actually, i was always looking at the sigma, until i heard about sony releasing a 15 mm 1.4, so i decided to wait for the release. But due to this price, I will actually chose the sigma now as I don't think this +450€ are a good investment in 1 mm more wide-angle and some buttons and switches. Maybe I'll just get the Samyang 12mm or the sony 11 mm soon for ultra wide angle. So yeah, win for sigma again. But just my opinion...
I think people who want a build out that involves a small gimbal will consider the sony, but otherwise the Sigma will remain the quality/value king. The ronin rs3 and ronin sc both handle the ZV-E10 with the sigma fine. But people wanting the smaller crane gimbals struggle with the sigma. I returned my crane gimbal because of that combo not working.
I sold my Sigma 16mm and bought the Sony 15mm for around $550 new. Definitely a sharper lens and the light weight and size makes it much more versatile. I own the A6600 and A7RIV.
The size is a real deal. I missed out on Sigma because I could not justify the size and weight for a wide lens which is usually just a one off for me for sceneries and architecture.
I see the Sony lens as an aspirational lens for me. The Sigma is my starting lens and may not ever be supplanted for my use case, but it's good to have an alternative. Having been down the EF-S route previously, I really appreciate that Sony has offered these new lenses for APS-C just as I'm getting to grips with the changeover from Canon.
That's a shame there's no OSS with the new lenses. I really regret not getting an A6600 (I went with the 6400 to save some money) and so would love that OSS feature. I do like it's smaller and thus lighter. I use the Sigma ALL the time and love it. It's also super affordable.
Agreed. For video shooting, no OSS which the majority of the APS-C bodies are, is a miss as you now need to carry a gimbal as well. With the said, This lens should balance very nice as the sigma is just too big for easily balancing / front heavy.
Tbh, I just believe image stabilization/OSS, or whatever anacronym is applied, has been very, very overhyped in the last decade. For example, Sigma offers some fast primes, and is it that difficult to hold a camera sufficiently still to avoid any blurred vision. Video and bloggers are in a different category. If you can, just save to purchase a body, e.g a6600 which has image stabilisation built in. Also, see the inbuilt image stabilisation in the Fuji X cameras, the mega stabilisation in the , misconceived criticisms of the OMD/OMS bodies- up to 8 stops.
Some people like shooting indoors or at night. Or at an F-stop where the camera performs better or gives more depth of field. And yeah more and more people want a hybrid video/photography camera.
Have Sigma fixed their *focusing issues* with the comparable lenses, though? I know the 30 and 16mm were especially afflicted by it, it took many firmware updates to "finally" get "fixed"...
@@odeiraoloap but even if sigma hasn’t “fixed” their autofocus issues, does that slight autofocus upgrade warrant double the cost? Personally I don’t think so
The Sony will be picked by traveller's and the Sigma by UA-camrs, and everybody else depending on their budget and how much importance and value they give to the differences. Sony is priced at 849 euros at this moment in Spain in pre-launch period. New Sony's 11mm F1.8 is also at pre-launch 599 euros. Excellent review
@@SpuddyIRL Sorry, I actually meant 30mm, far less expensive than the 35. I like it a lot for general use. It's very sharp even at f/1.4. I do wish it was stabilised. 30mm is a good focal length for streaming if it's set up 2-3 feet away from you (I've used that setup as a webcam) but it might not be wide enough for hand-held vlogging if you're pointing it at yourself. You'd probably be better with the kit lens zoomed out for that so you don't have to have your arm fully extended constantly.
Agree, i think sharper. Looks wonderful. But like others said, if you already have the sigma, maybe not an upgrade worthwhile at that price. Man, looks great though.
Agree it's bigger and heavier than the Sony, however, I purchased the Sigma when Sony had left its apsc users out in the cold with an incredibly limited selection of native lens. Purchased, and been exceptionally pleased with the Sigma 16 1.4 (& numerous other Sigma apsc lens) and never found the weight ,bulk of the 16 to be a problem. Sigma lens could possibly do with a refresh, but it does everything I want and is ,still, excellent value for money.
@@robertcudlipp3426 For half the price even if I was buying today it would be NO contest. The sony is maybe 5% more refined for 100% more money, not the best deal.
Fantastic review Arthur 👊It's incredible how Sony figured out how to make a lens so wide, so light weight, and such high quality all around. Dare I say the price, although high, is totally justified. With that being, the Sigma is still a better bang for the buck in my opinion... All the best, Jay
We should not underestimate the benefits of smaller and lighter lenses. To me, that offsets the cost disadvantage. Health is important, and Quality of Life in general.
Weirdly enough I feel that the new 11mm f1.8 does a better job at competing with the sigma 16. the sigma was the best value proposition for streamers but now you can spend a little more for a wider angle at the aperture you were probably gonna stream at anyways. It's very enticing if you're looking for a primary stream lens and a no brainer if you already have a sigma 16 and are looking for a B lens.
Yes, the 11mm is a more versatile focal length now imo especially considering various crop factors from things like active steady shot, 120fps 4k, etc.
I already ordered this one, I know people still love and prefer Sigma 16mm because it's still a great and affordable legend. But, as an engineer, I know it's much much harder to design and produce something that performs the same (or better) in a smaller size and lighter weight. I know it's sophisticated. It's an amazing feat that Sony can make it even better with more features. I know it's expensive and we already get the most value from Sigma, it's diminishing return. But, guys, they just cannot sell things like this cheap. Even though my skill is amateur and I only shoot for hobby, but I just wanna use this lens. I like what they are doing and want to see more lenses like this 🙂
Sony is a few years too late for me. I’ve already invested significantly in the FF system and occasionally I grab my crop bodies as a secondary, when I want something more compact. The Sigma prime trio checks the boxes for a backup system for me already.
Above all I really want to give a thumb up to Sony for composing a lens in such a portable size! I'm currently using Sigma 16mm 1.4, which is good but feels a little bulky and ugly to me
For the price, I don't think I will be switching over! I generally prefer Sony's first party APSC lens over Sigma's - as they tend to be much more compact - but the price is nowhere in the same range for this one. The Sigma is less than half price of the Sony, and is very widely available second hand for even less. Plus, I don't really think its that much smaller than the Sigma 16mm.
I wish he would have done an AF speed test. I always find the Sony faster than Tamron or Sigma. The speed difference plus the extra 1mm may be worth it.
Yes, out the outset it should be noted the Sigma 16 1.4 is one of the BEST lens in recent photographic history. Who has read a review, anywhere,that was less than glowing in its praise! Also, Sony apsc owners, you should never forget that Sony left you almost completely out in the cold so far as native glass was concerned. It was left to Signa to release the famed trio of apsc lens that Arthur, particularly, singled out as almost must buys to provide a holistic and very high quality set of lens. " Law of diminishing returns"- yes, that certainly applies here. Sigma could have produced an AF Zeiss Batis type lens, and the cost? I have had a Sigma 16 1.4 on my a6000, added to by a 6400, basically because of the stellar IAF of the 6400- fund didn't stretch to a 6600. Be sensible at continue to support Sigma with this and its other lens. The Sigma 16 1.4 is all the lens virtually anyone needs, the value for money 💰 aspect seals any argument.
I think that's a fair price to pay for a lens which is as good as Sigma optically if not even better but half the weight and have features like declickable aperture rings and etc.
@@pop1348 Yeah and also can have 3 samyangs.... Prices are dependable, you never gonna get a native AF at least with sigma's stepping motors and it's not even linear. But still nice options
I might pick one up just so I can use the crop 4k 60p on my Sony A7iv so I can have a 22.5mm FOV and still have a 1.4 aperture for lowlight or isolating my subject.
Definitely not upgrading my Sigma 16mm. Price on Sony is what kills it for me, and the performance is not mind blowing when compared to the Sigma. Great review Arthur!
I have the sigma 16 and I think is just great, however, I also find that is the one I use the less compared to other focal lengths. Wide angle gets rather boring quickly, now my 90mm 2.8 from sigma it always stays on my camera.
I own 3 Sigma lenses, the 16 f1.4 I never liked. It was to big for a 16 mm crop lens and relatively primitive. I sold it long before I sold the rest of my APS-C gear. All prime lenses should at least have an aperture ring and AF/MF switch.
I couldn't care less about the aperture ring and most people dont care about it either, not having it could have potentially shave some of that hefty price.
Interesting. I'm mostly planning to shoot video with it, so the Sigma wins out for the better Bokeh and I feel the 16mm (24mm FF) is a more useable focal range. But we'll see how it goes!
There is no value in these if you already have the Sigma 16mm. Plus it is double the price. The only upside is the size but is it that much of a game changer?
The main advantage of the Sony lenses for video shooters is the much better autofocus performance. The Sigma lenses are barely usable at higher apertures due to the heavy focus hunting and wobbly image they deliver. With everything above f2.8, I never get a stable image out any of the Sigma trio lenses.
@@Niceguy54444 I don’t think it is. None of my Sony lenses have any of the issues the Sigmas give me. Also the focus depth is really uneven, blurring objects on one side of the image while leaving them in focus in the other.
Would love to see sony follow up with 30 & 50mm fast G lens primes to accompany this. The 15mm is awesome owned for a few weeks now & love using it. The price seems steep for apsc but that said you get what you pay for a fast intuitive wide-angle lens great for video fun to use and silent.
after watching many videos - including yours ... I bought the a6400. Who knew Sony would phase out OSS ? Instead of buying the 15, gotta go with Sigma 16 & a gimbal
If this had the OSS then the price would be OK (a6000 here). Without it I'm still more into the Sigma... if I was prime focused ofc (in love with my Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 which I have thanks to your review, zooms are awesome :) ). Hey! What do you think about a6900? Any legit rumors about release date? I hear about it for so long time, still nothing. Perhaps something with global semiconductors crisis?
Does it make sense to buy the Sony 15mm f1.4 and combining it with the a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8? I was thinking to bring these two on travel. Or is it better to combine the Sigma with the Sony 11mm f1.8?
having had the sigma 16mm, I can say that the autofocus is garbage on it. Otherwise a good lens, though the huge weight and size along with the bad focus got me to return it. The 18-105 has a much much better focus and it`s not even the best one so... this 15mm must be a dream. :D
I bought the Sony 15mm f/1.4m for my A6700. I may send it back. The distortion in the sides of the frame is pretty bad unless you position the camera exactly level. I have not found this much distortion with my Fujifilm 16mm f/1.4 nor the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 (which I rented one day for the A6700). I prefer not to have to be so meticulous with the level of the camera while shooting. I am surprised there is that much difference in a 15mm vs 16mm focal length.
the sigma 16 on FE with newer bodies (a7siii) with that active steadyshot crops the vignette away nearly completely and basically can be used in full frame mode.
It has distortion but corrected by the profile in jpeg. Hence the compact size. Probably the sigma with a better software profile would erase the 5% difference. The sony however has a great compact size with better AF motors. However the price is just a little less than the FF sony 20mm f1.8 & I got the FF sigma 20mm f2 for 500$ new at a flash sale. So the difference between aps-c & ff lenses pricewise is not much of a difference
No one says that editting pics or videos from Sigma lens worse than Sony lens. Sigma just displays you how sharp it is on screen but when putting pics into Lightroom you will know why Sony is always better than sigma
I was looking for OSS in the SONY, that would have sold me on it. As that is the only flaw (if there is one) in the SIGMA; no stabilization. Pair no OSS with no IBIS (my 6400), it's a good thing I do most my photography/video on tripods anyway. This SONY lens wont have me selling my sweet 16mm SIGMA.
For me, I have the sigma 16mm F1.4 and found that it is a bit big and heavy on the a6000 body. It make be hesitate to bring it out . I normally take the Samyang 35mm F1.8 or sigma 55mm F1.4 and use my Huawei Leica for 16mm shot. 1mm in the wide side is a lot and to have almost half the weight(219g), I cannot say that this is a refine but a technology improvement. Some comparison example : - tamaron 28-75mm F2.8 G2 could only reduce 2% weight. - Sigma 16mm 405g; 30mm 265g; Sure, whether this worth almost double of price is another story.
If money were not an issue, which one of the two would you choose? My use-case would be mostly day-/nighttime street photography and landscapes for the lens. What makes it very difficult for me to choose is the fact that the Sony is so much smaller compared to the Sigma and also somewhat sharper, but I like the overall image rendition and bokeh on the Sigma more - and the Sigma, uncorrected, has much less distortion. But the Sigma's size... I don't care for the extra features on the Sony lens: aperture ring, buttons etc.; what I care about is weight and image quality.
Crazy how much smaller it is than the Sigma. But the bokeh is indeed better on the Sigma. So we're happy that both lenses coexist. Lol @ the Dramatized Reenactment, well done!
11 mm or 15 mm from sony apsc ? I do have the sigma 18 to 50 2.8 and i would like a wider lens for street or holiday, thanx from bavaria for your videos
Would def replace this for my sigma 16mm but for the price. Hate the motor noise and size of Sigma. Never been a fan of Sigma but haven’t found anything in that range with f1.4. I for one prefer the sigma 18-55mm f2.8 over the 16mm.
I hope that Sony will make some GM "CQ" Lenses which are of highest possible image quality without flaws that have to be corrected in software, fx a 15mm 1.8 or 2.0 for APSC that are both compact and with very high image quality and a 24mm 1.8 or 2.0 for full frame. I also hope for professional Cameras in APSC with high resolution EVF´s. The new 14mm Sony Lens are "expensive", but THAT is NOT a "crime" ! Of course it is more expensive than a Sigma Lens, it is also better, if you want something that are better, then it cost more, is it too expensive, maybe, but you do not get any better right now ! I do not like the Sigma 16mm it is too big and heavy for a APSC Sony Camera !
Looking at your photos and I'm not an expert, and I'm just watching the results on the screen. I found the sigma lens still a tad bit sharper. I love sony cameras but personally I have an issue with their lenses, it just seems like it's not top quality for the price that they ask.
Nothing ground breaking from this lens to challenge the half priced sigma, which has the same performance if not better. I doubt many people will be getting this sony lens, its a few years late into the game.
@@rickthomas9278 Exactly!!! But maybe Sony is bringing out new apsc cameras with IBIS? who knows? lets wait and see what happens. As of now i still maintain my NOPE on these new lenses.
Crazy! Not the lenses but the fact that the reviews of these have hit every channel exactly two hours ago. Literally 5 channels released reviews 2 hours ago.
are you new here on youtube?)) companies practice this for years know. They send their product some time before release and tell people the exact time people are allowed to talk about it. So people just upload their reviews and set automatic release time in video settings to get those first views from hyped consumers.
@@ruslanr.6171 No, but only to the review process. Here's the problem: The channels oversaturate subscriber feeds with the exact same thing and release date, meaning less differentiation.
What about 11mm vs. Sigma for talking head youtube/blurry background? On zv-e10? 15mm is nice but seems too expensive. Any disadvantages or advantages to the 11mm really?
Due to the Sony high price I don't think it will disrupt Sigma 16mm sales.
actually, i was always looking at the sigma, until i heard about sony releasing a 15 mm 1.4, so i decided to wait for the release. But due to this price, I will actually chose the sigma now as I don't think this +450€ are a good investment in 1 mm more wide-angle and some buttons and switches. Maybe I'll just get the Samyang 12mm or the sony 11 mm soon for ultra wide angle.
So yeah, win for sigma again. But just my opinion...
I think people who want a build out that involves a small gimbal will consider the sony, but otherwise the Sigma will remain the quality/value king.
The ronin rs3 and ronin sc both handle the ZV-E10 with the sigma fine. But people wanting the smaller crane gimbals struggle with the sigma. I returned my crane gimbal because of that combo not working.
@@MtnXfreeride same i had that issue too
@@MtnXfreeride so which lens would you suggest for zve10
@@vivekkhare8888For vlogging? 11mm f1.8?
I sold my Sigma 16mm and bought the Sony 15mm for around $550 new. Definitely a sharper lens and the light weight and size makes it much more versatile. I own the A6600 and A7RIV.
How is it with the A7Riv?
The price of Sony just make Sigma twice better, make me like my Sigma even more.
The size is a real deal. I missed out on Sigma because I could not justify the size and weight for a wide lens which is usually just a one off for me for sceneries and architecture.
It's popular among vlogger.
какой вы нежный
I see the Sony lens as an aspirational lens for me. The Sigma is my starting lens and may not ever be supplanted for my use case, but it's good to have an alternative. Having been down the EF-S route previously, I really appreciate that Sony has offered these new lenses for APS-C just as I'm getting to grips with the changeover from Canon.
The Aura commercial at 3:22 Great camera work, lighting, and award winning performance!
That's a shame there's no OSS with the new lenses. I really regret not getting an A6600 (I went with the 6400 to save some money) and so would love that OSS feature. I do like it's smaller and thus lighter. I use the Sigma ALL the time and love it. It's also super affordable.
It’s a 15mm lens, no need OSS, but still overpriced. Sigma 16mm f1.4 is a better choice.
Agreed. For video shooting, no OSS which the majority of the APS-C bodies are, is a miss as you now need to carry a gimbal as well. With the said, This lens should balance very nice as the sigma is just too big for easily balancing / front heavy.
Tbh, I just believe image stabilization/OSS, or whatever anacronym is applied, has been very, very overhyped in the last decade.
For example, Sigma offers some fast primes, and is it that difficult to hold a camera sufficiently still to avoid any blurred vision.
Video and bloggers are in a different category.
If you can, just save to purchase a body, e.g a6600 which has image stabilisation built in. Also, see the inbuilt image stabilisation in the Fuji X cameras, the mega stabilisation in the , misconceived criticisms of the OMD/OMS bodies- up to 8 stops.
Some people like shooting indoors or at night. Or at an F-stop where the camera performs better or gives more depth of field. And yeah more and more people want a hybrid video/photography camera.
@@robstravelsadventures you don’t need to carry a gimbal, use different styles of shooting
Sigma is still the king. Took Sony like 4 years to make a competitor and then shot themselves in the foot by making it double the price
Have Sigma fixed their *focusing issues* with the comparable lenses, though? I know the 30 and 16mm were especially afflicted by it, it took many firmware updates to "finally" get "fixed"...
@@odeiraoloap but even if sigma hasn’t “fixed” their autofocus issues, does that slight autofocus upgrade warrant double the cost? Personally I don’t think so
It was the 30mm that had this issue. Majority of the 16mm and 56mm lenses were fine since release.
The look of Sony is smashing. I am sure Sigma will come with a new version soon.😊
😂 double the size on an apsc sensor
The Sony will be picked by traveller's and the Sigma by UA-camrs, and everybody else depending on their budget and how much importance and value they give to the differences. Sony is priced at 849 euros at this moment in Spain in pre-launch period. New Sony's 11mm F1.8 is also at pre-launch 599 euros. Excellent review
Back here after 5-6 years, good to see you are still making excellent reviews, thanks!
Just want to say the thumbnail for this is a thing of beauty, good work. Also you helped me a lot back when I got my a6400 and Sigma 30mm f/1.4.
how do you find the 35mm lens, dont know what to get for a a6400 for streaming and vlogging
@@SpuddyIRL Sorry, I actually meant 30mm, far less expensive than the 35. I like it a lot for general use. It's very sharp even at f/1.4. I do wish it was stabilised. 30mm is a good focal length for streaming if it's set up 2-3 feet away from you (I've used that setup as a webcam) but it might not be wide enough for hand-held vlogging if you're pointing it at yourself. You'd probably be better with the kit lens zoomed out for that so you don't have to have your arm fully extended constantly.
Hi there, I ordered my new a6400 and sigma 56mmf/1.4. This is my first cam. Will you pls tell me what is the advantage of 56mm over 30mm and 16 mm?
Agree, i think sharper. Looks wonderful. But like others said, if you already have the sigma, maybe not an upgrade worthwhile at that price. Man, looks great though.
I have sigma, but i want this lens.. because one reason, the size 😅.. sigma so big on my zv-e10
Agree it's bigger and heavier than the Sony, however, I purchased the Sigma when Sony had left its apsc users out in the cold with an incredibly limited selection of native lens.
Purchased, and been exceptionally pleased with the Sigma 16 1.4 (& numerous other Sigma apsc lens) and never found the weight ,bulk of the 16 to be a problem.
Sigma lens could possibly do with a refresh, but it does everything I want and is ,still, excellent value for money.
@@robertcudlipp3426 For half the price even if I was buying today it would be NO contest. The sony is maybe 5% more refined for 100% more money, not the best deal.
Fantastic review Arthur 👊It's incredible how Sony figured out how to make a lens so wide, so light weight, and such high quality all around. Dare I say the price, although high, is totally justified. With that being, the Sigma is still a better bang for the buck in my opinion... All the best, Jay
Already have the Sigma, but would consider this lens for travelling due to its size
We should not underestimate the benefits of smaller and lighter lenses. To me, that offsets the cost disadvantage. Health is important, and Quality of Life in general.
Weirdly enough I feel that the new 11mm f1.8 does a better job at competing with the sigma 16. the sigma was the best value proposition for streamers but now you can spend a little more for a wider angle at the aperture you were probably gonna stream at anyways. It's very enticing if you're looking for a primary stream lens and a no brainer if you already have a sigma 16 and are looking for a B lens.
I agree with you. Its a strange thing, but i could see people cross shopping the 11mm and the Sigma 16.
@@ArthurR yeah because they are the same price range and for some ppl out there, money is a factor 🥺
@@ArthurR I just purchased the 11 Sony and 16 sigma , I think it’s a great comp ! And I also have a 18-50 sigma !
Yes, the 11mm is a more versatile focal length now imo especially considering various crop factors from things like active steady shot, 120fps 4k, etc.
Got my Sigma 16 coz of your reviews. Cheers to amazing content as always!
I already ordered this one,
I know people still love and prefer Sigma 16mm because it's still a great and affordable legend. But, as an engineer, I know it's much much harder to design and produce something that performs the same (or better) in a smaller size and lighter weight. I know it's sophisticated. It's an amazing feat that Sony can make it even better with more features.
I know it's expensive and we already get the most value from Sigma, it's diminishing return. But, guys, they just cannot sell things like this cheap. Even though my skill is amateur and I only shoot for hobby, but I just wanna use this lens. I like what they are doing and want to see more lenses like this 🙂
Sony is a few years too late for me. I’ve already invested significantly in the FF system and occasionally I grab my crop bodies as a secondary, when I want something more compact. The Sigma prime trio checks the boxes for a backup system for me already.
Agree. On full frame, there are so many affordable and lightweight 24 1.8/2 options, especially Samyang 24 1.8
Yeah same here, if they had these options available years ago I may have stayed with apsc.
Above all I really want to give a thumb up to Sony for composing a lens in such a portable size!
I'm currently using Sigma 16mm 1.4, which is good but feels a little bulky and ugly to me
For the price, I don't think I will be switching over! I generally prefer Sony's first party APSC lens over Sigma's - as they tend to be much more compact - but the price is nowhere in the same range for this one.
The Sigma is less than half price of the Sony, and is very widely available second hand for even less.
Plus, I don't really think its that much smaller than the Sigma 16mm.
I wish he would have done an AF speed test. I always find the Sony faster than Tamron or Sigma. The speed difference plus the extra 1mm may be worth it.
Yes, out the outset it should be noted the Sigma 16 1.4 is one of the BEST lens in recent photographic history.
Who has read a review, anywhere,that was less than glowing in its praise!
Also, Sony apsc owners, you should never forget that Sony left you almost completely out in the cold so far as native glass was concerned. It was left to Signa to release the famed trio of apsc lens that Arthur, particularly, singled out as almost must buys to provide a holistic and very high quality set of lens.
" Law of diminishing returns"- yes, that certainly applies here.
Sigma could have produced an AF Zeiss Batis type lens, and the cost?
I have had a Sigma 16 1.4 on my a6000, added to by a 6400, basically because of the stellar IAF of the 6400- fund didn't stretch to a 6600.
Be sensible at continue to support Sigma with this and its other lens.
The Sigma 16 1.4 is all the lens virtually anyone needs, the value for money 💰 aspect seals any argument.
748 Euros !!!!!! The price of a full frame lens... They are crazy !
You can buy Sigma 16 and 56 for that money )))
I think that's a fair price to pay for a lens which is as good as Sigma optically if not even better but half the weight and have features like declickable aperture rings and etc.
@@networm64 you can have two Sigma for that price... Just saying...
@@pop1348 Yeah and also can have 3 samyangs.... Prices are dependable, you never gonna get a native AF at least with sigma's stepping motors and it's not even linear. But still nice options
Great review and comparison of the Sony vs Sigma primes. Also dig the reference to Seiko vs. Grand Seiko.
I can't see myself switching my sigma for this. It's just not enough of a performance boost.
I might pick one up just so I can use the crop 4k 60p on my Sony A7iv so I can have a 22.5mm FOV and still have a 1.4 aperture for lowlight or isolating my subject.
Definitely not upgrading my Sigma 16mm. Price on Sony is what kills it for me, and the performance is not mind blowing when compared to the Sigma. Great review Arthur!
Not a bad price, I was expecting about $1200.00. Size and weight means everything when traveling.
I have the sigma 16 and I think is just great, however, I also find that is the one I use the less compared to other focal lengths. Wide angle gets rather boring quickly, now my 90mm 2.8 from sigma it always stays on my camera.
I own 3 Sigma lenses, the 16 f1.4 I never liked. It was to big for a 16 mm crop lens and relatively primitive.
I sold it long before I sold the rest of my APS-C gear. All prime lenses should at least have an aperture ring and AF/MF switch.
I couldn't care less about the aperture ring and most people dont care about it either, not having it could have potentially shave some of that hefty price.
I like it, but not that it clicked to 1/4 stops. There's nothing wrong with full stops given how good our ISO is these days.
Interesting. I'm mostly planning to shoot video with it, so the Sigma wins out for the better Bokeh and I feel the 16mm (24mm FF) is a more useable focal range. But we'll see how it goes!
There is no value in these if you already have the Sigma 16mm. Plus it is double the price. The only upside is the size but is it that much of a game changer?
And no OSS !
Excellent review and comparison. Thank you!
What’s better for vlogging? Sony 11mm or Sigma 16mm?
The main advantage of the Sony lenses for video shooters is the much better autofocus performance. The Sigma lenses are barely usable at higher apertures due to the heavy focus hunting and wobbly image they deliver. With everything above f2.8, I never get a stable image out any of the Sigma trio lenses.
On video he said its same
@@Niceguy54444 I don’t think it is. None of my Sony lenses have any of the issues the Sigmas give me. Also the focus depth is really uneven, blurring objects on one side of the image while leaving them in focus in the other.
@@XanderEwald i don't have a y issue with a7iv
Would love to see sony follow up with 30 & 50mm fast G lens primes to accompany this. The 15mm is awesome owned for a few weeks now & love using it. The price seems steep for apsc but that said you get what you pay for a fast intuitive wide-angle lens great for video fun to use and silent.
At that price, I will keep my Sigma 16mm, thank you Sony.
I hope Sigma release a tele to undercut their 70-350mm as well.
after watching many videos - including yours ... I bought the a6400. Who knew Sony would phase out OSS ? Instead of buying the 15, gotta go with Sigma 16 & a gimbal
If your doing video handheld a gimbal is the way to go whether you have OSS or not.
If this had the OSS then the price would be OK (a6000 here). Without it I'm still more into the Sigma... if I was prime focused ofc (in love with my Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 which I have thanks to your review, zooms are awesome :) ). Hey! What do you think about a6900? Any legit rumors about release date? I hear about it for so long time, still nothing. Perhaps something with global semiconductors crisis?
no more stabilization on Sony lenses?
Does it make sense to buy the Sony 15mm f1.4 and combining it with the a
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8? I was thinking to bring these two on travel. Or is it better to combine the Sigma with the Sony 11mm f1.8?
Same situation and problem 😅
When you say it could be to sharp - what if you use it in 1080p - will it give you acceptable 50/60p on a A7C?
having had the sigma 16mm, I can say that the autofocus is garbage on it. Otherwise a good lens, though the huge weight and size along with the bad focus got me to return it. The 18-105 has a much much better focus and it`s not even the best one so... this 15mm must be a dream. :D
really, i am grateful that I have great autofocus on mine. never miss a shot with it, better than my sony native lens
The Sigma 16mm remains a great option. No need to replace it.
Super helpful comparison, thank you!
For the price of the Sony 15mm new you can almost get the 16mm, 30mm, and 56mm Sigma Trio used. 😅
Excellent review. Thanks always for the good work!! Keep it up
I personally don’t mind the price. The weigh&size is more important, and Sony has made it well.
I love when you tried to resist yourself from giving a smile / laugh on your price last part...
Do you think Sigma will refine the 16mm eventually to a smaller lighter product to keep up ?
I bought the Sony 15mm f/1.4m for my A6700. I may send it back. The distortion in the sides of the frame is pretty bad unless you position the camera exactly level. I have not found this much distortion with my Fujifilm 16mm f/1.4 nor the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 (which I rented one day for the A6700). I prefer not to have to be so meticulous with the level of the camera while shooting. I am surprised there is that much difference in a 15mm vs 16mm focal length.
the sigma 16 on FE with newer bodies (a7siii) with that active steadyshot crops the vignette away nearly completely and basically can be used in full frame mode.
at 10 mega pixels?
It has distortion but corrected by the profile in jpeg. Hence the compact size. Probably the sigma with a better software profile would erase the 5% difference. The sony however has a great compact size with better AF motors. However the price is just a little less than the FF sony 20mm f1.8 & I got the FF sigma 20mm f2 for 500$ new at a flash sale. So the difference between aps-c & ff lenses pricewise is not much of a difference
No one says that editting pics or videos from Sigma lens worse than Sony lens. Sigma just displays you how sharp it is on screen but when putting pics into Lightroom you will know why Sony is always better than sigma
Cristal clear !!! I still think that Sigma is better value for the money. Thanks for your excellent review.
I got the feeling that you like watches, I RESPECT THAT 🎉
I was looking for OSS in the SONY, that would have sold me on it. As that is the only flaw (if there is one) in the SIGMA; no stabilization. Pair no OSS with no IBIS (my 6400), it's a good thing I do most my photography/video on tripods anyway. This SONY lens wont have me selling my sweet 16mm SIGMA.
For me, I have the sigma 16mm F1.4 and found that it is a bit big and heavy on the a6000 body. It make be hesitate to bring it out . I normally take the Samyang 35mm F1.8 or sigma 55mm F1.4 and use my Huawei Leica for 16mm shot.
1mm in the wide side is a lot and to have almost half the weight(219g), I cannot say that this is a refine but a technology improvement.
Some comparison example :
- tamaron 28-75mm F2.8 G2 could only reduce 2% weight.
- Sigma 16mm 405g; 30mm 265g;
Sure, whether this worth almost double of price is another story.
Great and informative review! Can you please tell me if this lens can be my only lens for hiking type videos?
If money were not an issue, which one of the two would you choose? My use-case would be mostly day-/nighttime street photography and landscapes for the lens.
What makes it very difficult for me to choose is the fact that the Sony is so much smaller compared to the Sigma and also somewhat sharper, but I like the overall image rendition and bokeh on the Sigma more - and the Sigma, uncorrected, has much less distortion. But the Sigma's size... I don't care for the extra features on the Sony lens: aperture ring, buttons etc.; what I care about is weight and image quality.
If they were priced the same, the Sony is better. But at 2x the price, the Sony is not worth it.
How it looks on full frame A7IV with active stabilization and maybe focus breathing compensation?
Crazy how much smaller it is than the Sigma. But the bokeh is indeed better on the Sigma. So we're happy that both lenses coexist.
Lol @ the Dramatized Reenactment, well done!
Pretty significant bokeh advantage. I'll stick with my cheaper Sigma. The weight and size sucks but overall it's one of the best.
11 mm or 15 mm from sony apsc ? I do have the sigma 18 to 50 2.8 and i would like a wider lens for street or holiday, thanx from bavaria for your videos
I bought the 15 for the extra features, but probably more of a nicety than anything else
Amazing review - Subscribed! Thank you
If I had to pick just one. Between Sony 1.4/15mm and 1.8/11mm, which one should I get? I shoot both vlogs and pictures.
Would def replace this for my sigma 16mm but for the price. Hate the motor noise and size of Sigma. Never been a fan of Sigma but haven’t found anything in that range with f1.4. I for one prefer the sigma 18-55mm f2.8 over the 16mm.
Which of the two has the smoother more natural rendering? Sigma right?
I may have missed you mention this, but does it have OSS?
none of the new lenses have OSS
What is the difference between a 'G' lens and a 'G Master' lens ?
I am always imtetested if somethimg like this is pocketable
Sigma looks brighter, should be better for low light video?
I hope that Sony will make some GM "CQ" Lenses which are of highest possible image quality without flaws that have to be corrected in software, fx a 15mm 1.8 or 2.0 for APSC that are both compact and with very high image quality and a 24mm 1.8 or 2.0 for full frame. I also hope for professional Cameras in APSC with high resolution EVF´s. The new 14mm Sony Lens are "expensive", but THAT is NOT a "crime" ! Of course it is more expensive than a Sigma Lens, it is also better, if you want something that are better, then it cost more, is it too expensive, maybe, but you do not get any better right now ! I do not like the Sigma 16mm it is too big and heavy for a APSC Sony Camera !
Looking at your photos and I'm not an expert, and I'm just watching the results on the screen. I found the sigma lens still a tad bit sharper. I love sony cameras but personally I have an issue with their lenses, it just seems like it's not top quality for the price that they ask.
I don't know, 16 mm is the least i use somehow. Always 35 mm and above. 58 mm Helios is a lot of fun
Nothing ground breaking from this lens to challenge the half priced sigma, which has the same performance if not better. I doubt many people will be getting this sony lens, its a few years late into the game.
And No OSS !
@@rickthomas9278 Exactly!!! But maybe Sony is bringing out new apsc cameras with IBIS? who knows? lets wait and see what happens. As of now i still maintain my NOPE on these new lenses.
will this good to be the only lens to have? i really like the compact design for traveling
I’m amazed by how small it is
That's what she said
I'd be more interested in the refreshed contemporary line from Sigma.
I don't have any prime lens. If I want to take northern lights photos, is the Sigma 16 a good lens for that?
I agree the price would be the issue. I would rather keep my Sigma 16mm and save that money for the other SONY new lens.
Thank you for the great information!
The portraits from Sigma looked great as compared to Sony.
This lens is $400+ more than the Sigma... Sony.. WTF...
Without OSS, what a joke
Yes, Sigma 16 + Sigma 18-50 (for additional 100 bucks). And it covers most use cases )
Is the sigma 16mm noisey when focusing ??
thanks for this. i just got my sigma this week, i think i'll be keeping it after all. :D
Crazy! Not the lenses but the fact that the reviews of these have hit every channel exactly two hours ago. Literally 5 channels released reviews 2 hours ago.
are you new here on youtube?)) companies practice this for years know. They send their product some time before release and tell people the exact time people are allowed to talk about it. So people just upload their reviews and set automatic release time in video settings to get those first views from hyped consumers.
@@ruslanr.6171 No, but only to the review process. Here's the problem: The channels oversaturate subscriber feeds with the exact same thing and release date, meaning less differentiation.
A good sign actually. Sony is investing in the APS-C market and may come with some new cameras as well.
@@ckdesignlab agree that might be pretty annoying, but youtubers want their pie and releases like that boost their views for sure.
@@ozabot that's what I'm excited about.
looks like sharpening and distortion correction have been automatically applied by the camera
Thank you great video and you're right, the Sony lens is so expensive.
Sigma is heavy but if you can deal with that. The optics is crazy good for the price.
Nice test :) Thaks...
Maybe Sony will come out with a ZV-E10 w/IBIS which would be great, small and light for this lens.
is this ok on full frame?
seriously thinking about upgrading just cuz of the weight and size.
I also find the 16mm to be a tiny bit not wide enough for me a lot of times too
Hello, what kind of watch do you have on your hand?
How about sony 11mm f1.8 vs sigma 16mm f1.4 ?
Half the weight makes it sound pretty nice but not for almost double the price
What about 11mm vs. Sigma for talking head youtube/blurry background? On zv-e10? 15mm is nice but seems too expensive. Any disadvantages or advantages to the 11mm really?
11mm/1.8 will give you almost no blurry background compared to 15 or 16mm/1.4
both lens are light enough, and sigma looks more professional, Sony looks like kit lens, so I will still choose sigma
Great video. Thank you. Would you recommend SEL11F18 or SEL15F14 ?
I like the 11mm, but the 15mm is more usable if you are doing video of people instead of places/things.
@@ArthurR Thank you very much for the reply !