Rapid speaking is always bad for people like me who watch videos without sound and with turned on captions. When someone's speak too quickly like Tom, it's impossible to read captions 🤷♂️
In your bokeh comparison, image from sigma was from closer distance than from sony (head is larger). Don't know if this difference is big and how it influence on bokeh. I had Sigma 35 art in Pentax system and was one of my favourite lens. Now I'm looking for some addition to my Tamron 28-75, especially for shooting indoors where background is often busy (child's photography). Don't know if background blur will be significantly better with Sigma in 25 m2 room than with Sony 35 1.8 lens. Any advice? And did you test sharpness on mid range distance? I saw few reviews where on that distance sharpness was worse than in closer distance (especially in comparison with Sony 35mm GM).
@@TomCalton Yes Tom, that was the idea. I sold it today... now, pissed off, I'm thinking of putting in more money and going for the GM... Thanks for the video, great model and amazing photos!!
@@josegulias I sold my Sony 35 1.8 a while ago. It's sharp and small - good stuff. But, when the 35 GM 1.4 came out I had to have it. I pre-ordered in Jan and finally got it in April. Then Sigma announces their 35 1.4. I ordered it too. Honestly, I returned the GM saving $700. I have absolutely no regrets! I love the new Sigma and its being used alot more than I imagined. (Frankly, I never liked the CA with the Sony 1.8). I feel the Sigma 35 is sharper with better fall off then the Sony 1.8. Plus it uses 67mm filter - and I have lots of those! *For video, I use Sony 20 or 24 anyway. All this being said, I am a portrait only shooter. I have the Sigma 85 1.4 DN DN (& 135 GM) and it pairs really well together.
Don't feel too bad about it - there really isn't a 'bad' choice as they're all pretty good lenses! The Sony 1.8 is best for video, hands down. For photo, the new Sigma 1.4 is the middle ground - it's much cheaper than the GM and has better bokeh than the Sony 1.8. The GM is the ultimate for photography, but for video, the focus breathing is just terrible! Next week I'm testing the Sony 1.8 against the GM so might be worth holding off until then before you make your final choice! 😊
@@TomCalton The manufacturers lenses are designed specifically for the camera is all. Plus the manufacturers provide a critical component, that being the cameras so I support their R&D. All lenses are worthless without a body to put them on.
Could you please ensure me that how fast the video af of sigma ? Cause i wanted to buy GM 35 mm and now thinking if the video af is not that much difference then i should go for sigma and it will save a lot of money
You can see the speed of the Sigma's AF speed in the AF Noise section of this review. The AF speed of the Sigma is OK, but the Sony GM is MUCH faster. That thing is rapid!
Same here. I specifically purchased the Sony 35 1.8 for its size. For the most part it’s a great lens. If I ever felt like I needed more I would simply purchase another lens… but would not sell my 1.8 to do so.
Thanks for these amazing reviews, Tom! So many choices, but I’m determined to order the Sigma DG DN this week for my a7iii. As I mainly shoot cars + occasionally landscape, street and events, I hardly ever use the lens near the MFD. Is the CA easily fixable in post (Lr)? If so, the positives seem to outweigh, I hope to get a well produced copy and what other choice do I really have, if the GM is so pricey? Haha Anyway, cheers!
That's fair enough. I wasn't one for analysing bokeh until this test, and now I can't stop judging all my other lenses. Can someone please make it stop!?
Imo the image quality part should go to the Sigma. I have both of these and while sharpness is fantastic in either one, the chromatic aberrations in Sony are much more visible and distracting. just my 2 cents.
The lens chart doesn't lie bud so really no debate to have here. Just look at the results - the Sony is quite clearly the optically superior lens. Like I said at the end of the video, with real life photos, it's often quite hard to tell the difference (especially after post processing), which is why we show the lens chart results because it makes it all very clear. If the results were closer I would have awarded them both with a point, but that wasn't the case. That's not to say the Sigma is bad though! Just not the best in this particular match up.
Great Video!! I'm looking for a low light lens for events but dont know if it warrants the Sony 35 1.8 or stick with my Tamron 28-75 2.8... thoughts?? I also just got rid of my Sigma HSM because I didnt like the colors
Finally, the comparison I've been waiting for! Well, I didn't expect the Sony to be sharper... I love my Sony but would like that 1.4 so now I have a tougher decision to make and still can't decide if it's worth selling my Sony and take out £400 out of my pocket to upgrade. I was thinking to sell my Sigma 20 1.4 and Sony 35 1.8 to fund my Sigma but I might as well sell the 20 1.4 and buy the Samyang 24 1.8 which is so small and light. What do you guys think?
Jeez! Choices, choices! I've not tested the Samyang 24mm f/1.8 so can't really comment on that, but I know from experience that Samyang lenses are usually cheap and cheerful, so don't expect the same build, handling or image quality that you're used to from Sigma or Sony.
Is it just me or is the Sony 35 F1.8 really much shorter than the other 35mm? It seemed to me in all your 35mm comparisons. It looks more than 38mm compared to the other 35mm lens.
I just got the 35mm f1.8 two months ago, and haven’t really been happy with the bokeh quality from the start. Good to have options with this new Sigma and the Sony GM, but it’s hard to pick one over the other. I’ll keep the f1.8 for now though. For the price, it’s not a terrible lens overall.
I'm kinda in the same boat David! I have the old Sigma 35mm f/1.4. It's a pretty good lens, but the chromatic aberration does my head in! I was going to get the GM, but the focus breathing makes it unusable for video. The new Sigma I like a lot, but focus breathing is still an issue. I thought the Sony 35mm f/1.8 was the one, but the crappy bokeh is really putting me off pulling the trigger on it. So for now, I'm sticking with what I've got and hoping another alternative comes along.
@@Ethereal_Mist value is hard to beat at $400, especially if it's in great condition. I sold the 35mm f1.8 sometime ago, and recently picked up the 35mm GM.
@@DavidStella I am concerned about the bokeh after your comment. Plus if only there was a lightweight lens with F1.4 with no focus breathing for video would be perfect.
@@Ethereal_Mist the bokeh is fine for video on the f1.8. Get it at $400, it’s a good value. You can always resell it for the same or more if you end up not liking it.
Unfortunately not as lens breathing is something that's caused by the elements inside the lens physically moving whilst focusing. Sony get around this by using a lens breathing compensation algorithm in their newer cameras that just slightly crops the image to offset this movement, but it's only compatable with Sony brand lenses at the moment.
@@TomCalton thanks for your reply appreciate it! im really confused on what lens to buy. im a hybrid shooter but more on film making. I love the 35mm but every 1.4 has its problem specially the focus breathing.. the sony 35 1.8 is good but i really want the 1.4 so bad! what do you suggest?
Hello ! Sorry for my english, i'm french. thank you for your video, I hesitate between the sony and the Sigma. I make video, what is the best choice? i will use it with a sony a7c! Thank you for your answer. at the start of your video, at 0:39 which lens is it?
Your English is good, don't worry! 😁 For video, the Sony would be my pick. It's smaller, lighter, doesn't have focus breathing issues, is nicer to focus manually, and the AF is quicker. It would fit nicer on your A7C, too! I hope this helps 🙂
@@TomCalton Thanks very much for your answer. I think i will take the Sony. Last Question, at the start of your video (0:39) which lens is it ? Thanks you
Unfortunately this reinforces something I’ve been suspecting: if I already have a Sony 35 f/1.8, the Sigma isn’t worth the upgrade despite being probably a little better. Looks like I may be splurging on the GM eventually….
For the price, the Sony 35mm f/1.8 is hard to beat. If you can afford it, the GM is certainly a jump up (despite the horrible focus breathing). I bought the GM a few months ago and it's absolutely awesome!
Thanks! Yeah, the Sony is the better choice for video for sure. I'm not too sure why these new lenses all come with horrendous focus breathing - the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM is just as bad, if not worse. Must be something to do with them having to compromise it for smaller size and weight.
@@TomCalton If thats the case theres not enough evidence to declare the sony better Would be nice to have an extra clip of the test chart with both at 1.8, because the Sigma wins by default at 1.4 anyway
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Lenses offer the poorest image quality at the widest and narrowest aperture values, with the best performance almost always found bang in the middle of the range (often between f/8-f16). By testing the lenses wide open you're seeing the lenses perform at their 'worst'. So if they perform well when wide open, it's pretty much a given that they're only going to get better as the aperture narrows. Plus, nobody goes to the expense of buying an f/1.4 lens only to never shoot with it wide open. So, most people want to see whether it's usable wide open. As an aside, the lens chart sections of my videos are by far the least viewed parts of my reviews - in other words, they generally bore the piss out of people. So including more charts might be interesting to you, but my videos are made for everyone, so doing what you suggested would only cause more people to skip ahead or click away, which is the quickest way to tank a video/channel.
@@TomCalton Man you completely missed the point... Suppose Alice needs f/1.4, this person wont even consider the 35/1.8, because its a lens cannot even produce an image at f/1.4! This is what I mean by the sigma wins by default Now we Bob, who only needs 1.8. He wants to know, between the Sigma 35/1.4 and the Sony 35/1.8, which one does better at 1.8? Bob watches your video and DOES NOT get his answer And thirdly you have Carl, who is Bob's friend. Whenever a Bob asks which lens cheaper than the 35GM is optically better at f1.8, Carl wants to point all the Bobs to your video. However your video does not show the pertinent information to give Carl confidence in the reccomendation. This is because if the Sigma 35/1.4 @ 1.8 is better than the 35/1.8 @1.8, then the Sigma should be reccomended! Sigma peformance at 1.4 is irrelevant when compared to the 35/1.8, because a lens that can produce ANY image at 1.4 is better than one that cant! Its fine if you think the charts are boring, just put them at the end of the video. You will get your 10 min before the charts are shown. When the Carls are happy, they will link your video more. I would. Alternatively, just show the 1.8 vs 1.8 chart instead... at least thats more meaningful than a 1.4 vs 1.8 chart. Taking the analogy to an extreme, It will be a sad day when someone thinks the Canon 600/11 is better than the 600/4.... because hypothetically the 600/11 tests better at f11 than the 600/4 at f4. It should be obvious the 600/4 wins by default under f/11 right? Hopefully you get the point by now ----------------------------------------------------------------- Its irrelavant to what im trying to say here, but your f8-16 range is wrong for most FF sony cameras. Theoretically... a camera is diffraction limited when the width of a point light source exceeds the size of a pixel on the sensor. With a theoretically "perfect" lens, 1) The A7IV will see diffraction become visible at f7.7, with visible softening of the image at f9.6 2) On the other end of the spectrum, diffraction is visible on the Riv at f5.7, and there is visible softening of fine detail at f7.1 3) With 240MP pixel shift enabled, diffraction becomes visible at f2.8 and there is visible softening of fine detail at f4.3 I have done some real-world testing, and the theoretical numbers are reasonable for the best lenses like the 35GM / 85GM + RIV... I did not test the lesser lenses If we have to give an aperature range for best lens peformance, f5.6 - f8 is a more reasonable range for today's cameras
All you've done here is made up 3 scenarios that favour your argument and then called it a day. I could just reply with 10 other completely fictious stories that justify my decision to not include additional charts, but I won't waste any more of our time. 😂 The 600mm lens analogy doesn't stand up either because if f/11 was the widest aperture on that specific lens then it would still be the 'worst' aperture in terms of image quality and it would improve as it it closes down. Performance is relative to the aperture range of the lens, not the aperture value by itself. Adding lens charts to the end of the video would still damage viewer retention, so that doesn't work either. Believe me mate - I'm not making these videos just to kill time. This is a serious investment of my time and money. As a result, I've put countless hours in to research and data analysis to improve the performance of these videos. On the note of lens charts, I've even tried including download links to the lens charts in the description of videos to see if there's interest. Guess what? No one downloaded them. Not to mention that so far, you are literally the only person to ever request this. So I'm sorry, as I said before, these videos are for everyone and until the vast majority of people request additional charts then there's zero incentive for me to invest more time and energy in to doing so. All I can suggest is that you either try and find another review that does include what you're after, or you test the lenses yourself.
I want to get one of These too for my sony alpha 7 iii. In used both lenses cost about the same (sony 450€ - sigma 500€). Sony has better handling, but the sigma looks damn professional 😂 Dont know... I shoot portraits and street... Any help?
It's a tough call really. The Sony is brilliant, but the bokeh really bugs me. I guess it just depends on what you value more - image quality Vs bokeh 🤷🏻♂️
just confirms my thoughts that I didn't need to change thankfully! Shoutout to the lovely muse as well, smokin'
Katey smashed it on this shoot 🙌
Thank you for your reviews! I appreciate how clear and concise they are and how quickly you speak =]
Thanks Lauren, appreciate the feedback!
Rapid speaking is always bad for people like me who watch videos without sound and with turned on captions. When someone's speak too quickly like Tom, it's impossible to read captions 🤷♂️
Thanks mate, Im glad I got 1.8 days ago
You're welcome! I hope you enjoy the lens!
This was not only informative but hilarious! Thanks for the info!
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed it ☺️
Hi Thanks for the video. which lens would you recomend for video Sony or Sigma?
he just told you, watch the video!
Boy, you are convincing me to get an f1.8 here.
It's a solid lens to be fair! Only let down by quite textured bokeh.
In your bokeh comparison, image from sigma was from closer distance than from sony (head is larger). Don't know if this difference is big and how it influence on bokeh. I had Sigma 35 art in Pentax system and was one of my favourite lens. Now I'm looking for some addition to my Tamron 28-75, especially for shooting indoors where background is often busy (child's photography). Don't know if background blur will be significantly better with Sigma in 25 m2 room than with Sony 35 1.8 lens. Any advice?
And did you test sharpness on mid range distance? I saw few reviews where on that distance sharpness was worse than in closer distance (especially in comparison with Sony 35mm GM).
Just sold my 35 1.8... now I'm going to see the videoa and which is the winner 😬
Did you sell it for the Sigma?
The 35 1.8 is the better lens for both photo and video. The 35 1.4 is good for photo but not so much for video.
@@TomCalton Yes Tom, that was the idea. I sold it today... now, pissed off, I'm thinking of putting in more money and going for the GM... Thanks for the video, great model and amazing photos!!
@@josegulias I sold my Sony 35 1.8 a while ago. It's sharp and small - good stuff. But, when the 35 GM 1.4 came out I had to have it. I pre-ordered in Jan and finally got it in April. Then Sigma announces their 35 1.4. I ordered it too. Honestly, I returned the GM saving $700. I have absolutely no regrets! I love the new Sigma and its being used alot more than I imagined. (Frankly, I never liked the CA with the Sony 1.8). I feel the Sigma 35 is sharper with better fall off then the Sony 1.8. Plus it uses 67mm filter - and I have lots of those! *For video, I use Sony 20 or 24 anyway. All this being said, I am a portrait only shooter. I have the Sigma 85 1.4 DN DN (& 135 GM) and it pairs really well together.
Don't feel too bad about it - there really isn't a 'bad' choice as they're all pretty good lenses! The Sony 1.8 is best for video, hands down. For photo, the new Sigma 1.4 is the middle ground - it's much cheaper than the GM and has better bokeh than the Sony 1.8. The GM is the ultimate for photography, but for video, the focus breathing is just terrible!
Next week I'm testing the Sony 1.8 against the GM so might be worth holding off until then before you make your final choice! 😊
It's nice to have options. I prefer the natives lenses myself and will save up if buying new but will buy gently used if need be.
What's makes you prefer Sony glass out of interest?
@@TomCalton The manufacturers lenses are designed specifically for the camera is all. Plus the manufacturers provide a critical component, that being the cameras so I support their R&D. All lenses are worthless without a body to put them on.
Could you please ensure me that how fast the video af of sigma ? Cause i wanted to buy GM 35 mm and now thinking if the video af is not that much difference then i should go for sigma and it will save a lot of money
You can see the speed of the Sigma's AF speed in the AF Noise section of this review. The AF speed of the Sigma is OK, but the Sony GM is MUCH faster. That thing is rapid!
@@TomCalton if i use it with A7C then what would be the result? Will i be satisfied with sigma's performance?
I haven't tested it on an A7C so I couldn't tell you exactly, but I really can't see it being any different. Certainly won't be worse.
@@TomCalton then i should go with sigma 35mm
Chittainga Bullet Did you end up getting it? How is it?
Which lens is better for video Sigma or Sony? Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN vs Sony 35mm f/1.8
Love the 35mm f/1.8, powerful little devil.
Really is! It surprised me to be honest!
Same here. I specifically purchased the Sony 35 1.8 for its size. For the most part it’s a great lens. If I ever felt like I needed more I would simply purchase another lens… but would not sell my 1.8 to do so.
Ahhh loved this... what a vibe and Inspo for myself 🙌🏽
Thanks dude 🤘
@@TomCalton anytime!
Thanks for these amazing reviews, Tom!
So many choices, but I’m determined to order the Sigma DG DN this week for my a7iii. As I mainly shoot cars + occasionally landscape, street and events, I hardly ever use the lens near the MFD. Is the CA easily fixable in post (Lr)?
If so, the positives seem to outweigh, I hope to get a well produced copy and what other choice do I really have, if the GM is so pricey? Haha
Anyway, cheers!
Update? Did you make the right choice ya think?
Finally which lens better brother...
For me the most important things to me is autofocus and image quality.
That's fair enough. I wasn't one for analysing bokeh until this test, and now I can't stop judging all my other lenses. Can someone please make it stop!?
But the 35GM if you want superb image quality and autofocus.
Great review!
Imo the image quality part should go to the Sigma. I have both of these and while sharpness is fantastic in either one, the chromatic aberrations in Sony are much more visible and distracting. just my 2 cents.
The lens chart doesn't lie bud so really no debate to have here. Just look at the results - the Sony is quite clearly the optically superior lens. Like I said at the end of the video, with real life photos, it's often quite hard to tell the difference (especially after post processing), which is why we show the lens chart results because it makes it all very clear. If the results were closer I would have awarded them both with a point, but that wasn't the case. That's not to say the Sigma is bad though! Just not the best in this particular
match up.
Great Video!! I'm looking for a low light lens for events but dont know if it warrants the Sony 35 1.8 or stick with my Tamron 28-75 2.8... thoughts?? I also just got rid of my Sigma HSM because I didnt like the colors
What did you end up doing?
Finally, the comparison I've been waiting for! Well, I didn't expect the Sony to be sharper... I love my Sony but would like that 1.4 so now I have a tougher decision to make and still can't decide if it's worth selling my Sony and take out £400 out of my pocket to upgrade. I was thinking to sell my Sigma 20 1.4 and Sony 35 1.8 to fund my Sigma but I might as well sell the 20 1.4 and buy the Samyang 24 1.8 which is so small and light. What do you guys think?
Jeez! Choices, choices!
I've not tested the Samyang 24mm f/1.8 so can't really comment on that, but I know from experience that Samyang lenses are usually cheap and cheerful, so don't expect the same build, handling or image quality that you're used to from Sigma or Sony.
Is it just me or is the Sony 35 F1.8 really much shorter than the other 35mm? It seemed to me in all your 35mm comparisons. It looks more than 38mm compared to the other 35mm lens.
Definitely subscribe... hopefully the inspiration will improve my own videos
Thanks for the sub Chris - glad you liked the video! 🤜🤛
@@TomCalton no worries bud! Nice to find and support like minded channels 🙌🏽
Is the model Joey King?
I just got the 35mm f1.8 two months ago, and haven’t really been happy with the bokeh quality from the start. Good to have options with this new Sigma and the Sony GM, but it’s hard to pick one over the other. I’ll keep the f1.8 for now though. For the price, it’s not a terrible lens overall.
I'm kinda in the same boat David! I have the old Sigma 35mm f/1.4. It's a pretty good lens, but the chromatic aberration does my head in! I was going to get the GM, but the focus breathing makes it unusable for video. The new Sigma I like a lot, but focus breathing is still an issue. I thought the Sony 35mm f/1.8 was the one, but the crappy bokeh is really putting me off pulling the trigger on it. So for now, I'm sticking with what I've got and hoping another alternative comes along.
So is it worth getting a used Sony 35mm 1.8 for now around $400?
For video and stills both. Is it that bad?
@@Ethereal_Mist value is hard to beat at $400, especially if it's in great condition. I sold the 35mm f1.8 sometime ago, and recently picked up the 35mm GM.
@@DavidStella I am concerned about the bokeh after your comment. Plus if only there was a lightweight lens with F1.4 with no focus breathing for video would be perfect.
@@Ethereal_Mist the bokeh is fine for video on the f1.8. Get it at $400, it’s a good value. You can always resell it for the same or more if you end up not liking it.
Thx
You're welcome 🤘
Very nearly went with the Sigma last week...
Tom, great video dude 👌
You're always very welcome dude - hope this helped in your decision making!
Any regrets for going sony?
does firmware update fix focus breathing on sigma?
Unfortunately not as lens breathing is something that's caused by the elements inside the lens physically moving whilst focusing. Sony get around this by using a lens breathing compensation algorithm in their newer cameras that just slightly crops the image to offset this movement, but it's only compatable with Sony brand lenses at the moment.
@@TomCalton thanks for your reply appreciate it! im really confused on what lens to buy. im a hybrid shooter but more on film making. I love the 35mm but every 1.4 has its problem specially the focus breathing.. the sony 35 1.8 is good but i really want the 1.4 so bad! what do you suggest?
sigma 35mm 1.4 dg dn or sony 35mm 1.8 ?
@7:13
Is this model Joey King? Looks just like her
Hello ! Sorry for my english, i'm french. thank you for your video, I hesitate between the sony and the Sigma. I make video, what is the best choice? i will use it with a sony a7c! Thank you for your answer. at the start of your video, at 0:39 which lens is it?
Your English is good, don't worry! 😁
For video, the Sony would be my pick. It's smaller, lighter, doesn't have focus breathing issues, is nicer to focus manually, and the AF is quicker. It would fit nicer on your A7C, too! I hope this helps 🙂
@@TomCalton Thanks very much for your answer. I think i will take the Sony. Last Question, at the start of your video (0:39) which lens is it ? Thanks you
Unfortunately this reinforces something I’ve been suspecting: if I already have a Sony 35 f/1.8, the Sigma isn’t worth the upgrade despite being probably a little better. Looks like I may be splurging on the GM eventually….
For the price, the Sony 35mm f/1.8 is hard to beat. If you can afford it, the GM is certainly a jump up (despite the horrible focus breathing). I bought the GM a few months ago and it's absolutely awesome!
Haha and again great video 😁 I have the smaller one 😁 I do mostly video so I stay with Sony. The focus breathing on the sigma 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️ why?
Thanks! Yeah, the Sony is the better choice for video for sure. I'm not too sure why these new lenses all come with horrendous focus breathing - the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM is just as bad, if not worse. Must be something to do with them having to compromise it for smaller size and weight.
@@TomCalton maybe you are right it tough 35 1.4 sigma this is it... But neeeeehhhh. Thanks for answering 👍
No worries! Thanks for watching and commenting 👍
The Sony 35mm 1.4 has terrible focus breathing.
Yeah, it's bloody terrible! Only real bad thing about it though.
For your lens test charts were they both at 1.8
No, both were wide open at their respective maximum apertures.
@@TomCalton If thats the case theres not enough evidence to declare the sony better
Would be nice to have an extra clip of the test chart with both at 1.8, because the Sigma wins by default at 1.4 anyway
I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Lenses offer the poorest image quality at the widest and narrowest aperture values, with the best performance almost always found bang in the middle of the range (often between f/8-f16). By testing the lenses wide open you're seeing the lenses perform at their 'worst'. So if they perform well when wide open, it's pretty much a given that they're only going to get better as the aperture narrows. Plus, nobody goes to the expense of buying an f/1.4 lens only to never shoot with it wide open. So, most people want to see whether it's usable wide open.
As an aside, the lens chart sections of my videos are by far the least viewed parts of my reviews - in other words, they generally bore the piss out of people. So including more charts might be interesting to you, but my videos are made for everyone, so doing what you suggested would only cause more people to skip ahead or click away, which is the quickest way to tank a video/channel.
@@TomCalton Man you completely missed the point...
Suppose Alice needs f/1.4, this person wont even consider the 35/1.8, because its a lens cannot even produce an image at f/1.4! This is what I mean by the sigma wins by default
Now we Bob, who only needs 1.8. He wants to know, between the Sigma 35/1.4 and the Sony 35/1.8, which one does better at 1.8? Bob watches your video and DOES NOT get his answer
And thirdly you have Carl, who is Bob's friend. Whenever a Bob asks which lens cheaper than the 35GM is optically better at f1.8, Carl wants to point all the Bobs to your video. However your video does not show the pertinent information to give Carl confidence in the reccomendation.
This is because if the Sigma 35/1.4 @ 1.8 is better than the 35/1.8 @1.8, then the Sigma should be reccomended!
Sigma peformance at 1.4 is irrelevant when compared to the 35/1.8, because a lens that can produce ANY image at 1.4 is better than one that cant!
Its fine if you think the charts are boring, just put them at the end of the video. You will get your 10 min before the charts are shown. When the Carls are happy, they will link your video more. I would.
Alternatively, just show the 1.8 vs 1.8 chart instead... at least thats more meaningful than a 1.4 vs 1.8 chart.
Taking the analogy to an extreme, It will be a sad day when someone thinks the Canon 600/11 is better than the 600/4.... because hypothetically the 600/11 tests better at f11 than the 600/4 at f4.
It should be obvious the 600/4 wins by default under f/11 right? Hopefully you get the point by now
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Its irrelavant to what im trying to say here, but your f8-16 range is wrong for most FF sony cameras.
Theoretically... a camera is diffraction limited when the width of a point light source exceeds the size of a pixel on the sensor.
With a theoretically "perfect" lens,
1) The A7IV will see diffraction become visible at f7.7, with visible softening of the image at f9.6
2) On the other end of the spectrum, diffraction is visible on the Riv at f5.7, and there is visible softening of fine detail at f7.1
3) With 240MP pixel shift enabled, diffraction becomes visible at f2.8 and there is visible softening of fine detail at f4.3
I have done some real-world testing, and the theoretical numbers are reasonable for the best lenses like the 35GM / 85GM + RIV... I did not test the lesser lenses
If we have to give an aperature range for best lens peformance, f5.6 - f8 is a more reasonable range for today's cameras
All you've done here is made up 3 scenarios that favour your argument and then called it a day. I could just reply with 10 other completely fictious stories that justify my decision to not include additional charts, but I won't waste any more of our time. 😂
The 600mm lens analogy doesn't stand up either because if f/11 was the widest aperture on that specific lens then it would still be the 'worst' aperture in terms of image quality and it would improve as it it closes down. Performance is relative to the aperture range of the lens, not the aperture value by itself.
Adding lens charts to the end of the video would still damage viewer retention, so that doesn't work either. Believe me mate - I'm not making these videos just to kill time. This is a serious investment of my time and money. As a result, I've put countless hours in to research and data analysis to improve the performance of these videos.
On the note of lens charts, I've even tried including download links to the lens charts in the description of videos to see if there's interest. Guess what? No one downloaded them. Not to mention that so far, you are literally the only person to ever request this. So I'm sorry, as I said before, these videos are for everyone and until the vast majority of people request additional charts then there's zero incentive for me to invest more time and energy in to doing so.
All I can suggest is that you either try and find another review that does include what you're after, or you test the lenses yourself.
I prefer sigma art. I don’t know why, but sony lens don’t have a feels in the images, like too perfect. It’s just me or anyone think that too?
I definitely think the bokeh on the Sigma is a lot nicer.
This is a FACT. People never mention this. There is a ‘feeling/vibe’ to the sigma Art lens images. All the Art series.
i love mine....35 1.8 sony..
It's a great little lens 👌
I want to get one of These too for my sony alpha 7 iii.
In used both lenses cost about the same (sony 450€ - sigma 500€).
Sony has better handling, but the sigma looks damn professional 😂
Dont know...
I shoot portraits and street...
Any help?
It's a tough call really. The Sony is brilliant, but the bokeh really bugs me. I guess it just depends on what you value more - image quality Vs bokeh 🤷🏻♂️
@@TomCalton bought the sony 👌
Nice 👍 I don't think you'll regret it. Especially for street photography as it's so small and light!
@@TomCalton hope so too 👌😊
Bokeh is overrated. Get the lens that ticks other boxes!