Part 2 of Sigma 50/1.4 DN vs Sony 50/1.4 GM comparison
And here are the samples, all shot handheld using A7C II at 33mp, auto ISO at F/1.4 (except a couple of instances where I hadn't figured out how to turn on the iris lock on the Sigma and the aperture had been set accidentally at F/1.8) in RAW. Post-processing in Capture One Pro with low sharpening and low NR presets, and a minor exposure adjustment to the Sigma as required due to metering differences (see previous post).
Pink tag = Sony 50/1.4 GM
Orange tag = Sigma 50/1.4 DN
Cat detail, 100% crop. Despite slight differences in focus point, the "bite" in the Sony is obvious here. Nasty LoCA around the slightly OOF whiskers on the Sigma.
Chinese home cooking. Sigma left, Sony right. Obvious FL difference but both equally delicious.
Roast duck at 100% crop. Crisper skin on the Sony and I don't like the look of that green LoCA highlight on that piece of duck at the back of the Sigma.
Boy at 100% crop. Sigma could have done with a notch up exposure here
Christmas lights bokeh at 100% crop. As far as bokeh is concerned, this is probably as bad as either lens gets, with particularly unpleasant truncated cat's eyes and onion rings-ish bokeh on the Sigma.
Thanks for these image comparisons and your thoughts on the difficult choice here. We've reached the point where you feel overly critical to depreciate pretty much any modern 50mm lens.
Having said so, I prefer all the Sony images here. It might just win out of all the ten or so fast 50mm focal length lenses at the mid-upper price points, it just does it all so well. But as biases, I prefer structured and predictable bokeh and what I call 'immediate impact' - this is the impression upon first glance.
As a range signature, Sigma bokeh aways looks bland to me, like they want to wipe out the background, and it's been this way since they went head-to-head with C/N in DSLR times. The Sony's bokeh ball halos are really nice in the first image set. The Sigma's CA is unfortunate, because your eye loses trust in subsequent images.
An idea for you: take images of a slanted ruler or (much better) a hedge row at an angle, to show the focus fall-off more accurately. Some 50s are now so highly tuned they seem to step from edge of focus to out of focus instead of showing gradual stepless bokeh transitions. It's not fall-off speed but the style of transition. I guess it's another bias of mine. This phenomenon works on your unconcious and imparts image depth. Thanks again for an intelligent appraisal.
PS I think there is less to be gained by bokeh 100% views, since they will not be obvious in final images. Crops are necessary for on-plane resolution and transitions though.
This kind of image. If you stage it right (I did not here) you can also check the important foreground bokeh, it's often overloooked in reviews. An aperture set will elicit more on how lenses differ in this respect, as you stop down.
Thank you @maly149, and @philip_pj for your thoughtful response, I really agree with a lot of what you said. Your impression of Sigma's signature since the SLR says has reminded me of the Sigma 50/1.4 EX DG HSM which was well known for having creamy backgrounds - the kind of creaminess you get from using an electric blender and blasting every solid ingredient into oblivion, which IMHO was not unpleasant as unlike with modern lenses the in-focus areas were also proportionately dreamy. Conversely the Sigma 45/2.8 was a lens I loved for its rendering for different reasons, that the OOF and transition areas were natural and pleasing to the eye (and indeed I had tested it against the Samyang 45/1.8 with hedgerows). I'll see what I can do with doing a similar hedgerow test with the 50 DN and GM.
Incidentally the Sigma EX was a similar weight to the Sony 50/1.4 GM which is now considered light by modern standards. How far have 50mm lens designs come.
So having spent some time with both lenses and got to know their character pretty well, I decided to... keep Sigma and sell Sony (actually at profit so I've effectively got a discount on the already good value Sigma). Why, you ask:
- In my previous posts I have measurebated at 100% and tested in worst-case scenarios, but in real-life usage, i.e. viewing images globally at fit-to-screen zoom, the images rendered by both lenses look virtually indistinguishable unless compared side-by-side and you know both lenses well. In low-light conditions with slower shutter speeds, very minor subject movements are likely to obliterate any advantages that the Sony might have in sharpness. Globally, I like the fact that the Sigma gives a smidgen more and softer background blur with slightly less mechanical vignetting, and a tighter framing.
- Size and weight. Yes the GM is shorter and 160g or so lighter than Sigma, but let's face it, even the Sony is not a small lens by any stretch of imagination compared to say the Zony 55/1.8 or Sigma 45/2.8. In real life I cannot say it has made any practical difference other than bragging rights.
- GBP 300 or 50% price difference is a lot of money for two lenses that in the real world have practically identical IQ and are both not small lenses.
Mostly, my earlier views that the Sony is a "heart" lens whilst the Sigma is a "head" lens still apply, well now I'm not so certain. If we must pick bones with the GM 1.4 rendering, I would say that it is "clinical": superbly competent in so many areas (aside from the mechanical vignetting), but there are times when I wonder if it too sharp and contrasty to the point of looking artificial and hyperreal at F/1.4. In comparison, the Sigma is by no means dreamy at F/1.4 but just looks natural to me.
The final elephant in the room for me is the GM 1.2. Whilst fans of the GM 1.4 will say the latter is better value for money, more compact (the best lens is the one you bring you etc.), I see poor value for money and FOMO. The GM 1.4 as I said has technically excellent IQ but fail to excite me in the same way as images from the GM 1.2, which have a look unmatched by any other lens on the Sony E-mount and certainly not on any camera system at this price point and size/weight. If I were going GM, why would I not pay a couple hundred bucks more and go all the way to get the best of the best?
And I appreciate again my views are entirely subjective and if you think the GM 1.4 is the best thing since sliced bread, good for you, but that's not me. What we should all be amazed by and thankful for is that consumers now have so much choice on the E-mount, and we can get high quality lenses at all price points.
It's better to let the heart rule the head in such cases. You have to like what you see in the output. Having said that, the ~500 gram GM produces ultra smooth images, an unusual combination of super on-plane drawing and lovely bokeh: eye-relaxing smoothness. Having its level of high performance translates directly into great image depth stopped down, so the versatility here is very high.
I don't feel people just happen to become fans as such, they simply see what is there and they form a judgment. And personal styles enter the picture, quite literally. No one lens pleases all. For readers, here are some image sets to illustrate the above points of mine. The lens's character is apparent across these guys' work, indicating that post is not a major factor. It's a very 'honest' lens and punches well above its weight. (Having looked through (and averaged out) the GM 50/1.2 images here, I feel confident the newer lens will prevail over that one, in time.) It's just a sweeter look.
Wow, that's quite a detailed review , thanks!
I don't have 50/1.4GM but I have to say I got a similar impression when going through online 1.2 vs 1.4 comparisons. The former seems to marry sharpness with rendering a bit better, while the latter provides higher resolution and contrast.
I think it's similar to 35/1.4 GM vs Sigma 35/1.2 DN situation, it's hard to find any faults in the GM, but when you compare them directly on a demanding scene, then you start to appreciate those extra grams and centimeters of the Sigma ...
ryanli wrote:
So having spent some time with both lenses and got to know their character pretty well, I decided to... keep Sigma and sell Sony (actually at profit so I've effectively got a discount on the already good value Sigma). Why, you ask:
- In my previous posts I have measurebated at 100% and tested in worst-case scenarios, but in real-life usage, i.e. viewing images globally at fit-to-screen zoom, the images rendered by both lenses look virtually indistinguishable unless compared side-by-side and you know both lenses well. In low-light conditions with slower shutter speeds, very minor subject movements are likely to obliterate any advantages that the Sony might have in sharpness. Globally, I like the fact that the Sigma gives a smidgen more and softer background blur with slightly less mechanical vignetting, and a tighter framing.
- Size and weight. Yes the GM is shorter and 160g or so lighter than Sigma, but let's face it, even the Sony is not a small lens by any stretch of imagination compared to say the Zony 55/1.8 or Sigma 45/2.8. In real life I cannot say it has made any practical difference other than bragging rights.
- GBP 300 or 50% price difference is a lot of money for two lenses that in the real world have practically identical IQ and are both not small lenses.
Mostly, my earlier views that the Sony is a "heart" lens whilst the Sigma is a "head" lens still apply, well now I'm not so certain. If we must pick bones with the GM 1.4 rendering, I would say that it is "clinical": superbly competent in so many areas (aside from the mechanical vignetting), but there are times when I wonder if it too sharp and contrasty to the point of looking artificial and hyperreal at F/1.4. In comparison, the Sigma is by no means dreamy at F/1.4 but just looks natural to me.
The final elephant in the room for me is the GM 1.2. Whilst fans of the GM 1.4 will say the latter is better value for money, more compact (the best lens is the one you bring you etc.), I see poor value for money and FOMO. The GM 1.4 as I said has technically excellent IQ but fail to excite me in the same way as images from the GM 1.2, which have a look unmatched by any other lens on the Sony E-mount and certainly not on any camera system at this price point and size/weight. If I were going GM, why would I not pay a couple hundred bucks more and go all the way to get the best of the best?
And I appreciate again my views are entirely subjective and if you think the GM 1.4 is the best thing since sliced bread, good for you, but that's not me. What we should all be amazed by and thankful for is that consumers now have so much choice on the E-mount, and we can get high quality lenses at all price points....Show more →
philip_pj wrote:
It's better to let the heart rule the head in such cases. You have to like what you see in the output. Having said that, the ~500 gram GM produces ultra smooth images, an unusual combination of super on-plane drawing and lovely bokeh: eye-relaxing smoothness. Having its level of high performance translates directly into great image depth stopped down, so the versatility here is very high.
I respect your views. On reflection I was probably overly critical of the GM in order to highlight the reasons I chose the Sigma. Both are very fine lenses -arguably the Sony being the slightly finer of the two though my very slight aesthetic preference is for the Sigma - and if I were not offered a choice, I'd probably be happy with either. If the Sigma or the GM 1.2 didn't exist I'd almost certainly jump for the GM 1.4.
, thanks!
...