As an ex-sigma user (30mm 1.4) and a current sony user (50mm 1.8) one big factor needs a little more attention: sigma gives you better results as long as you have tripod and amount of light is perfect. Without OSS shooting hand held is a bit tricky especially evening or night time. Therefore I would draw a conclusion like this: 1) You are ready to invest money into gear and shoot to achieve perfection (walking around with tripod too) then get a sigma, 2) you are casual shooter that wants good results at fairly low cost and carries nothing more than a camera and couple of lenses - get sony.
I wouldn't use either lens for sport events as these are portraits lenses. But if I was forced to use one of them I would take Sony unless I shoot in studio and with tripod. OSS makes a huge difference when shooting hand held
No doubt the 56 is sharper than the 50. I have both. The 50, however, has better AF and face detection. It can detect, latch on to and follow faces from further away. Even though the face is very small in the frame. The 50 also gives you sharper shots at night because of the OSS, especially, when you need to stop down for greater DOF. The 50 consistently gives sharper shots at night at apertures greater than f2.0 or thereabouts. There are tradeoffs, so try both out before you decide.
For making portrait of toddler, moving kids which one would you suggest? I have Sony a6000 which does not have inbuilt stabilitzation... I mainly so handheld photos... I really like the bike look of the sigma f1.4... But not sure o that it does not have the OSS... Maybe better the Sony 50mm?
Sold my Sony 50mm f1.8 OSS yesterday to help fund the Sigma 56mm f1.4, which I received today. I primarily take still photos, so for me the sharpness of the Sigma is more important than the OSS of the Sony. I now own the Sigma 16 and the Sigma 56, as well as the Sony 35 and the Sony 18-135.
the Sony & sigma aps-c lenses are very good... I went full frame earlier this year & miss my aps-c lenses ..still waiting for Sony to bring out a decent 50mm F1.8 & a 35mm F1.8...for full frame ? Sony aps-c unless you are mega rich & can afford all the top end Full frame glass has so much more to offer
@@GilbertTV What about the Sony 55 1.8 ZA, yes certainly more expensive than the native Sony apsc, but has re cieved universally acclaimed FF Sony 1.8ZA?
@@GilbertTV Same for me. Got an a7iii and a sigma 85 1.4 and man is that one heavy combo. I love the images but i got a used a6000 from the bay now as my side chick. And i will be getting this lens used so i have the full frame like portrait look in a small compact setup for on the go. And it costs less than a fith of my ff-setup.
It would be interesting to find out which pair performs a better image stabilization: the 56mm lens on a stabilized body (a6500) or the 50mm one on a non stabilized body (a6000).
Did not saw direct comparisons, but indirect results show that 2nd variant is better. Also, many users (including pro's) say that Sony's IBIS does not meet expectations (unlike, for example, Panasonic's IBIS). It's a pity that Sigma doesn't implement OIS.. I know, it's to reduce the cost, but I would prefer to overpay and have an ability to shot video handheld
I have the 56. It's an amazing lens. I'm often astounded just looking at the captured images on the LCD. Even during an outdoor family portrait shoot I find myself making remarks about the lens. It gives me the ability to crop in post and have excellent results.
I as a filmmaker the lack of stabilization on the 56mm makes me struggle to get a smooth image without a gimbal. I thought by the price it should have some stabilization.
Haha. Yeah, his wife is hot but to be honest, I keep coming back to his reviews because a lot of other lens reviews don't include side by side sample images.
I went years with only the 10-18 so even this 56 is really long for me. But I would hope that sigma did 10mm f/1.4 lens. That would be super epic.@@HDvids101
I'd love to see you do a comparison between the Sigma 56 mm f1.4 and the Sigma 60 mm f2.8. Obviously there is an aperture difference - but say at f/5.6 or f/8.0, how do they stack up for sharpness? Cheers Bob Locher
The Sigma 60 f2.8 is a better lens when shooting in broad daylight. It has better flare resistance and is a very sound lens optically. The 56 has problems without the hood, but the AF is bettet as Phase Detect is active all across the frame, unlike the 60, which has Phase Detect only in the centre. If you don't shoot in low light, a used Sigma 60, at a third the price of the 56, is a great deal.
In the first shot, please get the exposure identical. Having the same shutter does not make sense. In other shots, use manual focus or point AF. Or you would have to make so many shots as AF has a random element. For example the night/harbor shot is totally focused on a different area!
Nice comparison as always. I have a suggestion, while comparing side by side on lenses with similar focal lengths, (like 56 vs 50) wouldn't it be better to equate the frame, especially for the subject upon which you intend to do the sharpness comparison? An already sharp Sigma gets an unfair additional leg up in the side by sides, in the detail it can resolve due to it's increased effective zoom.
I'm completely blown away at how good the sigma lenses are. I got my Sony 50mm for $100 so I'm sticking with it for now. I do want the sigma 16mm next though as the sigma 30mm I bought recently is such a great lens
A suggestion for a video; instead of seeing how lenses compete, for one time maybe show the 16, 30 and 56mm lenses in one video. How they work out as set, wide angle, 50mm and portrait more or less. (On apsc) Just a suggestion, I would love to see these lenses together, especially since I’m thinking about getting another one
Please make a video about the comparison of sigma 56mm f1.4 vs sonyFe 85mmf1.8 it will be a big help and finishing my final discission which lens should i buy next. Thanks in advance
Great review as always and makes me want to sell my 50 so I can get the 56. My one critique though is I wish you had done at least one portrait where you moved the 56 back so the camera was seeing the same as the 50. I feel that would have really given an exact comparison cause like you said the 50 might have been compensating due to "seeing" more light in the scene (not that I would think the outcome would be different). Happy Holidays to you and the family.
Thanks for the review. As a sel50f1.8 owner now I know there's no need for me to buy the Sigma. I wonder why people are so obsessed with sharpness, specially in portraits where it could be a hassle more than an advantage. The sel50 rendering is very pleasing at half the price plus OSS. I appreciate Sigma's work with the new line of lenses but my five stars go to the excellent 16mm 1.4.
I have a question about image stabilization that I've never seen discussed anywhere. You mounted the non-stabilized sigma on your a6500 which has in-camera stabilization. Then you did the side-by-side comparison with the stabilized Sony lens. Extremely interesting. The Sony lens produced a much more stabilized video. Why? I thought that in-camera stabilization would be as good as (or better than) in-lens stabilization. I have a 6300 and decided to completely stay away from non-stabilized lenses. I thought about getting a 6500 but your video shows that it's not better than my 6300 with a Sony lens. Here's another unanswered question. When you put stabilized lens on the 6500, does it double the amount of stabilization? Nobody has ever done a comparison on TH-cam (that I've seen) of in-lens vs in-camera stabilization. Pros and cons. I would love see this and you have all the equipment to be the first on YT!
@@ArthurR thanks again for your prompt and helpful reply. I just made a guess and was wrong. But I still have no clue whether or not to upgrade my 6300 to a 6500 just for the purpose of using lenses like the Sigma. I should add that I do outdoor photography while hiking (no tripod). IS is an important factor in this decision. So I just did a Google search on in camera versus in lens IS and get lots of opinions and technical discussions, but no real life comparisons. I think that a lot of photographers, like myself, have opinions but no real data to back it up. I've even watched most of Tony Northrup's videos and I've never seen him discuss the pros and cons of these two types of IS. Thanks
I spent an hour or so searching for more information and the only substantial thing I found out was, that for Sony, image stabilization is either on or off. In other words, if your 6500 has an IS lens attached, you can choose both or none turned on. However this is not a complete answer as Sony has 2 or 3 levels of image stabilization available. It's weird to me that even though image stabilization is a very important issue with cameras and lenses, nobody seems to test how well it works, given the variety of choices and combinations. Anyways....
John H Did you happen to find an answer? I’m on the same boat, I own an a6300 and was wondering if I should upgrade to a6500 just to get image stabilization out of it. I am not quite convinced there is a fair comparison with the built-in stabilization on 6500 and a lens with stabilization.
@@ismagine no I haven't. This seems to be a topic that no TH-cam reviewer has tackled. I don't understand why not. I've made similar queries in other TH-cam comments. It seems they would rather talk about the fit and finish and how it looks rather than how image stabilization works: inbody versus lens.
Is it just me or does her face look a little wider with the sigma lens? I own the sigma 16 & 30mm lenses and was thinking of getting the 56mm one also. I just gifted the Sony 50mm to my sister for her a6000 and I loved it when I tried on my a6500. Are my eyes deceiving me? Does 6mm make that much of a difference?
Hello Sir Which lens you think will give me sharper and better portraits Canon 32mm f1.4 for M series or Sigma 56mm F.14 for M series or canon 50mm f1.4 with adapter I have canon M50
Sigma is sharper, but for Close portraits this much sharpness feel harsh. Sony looks better with good balance sharp without harshness. I don't want my model's makeup foundation layers to be visible harshly. VERY GOOD EYE OPENING VIDEO.
Can you recommend the sigma for A6000? The lack of OSS is the only thing that holds me back since the A6000 doesn't have in built stabilization. Thanks
The result from the Sigma 56mm is amazing. The color and the bokeh is absolutely gorgeous. But with the $200 price difference and the OSS, I still prefer the Sony 50mm.
Wow that is crazy how sharp the Sigma 56mm is. I'm looking for a replacement for the 16-50 kit lens. I own a 32mm and will buy a Rokinon 12mm Now I'm missing something around the 50mm. Would you recommend the Sigma 56mm for an A6000 without IBIS? I do low light photography and all sorts of stuff. Would you say that the Sigma 56 is fine for photography? I do no video whatsoever. Awesome video and enjoy your holidays.
Another great comparison review but I think you need to manual focus on exactly the same spot and adjust the exposure to really compare lenses. I probably won't be buying the Sigma as I have the Zeiss 55mm from my A7 full frame kit but I do have the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and Sony 35mm f1.8 to go with my A6000 and it is almost always the Sony I pick, it just handles so much better and it has OSS.
I had both in mind and I love the sigma only for portrait, the Sony in the other hand is much wider and can be used for many other occasion than just portrait... Sharpness is definitely with sigma, though... Hmmmm 🤔 it's still tough to choose! Thanks for the share! 😊👍
I'm still wondering which lens to buy Is OSS really needed when taking picture? I looked the video and I really like sigma pictures all around . Esp the bokeh
No you don't need it. I asked that question myself a few years ago but you don't have to worry because if you keep the shutter at 1/30 or 1/50 it will be okay. When you want to use a tripod it's not important what so ever.
Good comparison. From a portrait perspective the Sigma appears to be better. Did you do multiple shots for each 'pose' or just one for each 'pose'. I'm always interested in consistency and it's always better to take multiple shots, especially when hand held. That's where OSS May have the advantage. Hard to use a tripod at family functions.
The brightness difference at your first f2 comparison is interesting. You made a comment about the camera compensating for the extra light in the frame in the wider field of view of the 50. Except you had exactly the same exposure settings on both shots. The camera doesn’t compensate for the light if the exposure is the same. I can only assume there may have been a change in the ambient light between the two shots which may happen unless they were taken at exactly the same time.
No contest. The Sigma 56mm f1.4 is a fantastic lens. I've used it for indoor basketball with amazing results. I've used it for photos of flowers which are tack sharp. I've used it for portraits where it's strength lies. I have the Sony 35mm f1.8 and it just can't compare.
I had Sony A6000 with the Sony 50 f1.8. The Sigma 56 f1.4 so sharp even wide open at f1.4, makes me thinking to get the sigma! Thanks for the video comparison. Likes for your videos!
The Sigma shots are infinitely more striking than the Sony lens shots. They just have that "WOW" factor. Also the difference in light and bokeh between 1.8 and 1.4 is incredible. Forget Sony, Sigma should start making E-mount cameras now.
Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS is actually one of better if not best prime from the original manufacturer. Other SONY E lenses are quite lame in today's standard. I have sold my 16 2.8, 20 2.8, 35 1.8 and keep only Zony 24mm 1.8 and Sony SEL50F18. In terms of price performance ratio, nothing beats the SEL50F18.
jaime carras Personally I’d rather have a sharp lens that you can soften than the other way around. What’s interesting is when I showed my wife the pictures side by side she picked the Sigma 56mm every single time.
@jaime carras Your right, the 50 1.8 oss is already very sharp for portrait some times i feel a bit to sharp on portrait pictures, besides i can't justify the price for the sigma unless it was similar to a fuji lense then that is a diffrent story altogether...
Sony 50mm 1.8 OSS sharpness is enough for me and those who do not pixel peep. But some people prefers sharpness above all. It's good that more options are available for Sony E-Mount shooters now compares to few years ago. Interesting fact; some great photographers I know prefer shooting with the cheap nifty fifty canon 50mm 1.8 with their DSLR than buying the super sharp Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art. So, it's true that sharpness is subjective.
@@EinzMY Sharpness is not everything, that's clear. But f/1.4 just gives you more flexibility. Can make a huge difference in lowlight situations or when you want to have a blurry background. Better having it than needing it.
One thing I would like to see in your lens comparisons of different mm lenses is two shots with the same framing of a face being compared, in addition to what you already show.
Nice video!! Before I buy the portrait lense, I really wanted to compare these two lenses. Definitely sigma 56mm is more sharper, but sony 50mm is quite enough quality for me. Moreover, I usually take a picture with handheld, so oss is helpful. And price difference. I'll happily buy sony 50mm. Thanks again. Merry Christmas!
Great video as always, thanks! Would have been great to hear about speed of auto-focus as it is somewhat a weakness on the sigma 30 mm vs the Sony 35mm.
I think a comparison needs also to include equalizing the composition. For example, either move back with the 56 or move forward with the 50. The way it is in your comparisons your wife’s face is bigger with the 56 because of course due to the greater focal length, but she also therefore utilizes more of the 24mp than she does in the image with the 50. I’m not saying your results will be any different...all I know is that in real world shooting if you like a composition you get with, say, the 56mm, then when you put on the 50mm you will want to move slightly closer.
Handy video! Are you comparing .ARW files that have been converted to .JPG, or did you snap them in .JPG with auto corrections turned on? Asking because I’ve heard weird early reports about the Sigma’s uncorrected vignetting.
For some odd, maybe historical reason Sony cameras use "F1.7" for f/1.8 except when using an F1.8 lens. When I use a Minolta AF 50 F1.7 lens there are two "F1.7" settings, the first one is wide-open and the other one is stopped down 1/6th of a stop. F1.4 lenses will stop down F1.4, F1.6, F1.7, F2,... when the camera is set to third stops, and F1.4, F1.7, F2,... when set to half stops. The half stop "F1.7" setting is 1/6th a stop brighter than the third stop "F1.7" setting. It doesn't make sense.
I feel you made some mistakes by not compensating on your composition because of the 5mm difference. One step further forward to the subject should have fixed this. The perceived "more" sharpness is because of that extra reach, and only way to confirm its advantage to the Sony is for you to have move closer tot he subject. As you said the Sigma seems a "tad" sharper, when really its closer to the subject hence any perceived sharpness is magnified.
Hello great review on the Sigma 56mm, planning to get one too :) Anyway, this seems to be out of topic, but can you review the rare Sony SELP18200 lens? Most reviews available was only from the NEX era (no hybrid af back then yet), heard it really had good optics though...Thank you and more contents to come :)
Are you going to be testing any of the Art lenses that Sigma make?? I bought the 56mm lens 2 weeks ago, absolutely love it! Bought it in Calgary and used it for getting snaps of the Rockies!
Great video and comparison as always. I was sold on the Sigma already but this confirmed it. Hope you guys have a great holiday! See you in the new year
I just bought the 50mm used for 150euros but It's like brand new the guy is a friend and he told me he barely used it and you could see it's like brand new. So I'm happy i bought it for a third of a price of a new 56mm sigma. Yes it's definitely not as good as the 56 but for the money i think it's worth it. Also I'm using the a6000 I dont have IBIS and the OSS will help a little.
Wow, that sigma looks amazing! The Sony 50 was my first "nice" lens and I'm shocked that the Sigma would be so much sharper. The sony is easily still good enough for me, but if I could start all over I'd buy the Sigma 56 and Sony 18-105.
@@alen-commentnazi8774 I have the A6000. My 18-105 is arriving later today :) I acquired quite a few inexpensive primes because I didn't want to pay more for lenses at first. Now I know the value of nice lenses and I accept the price haha. I really just need one "all-around" lens and one other for portraits. Although the samyang/rokinon 12mm is really cool for landscape and astrophotography
If you got the 60mm f2.8 like me there's nothing to look for with any of this two, I'd be curious to see comparison between the 56 f1.8 and the 60mm f2.8
great video as always! re sharpness, at 2:46, don´t you think that the 50 mm focused a little shorter than the 56, you agree that hair in front of her face how sharper it is in the 50 mm ...? I like the light on the 56 more. Also at 5:34 the sharpness of the 50 mm is better, I think they are both performing well, just results are different in several light conditions...I think mainly due to the autofocus. I keep my 50 :)
Thank you for your great comparison, it helps a lot to decide whether to switch the lens or not! Could you maybe also show the difference in bokeh wide open with roughly the same frame (i.e. moving farther away with the Sigma, such that the face / body has the same size in both images)? The difference in bokeh might not be that much anymore, if you frame the person equally in both images?! I wish you and your family a merry christmas!
Hope you will review Sigma 56mm f1.4 and Sony 35mm f1.8 oss. I have 35mm but want to add sigma 56mm. Want to know if the focal length really have big difference between the two. I really love your insights about lenses. Thanks much!
@@artemghazaryan7080 835 grams is scary,,, Tamron 28-75 is 550 grams,,,,, for most Sigma trio would be better on a6500, I would actually get a 2nd aps-c body to have 2 lenses ready for use during an event/hike
Hi Artur, it's my time to buy another lens, I started with the 35mm 1.8 because of your recommendation. I would try another lens that does not exceed 400 dollars that I have. Recommend? I thought a 55mm of the kit or one of these two
Glad you exist mate :) Excellent reviews! I own the A6000 and due to some budget limits preventing me to go full frame in the near future , I'm bound to keep it. My next lenses will surely be both the Sigma 16mm and the 56mm. I currently own the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f/2 and it brings great results, but i think the Sigma 16 mm will give me that little extra. Thank you so much for your reviews :D
Sorry, you convinced me about a year ago to get the sony 50mm and ever since, I was always disappointed by the results I was getting. Might switch to sigma soon, rather than keeping the sony always getting dusty in the backpack.
The Sony 50mm (OSS) is pretty quiet AF focus for video but the non-OSS version is a tad noisy. How is the AF noise on the Sigma? Focus breathing for the Sony not bad how about the Sigma?
Great. OSS is not only for video (especially not at 1.5x50mm), but you can lower your shutter speed when handheld your camera, without making blurry photos. So better photos in low light. Merry Xmas.
Can you shoot with Sigma 56mm in the evening or low light indoor situations? I'm using Sony A6400 that doesn't have stabilization. I always shoot handheld.
not sure why the prices of these sigmas keep going up? seems like it needs to be in the $300 price range not $478! I own all the other sigma primes and don't like to see how they are charging more and more each time a new one comes out.
The sigma looks phenomenal. It’s also more expensive, but it looks awesome. I’m wondering are you using the wide focus area? Eye af? Thanks for the comparison! ✌🏻📸
As an ex-sigma user (30mm 1.4) and a current sony user (50mm 1.8) one big factor needs a little more attention: sigma gives you better results as long as you have tripod and amount of light is perfect. Without OSS shooting hand held is a bit tricky especially evening or night time. Therefore I would draw a conclusion like this: 1) You are ready to invest money into gear and shoot to achieve perfection (walking around with tripod too) then get a sigma, 2) you are casual shooter that wants good results at fairly low cost and carries nothing more than a camera and couple of lenses - get sony.
Good info👍
The Sony has better colors, less sharp for portraits which is a good thing imo.
Thanks for the added tips!
Which one would be better, based on your experience , for shooting indoor basketball from the baseline?
I wouldn't use either lens for sport events as these are portraits lenses. But if I was forced to use one of them I would take Sony unless I shoot in studio and with tripod. OSS makes a huge difference when shooting hand held
No doubt the 56 is sharper than the 50. I have both.
The 50, however, has better AF and face detection. It can detect, latch on to and follow faces from further away. Even though the face is very small in the frame. The 50 also gives you sharper shots at night because of the OSS, especially, when you need to stop down for greater DOF. The 50 consistently gives sharper shots at night at apertures greater than f2.0 or thereabouts.
There are tradeoffs, so try both out before you decide.
Thanks for the insight mate. Very informative!
For making portrait of toddler, moving kids which one would you suggest? I have Sony a6000 which does not have inbuilt stabilitzation... I mainly so handheld photos... I really like the bike look of the sigma f1.4... But not sure o that it does not have the OSS... Maybe better the Sony 50mm?
Sold my Sony 50mm f1.8 OSS yesterday to help fund the Sigma 56mm f1.4, which I received today. I primarily take still photos, so for me the sharpness of the Sigma is more important than the OSS of the Sony. I now own the Sigma 16 and the Sigma 56, as well as the Sony 35 and the Sony 18-135.
This sigma lens is making me want to stay with aps c. What a lens!
the Sony & sigma aps-c lenses are very good... I went full frame earlier this year & miss my aps-c lenses ..still waiting for Sony to bring out a decent 50mm F1.8 & a 35mm F1.8...for full frame ? Sony aps-c unless you are mega rich & can afford all the top end Full frame glass has so much more to offer
I agree! This lens is just amazing...! @@GilbertTV
@@GilbertTV What about the Sony 55 1.8 ZA, yes certainly more expensive than the native Sony apsc, but has re cieved universally acclaimed FF Sony 1.8ZA?
@@robertcudlipp3426 yes I agree but its silly money for what it is ... $700 for 55 F1.8 ..C'mon
@@GilbertTV Same for me. Got an a7iii and a sigma 85 1.4 and man is that one heavy combo. I love the images but i got a used a6000 from the bay now as my side chick. And i will be getting this lens used so i have the full frame like portrait look in a small compact setup for on the go. And it costs less than a fith of my ff-setup.
It would be interesting to find out which pair performs a better image stabilization: the 56mm lens on a stabilized body (a6500) or the 50mm one on a non stabilized body (a6000).
dweberss this would be nice for a next Video 👌
I would add a 3rd option as well: 50mm on a stabilized body to see how combining stabilization compares to the other 2 single stabilization options
@@taylorchapmanjr9182 Jason Vong just did what we would like to see. It's on his channel 👌
Did not saw direct comparisons, but indirect results show that 2nd variant is better. Also, many users (including pro's) say that Sony's IBIS does not meet expectations (unlike, for example, Panasonic's IBIS). It's a pity that Sigma doesn't implement OIS.. I know, it's to reduce the cost, but I would prefer to overpay and have an ability to shot video handheld
I have the 56. It's an amazing lens. I'm often astounded just looking at the captured images on the LCD. Even during an outdoor family portrait shoot I find myself making remarks about the lens. It gives me the ability to crop in post and have excellent results.
Sigma is good for making portrait of moving kids?
I as a filmmaker the lack of stabilization on the 56mm makes me struggle to get a smooth image without a gimbal.
I thought by the price it should have some stabilization.
Choosing between these two is so hard! I shoot primarily photos in low light on an a6000. Is the lack of OSS on the sigma going to drive me crazy?
What did you end up buying?
@@FictusFilmsPROTrailers I think we will never know
Am I the only one that gets excited the minute he says sample images? 😁
I'm pretty sure we all love seeing test shots from nice lenses, but I get the feeling you're excited for a different reason ;)
So am I and for the same reason.
Haha. Yeah, his wife is hot but to be honest, I keep coming back to his reviews because a lot of other lens reviews don't include side by side sample images.
He does have a perfect model.
Hahaa! I am so happy I switched all my sony/zeiss lenses to 16,30,56f1.4 trifecta. Sharp, sharp, sharp.
EE DESIGN same love the 3 lens sigma contemporary line up.
AND then if you break the bank and buy the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens it would be... well there are no words .....
I went years with only the 10-18 so even this 56 is really long for me. But I would hope that sigma did 10mm f/1.4 lens. That would be super epic.@@HDvids101
EE DESIGN I have the Sigma 30 mm f/ 1.4 and I'm soooo happy😻
@@djremotion2 Yeah I have the 30 1.4 and use it all the time. a 10mm would be epic on the a6500 :-)
I'd love to see you do a comparison between the Sigma 56 mm f1.4 and the Sigma 60 mm f2.8. Obviously there is an aperture difference - but say at f/5.6 or f/8.0, how do they stack up for sharpness?
Cheers
Bob Locher
Would love it too! I have the 60mm Sigma and a 7artisans 55 mm f1.4. If the 56 is sharper than the 60mm I might just sell the other two.
The Sigma 60 f2.8 is a better lens when shooting in broad daylight. It has better flare resistance and is a very sound lens optically. The 56 has problems without the hood, but the AF is bettet as Phase Detect is active all across the frame, unlike the 60, which has Phase Detect only in the centre.
If you don't shoot in low light, a used Sigma 60, at a third the price of the 56, is a great deal.
This Sigma is easily the best portrait lens for Sony APS-C. If I didn’t have the Zeiss 55mm I would buy this in a heartbeat.
Jorge Rangel Zeiss is full frame tho?
Fernando Roque yes, it is full frame. I use it both on my A6000 and my A7 camera.
Jorge Rangel yeah so it’s like 80mm on your a6000.
Literally same tho. The Zeiss is super handy.
Wierd flex, but OK ... hahaha
In the first shot, please get the exposure identical. Having the same shutter does not make sense.
In other shots, use manual focus or point AF. Or you would have to make so many shots as AF has a random element. For example the night/harbor shot is totally focused on a different area!
pizzablender Right, the point of the night shot wasn’t focus, so I didn’t focus them on the same subject.
Nice comparison as always. I have a suggestion, while comparing side by side on lenses with similar focal lengths, (like 56 vs 50) wouldn't it be better to equate the frame, especially for the subject upon which you intend to do the sharpness comparison?
An already sharp Sigma gets an unfair additional leg up in the side by sides, in the detail it can resolve due to it's increased effective zoom.
I think that's why bokeh looked way better on Sigma even when he compared 1.7 to 1.8, because of that extra 6mm and that bigger .1f.
I'm completely blown away at how good the sigma lenses are. I got my Sony 50mm for $100 so I'm sticking with it for now. I do want the sigma 16mm next though as the sigma 30mm I bought recently is such a great lens
Haha no way! This is exactly the video I need to see! Been hovering over the "confirm order" button for a week now.
A suggestion for a video; instead of seeing how lenses compete, for one time maybe show the 16, 30 and 56mm lenses in one video. How they work out as set, wide angle, 50mm and portrait more or less. (On apsc)
Just a suggestion, I would love to see these lenses together, especially since I’m thinking about getting another one
Please make a video about the comparison of sigma 56mm f1.4 vs sonyFe 85mmf1.8 it will be a big help and finishing my final discission which lens should i buy next. Thanks in advance
Great review as always and makes me want to sell my 50 so I can get the 56. My one critique though is I wish you had done at least one portrait where you moved the 56 back so the camera was seeing the same as the 50. I feel that would have really given an exact comparison cause like you said the 50 might have been compensating due to "seeing" more light in the scene (not that I would think the outcome would be different). Happy Holidays to you and the family.
It's the thing about focal length, if he moved the Sigma further back to have the same background, the subject in focus will be smaller.
Thanks for the review. As a sel50f1.8 owner now I know there's no need for me to buy the Sigma. I wonder why people are so obsessed with sharpness, specially in portraits where it could be a hassle more than an advantage. The sel50 rendering is very pleasing at half the price plus OSS. I appreciate Sigma's work with the new line of lenses but my five stars go to the excellent 16mm 1.4.
Thanks. Very informative video. This channel is the best when it comes to APS-C Sony cameras. Keep up the good work!
I have a question about image stabilization that I've never seen discussed anywhere. You mounted the non-stabilized sigma on your a6500 which has in-camera stabilization. Then you did the side-by-side comparison with the stabilized Sony lens. Extremely interesting.
The Sony lens produced a much more stabilized video. Why?
I thought that in-camera stabilization would be as good as (or better than) in-lens stabilization. I have a 6300 and decided to completely stay away from non-stabilized lenses. I thought about getting a 6500 but your video shows that it's not better than my 6300 with a Sony lens.
Here's another unanswered question. When you put stabilized lens on the 6500, does it double the amount of stabilization?
Nobody has ever done a comparison on TH-cam (that I've seen) of in-lens vs in-camera stabilization. Pros and cons. I would love see this and you have all the equipment to be the first on YT!
John H I didn’t use the A6500 in that test. It was A5100 + Sigma 56 vs A6000 + Sony 50.
@@ArthurR thanks again for your prompt and helpful reply. I just made a guess and was wrong. But I still have no clue whether or not to upgrade my 6300 to a 6500 just for the purpose of using lenses like the Sigma. I should add that I do outdoor photography while hiking (no tripod). IS is an important factor in this decision.
So I just did a Google search on in camera versus in lens IS and get lots of opinions and technical discussions, but no real life comparisons. I think that a lot of photographers, like myself, have opinions but no real data to back it up. I've even watched most of Tony Northrup's videos and I've never seen him discuss the pros and cons of these two types of IS. Thanks
I spent an hour or so searching for more information and the only substantial thing I found out was, that for Sony, image stabilization is either on or off. In other words, if your 6500 has an IS lens attached, you can choose both or none turned on. However this is not a complete answer as Sony has 2 or 3 levels of image stabilization available. It's weird to me that even though image stabilization is a very important issue with cameras and lenses, nobody seems to test how well it works, given the variety of choices and combinations. Anyways....
John H Did you happen to find an answer? I’m on the same boat, I own an a6300 and was wondering if I should upgrade to a6500 just to get image stabilization out of it. I am not quite convinced there is a fair comparison with the built-in stabilization on 6500 and a lens with stabilization.
@@ismagine no I haven't. This seems to be a topic that no TH-cam reviewer has tackled. I don't understand why not. I've made similar queries in other TH-cam comments. It seems they would rather talk about the fit and finish and how it looks rather than how image stabilization works: inbody versus lens.
Is it just me or does her face look a little wider with the sigma lens? I own the sigma 16 & 30mm lenses and was thinking of getting the 56mm one also. I just gifted the Sony 50mm to my sister for her a6000 and I loved it when I tried on my a6500. Are my eyes deceiving me? Does 6mm make that much of a difference?
What about sigma56 Vs 55mm Zeiss?
Hello Sir
Which lens you think will give me sharper and better portraits
Canon 32mm f1.4 for M series
or
Sigma 56mm F.14 for M series
or canon 50mm f1.4 with adapter
I have canon M50
If I own a sony 6400 and I use it only for photography
will the sigma 56mm be a better option even without the oss?
Sigma is sharper, but for Close portraits this much sharpness feel harsh. Sony looks better with good balance sharp without harshness. I don't want my model's makeup foundation layers to be visible harshly. VERY GOOD EYE OPENING VIDEO.
Can you recommend the sigma for A6000? The lack of OSS is the only thing that holds me back since the A6000 doesn't have in built stabilization. Thanks
The result from the Sigma 56mm is amazing. The color and the bokeh is absolutely gorgeous. But with the $200 price difference and the OSS, I still prefer the Sony 50mm.
Which lens is right for video?
The 50mm wil be fine for video, the oss would help with video too.@@Vishal-nikk.1M
@@Vishal-nikk.1M50mm oss
Great video! I would love to see a comparison between the sigma and the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 in the future. Very curious on those results!
Wow that is crazy how sharp the Sigma 56mm is.
I'm looking for a replacement for the 16-50 kit lens. I own a 32mm and will buy a Rokinon 12mm
Now I'm missing something around the 50mm. Would you recommend the Sigma 56mm for an A6000 without IBIS?
I do low light photography and all sorts of stuff.
Would you say that the Sigma 56 is fine for photography? I do no video whatsoever.
Awesome video and enjoy your holidays.
Sigma lenses are SO sharp. This one tops them all I think. Can't think of another lens for the APS-C Sony E-Mount that can match it.
Another great comparison review but I think you need to manual focus on exactly the same spot and adjust the exposure to really compare lenses. I probably won't be buying the Sigma as I have the Zeiss 55mm from my A7 full frame kit but I do have the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and Sony 35mm f1.8 to go with my A6000 and it is almost always the Sony I pick, it just handles so much better and it has OSS.
As you compared the 1.4 against the 1.8 in low light at 1/20 and 1/10. Did you used the IBIS on the a6500?
No, I used the A6000 for the night shots.
Would you do a new test with the 1.8 on the 6000 with OSS and the 1.4 on the 6500 with IBIS? Thanks in advance, merry Xmas and and a happy new year!
Thanks for video. Can be compare 56mm with 60mm/2.8? Happy new year!
Could you compare sigma 56mm & viltrox 56mm for sony mirrorless please ?
I had both in mind and I love the sigma only for portrait, the Sony in the other hand is much wider and can be used for many other occasion than just portrait... Sharpness is definitely with sigma, though... Hmmmm 🤔 it's still tough to choose! Thanks for the share! 😊👍
I'm still wondering which lens to buy
Is OSS really needed when taking picture? I looked the video and I really like sigma pictures all around .
Esp the bokeh
No you don't need it. I asked that question myself a few years ago but you don't have to worry because if you keep the shutter at 1/30 or 1/50 it will be okay. When you want to use a tripod it's not important what so ever.
Off topic: where/ how do you store your high quality pictures?
How about the Zeiss 55mm vs the Sigma?
Please :) ....!
Its still not as sharp as sigma
Good comparison. From a portrait perspective the Sigma appears to be better. Did you do multiple shots for each 'pose' or just one for each 'pose'. I'm always interested in consistency and it's always better to take multiple shots, especially when hand held. That's where OSS May have the advantage. Hard to use a tripod at family functions.
Tim Gurr Good question, with a tripod it was one shot each, very easy. Handheld i had very few missed shots- on par with the Sony 50mm.
sigma 56 vs sony 85 plz
I don't even have to watch the video to know that it is great. Thank you for this highly requested one. This channel is awesome.
Yes, actually it is great!
The brightness difference at your first f2 comparison is interesting. You made a comment about the camera compensating for the extra light in the frame in the wider field of view of the 50. Except you had exactly the same exposure settings on both shots. The camera doesn’t compensate for the light if the exposure is the same. I can only assume there may have been a change in the ambient light between the two shots which may happen unless they were taken at exactly the same time.
No contest. The Sigma 56mm f1.4 is a fantastic lens. I've used it for indoor basketball with amazing results. I've used it for photos of flowers which are tack sharp. I've used it for portraits where it's strength lies. I have the Sony 35mm f1.8 and it just can't compare.
I had Sony A6000 with the Sony 50 f1.8. The Sigma 56 f1.4 so sharp even wide open at f1.4, makes me thinking to get the sigma! Thanks for the video comparison. Likes for your videos!
The Sigma shots are infinitely more striking than the Sony lens shots. They just have that "WOW" factor. Also the difference in light and bokeh between 1.8 and 1.4 is incredible. Forget Sony, Sigma should start making E-mount cameras now.
Jeremy hahahahaha seriously.
will we see the sigma go up vs the zeiss 55 1.8? love your videos btw!! :D
Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS is actually one of better if not best prime from the original manufacturer. Other SONY E lenses are quite lame in today's standard. I have sold my 16 2.8, 20 2.8, 35 1.8 and keep only Zony 24mm 1.8 and Sony SEL50F18. In terms of price performance ratio, nothing beats the SEL50F18.
I've recently acquired the Sigma 16mm, but I think I'd go with Sony's 50mm f1.8 next time. Two reasons: 40% less expensive and with built in OSS.
But the price difference though! I don't think a portrait lens needs to be sooo sharp. It's not flattering. I'll keep my dear old sony 50.
jaime carras Personally I’d rather have a sharp lens that you can soften than the other way around. What’s interesting is when I showed my wife the pictures side by side she picked the Sigma 56mm every single time.
@@ArthurR i also agree with your point, that is if someone doesn't already have the 50 1.8 oss.
@jaime carras Your right, the 50 1.8 oss is already very sharp for portrait some times i feel a bit to sharp on portrait pictures, besides i can't justify the price for the sigma unless it was similar to a fuji lense then that is a diffrent story altogether...
Sony 50mm 1.8 OSS sharpness is enough for me and those who do not pixel peep. But some people prefers sharpness above all. It's good that more options are available for Sony E-Mount shooters now compares to few years ago.
Interesting fact; some great photographers I know prefer shooting with the cheap nifty fifty canon 50mm 1.8 with their DSLR than buying the super sharp Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art. So, it's true that sharpness is subjective.
@@EinzMY Sharpness is not everything, that's clear. But f/1.4 just gives you more flexibility. Can make a huge difference in lowlight situations or when you want to have a blurry background. Better having it than needing it.
A comparison with sigma 56mm vs zeiss 55mm ( should I get the Sigma 56 for my A6300 if I allready own the zeiis 55 mm with my A7ii ?). Thanks! :)
Lovely images! Are you using any off-camera lighting or is this natural light?
One thing I would like to see in your lens comparisons of different mm lenses is two shots with the same framing of a face being compared, in addition to what you already show.
How do you like using the sigma 56f14 vs the fe sony 85f18?
Nice video!! Before I buy the portrait lense, I really wanted to compare these two lenses. Definitely sigma 56mm is more sharper, but sony 50mm is quite enough quality for me. Moreover, I usually take a picture with handheld, so oss is helpful. And price difference.
I'll happily buy sony 50mm. Thanks again. Merry Christmas!
Which lens is right for video?
Great video as always, thanks! Would have been great to hear about speed of auto-focus as it is somewhat a weakness on the sigma 30 mm vs the Sony 35mm.
I talked about it a little in my Sigma 56mm review video. The autofocus on this 56mm is MUCH better - it is on par with the Sigma 16mm's autofocusing.
I think a comparison needs also to include equalizing the composition. For example, either move back with the 56 or move forward with the 50. The way it is in your comparisons your wife’s face is bigger with the 56 because of course due to the greater focal length, but she also therefore utilizes more of the 24mp than she does in the image with the 50. I’m not saying your results will be any different...all I know is that in real world shooting if you like a composition you get with, say, the 56mm, then when you put on the 50mm you will want to move slightly closer.
Just decided ordering this sigma 56mm
Thanks for the review sir
Handy video! Are you comparing .ARW files that have been converted to .JPG, or did you snap them in .JPG with auto corrections turned on? Asking because I’ve heard weird early reports about the Sigma’s uncorrected vignetting.
Been enjoying the SIgma 30mm f 1.4 the last couple of weeks. Looks like the 56mm is the next purchase!
I'm looking to buy it too. Can you give me a review? How fast is the autofocus?
For some odd, maybe historical reason Sony cameras use "F1.7" for f/1.8 except when using an F1.8 lens. When I use a Minolta AF 50 F1.7 lens there are two "F1.7" settings, the first one is wide-open and the other one is stopped down 1/6th of a stop. F1.4 lenses will stop down F1.4, F1.6, F1.7, F2,... when the camera is set to third stops, and F1.4, F1.7, F2,... when set to half stops. The half stop "F1.7" setting is 1/6th a stop brighter than the third stop "F1.7" setting. It doesn't make sense.
I feel you made some mistakes by not compensating on your composition because of the 5mm difference. One step further forward to the subject should have fixed this. The perceived "more" sharpness is because of that extra reach, and only way to confirm its advantage to the Sony is for you to have move closer tot he subject. As you said the Sigma seems a "tad" sharper, when really its closer to the subject hence any perceived sharpness is magnified.
thanks for all the content!! enjoy your trip and family!
Hello great review on the Sigma 56mm, planning to get one too :) Anyway, this seems to be out of topic, but can you review the rare Sony SELP18200 lens? Most reviews available was only from the NEX era (no hybrid af back then yet), heard it really had good optics though...Thank you and more contents to come :)
Are you going to be testing any of the Art lenses that Sigma make?? I bought the 56mm lens 2 weeks ago, absolutely love it! Bought it in Calgary and used it for getting snaps of the Rockies!
How would a Sigma 56mm compare to the older Sigma 60mm? Would really love to get your take. Thanks!
Was waiting badly for your video on this.
Thanks for the video
Is it good for taking group photos? I mean to ask about it's wide angle capability
Just picked up he 56 sigma for my A6500, honestly really been enjoying getting some great glass for my camera
Great video and comparison as always. I was sold on the Sigma already but this confirmed it. Hope you guys have a great holiday! See you in the new year
Wow! I would like to see the comparison of signa 56 with sony fe 85 1.8 if you can
The face in sigma is a lot bigger than the Sony in the first comparison, of course it has more details.
Yea the lens is 6mm difference at same distance... why isn't this addressed?
Thanks for the video! I'd like to see a video update on which lenses to buy for the Sony 6000 series
When the test was done, did you do a AFMA on the lenses first or was it done straight out of the box?
I just bought the 50mm used for 150euros but It's like brand new the guy is a friend and he told me he barely used it and you could see it's like brand new. So I'm happy i bought it for a third of a price of a new 56mm sigma. Yes it's definitely not as good as the 56 but for the money i think it's worth it. Also I'm using the a6000 I dont have IBIS and the OSS will help a little.
The conditions are different and there is no way to compare! Can 56mm and 50mm, 1.4 and 1.8 be the same?
Not completely fair! Compairing the 50mm wide open with the sigma stopped down a little.
Wow, that sigma looks amazing! The Sony 50 was my first "nice" lens and I'm shocked that the Sigma would be so much sharper. The sony is easily still good enough for me, but if I could start all over I'd buy the Sigma 56 and Sony 18-105.
im gonna be getting the 18 105, what body do u use?
@@alen-commentnazi8774 I have the A6000. My 18-105 is arriving later today :) I acquired quite a few inexpensive primes because I didn't want to pay more for lenses at first. Now I know the value of nice lenses and I accept the price haha. I really just need one "all-around" lens and one other for portraits. Although the samyang/rokinon 12mm is really cool for landscape and astrophotography
Thank you so much for this video, just in time so i can choose which one to buy.
If you got the 60mm f2.8 like me there's nothing to look for with any of this two, I'd be curious to see comparison between the 56 f1.8 and the 60mm f2.8
great video as always! re sharpness, at 2:46, don´t you think that the 50 mm focused a little shorter than the 56, you agree that hair in front of her face how sharper it is in the 50 mm ...? I like the light on the 56 more. Also at 5:34 the sharpness of the 50 mm is better, I think they are both performing well, just results are different in several light conditions...I think mainly due to the autofocus. I keep my 50 :)
Thank you for your great comparison, it helps a lot to decide whether to switch the lens or not! Could you maybe also show the difference in bokeh wide open with roughly the same frame (i.e. moving farther away with the Sigma, such that the face / body has the same size in both images)? The difference in bokeh might not be that much anymore, if you frame the person equally in both images?! I wish you and your family a merry christmas!
this is the 85 1.8 G on aps-c!!! Thanks 4 the review, absolutely need this. Merry Christmas
GM... ¿
Hope you will review Sigma 56mm f1.4 and Sony 35mm f1.8 oss. I have 35mm but want to add sigma 56mm. Want to know if the focal length really have big difference between the two. I really love your insights about lenses. Thanks much!
What do you think sigma trio or sigma 24-70 for a6500?
full frame Sigma 24-70?
@@mirrorlessny yes
@@artemghazaryan7080 835 grams is scary,,, Tamron 28-75 is 550 grams,,,,, for most Sigma trio would be better on a6500, I would actually get a 2nd aps-c body to have 2 lenses ready for use during an event/hike
Hi Artur, it's my time to buy another lens, I started with the 35mm 1.8 because of your recommendation. I would try another lens that does not exceed 400 dollars that I have. Recommend? I thought a 55mm of the kit or one of these two
I've been looking forward to this review. What a great ending to a year of awesome reviews and videos. Thank you.
Glad you exist mate :) Excellent reviews! I own the A6000 and due to some budget limits preventing me to go full frame in the near future , I'm bound to keep it. My next lenses will surely be both the Sigma 16mm and the 56mm. I currently own the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm f/2 and it brings great results, but i think the Sigma 16 mm will give me that little extra. Thank you so much for your reviews :D
Sorry, you convinced me about a year ago to get the sony 50mm and ever since, I was always disappointed by the results I was getting. Might switch to sigma soon, rather than keeping the sony always getting dusty in the backpack.
The Sony 50mm (OSS) is pretty quiet AF focus for video but the non-OSS version is a tad noisy. How is the AF noise on the Sigma? Focus breathing for the Sony not bad how about the Sigma?
Damn! This 56 lense is so sharp! Does the Sigma 30mm is equaly sharp?
Were these shot on a tripod? I have an a6300 and am concerned about no stabilization :(
r ng if you do videos and have no plans to upgrade your body, buy the sony 50
Getting one of these two next week, but I’m still not sure which one…
Great. OSS is not only for video (especially not at 1.5x50mm), but you can lower your shutter speed when handheld your camera, without making blurry photos. So better photos in low light. Merry Xmas.
Really liked your daylight portrait shots!
Can you shoot with Sigma 56mm in the evening or low light indoor situations? I'm using Sony A6400 that doesn't have stabilization. I always shoot handheld.
Finally broke down and bought the Sigma myself. So far, I'm blown away by it.
not sure why the prices of these sigmas keep going up? seems like it needs to be in the $300 price range not $478! I own all the other sigma primes and don't like to see how they are charging more and more each time a new one comes out.
Matt Jackson I’d say it’s because there’s hardly aps-c lenses...
The sigma looks phenomenal. It’s also more expensive, but it looks awesome. I’m wondering are you using the wide focus area? Eye af? Thanks for the comparison! ✌🏻📸