I can't even justify those prices when back in the day the nifty fifty was a kit lens for film cameras. Even with DSLR, they were cheaper : 100-200€. Nowadays, for example a Nikon Z 50mm 1.8 is damn expensive
@@bobamarmstrongThose old 50mm had loud, lousy af, lots of ca and no sharpness, especially in corners. Look at the sony 50mm 1.8. That's your modern day dslr equivalent. It gets hated on.
Another big difference that needs to be considered is the size and weight. The Sigma is significantly bigger and heavier than the Sony. Ergonomics and usability should not be discounted if you are investing in a lens. The physical experience of actually using a lens can have a major impact on the sort of photos you are producing.
I won't buy any of those as I don't switch to full frame. But again it is to highlight how good Sigma performs against the R&D behemoth named Sony. That 97.5% percent package against the GM makes sense for most of the FF enthusiasts out there, so I wish Sigma strong sales - they deserve it!
Hi Arthur! I discovered your channel recently when I was looking for information about what camera I was going to buy, because I was undecided between some models I could afford. First video that stroke me was "Starting on a budget" because you demystify A LOT of myths in that video, I loved it, especially when you talked about your family and that buying the best gear available isn't make you a better photographer. I feel the same with this one, an honest, plain approach and what most of us, average people will think and need. I saw a lot of videos these past weeks and a lot of people reviewing cameras and lenses, but the questions you make at 8:30 are what set you apart from all what I have seen. Most of us not need more, and certainly, not a that price. And probably, most of the time, we can't tell the difference between these if you don't put the caption on the bottom. Thank you! I please, don't lose that down-to-earth honesty that makes you unique.
The REALLY good news is: Sony doesn't sabotage competition, not even direct 1:1 competition. Neither via reducing AF performance, nor via legal actions (such as misusing mount patents for keeping a thumb on competition). Instead, Sony seems confident enough to take on the challenge to better competition via performance. This is how it should be, dear Canon and Nikon, shouldn't it? 😉
Goodies such as above 15 fps burst and focus breathing compensation were taken off, just to say. Still among the big names Sony has been the most generous.
I tried out the 50 1.2 on my A7RV a few weekends ago shooting hockey and it was spectacular. If the 1.4 is sharper edge to edge that blows my mind and is hard to believe. Great job to Sigma on creating such an amazing lens at a reduced cost. I'll try them both out before buying but I think I'll get the Sony because of breathing compensation and faster mechanical shutter speeds.
The 50 1.2 seems to perform better on 30 lpmm but 50 1.4 kills it in the 50 lpmm difference (basically this tests lens detail whereas something like 10 line pairs per mm tests for contrast). Optically I do think the 50 f/1.4 is better. But all these lenses are complete overkill if you ask me. The last thing you want is a portrait lens that is too sharp and show off every little pores on the face. For landscape things a 50 mm is not versatile enough compared to a zoom. So I would never buy a midrange prime lens worth 1.5 to 2k. You can get similar results with an apsc Sigma 56 and even that's often too sharp for portraits.
Its tough from two perspectives. I have to wait until May to get the Sony. I have the Sony 24mm GM f1.4 already which I love with my A7IV. I also shoot video so the Sony (because of the breathing compensation that is needed, but I have, would seem to be needed). However, the Sigma, a tad larger and heavier, but the quality looks to be like the Sigma F1.4 DGDN Art and it is already out, so that is a tough call. I don't think you can go wrong either way!
Thank you for the test, it's really detailed...HOWEVER, one thing that keeps the Sony from showing even more of a difference with the Sigma is that you are using the Sony A7C, which, being another version of the A73, is now two generations behind tech-wise... using the 50/1.4 GM with the A7IV, A7RV or A1 will definitely show even quicker response AF-wise, resolution will be a bit more noticeable... but the final big difference: Sony will not let any non-native lens shoot above 15 fps, which is literally half the max rate you can get with the A1, and 75% of the A9/A9II....
Personally, the nifty factor feels gone. These lenses are protruding and for street photography, seems inconvenient. It grabs attention immediately. Said that which e-mount lens would you recommend for street photography that's nifty as well? Great comparison video. Owner of 85mm Sigma and it's just so so sharp.
The not-too-big-lens-streetphoto-50mm community is currently holding their breath for a rumoured Sigma 50mm f2. Maybe from their I series? Could be a nice one, too.
Sony 28mm f2. If you need a bit more reach, punch in with aps-c mode to get about 45mm equivalent. On an A7iv, aps-c mode still yields 12MP photos which is usable for 99% of scenarios.
The sigma 45mm f2.8 is more suited for that. Smaller, lighter and since you're outside you shouldn't need the 1.4 aperture since light is probably plentiful and you'll be stopping down anyway to get more things on focus
I hardly use the 50mm, so I would choose the Sigma over the Sony. There is not enough difference between Sony and Sigma performance-wise to justify the cost gap. Great comparison video.
I'm a fan since Tech Mafia, I would like to see more full-frame glass content paired with APSC content, and some valuable information about practical usage. I love your vids
I bought the Sigma on the day it was released in Germany and I am sooo happy with it. The Sony lens seems to be a very good choice, too, but it was just much too expensive for me (for a 50mm f/1.4).
I think the only downside with the Sigma is chromatic aberration. The size and weight can bee justified at this price. Samyang 50mm f/1.4 Mark II could've been a good option if it didn't have quality control issues that affected the Autofocus, but then again, it's only a few hundred bucks cheaper than the Sigma and doesn't seem it's worth the risk. It's tough to decide.
I own the sigma 85 f1.4 art for Sony. Its tack sharp and has zero CA. I shoot back lit a lot and it amazes me how good the lens is. Main downside is the very soft and incredibly easy to mark metal the lens is made from.
Agreed on the Samyang 50mm f1.4 II, tried it in effort to save some money as I found it on sale for less than $500 but the AF was really hit or miss. When it hit, the images were great but it was soo inconsistent, sometimes not focusing at all that I gave up on it. Didn't trust it and felt I would regret not spending a little more for peace of mind.
That would be interesting indeed, but on the a7c it would be in 10mp crop mode so a fair comparison would be to shoot all three lenses on sony aps-c. The 56mm sits on my a6100 most of the time. I was actually able to get a somewhat respectable picture of the moon today with an insane crop wide open at 1.4
Which is for APS-C and does not give the same field of view as a 50mm on full frame. So why would you compare them? If you shoot APS-C neither of these lenses should even be considered.
I saw a review of the 1.4 vs the 1.2 and the bokeh differences are that the 1.4 bokeh is American football shaped, whilst the bokeh on the 1.2 is more soccer ball shaped. I also heard that the size of the 1.2 makes it so damn heavy that it's tiring to carry and shoot with for a long day. For me, the plus also is that it has a 72mm filter size which is the same as my other lenses. I think I'm tempted by the 1.2 (in my case), as that bokeh needs to be soccer ball shaped IMHO.
I found the subject far more flattering through the Sigma in almost every shot. At 3:33 the sigma practically gives her a facelift: features are slimmer, jaw line more defined, cheekbones lifted. Sony is rounding her out in an unflattering way. At 4:43 I also found the difference quite vast. Far more magic in the Sigma. She pops from the frame. Glowing. Whereas I find the Sony to be quite forensic. Sharp for the sake of sharp. I'd describe Sony lenses like a Vulcan from Star Trek. Technically correct, but lacking charisma. Just my two cents. Great breakdown as usual, Arthur.
You are so dang right, I can't unsee it! Sigma wins the portrait aspect - they actually advertise on their product page "The highest level of expressive performance" - no exaggeration it seems.
After inspecting this, I conclude this is an illusion from the sigma having - an ever-so-slightly lower contrast, and - a quite strong warm (yellow-orange) color cast, both of which work out well for this specific type of woman: Especially the warm color cast makes her hear (and skin) glow golden, very inviting. But this would be only relevant for those who refuse to do even the slightest post-processing to their RAW photos. I assume though, that users who purchase rather expensive lenses, are also post-processing experienced users, who would do at least some basic post-processing, so that these color effects are available to the Sony lens users, as well, with very little effort, if desired.
@@tubularificationed I agree. There is simply no way a lens can give a "face lift" in any universal and applicable way. There's simply sharpness, focal length, color cast, distortion, microcontrast, chromatic abboration, number of blades, bokeh quality, and size. That's it. No magic. No mystery 3d pop or face lift feature behind the scenes. I love the Sigma for the value, but this is all optimistic bias and overextrapolating (regarding the comment above, not yours).
A lens isn't going to give a "facelift" lol. Let's use our brains for a second here. You can clearly tell in all the pics (especially 4:01) that the Sony has a slightly wider focal length. Remember that manufacturers are not 100% precise when defining focal lengths or even apertures. That also affects the compression of the faces and the background. This is also why the Sigma has a slightly more blur out of focus elements as the longer the focal length, the more the background gets magnified. Even a 200 F4 lens will produce more blur than a 50 1.4.
I’m sticking with Sony primes.It’s expensive but worth it.Also the filter size is identical to my 24mm prime.I was going to buy the 1.2 but was glad that they came out with the 1.4 Some $ savings there.Happy shooting.
Wow I didn't expect this comparison to be so close and be surprised just how good that sigma is. We can all look at test charts for all we care but lets face is we get a 50 1.4 for portraits and man this sigma is surely going to win over many people. Honestly since I have the 50 1.2 which has just incredible rendering, if one does not have a 50 1.4 or 1.2, they could easily go with the sigma and be super happy. Those more picky about that OOF rendering go with the 1.2. I too have to agree that the sigma gives bit smoother bokeh compared to the sony; a typical side effect of very sharp lenses but not always (sigma 85 1.4 dg dn is an exception).
I have the same camera so can you please tell me, can we raise the shutter rate to 120 or 60 by using any non native lens like Sigma 55mm 1.4. I am asking because I saw some people writing this in a comment box
@@bhavyasoni4370 if you select 30 fps shoot then select 60 sutter rate. It means double shutter speed. Example, 30p=60st, 24p=48st, 60p=120st, 120p=240st This setting apply when use gimbal. If you not use gimbal then shutter speed set higher 200-500 shutter speed. But loss natural Motion blur.
The one big problem with the Sigma lenses is the build quality. I LOVE my sigma 85 f1.4 art lens but is has so many little marks on it. Chips on the body that means if I was to sell the lens, it's value is halve what it should be. None of my GM lenses, which are treated the same have any marks at all. it's not just the odd chip it must have a least 20. Yes it's all metal but it's very soft metal .
ANY lens being as sharp as either of these wide open, especially the sony, is just beyond incredible. The wonders of tech and innovation pay off handsomely
I've been noting this difference in bokeh quality in just about every review and comparison I've seen so far. Sigma just renders tiny bit prettier images to my eyes. Couldn't care less for corner sharpness wide open. And the size/weight difference isn't that too bad.
Thanks for a great down to earth as always honest review. My concerns are always about the quality of the lens with my Sony system and I have many Sigma Art and S Series lenses now, and have had the pleasure of a few great Sony lenses including 1 GM, which got damaged😢. I had 2 Olympus EM1 bodies before Sony and loved shooting tiny primes. It was great for my bag and for my back so its insane that I have and use the 105 Art for Sony, and the 35 f1.2 Art for Sony, and I love the S Series for weight and feel. Long story short is that it's more complex to decide on a lens when you have to plan a bag of tools, not just one lens. Sony pro level lenses are usually small light and great but hugely expensive. Sigma pro level lenses are great and getter better and smaller. Samyang is inching up the ladder, Tamron is innovating, Venus Optics is creating. I dont care who is better, we all win for choice. 🎉
Let's hope the rumors about new Sony cameras coming soon are right then I can entertain the idea of getting one of those lenses. At the moment I still use my aged Canon M50.
I went with the Sigma because the bigger your lens at a photo shoot, the more you get paid. But seriously, even with a budget that’s not too constrained, I can’t justify that much more for the Sony went images look about the same (from what I’ve seen that just in your video but others). The 50mm 1.4 is a photo lens for me. I have a GM 16-35 for video with focus breathing compensation on my A7iv.
I shoot a lot of portrait work and when I moved from Nikon to Sony, the only 50mm my local camera shop had was the f/1.2 GM. I ended up buying it, and really haven't had any buyer's remorse. However, all my other primes are Sigma; the 20 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, and 85 f/1.4, all DG DN A versions. The question: keep the $2000 50mm beast, or sell it and pick up the "completionist purchase" in the 50 f/1.4 DG DN A, as well as about $750 back in the pocket?
Hi Arthur, don’t know if you will see this, but I’m interested in buying the Sigma soon through your links (give you something back for your incredible advice) but I’m from the U.K and they are US links. Is there anyway around this? Many thanks.
Arthur, you have a beautiful wife and a very tolerant one to be your subject so often in your reviews. I enjoy your reviews because they aren't pixel peeping and looking at a corner at 200% to see if there is sharpness. I have to admit I prefer the Sony because I prefer cooler to warmer colors most of the time. I don't know your wife personally so I don't know if the warmer or the cooler color matches her coloring. However, both are great and both could be adjusted in post to what one likes. To me the sony looks sharper but that is really hard to see in compressed youtube video. Thanks for doing these. Also thank your family for "playing along" so happily!!
The Voigtlander VM 50mm f2 APO is razor sharp and adapts well to Sony. Less expensive and I'm sticking with that one for the time being. AF not a key criteria for me.
Voigtlander do make an E mount of that 50mm APO with electronic contacts. It's £20 more (here in the UK) than the Sigma though. I had the opportunity to use one recently as I like Voigtlander and manual focus. Not for me (I love my E mount 40mm f1.2) but it was very sharp.
@@creative_cozmic I got the VM because I run Leica and Sony bodies. TBH the 40mm focal length is a favourite of mine too. The 50mm f2 APO is almost too sharp sometimes.
i bought the sony 50mm f1.8 to test i pretty surprise by the quality of the images , i love primes lens but i don't know if will need to get a GM or a sigma 😅. I already got the 24-70mm GM II with my sony A7iv 😊
That’s interesting the way the warmth of the two lenses seemed to flip flop from one portrait setting to the next. I too remember the old (and current) days of cheap 50mm f1.8s. These seem many magnitudes better but oh those prices!
The Sigma is almost UNUSEABLE FOR VIDEO though, as it's focus by wire an doesn't have linear response (If it's anything like the other DG DN models). Great review for stills shooters though.
I'd say that comparing color of the lenses when shooting jpgs is not very useful, unless you're using manual white balance. Also, hard to compare the sharpness of the lenses on a lower resolution body - it seems like both lenses are outperforming the sensor here. That said, the photo at 4:22 (off-centre portrait) shows more sharpness/texture in the Sony lens. Finally, sigma shows more chromatic aberrations, including but not limited in the bokeh.
I bought the Sony version because of the focus, breathing compensation compatibility and sharpness in the corners. I got it refurbished for $1100 on Amazon
Why are these lenses so ridiculously heavy? NIkon's 50mm 1.4 for its DSLRs is under 300g and Canon's classic 50mm f1.2 is 580g, but it's a 1.2. These mirrorless cameras are lighter and smaller than FF DSLRs, which makes these uber heavy (for a 50mm) lenses very unbalanced in the hand.
I do own 3 50mm, just on a different platform (Canon RF): - 1.8 @ a price of 200: the by far most used of those three, great fun shooting, great results, very compact - 2.0 Macro at a price of 1000: Oh boy f2.0 in closeups, Zeiss colors, built quality (but MF) - 1.2 @ a price of 2000-2700: Yes, the IQ is special, all is great, but size, weight and price is massive. Conclusio: The 1.8 costs less than some filters of the big one, it is a no brainer to purchase. Usage is basically universal. Those with special interests beyond know how to spend the money ...
I'm starting my full frame journey soon. I don't mind paying more if it is worth that much more (I.E the Sony 15MM 1.4 APS-C lens was worth the extra money over the Sigma 16mm 1.4) But in this case I am going with sigma. Sony's lens is not worth 450 extra dollars here since they are basically the same size and the image quality needs to be scrutinized under an electron microscope to see the difference.
It seems the biggest conclusion about colour is that the camera body seems to offer the most (white balance), variation rather than one lens over the other. In general a very pragmatic review, that paints the Sigma as better value comparing price to performance. For high frame rate photography, or video work perhaps the balance swings back to even on later Sony bodies. Thank you.
It''s not quite twice as much. The SONY is 50% more expensive. I actually find the fringing on the bokeh more objectionable than a slightly more defined bokeh (which is easier to smooth out in post). Nevertheless, since i don't do a lot of video (and if I did, I'd probably get a zoom lens for that) and I'm not a pro (so I can't write it off for tax purposes) I'd get the Sigma. It's a superb lens (minus the occasional fringe decorated bokeh).
The size and weight difference seems pretty significant to me. I’d go with the Sony if I were buying one of these. I already have the f/1.2 though, which I really enjoy.
You should learn what chromatic aberration is. On the photos side by side Sony clearly wins, but you confuse purple flare with chromatic aberration. I was surprised to see that Sigma has another bokeh though
I got a sigma 24-70 for my a7iii... I was extremely disappointed by it.. my kit lens works better, and so does my cheap viltrox. Idk if I just got a bad one, or what.. but it's kinda heartbreaking.
Hi sir i have a question can you please look upon. Actually i have sony zve10 and i want to use a non native lense that is sigma 56mm 1.4 so does using this lens affect the shutter speed, mean i want to make slow motion video with 1/120 or 60 so does using this non native lens allows me to set the shutter speed to desired level?
3:11 - Artur, AC has nothing to do with coatings :) I bet you know about that and it was just a silly mistake but as you are doing voice-over you should catch that :P ;) thanks for the comparison, very informative!
Appreciated this review. Fair and on point. I went with the Sigma for my Sony A7III. At the end of the day price matters to me and I i can be in the ball park of Clean crisp photos, then I can live without Sony's slight extras that come along with the Sony price tag. Although for most Photography, Sony is my go to. Welcome Sigma!
Definitely wins Sigma. Why? Optical quality is almost the same, and a lot cheaper than Sony. The only advantage of Sony over Sigma is compactness and lower weight, but nothing too significant. In US market Sigma is for $450 (around 30%) cheaper than Sony, but outside US Sigma's price is just half (50%) of Sony's lens. For this difference in price you get another top quality Art prime lens from Sigma (35 or 85 with f/1.4).
I remember times, where the 50mm lenses were "boring"! Now, the Hype has being heated up again, but not with me, I am staying with my excellent little C/Y Zeiss PLANAR T* 1,4/50mm!
I thought you were in CenTex watching the video on the Lake a while ago, but the Agape BBQ tells me you definitely are! Howdy neighbor. Love your videos.
Testing with an older 24mp camera will not show the true potential of the Sony wide open. Test in on an A7IV as a bare minimum. The A7C has a low pass filter as well.
You know Leitz lenses cost an arm and a leg because they are still mostly hand assembled. Whether that means that their resulting price gives you that much more bang for the buck is a personal decision. However, most of the other lenses are built by robots by and large. One should get a better price than we see. Sony lenses particularly have a bonus addon especially if they are GM. I guess the real cost driver for these "robot" manufactured cameras is supply vs demand. The photography market is relatively small and getting smaller. The remaining photographers often led by the youtubers want "perfect" lenses. So, "perfect" lens manufacture in small amounts with small demand yields high prices. Much of the profit for the manufacturer is on subsequent lens purchases. I remember than the Leicaflex was sold Leitz lost money on each camera that they sold (in spite of their cost). They hoped to make up the difference in lens purchases. I don't believe that much has changed in the "top" lens market.
Great comparison! 👍🏼
In Germany it's almost a no brainer which one to get. The price gap here is enormous (Sigma 950€ vs Sony 1700€)
I can't even justify those prices when back in the day the nifty fifty was a kit lens for film cameras. Even with DSLR, they were cheaper : 100-200€. Nowadays, for example a Nikon Z 50mm 1.8 is damn expensive
@@bobamarmstrongThose old 50mm had loud, lousy af, lots of ca and no sharpness, especially in corners. Look at the sony 50mm 1.8. That's your modern day dslr equivalent. It gets hated on.
Another big difference that needs to be considered is the size and weight. The Sigma is significantly bigger and heavier than the Sony. Ergonomics and usability should not be discounted if you are investing in a lens. The physical experience of actually using a lens can have a major impact on the sort of photos you are producing.
Especially if using for video and putting it on a gimbal
If only the Sony was at $950 or so.....most people would buy it without even blinking.
You can buy a Sony Zeiss 1.4/50 mm for $999 without even blinking
It's not as sharp and the autofocus isn't as good @@kirillkrylov6674
I won't buy any of those as I don't switch to full frame. But again it is to highlight how good Sigma performs against the R&D behemoth named Sony. That 97.5% percent package against the GM makes sense for most of the FF enthusiasts out there, so I wish Sigma strong sales - they deserve it!
Hi Arthur! I discovered your channel recently when I was looking for information about what camera I was going to buy, because I was undecided between some models I could afford. First video that stroke me was "Starting on a budget" because you demystify A LOT of myths in that video, I loved it, especially when you talked about your family and that buying the best gear available isn't make you a better photographer. I feel the same with this one, an honest, plain approach and what most of us, average people will think and need. I saw a lot of videos these past weeks and a lot of people reviewing cameras and lenses, but the questions you make at 8:30 are what set you apart from all what I have seen. Most of us not need more, and certainly, not a that price. And probably, most of the time, we can't tell the difference between these if you don't put the caption on the bottom. Thank you! I please, don't lose that down-to-earth honesty that makes you unique.
The Sony also focus down to 41 cm vs 47 on Sigma, something to consider for some of us. Thank you for the comparison!
Good review. I’m still on Sony a6500, but if I had a full frame and needed 50 mm lens, I’d select the Sigma since I’m not a professional photographer.
The REALLY good news is: Sony doesn't sabotage competition, not even direct 1:1 competition. Neither via reducing AF performance, nor via legal actions (such as misusing mount patents for keeping a thumb on competition).
Instead, Sony seems confident enough to take on the challenge to better competition via performance. This is how it should be, dear Canon and Nikon, shouldn't it? 😉
Goodies such as above 15 fps burst and focus breathing compensation were taken off, just to say. Still among the big names Sony has been the most generous.
Actually other brands AF is not as good as a native lens. Even if it’s minimum.
I tried out the 50 1.2 on my A7RV a few weekends ago shooting hockey and it was spectacular. If the 1.4 is sharper edge to edge that blows my mind and is hard to believe. Great job to Sigma on creating such an amazing lens at a reduced cost. I'll try them both out before buying but I think I'll get the Sony because of breathing compensation and faster mechanical shutter speeds.
The 50 1.2 seems to perform better on 30 lpmm but 50 1.4 kills it in the 50 lpmm difference (basically this tests lens detail whereas something like 10 line pairs per mm tests for contrast). Optically I do think the 50 f/1.4 is better. But all these lenses are complete overkill if you ask me. The last thing you want is a portrait lens that is too sharp and show off every little pores on the face. For landscape things a 50 mm is not versatile enough compared to a zoom. So I would never buy a midrange prime lens worth 1.5 to 2k. You can get similar results with an apsc Sigma 56 and even that's often too sharp for portraits.
Its tough from two perspectives. I have to wait until May to get the Sony. I have the Sony 24mm GM f1.4 already which I love with my A7IV. I also shoot video so the Sony (because of the breathing compensation that is needed, but I have, would seem to be needed). However, the Sigma, a tad larger and heavier, but the quality looks to be like the Sigma F1.4 DGDN Art and it is already out, so that is a tough call. I don't think you can go wrong either way!
Thank you for the test, it's really detailed...HOWEVER, one thing that keeps the Sony from showing even more of a difference with the Sigma is that you are using the Sony A7C, which, being another version of the A73, is now two generations behind tech-wise... using the 50/1.4 GM with the A7IV, A7RV or A1 will definitely show even quicker response AF-wise, resolution will be a bit more noticeable... but the final big difference: Sony will not let any non-native lens shoot above 15 fps, which is literally half the max rate you can get with the A1, and 75% of the A9/A9II....
Personally, the nifty factor feels gone. These lenses are protruding and for street photography, seems inconvenient. It grabs attention immediately.
Said that which e-mount lens would you recommend for street photography that's nifty as well?
Great comparison video. Owner of 85mm Sigma and it's just so so sharp.
The not-too-big-lens-streetphoto-50mm community is currently holding their breath for a rumoured Sigma 50mm f2. Maybe from their I series? Could be a nice one, too.
The 55mm f1.8, what I use for street photography.
Sony 28mm f2.
If you need a bit more reach, punch in with aps-c mode to get about 45mm equivalent. On an A7iv, aps-c mode still yields 12MP photos which is usable for 99% of scenarios.
The sigma 45mm f2.8 is more suited for that. Smaller, lighter and since you're outside you shouldn't need the 1.4 aperture since light is probably plentiful and you'll be stopping down anyway to get more things on focus
beautifully explained,Glad you reviewed Jpegs and not preset edited pictures. All Questions answered. Subscribed !
I hardly use the 50mm, so I would choose the Sigma over the Sony. There is not enough difference between Sony and Sigma performance-wise to justify the cost gap. Great comparison video.
What camera r u using?
As a video shooter, it’s sony for me. The smaller size, focus breathing compensation and linear response manual focus are invaluable to me.
Was your color temperature fixed? That can account for differences in perceived warmth.
I went with the sigma as the Sony is only available in may-june. It is the perfect 50 mm and I really enjoy using it.
Comes out in June but you enjoy using it? WTH are you talking about Willis?
I'm a fan since Tech Mafia, I would like to see more full-frame glass content paired with APSC content, and some valuable information about practical usage. I love your vids
I bought the Sigma on the day it was released in Germany and I am sooo happy with it. The Sony lens seems to be a very good choice, too, but it was just much too expensive for me (for a 50mm f/1.4).
I think the only downside with the Sigma is chromatic aberration. The size and weight can bee justified at this price. Samyang 50mm f/1.4 Mark II could've been a good option if it didn't have quality control issues that affected the Autofocus, but then again, it's only a few hundred bucks cheaper than the Sigma and doesn't seem it's worth the risk. It's tough to decide.
I own the sigma 85 f1.4 art for Sony. Its tack sharp and has zero CA. I shoot back lit a lot and it amazes me how good the lens is. Main downside is the very soft and incredibly easy to mark metal the lens is made from.
Agreed on the Samyang 50mm f1.4 II, tried it in effort to save some money as I found it on sale for less than $500 but the AF was really hit or miss. When it hit, the images were great but it was soo inconsistent, sometimes not focusing at all that I gave up on it. Didn't trust it and felt I would regret not spending a little more for peace of mind.
Great review and comparison!
Would love to see the Sigma 56MM C from the Sigma Trio in the mix. A 1.4 lens that can be had for around $250 used.
That would be interesting indeed, but on the a7c it would be in 10mp crop mode so a fair comparison would be to shoot all three lenses on sony aps-c. The 56mm sits on my a6100 most of the time. I was actually able to get a somewhat respectable picture of the moon today with an insane crop wide open at 1.4
Which is for APS-C and does not give the same field of view as a 50mm on full frame. So why would you compare them? If you shoot APS-C neither of these lenses should even be considered.
@@TechnoBabbleMany photographers shoot both FF and aps-c and use FF lenses on aps-c, so one could compare the optical qualities for this use case.
@@TechnoBabble Im an APSC shooter, and this channel does a lot of APSC content. Thats why I mentioned it.
Ordered the Sigma, will test it arrives and hopefully it's good enough. If not~ gonna save up and get a used Sony 1.2
How is the Sigma?
@@AWAShowme It is a good workhorse and is so far my favourite lens.
I saw a review of the 1.4 vs the 1.2 and the bokeh differences are that the 1.4 bokeh is American football shaped, whilst the bokeh on the 1.2 is more soccer ball shaped.
I also heard that the size of the 1.2 makes it so damn heavy that it's tiring to carry and shoot with for a long day. For me, the plus also is that it has a 72mm filter size which is the same as my other lenses.
I think I'm tempted by the 1.2 (in my case), as that bokeh needs to be soccer ball shaped IMHO.
always enjoy your honest opinion and feedback at the end of every lens comparison with a "real world" perspective
I found the subject far more flattering through the Sigma in almost every shot.
At 3:33 the sigma practically gives her a facelift: features are slimmer, jaw line more defined, cheekbones lifted. Sony is rounding her out in an unflattering way.
At 4:43 I also found the difference quite vast. Far more magic in the Sigma. She pops from the frame. Glowing. Whereas I find the Sony to be quite forensic. Sharp for the sake of sharp. I'd describe Sony lenses like a Vulcan from Star Trek. Technically correct, but lacking charisma.
Just my two cents. Great breakdown as usual, Arthur.
Very interesting perspective, I can see that.
You are so dang right, I can't unsee it! Sigma wins the portrait aspect - they actually advertise on their product page "The highest level of expressive performance" - no exaggeration it seems.
After inspecting this, I conclude this is an illusion from the sigma having
- an ever-so-slightly lower contrast, and
- a quite strong warm (yellow-orange) color cast,
both of which work out well for this specific type of woman: Especially the warm color cast makes her hear (and skin) glow golden, very inviting.
But this would be only relevant for those who refuse to do even the slightest post-processing to their RAW photos. I assume though, that users who purchase rather expensive lenses, are also post-processing experienced users, who would do at least some basic post-processing, so that these color effects are available to the Sony lens users, as well, with very little effort, if desired.
@@tubularificationed I agree. There is simply no way a lens can give a "face lift" in any universal and applicable way. There's simply sharpness, focal length, color cast, distortion, microcontrast, chromatic abboration, number of blades, bokeh quality, and size. That's it. No magic. No mystery 3d pop or face lift feature behind the scenes. I love the Sigma for the value, but this is all optimistic bias and overextrapolating (regarding the comment above, not yours).
A lens isn't going to give a "facelift" lol. Let's use our brains for a second here. You can clearly tell in all the pics (especially 4:01) that the Sony has a slightly wider focal length. Remember that manufacturers are not 100% precise when defining focal lengths or even apertures. That also affects the compression of the faces and the background. This is also why the Sigma has a slightly more blur out of focus elements as the longer the focal length, the more the background gets magnified. Even a 200 F4 lens will produce more blur than a 50 1.4.
Quick question is the sigma 50mm compatible with the lumix gh5?
I’m sticking with Sony primes.It’s expensive but worth it.Also the filter size is identical to my 24mm prime.I was going to buy the 1.2 but was glad that they came out with the 1.4 Some $ savings there.Happy shooting.
Wow I didn't expect this comparison to be so close and be surprised just how good that sigma is. We can all look at test charts for all we care but lets face is we get a 50 1.4 for portraits and man this sigma is surely going to win over many people. Honestly since I have the 50 1.2 which has just incredible rendering, if one does not have a 50 1.4 or 1.2, they could easily go with the sigma and be super happy. Those more picky about that OOF rendering go with the 1.2. I too have to agree that the sigma gives bit smoother bokeh compared to the sony; a typical side effect of very sharp lenses but not always (sigma 85 1.4 dg dn is an exception).
Sony zve10 + sigma 56mm 1.4 + ronin sc
Portrait video test please ♥️
I have the same camera so can you please tell me, can we raise the shutter rate to 120 or 60 by using any non native lens like Sigma 55mm 1.4. I am asking because I saw some people writing this in a comment box
@@bhavyasoni4370 if you select 30 fps shoot then select 60 sutter rate. It means double shutter speed. Example, 30p=60st, 24p=48st, 60p=120st, 120p=240st
This setting apply when use gimbal. If you not use gimbal then shutter speed set higher 200-500 shutter speed. But loss natural Motion blur.
The one big problem with the Sigma lenses is the build quality. I LOVE my sigma 85 f1.4 art lens but is has so many little marks on it. Chips on the body that means if I was to sell the lens, it's value is halve what it should be. None of my GM lenses, which are treated the same have any marks at all. it's not just the odd chip it must have a least 20. Yes it's all metal but it's very soft metal .
ANY lens being as sharp as either of these wide open, especially the sony, is just beyond incredible. The wonders of tech and innovation pay off handsomely
he's using a 24mp old body, sharpness gap will be huge if he did use 60mp camera body.also af speed is much faster on a7iv-r5 etc.
Great review man! You guys look like you have so much fun when you do these reviews together
I've been noting this difference in bokeh quality in just about every review and comparison I've seen so far. Sigma just renders tiny bit prettier images to my eyes. Couldn't care less for corner sharpness wide open. And the size/weight difference isn't that too bad.
i think the sigma is an adapted lens right ? i think it wasn't re-invented for mirrorless
Hi, guys. I want to buy the Sigma 50mm 1.4 DG DN Art, but I am an ASP-C camera user. So, can I use this Sigma lens on my Sony a6700?
The Sigma also leans warmer? The sony color rendition is a bit flatter I feel
Great comparison! Thanks🤙
I am new to photography. Just had a doubt. It is fixed at 50mm? We can't use it for indoor?
It's great for indoor due. It's wide aperture.
Thanks for a great down to earth as always honest review. My concerns are always about the quality of the lens with my Sony system and I have many Sigma Art and S Series lenses now, and have had the pleasure of a few great Sony lenses including 1 GM, which got damaged😢. I had 2 Olympus EM1 bodies before Sony and loved shooting tiny primes. It was great for my bag and for my back so its insane that I have and use the 105 Art for Sony, and the 35 f1.2 Art for Sony, and I love the S Series for weight and feel. Long story short is that it's more complex to decide on a lens when you have to plan a bag of tools, not just one lens. Sony pro level lenses are usually small light and great but hugely expensive. Sigma pro level lenses are great and getter better and smaller. Samyang is inching up the ladder, Tamron is innovating, Venus Optics is creating. I dont care who is better, we all win for choice. 🎉
Let's hope the rumors about new Sony cameras coming soon are right then I can entertain the idea of getting one of those lenses. At the moment I still use my aged Canon M50.
I went with the Sigma because the bigger your lens at a photo shoot, the more you get paid. But seriously, even with a budget that’s not too constrained, I can’t justify that much more for the Sony went images look about the same (from what I’ve seen that just in your video but others). The 50mm 1.4 is a photo lens for me. I have a GM 16-35 for video with focus breathing compensation on my A7iv.
Then get the samyang from online market and get 14 days free return in case of problems
Great review, thank you! One can not really tell when doing a blind A-B test!
I shoot a lot of portrait work and when I moved from Nikon to Sony, the only 50mm my local camera shop had was the f/1.2 GM. I ended up buying it, and really haven't had any buyer's remorse. However, all my other primes are Sigma; the 20 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, and 85 f/1.4, all DG DN A versions.
The question: keep the $2000 50mm beast, or sell it and pick up the "completionist purchase" in the 50 f/1.4 DG DN A, as well as about $750 back in the pocket?
i sold the 50mm 1.2GM and went with the 50mm 1.4 DG DN Art - I haven't regretted the decision for a second
Hi Arthur, don’t know if you will see this, but I’m interested in buying the Sigma soon through your links (give you something back for your incredible advice) but I’m from the U.K and they are US links. Is there anyway around this? Many thanks.
Arthur, you have a beautiful wife and a very tolerant one to be your subject so often in your reviews. I enjoy your reviews because they aren't pixel peeping and looking at a corner at 200% to see if there is sharpness. I have to admit I prefer the Sony because I prefer cooler to warmer colors most of the time. I don't know your wife personally so I don't know if the warmer or the cooler color matches her coloring. However, both are great and both could be adjusted in post to what one likes. To me the sony looks sharper but that is really hard to see in compressed youtube video. Thanks for doing these. Also thank your family for "playing along" so happily!!
Could the white balance differences be due to AWB
The Voigtlander VM 50mm f2 APO is razor sharp and adapts well to Sony. Less expensive and I'm sticking with that one for the time being. AF not a key criteria for me.
Voigtlander do make an E mount of that 50mm APO with electronic contacts. It's £20 more (here in the UK) than the Sigma though. I had the opportunity to use one recently as I like Voigtlander and manual focus. Not for me (I love my E mount 40mm f1.2) but it was very sharp.
@@creative_cozmic I got the VM because I run Leica and Sony bodies. TBH the 40mm focal length is a favourite of mine too. The 50mm f2 APO is almost too sharp sometimes.
@@bradl2636 Some people love APO lenses but to me they are a bit too sharp for my tastes and bordering on clinical compared to the 40mm I own.
@@creative_cozmic Oh sure APO can be too sharp... right tools for right tasks... personally I find razor sharp focus is overrated but has its place.
i bought the sony 50mm f1.8 to test i pretty surprise by the quality of the images , i love primes lens but i don't know if will need to get a GM or a sigma 😅.
I already got the 24-70mm GM II with my sony A7iv 😊
That’s interesting the way the warmth of the two lenses seemed to flip flop from one portrait setting to the next. I too remember the old (and current) days of cheap 50mm f1.8s. These seem many magnitudes better but oh those prices!
He's probably just using auto white balance. Variance can be quite huge if so, especially when outdoors.
The Sigma is almost UNUSEABLE FOR VIDEO though, as it's focus by wire an doesn't have linear response (If it's anything like the other DG DN models). Great review for stills shooters though.
I'd say that comparing color of the lenses when shooting jpgs is not very useful, unless you're using manual white balance. Also, hard to compare the sharpness of the lenses on a lower resolution body - it seems like both lenses are outperforming the sensor here. That said, the photo at 4:22 (off-centre portrait) shows more sharpness/texture in the Sony lens. Finally, sigma shows more chromatic aberrations, including but not limited in the bokeh.
I bought the Sony version because of the focus, breathing compensation compatibility and sharpness in the corners. I got it refurbished for $1100 on Amazon
Still a great channel you have, folloving you since you started with technologymaffia? Was this the name?
That extra bulk for the Sigma is the only reason im leaning towards the Sony.
Gotta have the straight lines of 50mm and for some larger vehicles, the sharp corners of the Sony. When taking automotive photos.
Why are these lenses so ridiculously heavy?
NIkon's 50mm 1.4 for its DSLRs is under 300g and Canon's classic 50mm f1.2 is 580g, but it's a 1.2.
These mirrorless cameras are lighter and smaller than FF DSLRs, which makes these uber heavy (for a 50mm) lenses very unbalanced in the hand.
I do own 3 50mm, just on a different platform (Canon RF):
- 1.8 @ a price of 200: the by far most used of those three, great fun shooting, great results, very compact
- 2.0 Macro at a price of 1000: Oh boy f2.0 in closeups, Zeiss colors, built quality (but MF)
- 1.2 @ a price of 2000-2700: Yes, the IQ is special, all is great, but size, weight and price is massive.
Conclusio:
The 1.8 costs less than some filters of the big one, it is a no brainer to purchase. Usage is basically universal.
Those with special interests beyond know how to spend the money ...
Great comparison!!
Great comparison, it's amazing how good is the Sigma lens.
I'm starting my full frame journey soon. I don't mind paying more if it is worth that much more (I.E the Sony 15MM 1.4 APS-C lens was worth the extra money over the Sigma 16mm 1.4) But in this case I am going with sigma. Sony's lens is not worth 450 extra dollars here since they are basically the same size and the image quality needs to be scrutinized under an electron microscope to see the difference.
Has the Sony a7c updated the focus compensation function? For 50 1.4GM
It seems the biggest conclusion about colour is that the camera body seems to offer the most (white balance), variation rather than one lens over the other.
In general a very pragmatic review, that paints the Sigma as better value comparing price to performance.
For high frame rate photography, or video work perhaps the balance swings back to even on later Sony bodies.
Thank you.
Jpegs off the body would explain the variation. Same shot at the same color temp settings on raw will be virtually identical.
I have 50mm 1.2 still watching this video 😢
It''s not quite twice as much. The SONY is 50% more expensive. I actually find the fringing on the bokeh more objectionable than a slightly more defined bokeh (which is easier to smooth out in post). Nevertheless, since i don't do a lot of video (and if I did, I'd probably get a zoom lens for that) and I'm not a pro (so I can't write it off for tax purposes) I'd get the Sigma. It's a superb lens (minus the occasional fringe decorated bokeh).
The size and weight difference seems pretty significant to me. I’d go with the Sony if I were buying one of these. I already have the f/1.2 though, which I really enjoy.
You should learn what chromatic aberration is. On the photos side by side Sony clearly wins, but you confuse purple flare with chromatic aberration.
I was surprised to see that Sigma has another bokeh though
Thank you. I've been waiting for this comparison.
what about the noise about the sigma when filming ?
I got a sigma 24-70 for my a7iii... I was extremely disappointed by it.. my kit lens works better, and so does my cheap viltrox. Idk if I just got a bad one, or what.. but it's kinda heartbreaking.
Hi sir i have a question can you please look upon.
Actually i have sony zve10 and i want to use a non native lense that is sigma 56mm 1.4 so does using this lens affect the shutter speed, mean i want to make slow motion video with 1/120 or 60 so does using this non native lens allows me to set the shutter speed to desired level?
I bought the Sigma as I needed it sooner than later. No regrets not spending more on the GM.
Pardon my ignoramce, but isnt the DG DN for apsc cameras?
I’m desperate waiting for signa tobrelease the 50 f2dgdn… and hoping it will be as good as their 65!…
did you review this: Sony - FE 50mm f/1.8 Standard Prime Lens for E-mount Cameras
3:11 - Artur, AC has nothing to do with coatings :) I bet you know about that and it was just a silly mistake but as you are doing voice-over you should catch that :P ;) thanks for the comparison, very informative!
Thank you. Nice comparison video 👏🏼 Beeing a newbie in Fujifilm ecosystem I wish you were in also (*sigh*). 🇹🇷👋🏼
lol. you should totally work the pop-up test into all further videos.
Yes , it was truly classic!!
Appreciated this review. Fair and on point. I went with the Sigma for my Sony A7III. At the end of the day price matters to me and I i can be in the ball park of Clean crisp photos, then I can live without Sony's slight extras that come along with the Sony price tag. Although for most Photography, Sony is my go to. Welcome Sigma!
Definitely wins Sigma. Why? Optical quality is almost the same, and a lot cheaper than Sony. The only advantage of Sony over Sigma is compactness and lower weight, but nothing too significant. In US market Sigma is for $450 (around 30%) cheaper than Sony, but outside US Sigma's price is just half (50%) of Sony's lens. For this difference in price you get another top quality Art prime lens from Sigma (35 or 85 with f/1.4).
my problem with both lenses is that they are just too big
the sony is smaller but the price is illogical
I remember times, where the 50mm lenses were "boring"! Now, the Hype has being heated up again, but not with me, I am staying with my excellent little C/Y Zeiss PLANAR T* 1,4/50mm!
Love your videos, would you be able to ad files to download from both cameras? Sonwe xan edit and see what we like. Just a thought
Great practical tests.
I thought you were in CenTex watching the video on the Lake a while ago, but the Agape BBQ tells me you definitely are! Howdy neighbor. Love your videos.
Perfect review thanks 😊
Testing with an older 24mp camera will not show the true potential of the Sony wide open. Test in on an A7IV as a bare minimum. The A7C has a low pass filter as well.
The sigma is also way bigger and a bit heavier. The small package of the Sony is really impressive and what did it for me
if you choose pay double price for the lighter lenses…. alright than
pick the GM native still the best. 450USD difference but a lot u can get.
Sonys auto white balance has got a LOT better since the A7c/a7iii, I mean damn, none of those shots had the same temp haha
Samyang 50 1.4 ii is good enough for my use. Affordable, lightweight, little focus breathing.
If you consider the cost x benefit, Sigma will ALWAYS be way better than Sony
On Dxomark website this Sigma is listed as sharpest lens. I doubt Sony would be sharper than Sigma!
im a sigma fan boy, but i feel like the sony is noticeably sharper. Worth the money sharper.....idk
I’d think Sigma would be pissed about this. Don’t they pay licensing fees to Sony to make these lenses? Bad planning on someone part.
I can imagine only the gimbal guys would get the GM.
You know Leitz lenses cost an arm and a leg because they are still mostly hand assembled. Whether that means that their resulting price gives you that much more bang for the buck is a personal decision. However, most of the other lenses are built by robots by and large. One should get a better price than we see. Sony lenses particularly have a bonus addon especially if they are GM. I guess the real cost driver for these "robot" manufactured cameras is supply vs demand. The photography market is relatively small and getting smaller. The remaining photographers often led by the youtubers want "perfect" lenses. So, "perfect" lens manufacture in small amounts with small demand yields high prices. Much of the profit for the manufacturer is on subsequent lens purchases. I remember than the Leicaflex was sold Leitz lost money on each camera that they sold (in spite of their cost). They hoped to make up the difference in lens purchases. I don't believe that much has changed in the "top" lens market.
I would go with Sony only because there 1.4 lineup is brilliant!
I only watched this for the model
God your wife is an amazing woman, funny, sweet, you both deserve each other, amazing couple and family