distance, but its longitudinal may be better at a far distance.
Any news about firmware updates released for cameras?
Some points to make for anyone considering the two. The CA differences absolutely show up in the real world. In daylight the CA for the Sigma is absolutely terrible. It will fringe on the strange of edges, even on portrait work. Fingers, on the inside of jackets on the side of faces. (Which you can kind of fix in post, sometimes)
But the price difference isn't 50%. The Sony version is DOUBLE the price of Sigma's variant. For someone who shoots photos for a living, I'd say it might be worth it to pick up Sony's because of the CA alone. But as a low light option, I think the Sigma does really well, and at half the price!
If we pixel-peep, yes, the Sony wins, however in the more real-life scenarios you presented, the sigma's image looks more natural to my eye, so i would probably take the sigma
Damn it! I wish this was announced before I pre-ordered the Sigma.
Cancel it?
Cost and physical size aside, the Sony F 1.2 or F 1.4 ?
Thanks for doing the proper intro! Please don't ever leave that off.
This is just an FYI, OK? There is also an other 50mm e-mount lense, that you should consider and that is the Samyang 50mm 1.4 FE II. It's smaller than the new Sony GM 1.4 and lighter. it's aldo much less expensive. By the way, it's razor sharp. Here's the specs: weight: 419g. 80mmwide and 90mm long. The filter is 71mm. The cost is $589.00 list price...Not too shabby! Lastly, don't forget about the Sony 55mm 1.8. It's only 280grams, 70mm long and 64mm wide. Even if it's a little "long in the tooth" it's a razor sharp optic. You can pick up a used one for $550.00.
The Sony 55 is a great lens with fast AF for video and stills and I'm glad I got it. I couldn't see upgrading.
The 1.2 has been a game changer for me
Please do a comparison with the Nikon 50mm f1.2! Otherwise you are the best!
For the record sir you are BY FAR the best and most comprehensive photography channel IMO. Your attention to detail appeal to my engineering mind sir. Keep up the great work!
Which is the best in sharpness ? 1.2 gm or 1.4
I would definitely consider the GM if my A7siii had breathing comp, but that’s not going to happen is it.
You can fix it post...
The weighing motion was crazy at 1:35 🤣
The bloopers are funny but it looks like you're groping yourself each time haha
This a very balanced lens for my wallet and my gimbal.
Thank you for sharing it. ✌️
I am unsure if it makes sense to buy it in Europe. The 1.4 is 2000 euros and the 1.2 is 2300 euros. I think in Europe the 300 euros difference makes little sense... it should be closer to 500 euros to actually make sense
1.699€ in the EU is rather steep.
Interesting review. The fact that Sony is not publishing the MTF charts is ridiculous. I really wonder why. Maybe the charts don't look as good, because they rely too much on their in camera correction. They should have adopted the practice of publishing proper lens data sheets including mtf charts and other lens metrics as Zeiss has been doing for decades now. You can still download the data sheets for ancient Contax Zeiss lenses from the official Zeiss homepage. Of course Sony is not the only manufacturer that doesn't publish proper information, most don't do it nowadays.
after each bad take you put right hand under table....why. ?? or shouldn't I ask !!
How much is it?
Come on Sony, release the beast that is 85mm 1.2
I think the Sigma is around $900 and the Sony is around $1300? So I think it's not 50% less? Great review by the way. I always come here first. Always the best.
He didn't say it's 50% less. He said it's 50% more. You know how percentages work, right?
1:33 - Juggling jugs Gerald!
I have the Sony A7RIV and loads of GM lens. Why are all the images so clinical and all of the lens give the same clinical look and all images are characterless. My Leica M11 with summilux lens gives more character. What do you think about this ?
I'll stick with my 35mm f1.4 GM. But nice 50mm option from sony.
I going to buy one.
Sigma looks excellent for real world photography. That said the GM price isn’t outrageous.
wow!!! and now Gerald has his video out... So fasT!!!!! oh hey, I love the NG section toward the end.... truly undone until you have NG parts in... and ya now you have done the 50mm ;) for price tag review I am looking forward to the Sigma F/2, but otherwise... Gerald's review is the one I like the best :P