You forgot to mention that the Panasonic doesn't have focus breathing, it's also a real manual lens, it has faster af-c, it's sharp corner to corner even at F 1.4...all these things are worth for professional videographers.
I love almost all of your reviews, this felt a little bit rushed in your tests...I would love to see consistency in your reviews! Thank you for all of your content in UA-cam!
Luca Bono The Panasonic does have focus breathing, but it’s a lot less though. I have the Panasonic 50. I upgraded from the Sigma 50 and Sigma 40. The Sigma 40 is the closest one in overall performance to the Panasonic 50 minus the focus speed.
I get the point. I have Sigma lenses for L Mount. The issues that other reviewers test for that the Panasonic does better than the Sigma (especially non-native DN Sigma DSLR lenses) are: silent AF for video (Sigma loses) and focus breathing (Sigma loses.) So: Panasonic native L mount glass. No focus breathing. MF focus clutch. Silent AF. No color fringing in out of focus areas. And, did you test for flare resistance? Weather sealing? People RAVE about the Panny 50 1.4. In part because of things you didn’t test for.
I noticed in the sample raw file provided by jared polin that the s pro 50 1.4 handles chromatic aberration better than most other 50 1.4 lenses when you do some heavy lifting with the color grading. It's not about sharpness and bokeh only. All lenses are made to give their best performance in their respective price ranges. But it is that extra steps taken by the manufacturers that makes a lens stand out, hence raising the price respectively. It is like coffee grounds. there are hundreds of brands that makes coffee. All of them gives you caffeine boosts. but only some of them really concentrate on how it will be tasted by many and how their buyers would react to them.
The Panasonic is going to have better weather proofing. Our test didn't show that it was any sharper. If you take care of the lens it should work out great.
@@KhingBassey Continuous autofocus performance, character, weather sealing, focus ring/throw, flare control, chromatic aberation in different lighting conditions, quality of the fall off from critical focus to out of focus area, minimum focus distance, focus breathing, clickless aperture, manual focus clutch, being parfocal.
Yeah I wouldn’t call this an exhaustive test. Put the sun behind the model at golden hour, for instance, and you might see some significant differences
My Sigma 50mm F/1.4 for Canon is my favorite and my "go to" lens. Could not live with out it. In the future how about a review of the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8? Thanks.
Linear manual focus on the sigma?????? does it work, or does it still act like a focus by wire lens even when you switch to that feature in camera?? Do only Panasonic lenses have this feature??
Sometimes it’s a bit of hit and miss on 3rd party lenses, or it used to be more than it is today compared to the more expensive ones. I have a few 3rd party lenses and my first one was the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Originally paired with a Canon 80D and now with a 90D. It’s extremely sharp from edge to edge wide open and the autofocus is excellent in live view but it’s notoriously inconsistent when used with the viewfinder. It’s been calibrated again and again and brought to a point that it looks finally similar to the live view in most cases, but sometimes it’s just going to miss focus completely and ruin the shot while at the same time you’ll get the focusing confirmation beep no matter how many AF points you’ll choose... I only use it in live view for that reason and I’m really happy with the results that I’m getting there. Another Sigma that I have, the 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO, originally it was a bad copy and it was side focusing. You could focus in the middle of the frame at 10 meters and as you would move towards the left you’d see that focus moving to infinity because an internal lens element was tilted. Eventually I’ve got it replaced by what I could call a “golden copy” of the lens which is razor sharp and it’s focusing fast and accurately. My other lenses are all passing the “sharpness test of the 90D” :) and they are consistent in focusing. I have only one L series Canon lens, the 100mm f/2.8L macro which feels like it could outperform an 100MP sensor in resolving power. It may not be the fastest focusing of the bunch but that’s not what it was designed for.
Granted, this is a Panasonic versus Sigma comparison, but it was still helpful. All of my lenses are Canon L’s. I’m looking at getting the Sigma Art 50mm 1.4. I appreciate your review of these lenses, and after your review I think I’m leaning more towards the Sigma. Sigma seems to be making noticeably better quality lenses.
Thanks for these. While I don't use L mount these kind of comparisons help..right now I am torn between getting rid of my 16-35Z for the Tamron 20/2.8 since I have the Laowa 15mm already..(and the 24-105 is used more!)
It would have been interesting to see the even pricier Leica 50mm added to this comparison. Weather sealing would be the number one reason for paying more for the Panasonic for me and Leica don’t even give you that!
For amateurs it will probably not mean something but at this price levels so you are sure a professional and here it comes to play role those minor details of sharpness, contrast and chrimatic aberration. I mean simply the sigma is not a match in all aspects why the price difference is justified to the level of performance.
The old Sigma Art lenses for the m4/3 mount were the first native mount lenses I bought for the system. I love all three of them. Sigma has come such a long way with their lenses.
This has been proven over an rover again that just because it’s very expensive doesn’t mean it’s that much better, if at all. Love your videos. Thank you for another good one.
Totally! It's amazing putting so many things to the test and seeing how a cheaper product holds up compared to a big brand name. Thanks so much for the support and kind words. Really appreciate having you in the TSL family.
Exactly, the Panny compares to the legendary 50 1.4 summilux. The Panny is more punchy, faster auto focus and is also cheaper. Quality is almost par. The Panny gives a Leica loon quality too
I use the sigma 50mm QUITE alot and i LOVE it's put of focus misshaping sooo much. If i have green stems or branches as a foreground it looks soooo good. Guess it's just a style thing tho
Big up TSL. i wish i could get the Panasonic in addition to my collection. thanks TSL for the review. one day i believe to do reviews like you do. you inspire me.
@@JoeChira That's totally fair! haha. A reliable and credible brand name will always carry weight! No shame in being a brand name guy! Glad you enjoyed the comparison. :)
I would only spend a lot of money on a lens I regularly use. I shoot mainly portraits, so have the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8G and Nikkor 105mm f/1.4, which are reasonably expensive lenses. I find I rarely use a 50mm, so use the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, prefering to shoot with the 35mm or 58mm focal length (I am amazed that 8mm can make such a difference). Even with the 35mm and 58mm, I didn't spend a lot of money because I didn't know how much I would use the lenses. I managed to get the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 for £399 in a sale and the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 Nokton second hand for £350 (with metal lens hood). So for me, the value is in how much I am going to use a lens and how much do you trust the manufacturer (I refuse to buy Sigma lenses because of a issues, I had with their lenses).
Thanks for the test from an optical viewpoint but maybe you could have a part two from a handling point of view. What are the focus rings like, focus throw, what do they feel like in the hand, weight and balance? Does the Panasonic have soft stops like the Sigma, can the Sigma have linear focussing. How much breathing do they have? The Sigma has two extra advantages apart from its price, that is the easy firmware updates with their puck and that if you ever wanted to change the mount, Sigma has a paid service that enables this! 🙏🏾
Really good points Eugene. It's definitely hard for us to cover every single element in these comparisons, but we appreciate you bringing them up and will consider this for a follow up video. Thanks so much!
I totally understand, it was not a complaint but a mere suggestion of a source of extra content that you guys and gals are so good at making into very good and interesting videos! 😉🙏🏾
With all of their great lenses, Nikon never did deliver with a great 50mm so for my Nikon D850, I went with the Sigma 1.4 50mm Art lens which delivers razor sharp pictures most of the time. Thanks for your great video.
I have a question about night sky time laps how does that work if your exposure is longer than the speed at which you take photo for photo doesn't the camera do the exposure thing while it's supposed to take the next photo? Or doesn’t it work that way?
Thanks for this! The Panasonic do have more pleasing colors although that's easily corrected in post with the Sigma. Would it be possible to do the same kind of comparison between the Panasonic 24-70 2.8 and Sigmas new L-mount version? From what few tests I've seen the Panasonic lens might be the best 24-70 out there today, but the new Sigma E-mount version is almost on par with Sony's G-master so it would be really interesting to see a comparison of the L-mount lenses. My current 24-70 is by far the lens I use the most so it could be one of the main factors in deciding what system to invest in in the future.
I suspect that the Sigma is the lens that they also sell for DSLRs. So its real element needs to clear the mirror. The Panasonic, which has no such limitation, can be optically superior. But not by much.
No new America here, indeed price goes faster then increments in quality in all lenses. But no chromatic aberrations and better contrast are significant advantages, not earth shuttering of course, but for the people who value image fidelity Panasonic is a bargain, because it gives almost the same or better quality than Cron-SL 50mm f/2 or Lux-Sl 50mm f/1.4.
I bet you won't see a difference between a hasseblad 8000 lens and sigma, and conclusion will be the same ) if you do such photos as shown in this review, of course you won't see differences
the real value of the stuff always shows up after a couple of years on the second hand market. you can get barely used sigmas 50 f1.4 for $400 while they are/were new for $800, that is to say, if you're poor or don't make $$ with your photos, you're still wasting you money even buying that sigma, and where would be always some fellas for whom $2k glass is just yet another random line on the balance sheet, they don't care a fig if its 2k or 4k, 2-3 gigs will pay it all...
@@TheSlantedLens That would be awesome. Much was said along those lines about the lumix S pro 24-70 f2.8, but I took a chance on it (not that I need it for video), and THAT lens may be worth the extra cost. It's something else when it comes to saturation and contrast and the AF is about as good as anything else I own for dslr, Mirrorless FF and Fuji apsc. For that zoom, I am willing to put up with the size and price.....
Thanks for your review, but I do have a few comments to share. First, I'm sure Sigma will be happy to know that you do not consider them to be a "name brand" provider of lenses... Hmmm...They might not agree... Second, the things that you discount in your review (better contrast / color, superior bokeh, etc.) are exactly the reasons why professionals buy more expensive glass. Sure, for the serious amateur / enthusiast any "good" lens will do for making good images - - but for folks who make a living making superior images, it is always the little things that count. And last, it was probably clear that your review was mostly subjective, but some treatment of that "up front" in these kinds of reviews would be helpful to those not as familiar with all the choices of equipment out there and the technical aspects that can also be considered (e.g., more blades in the diaphragm, etc.). Please don't take my comments as negative, as they are not intended to be negative.. I just felt that some context that did not come through in watching your video would be helpful. Keep those videos coming..
The right title would be, are EXPENSIVE LENSES a *WASTE ON YOU* !!!! And after watching this video, in your case, the answer is *YES* . Maybe you forgot that the best lenses out there are *MANUAL FOCUS* lenses and don't need to be as SHARP as you are claiming they need to be cause there is so much more. But then looking at a magnification of 50 times is not how you look at a photo and decide if a lens is good or bad neither watching a girls with 10 lamps in the background.
For what it's worth, which is probably very little, I've used the Lumix 50mm and the Sigma 35mm 1.2 and I would take the Lumix 50mm every day of the week. That Sigma, while it rendered tremendous images, couldn't focus for poo in either single point or CAF if the lighting wasn't perfect. I used the Sigma to shoot a bowling tourney. I used the Lumix to shoot pickleball and volleyball in the same evening, and it was amazing at both rendering and at CAF. Of course, knowing, understanding, and shooting these sports helped my performance, and it's literally my job to shoot about 100 different kinds of sports. I really liked my Sigma 35mm when I had it, but it was so slow I'd be hard pressed to touch any Sigma L-mount lenses again. The 35mm is, for now, Sigma's flagship-- be-all-and-end-all-- mirrorless lens, and it didn't work for me, personally, at all. That's a lot of needless punctuation there. Sorry. TLDR: I have a hard time believing that Sigma lenses would work for me in my line of work. If I were in a studio environment, certainly, where I can control everything. In the field with often times piss-poor lighting conditions like a bowling alley or a local high school gym (even if the gym's here are incredible), not so much. Conclusion: Is the Lumix 50mm worth $3,000 CAD to the 35mm's $2,000 CAD price tag? For me, yes. But I totes understand I'm a special case. It kinda' sucked, because I like a 35mm. I use a tele on my other body hooked up using a Blackrapid Dual Breathe system, and find the 35mm was my most used "close-up" focal distance. The Sigma lenses felt FUN, and the Lumix 50mm felt like a job. If that doesn't make sense, well, whatever. Photography should still be fun even if you've been in the industry professionally for 200 years now like I have been.
For what you covered this was a good comparison but you ignored a lot of aspects that might have made the difference between the two. Here's a few to consider, af-c speed, autofocus hit rate/accuracy, build quality/weather sealing, warranty coverage, available repair locations, lens flair, close focusing ability and minimum distance, weight and size, filter size, and overall a greater variety of subjects should be photographed in different lighting scenarios.
The price is insane, completely unrealistic. The 50mm is always the easiest to construct full frame prime. You need less elements and its easier to measure. This Info I got from a Zeiss engineer. The bodies are reasonably priced, esspecially the S1, but 2400 USD for a prime lens, no thanks.
Mata Hari canon RF 50 1.2 is 2300. I find Panasonic brand lens prices are competitive to the other brands. But their advantage compared to canon and Nikon is that they have third party glass available and it’s only been out a year. Canon and Nikon have none! Sony started getting decent third party lenses designed specifically for their bodies just 2-3 years ago. This is a big bump for Panasonic in my opinion. I’m speaking in the mirror less line of course.
Sigma is KILLIN' IT! My 35mm f 1.4 is my go to lens ... it's BEAUTIFUL and it never lets me down! There is really no point in paying two or three thousand dollars for another lens when Sigma gives you that kind of QUALITY IMAGE for under a grand.
This video was TO THE POINT about what matters. I am so tired of seeing computer generated spec sheets. I am SOOOO TIRED of seeing these 50s compared for sharpness when shooting landscapes. I mean who REALLY buys a 50 when their main style is landscape. I get that I CAN be done, but dude... go buy a nice wide angle. 50 1.4s need to be compared at the wide apertures. Their bokeh should be compared, and like this video BEAUTIFULLY said.... “now a real world photo” (or something like that... U CAN’T EVEN SEE the minimal color fringing in real world photos. And they tested the AF speed and did it so well. Sorry about this long-winded rant but i have spent an entire day looking for this info and have been miserably watching so many videos talking about that non-important stuff for lenses of this nature and purpose. I am instantly a big fan of you guys now. Instant subscribe. Thank you for making this an easy decision for me.
Keep in mind that they only tested lenses on points that important for photographers, filmmakers points aren't addressed here. Flaring also wasn't tested.
One thing that some people have said is that you see the weakness of some of these lenses when you shoot in 6K on the S1H. The Panasonic lens might perform better in 6K. There is also a big difference in weight and perhaps weather sealing? Anyhow, good first review guys. Keep up the good work. And is it possible for you guys to export your videos in 4K? The level of detail we see in HD is limited, especially when you factor in the UA-cam compression. Thanks again.
Let's get practical: This subjective test is accurate. The fact that Sigma 50mm is so close to Panasonic 50 makes Panasonic look good. (explanation) > Because I saw another (very good) UA-cam comparison (elsewhere) where this same Sigma 50 Killed the top Canon 50mm in every way, even in Autofocus ! and again, the Canon 50 was much more expensive. You can search that test yourself and see the gains of diversification. . I was disappointed that Canon with such a big name failed against this Sigma 50 (a 3rd-party company). I always thought Canon was the best in FF ( colour, Micro contrast etc) but I learnt a lesson: Third party can sometimes be the best. . Consequently (Using Algebra to to deduce fact) If Sigam beat the hell out of Canon, and the same Sigma is equal to Panasonic then you can mathoimatli call say that This new Panasonic FF is better than the famous Canon ! . Slanted lens guys are right on the money. . So if you compare Canon, Panasonic and Sigma 50mm the Canon comes out Last in the 50mm threesome. i.e. Both Sigma and the New Panasonic FF is sharper than the Canon. Surprise ! (You need to watch the Canon 50 vs the Sigma 50 test I mentioned to see for yourself). . Canon knows this, It's licking it's wounds right now, That's why they are finally coming up with better technology lenses (R series), But they are more expensive than Panasonic and Sigma at around $3000 unfortunately. But Canon resisted spending money on developing a replacement for the aging EF, But when they saw people are still using the newer GH5, and also developed Full frame, and they all copied Panasonic / Olympus mirrorless concept Canon had to get of it's back side and improve lens quality a bit more. . Specially when they see Nikon is dying because they too were slow to follow panasonic's leading inovations. . Please note: Not all Sigma lenses are better than Canon or Panasonic or Sony. Only the Sigma art 50 used here (and a few other Sigmas) are better than native lenses. . In my experience both Panasonic G AND H series cameras and lenses are still the "Quiet achievers" in everything except for AF. And for us who are happy using MF (It's actually fun and a challenge) we just want to achieve the highest filmic quality / reliability not necessarily convenience. and having owned every brand between or film group in the last 10 years it's the Panasonic that got us closest to commercial-level results without having to 'sell the kids'. . Our group use to hire cinema lenses, but since Panasonic Gh2, 4, 5, 5s we have managed to use Pana FF, M43, Sigma, Tamron and Canon lenses (Via adapter) and got much further ahead on the Video side because Panasonic's unique ability to produce 10bit 422 and the most important 400mb/s transfer rate which ensures the image doesn't break up in edit and colour manipulation. And that's something many working filmmakers haven't understood yet. . Up till 10 years ago It was Canon / Nikon cameras and lenses that were on top of the tree. Today It's a combination of Sigma, Pana / Oly native, Sony and Tamron are the go for serious amateurs and pros. . As for Canon, It was forced into a new format Kicking and Screaming because Camera brands do die if they relay on ""name" alone. The New R lenses are better than It's older EF technology, but unless we test the upcoming R5 Camera we stick with what works for us (Cost vs quality).
The weird color ghosting is the same of all my Sigma lenses (And I don't like it) that i have with EF mount. I have the same strange ghosting effect on my Fuji lenses (23mm F1.4) for my XT3 - In my opinion this is a good reason to buy branded lenses. But i don't know what Fuji excuse is?
I will buy the one which is lighter and cheaper. I shoot Raw and go through the post prossessing regardless whatever lens I use. By the way, football is very round in rest of the world.
Hi there needs to be consideration of build equality, weather sealing and, I think with the sigma sinc IS. But if I had the panasonic there is no way I pay that money for a 50mm.
@@TheSlantedLens, I am a Jack of all trades and master of none. I just enjoy shooting and I am fortunate enough to have a wife that allows me to buy cool toys! LOL. I do small weddings, seniors, family and some nature
guys, you should have compared the focus breathing, close focus and the manual focus experience on these..
That would have been good to include. Thanks for your comment!
You forgot to mention that the Panasonic doesn't have focus breathing, it's also a real manual lens, it has faster af-c, it's sharp corner to corner even at F 1.4...all these things are worth for professional videographers.
Thanks so much for bringing these things up Luca! All good points that we definitely should consider.
I love almost all of your reviews, this felt a little bit rushed in your tests...I would love to see consistency in your reviews!
Thank you for all of your content in UA-cam!
Luca Bono The Panasonic does have focus breathing, but it’s a lot less though. I have the Panasonic 50. I upgraded from the Sigma 50 and Sigma 40. The Sigma 40 is the closest one in overall performance to the Panasonic 50 minus the focus speed.
May be you could try the lenses on the S1R. However yea SIGMA is killing it!!
Sigma is doing great. Thanks for your comment!
I get the point. I have Sigma lenses for L Mount. The issues that other reviewers test for that the Panasonic does better than the Sigma (especially non-native DN Sigma DSLR lenses) are: silent AF for video (Sigma loses) and focus breathing (Sigma loses.) So: Panasonic native L mount glass. No focus breathing. MF focus clutch. Silent AF. No color fringing in out of focus areas. And, did you test for flare resistance? Weather sealing? People RAVE about the Panny 50 1.4. In part because of things you didn’t test for.
Very great points. Thanks for sharing your experience!
I noticed in the sample raw file provided by jared polin that the s pro 50 1.4 handles chromatic aberration better than most other 50 1.4 lenses when you do some heavy lifting with the color grading. It's not about sharpness and bokeh only. All lenses are made to give their best performance in their respective price ranges. But it is that extra steps taken by the manufacturers that makes a lens stand out, hence raising the price respectively. It is like coffee grounds. there are hundreds of brands that makes coffee. All of them gives you caffeine boosts. but only some of them really concentrate on how it will be tasted by many and how their buyers would react to them.
Sounds like you are not only a lens expert but a coffee expert as well. I can smell it brewing.
@@TheSlantedLens I am no expert in lenses and coffees but I try to analyze the characteristics. 😁
Now, imaging you're a landscape photographer. How about weather proofing and reliability? Yeah, there you go...
The Panasonic is going to have better weather proofing. Our test didn't show that it was any sharper. If you take care of the lens it should work out great.
How about comparing features of the lenses for film instead of photography. I’ve heard the Sigma has too much noise while trying to autofocus.
That would be a great comparison!
Short answer: no. You truly get what you pay for in the imaging world.
That's a great point. Thanks for sharing!
There's SO much more to a great lens than sharpness and how round the bokeh is.
Such as?
@@KhingBassey Continuous autofocus performance, character, weather sealing, focus ring/throw, flare control, chromatic aberation in different lighting conditions, quality of the fall off from critical focus to out of focus area, minimum focus distance, focus breathing, clickless aperture, manual focus clutch, being parfocal.
@@FrankyEames would you consider doing a full spec comparison of the two lenses?
@@KhingBassey I don't so lens reviews/comparisons, but there's several reviews out there of these lenses individually.
Yeah I wouldn’t call this an exhaustive test. Put the sun behind the model at golden hour, for instance, and you might see some significant differences
My Sigma 50mm F/1.4 for Canon is my favorite and my "go to" lens. Could not live with out it. In the future how about a review of the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8? Thanks.
Thanks for your idea. I have added it to our list.
Linear manual focus on the sigma?????? does it work, or does it still act like a focus by wire lens even when you switch to that feature in camera?? Do only Panasonic lenses have this feature??
You see examples of this in the video. It can be a workable solution.
Sometimes it’s a bit of hit and miss on 3rd party lenses, or it used to be more than it is today compared to the more expensive ones. I have a few 3rd party lenses and my first one was the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Originally paired with a Canon 80D and now with a 90D. It’s extremely sharp from edge to edge wide open and the autofocus is excellent in live view but it’s notoriously inconsistent when used with the viewfinder. It’s been calibrated again and again and brought to a point that it looks finally similar to the live view in most cases, but sometimes it’s just going to miss focus completely and ruin the shot while at the same time you’ll get the focusing confirmation beep no matter how many AF points you’ll choose... I only use it in live view for that reason and I’m really happy with the results that I’m getting there. Another Sigma that I have, the 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO, originally it was a bad copy and it was side focusing. You could focus in the middle of the frame at 10 meters and as you would move towards the left you’d see that focus moving to infinity because an internal lens element was tilted. Eventually I’ve got it replaced by what I could call a “golden copy” of the lens which is razor sharp and it’s focusing fast and accurately. My other lenses are all passing the “sharpness test of the 90D” :) and they are consistent in focusing. I have only one L series Canon lens, the 100mm f/2.8L macro which feels like it could outperform an 100MP sensor in resolving power. It may not be the fastest focusing of the bunch but that’s not what it was designed for.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience!
Granted, this is a Panasonic versus Sigma comparison, but it was still helpful. All of my lenses are Canon L’s. I’m looking at getting the Sigma Art 50mm 1.4. I appreciate your review of these lenses, and after your review I think I’m leaning more towards the Sigma.
Sigma seems to be making noticeably better quality lenses.
Glad it was helpful! Sigma does have some good lenses!
How about the corner sharpness , vigneting, rendering ?, distortion or diffraction at narrower apertures??
For this test we did not focus on those things. Maybe others have some input.
Thanks for these. While I don't use L mount these kind of comparisons help..right now I am torn between getting rid of my 16-35Z for the Tamron 20/2.8 since I have the Laowa 15mm already..(and the 24-105 is used more!)
It is hard to decide. Let us know how it goes.
@@TheSlantedLens lol it is! Esp since I heard Tamron is possibly releasing a 17-70 2.8-4.5 in E mount early next year
It would have been interesting to see the even pricier Leica 50mm added to this comparison. Weather sealing would be the number one reason for paying more for the Panasonic for me and Leica don’t even give you that!
Good points. Thanks for your comment!
For amateurs it will probably not mean something but at this price levels so you are sure a professional and here it comes to play role those minor details of sharpness, contrast and chrimatic aberration. I mean simply the sigma is not a match in all aspects why the price difference is justified to the level of performance.
The price difference is the point of the lesson. Do less expensive lenses perform as well?
Hi TSL fam! Well? How do we feel about this comparison?
I brought a sigma 50mm 1.4f for my Panasonic GH5 what lens adapter do I need for it to work?
The old Sigma Art lenses for the m4/3 mount were the first native mount lenses I bought for the system. I love all three of them. Sigma has come such a long way with their lenses.
Yeah, Sigma makes great lenses.
This has been proven over an rover again that just because it’s very expensive doesn’t mean it’s that much better, if at all.
Love your videos. Thank you for another good one.
Totally! It's amazing putting so many things to the test and seeing how a cheaper product holds up compared to a big brand name.
Thanks so much for the support and kind words. Really appreciate having you in the TSL family.
If you want the image straight out of camera I'd pay extra for the panny on the used market
Exactly, the Panny compares to the legendary 50 1.4 summilux. The Panny is more punchy, faster auto focus and is also cheaper. Quality is almost par. The Panny gives a Leica loon quality too
I use the sigma 50mm QUITE alot and i LOVE it's put of focus misshaping sooo much. If i have green stems or branches as a foreground it looks soooo good. Guess it's just a style thing tho
That sounds nice. Thanks for sharing your process.
Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That Panasonic is magnificent
Good to hear. Thanks for your comment!
May I suggest to check if the body applied any software correction with a lens profile on the Panasonic?
Good question. I don't think so.
Big up TSL. i wish i could get the Panasonic in addition to my collection. thanks TSL for the review. one day i believe to do reviews like you do. you inspire me.
Joe Chira there is no noticeable of a difference in photo comparison
I guess am in the brand name category. 🤫. Hope this comparison could change my perception.
You can do much with the extra 1300 $
@@JoeChira That's totally fair! haha. A reliable and credible brand name will always carry weight! No shame in being a brand name guy! Glad you enjoyed the comparison. :)
@@TheSlantedLens thanks a lot. Alway a silent participant but not for today. I enjoy them all
Thank you for making this video! It's the perfect comparison for the S pro 50.
Glad it was helpful! Enjoy shooting!
I would only spend a lot of money on a lens I regularly use. I shoot mainly portraits, so have the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/2.8G and Nikkor 105mm f/1.4, which are reasonably expensive lenses.
I find I rarely use a 50mm, so use the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, prefering to shoot with the 35mm or 58mm focal length (I am amazed that 8mm can make such a difference). Even with the 35mm and 58mm, I didn't spend a lot of money because I didn't know how much I would use the lenses. I managed to get the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 for £399 in a sale and the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 Nokton second hand for £350 (with metal lens hood).
So for me, the value is in how much I am going to use a lens and how much do you trust the manufacturer (I refuse to buy Sigma lenses because of a issues, I had with their lenses).
Thanks for sharing your experience with us!
Thanks for the test from an optical viewpoint but maybe you could have a part two from a handling point of view. What are the focus rings like, focus throw, what do they feel like in the hand, weight and balance? Does the Panasonic have soft stops like the Sigma, can the Sigma have linear focussing. How much breathing do they have? The Sigma has two extra advantages apart from its price, that is the easy firmware updates with their puck and that if you ever wanted to change the mount, Sigma has a paid service that enables this! 🙏🏾
Really good points Eugene. It's definitely hard for us to cover every single element in these comparisons, but we appreciate you bringing them up and will consider this for a follow up video. Thanks so much!
I totally understand, it was not a complaint but a mere suggestion of a source of extra content that you guys and gals are so good at making into very good and interesting videos! 😉🙏🏾
With all of their great lenses, Nikon never did deliver with a great 50mm so for my Nikon D850, I went with the Sigma 1.4 50mm Art lens which delivers razor sharp pictures most of the time. Thanks for your great video.
Yes, Sigma does have good lenses. Glad you found a good solution!
I have a question about night sky time laps how does that work if your exposure is longer than the speed at which you take photo for photo doesn't the camera do the exposure thing while it's supposed to take the next photo? Or doesn’t it work that way?
When you shoot a night sky at 20 second exposures you interval needs to be 21 seconds.
Thanks for this! The Panasonic do have more pleasing colors although that's easily corrected in post with the Sigma. Would it be possible to do the same kind of comparison between the Panasonic 24-70 2.8 and Sigmas new L-mount version? From what few tests I've seen the Panasonic lens might be the best 24-70 out there today, but the new Sigma E-mount version is almost on par with Sony's G-master so it would be really interesting to see a comparison of the L-mount lenses. My current 24-70 is by far the lens I use the most so it could be one of the main factors in deciding what system to invest in in the future.
YEAH and Nikon Z 24-70 F2,8 is one of the best against sun, very sharp and compact...
That is a great idea. I will add that to our list of comparisons to film.
well if you use canon/nikkon, they asked the same questions 5 years ago. Yes sigma 50A is a very good len, also 35a, 135a and 105a
Yes, Sigma has great lenses and so does Tamron!
I missed where they say what camera they shot with
We used the Panasonic S1H camera for the lens comparison.
Absolutely i like your video comparison...👍 Please make video between Nikon Z6 and pansonic S1.... can't wait.. please
I have added it to our list. Great suggestion!
@@TheSlantedLens appreciate it.. honestly i searched alot i didn't found any comparison exactly between 2 of them alone side by side
Thank you, good and funny video!
The s pro is much faster in focus. Even compared to the DG DN mirrorless models the s pro 50 is noticeably faster. In AFC it's night and day.
Great point. Thanks for sharing!
I suspect that the Sigma is the lens that they also sell for DSLRs. So its real element needs to clear the mirror. The Panasonic, which has no such limitation, can be optically superior. But not by much.
Great point. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
Have you guys reviewed the Sigma 35mm 1.2?
Nope, we haven't reviewed that one. I will add it to our list.
Can you do one with RF lenses?
Thanks for the idea, I have added that to our list.
No new America here, indeed price goes faster then increments in quality in all lenses. But no chromatic aberrations and better contrast are significant advantages, not earth shuttering of course, but for the people who value image fidelity Panasonic is a bargain, because it gives almost the same or better quality than Cron-SL 50mm f/2 or Lux-Sl 50mm f/1.4.
Good points. Thanks for sharing your experience.
I bet you won't see a difference between a hasseblad 8000 lens and sigma, and conclusion will be the same ) if you do such photos as shown in this review, of course you won't see differences
Thanks for watching and keep on clickin!
How do the lenses feel? That make a big difference.
They are both pretty heavy lenses. They both have a good build quality.
the real value of the stuff always shows up after a couple of years on the second hand market. you can get barely used sigmas 50 f1.4 for $400 while they are/were new for $800, that is to say, if you're poor or don't make $$ with your photos, you're still wasting you money even buying that sigma, and where would be always some fellas for whom $2k glass is just yet another random line on the balance sheet, they don't care a fig if its 2k or 4k, 2-3 gigs will pay it all...
That is a excellent point. Used equipment that is only a couple years old saves a tremendous amount of money.
I once took a picture with my iPhone that looked like it came from a medium format camera. Are medium format cameras a WASTE OF MONEY? :)
They are a must for high end commercial shooters and some landscape fine art shooters.
Great review, though I am a *tiny* bit bummed you didn't throw in the Leica Summilux or Summicron 50mm's for good measure.
ooo yea those would have been good. Next time for sure! Thanks Alden!
Video af is why this lens exists. Test continuous tracking in video.
That is a great idea and a test we need to do.
@@TheSlantedLens That would be awesome. Much was said along those lines about the lumix S pro 24-70 f2.8, but I took a chance on it (not that I need it for video), and THAT lens may be worth the extra cost. It's something else when it comes to saturation and contrast and the AF is about as good as anything else I own for dslr, Mirrorless FF and Fuji apsc. For that zoom, I am willing to put up with the size and price.....
Both are nice lens and Sigma is good price but the famous onion rings on Sigma is evident on the bokeh balls
That is a good point. Thanks for sharing!
Of course not
LOL. Appreciate your point of view!
💲
Yep. The cost factor is a big deal.
Thanks for your review, but I do have a few comments to share. First, I'm sure Sigma will be happy to know that you do not consider them to be a "name brand" provider of lenses... Hmmm...They might not agree... Second, the things that you discount in your review (better contrast / color, superior bokeh, etc.) are exactly the reasons why professionals buy more expensive glass. Sure, for the serious amateur / enthusiast any "good" lens will do for making good images - - but for folks who make a living making superior images, it is always the little things that count. And last, it was probably clear that your review was mostly subjective, but some treatment of that "up front" in these kinds of reviews would be helpful to those not as familiar with all the choices of equipment out there and the technical aspects that can also be considered (e.g., more blades in the diaphragm, etc.). Please don't take my comments as negative, as they are not intended to be negative.. I just felt that some context that did not come through in watching your video would be helpful. Keep those videos coming..
Thanks for your feedback and thanks for watching!
The right title would be, are EXPENSIVE LENSES a *WASTE ON YOU* !!!!
And after watching this video, in your case, the answer is *YES* .
Maybe you forgot that the best lenses out there are *MANUAL FOCUS* lenses and don't need to be as SHARP as you are claiming they need to be cause there is so much more.
But then looking at a magnification of 50 times is not how you look at a photo and decide if a lens is good or bad neither watching a girls with 10 lamps in the background.
Good points. Thanks for sharing your point of view!
the Panasonic is not a bad lens, it's just badly priced.
Yep, $$$ Thanks for watching and for your comment!
Well, I don't know what you mean saying 'why are you wasting money on brand-name lenses?' because those are both brand-name lenses.
A better term would be native lenses.
We clicked on this to hear from her??? WTF?
Hope you learned some good things.
@@TheSlantedLens yeah, I learned not to trust your eye candy.
What about weather sealing? Min/Max operating temperature? Programmable focus throw?
Some great points to include next time!
I would buy a sigma and then buy another sigma🤣 real talk
Thanks for sharing your preference!
For what it's worth, which is probably very little, I've used the Lumix 50mm and the Sigma 35mm 1.2 and I would take the Lumix 50mm every day of the week. That Sigma, while it rendered tremendous images, couldn't focus for poo in either single point or CAF if the lighting wasn't perfect. I used the Sigma to shoot a bowling tourney. I used the Lumix to shoot pickleball and volleyball in the same evening, and it was amazing at both rendering and at CAF.
Of course, knowing, understanding, and shooting these sports helped my performance, and it's literally my job to shoot about 100 different kinds of sports.
I really liked my Sigma 35mm when I had it, but it was so slow I'd be hard pressed to touch any Sigma L-mount lenses again. The 35mm is, for now, Sigma's flagship-- be-all-and-end-all-- mirrorless lens, and it didn't work for me, personally, at all.
That's a lot of needless punctuation there. Sorry.
TLDR: I have a hard time believing that Sigma lenses would work for me in my line of work. If I were in a studio environment, certainly, where I can control everything. In the field with often times piss-poor lighting conditions like a bowling alley or a local high school gym (even if the gym's here are incredible), not so much.
Conclusion: Is the Lumix 50mm worth $3,000 CAD to the 35mm's $2,000 CAD price tag? For me, yes. But I totes understand I'm a special case.
It kinda' sucked, because I like a 35mm. I use a tele on my other body hooked up using a Blackrapid Dual Breathe system, and find the 35mm was my most used "close-up" focal distance. The Sigma lenses felt FUN, and the Lumix 50mm felt like a job. If that doesn't make sense, well, whatever. Photography should still be fun even if you've been in the industry professionally for 200 years now like I have been.
Wow, that's great reading about the way you work. Thanks for sharing!
For what you covered this was a good comparison but you ignored a lot of aspects that might have made the difference between the two. Here's a few to consider, af-c speed, autofocus hit rate/accuracy, build quality/weather sealing, warranty coverage, available repair locations, lens flair, close focusing ability and minimum distance, weight and size, filter size, and overall a greater variety of subjects should be photographed in different lighting scenarios.
Fair enough! Lots of great things to consider next time!
The price is insane, completely unrealistic. The 50mm is always the easiest to construct full frame prime. You need less elements and its easier to measure. This Info I got from a Zeiss engineer.
The bodies are reasonably priced, esspecially the S1, but 2400 USD for a prime lens, no thanks.
Mata Hari canon RF 50 1.2 is 2300. I find Panasonic brand lens prices are competitive to the other brands. But their advantage compared to canon and Nikon is that they have third party glass available and it’s only been out a year. Canon and Nikon have none! Sony started getting decent third party lenses designed specifically for their bodies just 2-3 years ago. This is a big bump for Panasonic in my opinion. I’m speaking in the mirror less line of course.
Louie The Canon is also too expensive. Third party lenses are a different topic. If you like it or need it, buy it. But it is not for me.
The RF 50mm is 1.2 and cheaper
That is an important point to consider. Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge Louie!
Sigma is KILLIN' IT! My 35mm f 1.4 is my go to lens ... it's BEAUTIFUL and it never lets me down! There is really no point in paying two or three thousand dollars for another lens when Sigma gives you that kind of QUALITY IMAGE for under a grand.
True that! Glad you are happy with your lens!
i love my 24mm g master lens i think it's an exception where name brand is worth it
Absolutely! What do you typically shoot with it?
@@TheSlantedLens The Sony A7iii i think it's a perfect duo, hahaha
What kind of question is that? It’s an e mount it will fit sony only
@@petrub27 I forgot Sony only makes one camera.
This video was TO THE POINT about what matters. I am so tired of seeing computer generated spec sheets. I am SOOOO TIRED of seeing these 50s compared for sharpness when shooting landscapes. I mean who REALLY buys a 50 when their main style is landscape. I get that I CAN be done, but dude... go buy a nice wide angle. 50 1.4s need to be compared at the wide apertures. Their bokeh should be compared, and like this video BEAUTIFULLY said.... “now a real world photo” (or something like that... U CAN’T EVEN SEE the minimal color fringing in real world photos. And they tested the AF speed and did it so well. Sorry about this long-winded rant but i have spent an entire day looking for this info and have been miserably watching so many videos talking about that non-important stuff for lenses of this nature and purpose. I am instantly a big fan of you guys now. Instant subscribe. Thank you for making this an easy decision for me.
Welcome aboard! Glad you found the video helpful!!
The Panny smokes the G Master 50
I will take the little more nicer.
Yes, smaller format is nice!
She looks like she could use a new pair of pants. You're clearly not paying your model enough.
That is the style these days.
Brw plz say how much cost have 50mm lense for panasonic
Here is a link to the Panasonic 50mm lens for you to check out: bhpho.to/3TVAM8c
why images with girl so differrent in position?
Can you share a time stamp with us?
I hope l mount gets a 50 mm 1.2
Thanks for watching and keep on clickin!
Keep in mind that they only tested lenses on points that important for photographers, filmmakers points aren't addressed here. Flaring also wasn't tested.
You are right. We tested it for still photography. Thanks for watching!
For video shooters, the extra money is worth it for the Continuous AF
Great point. Thanks for watching!
i like to see a comparison between the sigma 24-70 F2.8 at $1100 and the Panasonic 24-70 f2.8 at $2200 .......
Ooo great idea!
One thing that some people have said is that you see the weakness of some of these lenses when you shoot in 6K on the S1H. The Panasonic lens might perform better in 6K. There is also a big difference in weight and perhaps weather sealing? Anyhow, good first review guys. Keep up the good work. And is it possible for you guys to export your videos in 4K? The level of detail we see in HD is limited, especially when you factor in the UA-cam compression. Thanks again.
Thanks for your comment and your suggestions.
Let's get practical: This subjective test is accurate. The fact that Sigma 50mm is so close to Panasonic 50 makes Panasonic look good. (explanation) > Because I saw another (very good) UA-cam comparison (elsewhere) where this same Sigma 50 Killed the top Canon 50mm in every way, even in Autofocus ! and again, the Canon 50 was much more expensive. You can search that test yourself and see the gains of diversification.
.
I was disappointed that Canon with such a big name failed against this Sigma 50 (a 3rd-party company).
I always thought Canon was the best in FF ( colour, Micro contrast etc) but I learnt a lesson: Third party can sometimes be the best. . Consequently (Using Algebra to to deduce fact) If Sigam beat the hell out of Canon, and the same Sigma is equal to Panasonic then you can mathoimatli call say that This new Panasonic FF is better than the famous Canon !
.
Slanted lens guys are right on the money.
.
So if you compare Canon, Panasonic and Sigma 50mm the Canon comes out Last in the 50mm threesome.
i.e. Both Sigma and the New Panasonic FF is sharper than the Canon. Surprise !
(You need to watch the Canon 50 vs the Sigma 50 test I mentioned to see for yourself).
.
Canon knows this, It's licking it's wounds right now, That's why they are finally coming up with better technology lenses (R series), But they are more expensive than Panasonic and Sigma at around $3000 unfortunately.
But Canon resisted spending money on developing a replacement for the aging EF, But when they saw people are still using the newer GH5, and also developed Full frame, and they all copied Panasonic / Olympus mirrorless concept Canon had to get of it's back side and improve lens quality a bit more.
.
Specially when they see Nikon is dying because they too were slow to follow panasonic's leading inovations.
.
Please note: Not all Sigma lenses are better than Canon or Panasonic or Sony. Only the Sigma art 50 used here (and a few other Sigmas) are better than native lenses.
.
In my experience both Panasonic G AND H series cameras and lenses are still the "Quiet achievers" in everything except for AF.
And for us who are happy using MF (It's actually fun and a challenge) we just want to achieve the highest filmic quality / reliability not necessarily convenience. and having owned every brand between or film group in the last 10 years it's the Panasonic that got us closest to commercial-level results without having to 'sell the kids'.
.
Our group use to hire cinema lenses, but since Panasonic Gh2, 4, 5, 5s we have managed to use Pana FF, M43, Sigma, Tamron and Canon lenses (Via adapter) and got much further ahead on the Video side because Panasonic's unique ability to produce 10bit 422 and the most important 400mb/s transfer rate which ensures the image doesn't break up in edit and colour manipulation. And that's something many working filmmakers haven't understood yet.
.
Up till 10 years ago It was Canon / Nikon cameras and lenses that were on top of the tree. Today It's a combination of Sigma, Pana / Oly native, Sony and Tamron are the go for serious amateurs and pros.
.
As for Canon, It was forced into a new format Kicking and Screaming because Camera brands do die if they relay on ""name" alone.
The New R lenses are better than It's older EF technology, but unless we test the upcoming R5 Camera we stick with what works for us (Cost vs quality).
We are in an era where lenses made by Tamron and Sigma are exceptional and great choices.
The weird color ghosting is the same of all my Sigma lenses (And I don't like it) that i have with EF mount. I have the same strange ghosting effect on my Fuji lenses (23mm F1.4) for my XT3 - In my opinion this is a good reason to buy branded lenses. But i don't know what Fuji excuse is?
Oh interesting! Yes, it's definitely a compromise we make for lenses at a much lower price point.
I will buy the one which is lighter and cheaper. I shoot Raw and go through the post prossessing regardless whatever lens I use. By the way, football is very round in rest of the world.
LOL point about football!
the main advantage the panasonic is native mount and the sigma is a DG lens.. II also used a summ\\ Leica XSL 50MM 1.4 and the Pannie is closer.
Good points. Thanks for sharing!
Much preferred the skin tones of the Panasonic. Tho' I still don't think it's worth the price difference.
Good point. Thanks for sharing your opinion!
I'd like to see the same comparison between the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and the Tamron equivalent G2.
Great idea Brett! Thanks so much for watching and commenting.
The Panasonic Lens are built for videos.
So are the Sigma. They are both built for video.
Hi there needs to be consideration of build equality, weather sealing and, I think with the sigma sinc IS. But if I had the panasonic there is no way I pay that money for a 50mm.
Charlie Granger yes that’s where the price difference happens. But this video shows that for most people the sigma will be they way to go.
Yep, cost is a big consideration!
Thanks for your comment Louie!
I use the Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 lens on my Sony A7, and I'm very happy with it.
That's awesome Ben! Happy to hear it. What do you typically shoot?
@@TheSlantedLens Landscapes and portraits. I also use the Sony 85 1.8.
I am the owner of 5 Tamron lens so I guess that answers your question about how I feel about 3rd party lens?? Thanks for the video.
Amazing Todd! It sounds like you've got a good collection! What do you typically shoot?
@@TheSlantedLens, I am a Jack of all trades and master of none. I just enjoy shooting and I am fortunate enough to have a wife that allows me to buy cool toys! LOL. I do small weddings, seniors, family and some nature