ryanli
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.7 #20 · Rumoured - Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art DG DN | |
I've read probably every review and viewed every YouTube video of the Sigma 50/1.4 DN or comparison with the Sony 50/1.4 GM, then bought both to compare for myself. After using both for a few days, my conclusion is predictably similar to how all those YouTube reviews end: "both are decent lenses and more similar than different; get the GM if you're a pro or a snob; otherwise save yourself a few hundred bucks with the Sigma. Let me know in the Comments down below".
To put it another way, my heart says Sony, which is without a doubt the sexier lens of the two, has astounding IQ, and probably as close to perfection as a 50mm lens could get from so many perspectives. My head however says Sigma, which delivers excellent wide open IQ - I'd stop short of saying astounding, it is perhaps 90-95% of the Sony's IQ - but at 2/3 of the price (I paid around GBP 590 for a Hong Kong grey import of the Sigma vs GBP 890 for the Sony).
Some observations:
- FL: The Sigma frames slightly but significantly tighter. This surprised me at first and is especially noticeable at close range. Dustin Abbott similarly estimated a 1-2mm tighter actual FL for the Sigma vs the Samyang 50/1.4 II. Does it make any meaningful difference in practice? Not really, you'd just move the camera back a smidgen - I have not found the Sigma restricted in anyway shooting indoors as a Zony 55/1.8 would be for instance.
- Exposure: I find the Sigma consistently underexposing by approx. 0.33 to 0.66 EV relative to the Sony (I'm ignoring vignetting here which is slightly stronger on Sigma but equally easy to fix for both lenses). Interestingly, the resulting images tend to require +0.15 to +0.2 EV adjustment (but could be anywhere between +0 to +0.33 EV) to look similar in brightness to the Sony's, which if my observations are correct suggests the Sigma has around 0.2 stop better transmission than the Sony? I don't believe I've seen this reported elsewhere and would be interested to see it scientifically proven.
- Sharpness and contrast: Looking at wide open IQ, the Sony definitely has more "bite" especially in low-light, low-contrast conditions. This corroborates the Sony Alpha Blog findings. The Sony also sustains sharpness better at closer distances - this matters for me as my use case for this FL includes indoor snapshots and food shots.
- LoCA: The biggest flaw of the Sigma is LoCA. This hurts for me as I live in England with two young boys - think playground appartus with metal chains and parks with bare branches under a gloomy winter sky. The Sony is not free of LoCA but it is much, much better controlled than on the Sigma. From memory, the Sigma is no worse, possibly slightly better than the Samyang 50/1.4 II in terms of LoCA.
- Bokeh: I expected bigger, rounder and less busy bokeh balls on the Sigma from watching N YouTube comparisons, but the reality I found was more complicated: it depends. In some conditions, Sigma indeed looked better (the slightly narrower actual FL presumably helps to increase the amount of blur) but in others the Sigma gave more onion rings, or the LoCA made bokeh more distracting. In general, the Sony tended to give more clinical, cleaner bokeh with more organic transitions. Both suffer to a similar degree from mechanical vignetting (cat's eye bokeh) wide open.
- AF: Both lenses excellent for static or slow-moving subjects in good lighting. In low-contrast, low-light conditions, Sigma holds up really well but I can see from a number of my samples that Sony has a very subtle but noticeable edge in terms of eye AF accuracy. For fast-moving subjects, I need to do some more testing but have a sense that Sony might be superior here.
- Lens hood: Jared Polin and some others dislike the petal hood on the Sigma as it doesn't allow the lens to be placed on a flat surface upside down. Who does that anyway?? Both the Sigma and Sony hoods do the job and personally I find the smart lozenge-shaped unlock button on the Sigma hood rather user-friendly.
- Size and weight: To my surprise, I didn't notice the 160g weight difference as much as I thought I would, but then I haven't had a chance to go shooting in the field and walking around with either lens for several hours. For sure the Sigma is and feels heavier but it never felt uncomfortably so around my neck or in my hands at least with short bursts of shooting. If anything it's the length and width of the Sigma which makes it look more imposing and less nimble.
So, what's my conclusion? I still haven't decided and am not sure more testing would help me reach a decision. If money was no object, hands down I'd go for the Sony and enjoy the more polished IQ and shooting experience in a physically more compact package... and for me how it sparks joy and touches my heart in a way that the Sigma doesn't. Can the Sigma create beautiful images and get the job done? Absolutely. 300 pounds is a lot of money for a non-pro and in reality, the subtle IQ differences between the two lenses are not going to be noticeable unless pixelpeeping both images at 100% side-by-side.
Hope you found this useful. Samples to follow in Part 2!
|
). I'm hoping similar happens to the 50 zeiss although the 50 is a more highly regarded lens than the 35 is. Anyways I'm buying at 450.
I will say yes on some shots the sony looked slightly sharper especially the eyes but for the price difference and super fast AF, it's hard to say if I were to go for the GM right away. Well I have the 50 1.2 anyway so... 