Sigma 50mm 1.2 DG DN vs Leica 50mm APO SL Summicron | Who Makes the Best 50mm lens?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 เม.ย. 2024
- In this video, we compare the new Sigma 50mm 1.2 DG DN against the Leica 50mm APO SL Summicron
Presets - www.barrerastudios.com/presets
Image Samples - www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/t9g2ex...
Instagram - @Barreraphoto
#leicasl3 #sigma #leica - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![ไม่ต้องมีที่ที่ให้ฉันอยู่ แต่ขอแค่มีฉันอยู่ก็พอ (Spaceless) - getsunova [SHORT FILM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MuT0d_cvJkc/mqdefault.jpg)
Great review!! Thank you a lot!!!
Thanks for these free files to compare and the review! I compared them and must say I am astonished how close they are.I think the sigma is the lens to take considering you have the 1.2 as well!
Thanks. Any chance of a corners comparison? I kind of expected the middle 60% to be close.
I think I might go for the Sigma. I like the Sigma image better actually.
The Summilux-SL is a tank, yes, but the rendering is worth the carry. That’s coming from someone who owns the Summilux-SL as well as the 21, 35, 50 and 75 APO Summicron-SLs. FWIW, don’t try the 75mm APO - you’ll end up buying it ;)
👍 thank you for your recommendation. Because of saving money i bought first the Art lenses. Now i want to start with APO. But now, i will start with the 75 💪. Thanks from germany, Carsten from the old Villa Petersberg
I have the same setup, just the 21 is missing 😊
Need to compare this to the Leica SL - Summilux. I use the 50 Summilux on my SL3 all the time and it is amazing. The summilux is a beast and worth every penny. I haven't had good luck with any of the Sigma lenses. I print my files at 24"x36" and then 40"x60" I can correct the color cast from the Sigma but I do not like it,
Thank you, but what about the corners or "mid field"?
How was the autofocus speed comparison? Did you find the 50mm f1.2 was faster in autofocus speed against the APO?
Also how did you find the AF accuracy to tracking subjects between the two lenses?
In my experience working with the APO’s and the Art lenses I found that the APO lenses tended to AF slower than the Sigma and it felt like it was due to the lens design and lots of glass being moved around. I found the difference in AF speed to be different. I also found AF tracking to be inconsistent on the APO especially with eye AF where the Sigma Art lenses seem to do better. Did you get a chance to test some of this out?
I haven’t done in depth testing but I can say the Sigma felt faster to focus every single time.
Thank you for sharing your comparison and providing RAW files for close examination.
I notice that Sigma displays a tiny bit more lateral CA manifesting in green color fringing. They also differ in flare style, but I wouldn't jump to a conclusion that Sigma loses contrast compared to Leica. Sigma's focus plane is clearly a little closer to the camera making the rear tire look blurrier (shots ending with 098 & 095).
At f/2.0 the image quality is nearly identical. I wouldn't be able to distinguish the two in a blind test. Both are plenty sharp at f2 to cause aliasing on a 60MP sensor.
Which lens focuses faster / louder?
I would say the Sigma is both faster and quieter to focus.
Wow the details in your sample pictures are insane! Is SL3 the same amount as A7R V?
I think so! But the sensor with lenses like this truly make it shine
Great comparison! I wish there was some comparison of edge sharpness and auto focus as well.
Is the Sigma weather sealed like the Leica? For me this is a big point too
Alex, great video! Another comparison that I would be very interested in is Leica 50 APO vs Sigma 50mm f2. You have compared Leica 50 non-APO before, but it would be very interesting to see Leica APO vs the Sigma smaller and lighter lens, both at f2. Of course Leica will be better, but by how much?
Please compare the 50mm S Pro vs the SL and the Sigma. The S Pro has extraordinary sense of volume.
Thank you for the wonderful review! I would also like to watch a comparison between Sigma, canon and Sony's 50mm f/1.2.
What a likable, congenial video an review, thank you sir and best of luck to you.
Alex, thanks for this comparison! I’ve been waiting for it. Need an autofocus 50mm for my SL3. I agree that the 1.2 offer more flexibility than the 2.0 APO. The APO is sharper, brighter and images pop a bit more. Getting an almost equal 1.2 for 30% of the APO’s price is pretty appealing. Even used the APO is $3,800. So it’s likely the Sigma for me.
They’re both great lenses. I’m sure it’s going to be hard to find a reviewer that does it, but if you do a lot of high contrast black and white conversions, the APO should show significant differences. It’s a very specific use case and I’m still on the fence about picking up the Sigma 50 1.2 (even though I already own the Summilux-SL and APO Summicron-SL).
I feel like at this point if you opt for the APO it’s just for the flex. I love Leica glass but for almost 4k more the difference has to be more than that…
@@georged3553 I have the M-50mm APO. I know it won't be quite as good as the SL version, but I suspect it will be just fine if I need an APO.
The APO has better contrast but that's something that can be adjusted.
Would it be possible to make a video comparing the color of the sl2 vs sl3 vs m11. Also any chnace or reviewing the sl2 silver, its absolutley stunning
That’s a very expensive video 😂
@@ABarrera I'll take this as a no 😅
I don't have the M11 but the SL2 and SL3 are almost the same. The SL3 holds more detail in underexposed situations, maybe one stop maybe two.
It's important when comparing lenses capable of such fine detail that you measure the T-stop on an optical bench in order to ascertain if you are actually shooting at f2 with either lens. In your first photo for example, the Sigma's background highlights look much brighter than the Leica - making it difficult to compare the two.
Ah! Would like to see some more direct sunlight shots. Into the sun, vivid colors like bright blue , purple, orange, red & maybe some nightime neon sign city shooting to help viewers make a decent decision. I wouldn't expect the same results with the price point given for both lenses. But heh, thanks for the vid. I'm surprised Leica doesn't have a A-Ring on the lens. A programable function button would be nice at this stage of the game considering the changes they made to the SL3. Anywho, if your gonna go Leica, go all the way! Just MHO. Hapy shooting.
PS; Take it easy with the weights, looks like your ready to pop a vien!😊
Absolutely not worth $3800, based on these comparisons, the Leica is pure highway robbery.
I have Leica lenses: many M, all of their TL lenses, and one SL (some bought new or used). Based on their performance I’ll likely pick up a few more SL lenses.
I also have several Sigma DGDN contemporary L-mount lenses (slower and more compact than their Leica counterparts). They’re terrific and I can see getting more. Sigma is doing a great job.
I visited Leica’s home base in Wetzlar. They seem to pay their staff a living wage, which is important to me.
You misspelled “snobbery” 😊 - totally agree.
*MAYBE* $2,000 for the APO at the most.
There’s a lens with basically the same image quality but costs 600: nikon 50mm f1.8
@@IR-xy3ij I had that lens and it’s not in the same league as the Leica APO-Summicron-M 50 mm f/2. I had a lot of Nikon glass, and that lens didn’t survive the cut. I haven’t tried the SL 50, but it presumably outperforms the smaller and lighter M version.
@@johnkasianowicz6536 You should go to their websites and check the mtf yourself. None of the rangefinder lenses comes close to the performance of any mirrorless lens due to the size constraints. This includes the m apo summicron, and if you pixel peep you will find the midfield to be a bit blurry compared to a modern mirrorless 50. The SL apo summicron measures almost identically to the nikon one because it no longer has the size constraints and on top of costing more, it has a smaller aperture.
great comparison. I would have liked to see something in focus in the corners of the x100 pix
I must be more of a techie because I definitely miss numbers here. You speak eloquently about the differences in size - but you could more clearly explain all of that in a second by showing the weight differences in grams and the actual size differences in millimeters. From your photos, I found the Sigma to have a touch more contrast - especially noticeable on the "Foundation" lettering on your Cyber Truck.
I would have loved to see photos that covered fine details across the entire field of view so we could examine corner sharpness and contrast. Many reviewers show changes in flare by shooting video while moving the view back and forth with the sun in the frame. This immediately shows ghosting or flaring that may occur but only at certain angles.
For portraiture, I think the Sigma is the winner here for its excellent bokeh and ability to shoot at f1.2 with excellent sharpness.
Tried a 28mm and 50mm for doing interviews. Was disappointed about AF noisy and slow for video. Leica should update AF on the APO lenses 🙏🏼
Is the summicron 1-2% better? No it clearly has worse bokeh which is visible even at a global level without pixel peeping
Literally each picture the Leica pops more. Microcontrast?
Yes, apochromatic lenses usually have this kind of character.
Nice review. Now shoot some portrait :)
The apo has the swirly effect... and this makes the Sigma better IMO
> My brand new cyber truck
My man's doing alright. 😂
Great video! I think the micro-contrast/3D pop on the leica was noticeable on the texture on the fuji grip. Reminds me of a zeiss lens. If you have the zeiss 55 1.8, might be fun to compare.
I definitely like the Leica image better, just a little better, and not nearly enough to shell out the extra money to buy the Leica over the Sigma. If I were allowed to choose either of these two lens as a gift, I would choose the Leica . However, if I’m paying out-of-pocket, Sigma, here I come!
the Sigma is excellent but the Leica is outstanding. The Leica rendering the object is more dimensional even watch it on ipad. no need 200% to tell.
Gonna be the 50 for me, just for the looks alone lol.
Thanks for the time to make the comparison. Leica APO is the winner from your pictures. It is most evident against backlit harsh light. I think if you put it on a SL1 sensor the ability to resolve details will be more obvious on a lower res sensor for APO. Repeatedly I tell others that it will capture details like you using a 100MP Hasselblad despite mounted on a Gen 1 SL. No sigma or other brands can come close. Is it worth the cash? That is not the question. Try: which will you take if you have the choice of Leica vs sigma for free. I bet you no one will say Sigma. 😂
Thats too easy question. Everyone sane woudl pick Leica. But the only reason why 'no one will say Sigma' is that you can just sell Leica, buy Sigma 50mm f1.2 AND Voightlander 50mm f/2 (which have even better sharpness and more contrast against bright light than Leica 50mm f/2) and still have enought money left for a Sigma DG GN 85mm f/1.4 Art for example.
Better question would be: If you would own both, which one would you take with you more often? And then I am not sure what it would gravitate to. There are optical flaws in Leica desing that are not present on Sigma (manifested as swirly and generally more busy bokeh), that alone would make many people prefer Sigma. Also having f1.2 is a huge advantage that would make a lot of people choose Sigma. Its overall better general use lens. That Leica looks more like special cases lens - if you are shooting specifically against the sun, Leica maintain the contrast. Or if you want that swirly bokeh for artistic reason, leica is an obvious pick (well, if those two lenses are the only options).
@@anupew3276 I dont think you speak for me regarding "selling leica to buy Sigma and voig". And I can already think of a long list of folks whom I know will stand by my perspective also. I also challenge your comment about better sharpness and contrast as ask for your source from validated tests. I further invite you to look at microcontrast which is praised for APO SL lenses. And to answer your final question - i would pick APO SL anytime anyday over sigma because of its ability to render details like a medium format lens on a 24mp sensor. On a SL3 60mp - it is really obvious and sigma can stand aside. The optical flaws in Sigma is obvious. the only "point" it wins over is the f1.2 which is very hard to make and perfected. Compare to Nikon 50 1.2 it is disappointing. Leica hasnt released one because they know it is not easy to make without ticking boxes. The fact that Sigma makes lenses with the same optical formula for various mounts and sensors means they are not specialised for the said sensors. This is why third party will always be behind and we should always buy native lenses for native sensors as they are made like tailored shirts for the body. Think about it..
@@Reddotshutter Thats fine, I was just providing other view, contradicting the essence of 'no one will say sigma' statement as there are objective reasons why sigma is better in several important aspects. Then, as always, its only about your preference and needs. But still, everyone reasonable would pick Leica because of its price and if Sigma is their pick, they would sell Leica and buy Sigma and have 2000$ left for anything else.
Sigma is a very good lens even for 60MPx sensor. It doesnt have problems with sharpness used with high resolution sensors as demonstrated used on A1 or A7RV. And it lacks the optical flaws and deformations of Leica.
Optical design is always about tradeoffs and preferences. You mention that Nikon 1.2 is sharper, but that is true only in centre of an image. At centre its possibly the best 50mm f1.2 lens I have seen results of so far. But its sharpness fall off significantly further from centre you go. In that regard Nikon is a disappointment, significantly less sharp mid frame and edge compared to all their main competition in 50mm f/1.2 lenses - Sigma, Canon and Sony. IMO the midframe sharpness is the most important. You almost never compose your subject directly in the centre.
As for Voightlander - I have seen few comparison videos (same format as this one) and Voig was better. A little bit sharper in general (miniscule difference really, simmilar to this comparison), even better controled contrast when shooting against sun and doesnt have that swirly bokeh deformation. Only downsides are lack of weather sealing and no autofocus. Again, if AF is important you wouldnt pick Voig (and that is also another argument for Sigma)
@@anupew3276 i am curious - what optical flaws are you referring to regarding APO SL lenses next to Sigma?
I think folks will pick Leica over Sigma. Even Sigma folks like yourself and sell Leica. But it means you know the value of theses lenses and the demand in the second hand market. What created this demand then? Simply the red dot? or that there is an audience who sees value. The APO SL lenses isnt what Leica is well known for btw. Leica M lenses are unique in that it renders images differently. Optical flaws perhaps but the rendition has a butter smooth look with details retained in the shadows. So the APO SL is a different blueprint and amongst Leica camp - it is not the mainstream appetite either. So what keeps the value appreciation in the market? if not for its optical results. In fact the SL system is so annoying slow in AF, the cameras will not stand a chance in the mirrorless market if not for the APO SL lenses.
At the end of the day, I wont judge you, or sigma. We have our own preferences and valuation. The value of APO SL, like it or not, is an objective fact supported by market demand, which i interpret as preferences for its optics despite the shitty AF and skyhigh price next to Sigma.
@@Reddotshutter Leica have optical flaws clearly visible in how out of focus area is rendered. Leica is often also bought for the 'leica glow' effect which is optical flaw by itself. Its a matter of taste. If you want optically most accurate lenses, there are Sony GM. A lot of people dislike them for it, because they are just too clinical. Dont get me wrong, having optical flaws arent always bad, they might give interesting character as you describe. Personally I like quirky lenses, one of my favorites 50s are Helios 44 line which also produce that swirly bokeh that this Leica also does (just on Helios its more pronounced and also main reason why they are so popular). I also have several modified lenses for extreme artistic effects. But I only use them on special occasions and wouldnt choose them as a 'general use lens', hence not worth the price.
As for market value you can (and should) look at the market differently - how much value lens retains over time? At this moment I see listings for Leica as low as 1599GBP, so 2000$. And a lot of them are around 3000$, Thats 40-60% value lost, indicating that its not really that sought after item and seller must offer significant discount over original price to find any buyer. Honestly I havent looked at it before and just expected that it would be between 4500 and 4000 concidering most of really good lenses loose something like 20% of value and this is a really good lens.
'leica follows new design language - no buttons, no switches, clean, modern design'... Well I would say modern design is what Sigma does. Control buttons, control switches, dedicated aperture ring. That Leica is clean, but modern? Honestly, I would say it looks like cheap entry-level prime and kit lenses from DSLR era or current cheap prime lenses from chinese manufacturers.
Leika bokeh rendering reminds me old vintage lenses with that quite pronounced circular deformation, its not optically as perfect as Sigma, but gives an interesting effect(although If I would be aiming for that effect I would probably still pick Helios 44-2 instead for even more pronounced swirls).
Light transmission on f/2 seems to be better on Leica (which I think is the reason it pops more and seem to have better contrast in some of those shots. But in some, like at 11:40 it does opposite and darker Sigma looks more contrasty in that situation) and colours are more neutral (new Sigma lenses always do warm colours).
That performance against sun on Leica is amazing.
I would say its quite mixed. Sigma is better in out of focus and flexibility due to f/1.2, Leica is better against bright light and more natural colours. Otherwise I would call it tie and not worth that price hike...
Of what I understand about microcontrast, you'd see it better represented on an object with varying curvature surfaces rather than hard edge ones like on a Cybertruck or vintage style camera.
Be careful photographing your Cybertruck it could cause damage to the surface of it. (LOL).
Very good video. I disagree that the Leica is 1-2% better. It’s clear even through TH-cam compression the Leica images just look better to me. There’s a brightness and pop of contrast that the Sigma lacks. This is still a great showing for Sigma and the lens it’s definitely excellent, but the Leica is better by more than 1-2%. I was disappointed I didn’t see one human subject in your test.
I have seen 3 or 4 videos of this guy testing Leica lenses, he is always blind to the differences between lenses. In the coments there very few people that tell him he is missing color, brightness and other differences.
@@cavb748 maybe people aren’t watching videos on a large 4K screen that’s calibrated. I am. The differences were so clear to me. Watching these on a phone or crappy laptop/tv isn’t going to do it.
@@LeicaGeekYes, maybe, but in my iPhone with the screen full of dirt the differences are obvious. Maybe some people see what they want... Non of us wants to pay the Leica tax, but it's the only tax that I would pay with a smile.
As you can see at 11:40 Leica have significantly less pop and worse contrast than Sigma on the 'foundation' text.
Its just that Leica have maybe around 1/3 to 1/2 stop better light transmission at given aperture, so its brighter than Sigma and in overall darker scenes Leica pops more and seems to be more contrasty. And most of the examples the subject is the darkest part of image. But when your subject is light already, it works other way around and less exposed Sigma gets the edge. Nothing that you wouldnt fix in post or control by exposure compensation while shooting.
Sigma has more 3-D pop
You must mean the Leica. Leica is on the right, Sigma on the left ;)
Especially at f1.2.
@@Whaever_1981No, I meant the Sigma on the left. It is the first thing I saw being differnt between the two lenses at F1.2. For whatever reason the Sigma makes the camera pop out more (video time stamp 5:07), at least to my brain 😊
@@guilfordterminalYes, indeed, that was what I meant, thanks for adding
@@patrickvandervalk9622 That's so funny, because I have the exact opposite experience at 5:07 and closer shots ;)
The apo bokeh looks better. The thing is almost every lens review does what he did, zoom into the bokeh and try to analyze it. It's like taking a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and eating a spoonful of jelly and reviewing the taste. Like ok fair enough, but the whole point is how that taste fits into the entire sandwich flavor profile. IE if the chef designed it to compliment the specific peanut butter and bread, then take a full bite talk about how the jelly fits in.
Point being, let your eye wander back and forth between the subject and the out of focus area and notice how that "looks" or "feels". Do this with every lens you test/are interested in. There is a gorgeous chemistry between the subject and oof areas on the SL apo primes that I haven't seen in other lenses.
:D
Huh. I really think the Apo-Summicro gives that more refined, almost intangible magic to the image that the Sigma doesn’t quite achieve. That’s always what you pay triple for, unfortunately.