F1.8 is enough on a Sony A7III anyway given the fact that it's a low light beast. The perfect A7iii prime trio is the 28mm f2, 55mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8. With those three lenses you're pretty much set for everything. I'm getting mine in a few weeks with said three lenses and I can't wait 😁
I did have that 28,...but...I got the 35 1.8 and I sell it, I never really like it, but this 35 I love it. Tamron will launch a 20 mm on 2020...that would be a nice adition.
Exactly the Comparison review I was looking for. Kept my Sigma from my DSLR days but wanted something smaller so looked at the Sony FE50 f1.8 and hated it. Then just got the Zeiss used for $360 USD and it seems pretty good. Especially for the price.
Just want to note that these ‘Zeiss’ lenses are actually Sony Zeiss lenses. This means that Sony designs and make the lens, and Zeiss slaps on their T* anti reflective coating and check quality control. Bit of a marketing trap if you ask me, as I’m sure lots of people bought this lens believing it had been designed by Zeiss.
Good point Snap Shoot. They are obviously not true Zeiss lenses, however Zeiss do work along side Sony when designing the lens, given that Zeiss have such a reputation for lenses I doubt they would just slap their name on any old junk as it wouldn't reflect well on them.
Can you back up your "Zeiss just does the coating and slaps there name on it" statement?? I don't think for one minute Sony don't design it but i think it's more than the coating that is Zeiss how about the elements?
jackodon74 Okay my original comment was a slight overstatement, but their website reads: “ZEISS supports Sony throughout the optical design and development process and then tests and approves the prototypes. Finally, ZEISS determines the test specifications for serial production.” Essentially providing guidance in the optical design and maintaining quality control.
So you're saying people blindly buy a lens because of the name on the label? They don't try and see if it's any good? They don't care about the quality because the name is all that matters? If that's the case then I don't see the problem. They don't care anyway.
Ni5ei A lot of people are enticed to the fact that it has ‘Zeiss’ in the name, and talk about it’s beautiful ‘3D pop’ that Zeiss lenses are known for. The issue is, is that there is no ‘3D pop’ in these Sony Zeiss lenses as far as I’m concerned, and people are literally only mentioning it because of the Zeiss name, not from looking at the images. Okay, they may not blindly buy the lens because of the name (some will though), but I would definitely care if I’d spent money on an already expensive lens believing that the extra cost was the result of it being made/designed by Zeiss. It’s like Leica. No one buys it for the best image quality or performance, but for the name and experience using it. My original comment was to not discredit the lens (because it’s great and I have one myself) but inform the consumer. It doesn’t matter whether they care or not.
Subscribed yesterday and love your channel so far! 👍 One thing I'd like to add about autofocus comparisons is that larger aperture lenses will inherently be prone to slower focusing due to the amount of glass being moved. Many people don't take that into account and believe that the bigger lenses should focus quicker. More glass = more mass = harder to move as quickly Just my .02
Thank you and welcome :) Very good point, although it does vary lens to lens as another factor to consider is the size of the motor system itself, smaller lenses while having smaller elements generally also have smaller AF motors, where as larger lenses have larger motors with more torque to be able to move the larger elements
Most of the time the issue of corner focusing is because the lens contrast comes down therefore posing an extra to the focusing sensor that works using contrast incidentally. The sharper and more contrasty the edges of a len is, the easier it will be to get a fast and accurate focus.
Zeiss already made a concave lens in the olden days, the Zeiss Ultron, I don't think it was originally about weight, but that may be why they brought the design back.
I was shooting the Sigma for around 3-4 years and it served me really well. But instead of the Sony I choose the Loxia:-) In your example I can see a typical Zeiss trademark which the Sigma simply doesn’t seem to have. The structures feel a lot more dimensional. The Sigma seems to have a flatter Rendering. This is not just a bit, it’s actually quite a significant difference:-) The things I dislike about this video is that there is a lot of talking. As a viewer or someone who is interested in these lenses I basically have to take your words for granted. I would rather listen to what you have to say AND see examples that undermine on what you mean. 1 image comparison is not that much. But otherwise nice video still:-)
You mean underpin :-) Undermining is to take away foundations of an argument, underpinning is to support it - they are both building references. But otherwise good use of English :-)
I have the a7iii sigma art and canon L. And I use the original metabones. I get super fast AF (stills) with all. EyeAF is crazy quick and accurate on both. I wonder if the MC11 just doesn’t handle the canon lenses as well.
If you're trying to use the Canon lens, you have a limited AF area. Basically the center 70% of the viewfinder. You'll notice the grey bracket lines on the screen in Wide Area AF. If you're using Spot focus, you have to remember to keep the box in that area. Considering I use face detect and Eye-AF and shoot mostly portraits, the 70-200 has great AF on the MC-11.
My photo guru (the only person who ever taught me something) told me once that we are lucky to have heavy cameras and lenses. If one does not feel the weight, then one knows is busy with photography. My experience shows this is correct.
Dave - Love your reviews, reports, commentary, and sense of humor. Would love to see some of your work incorporated into your videos. Bottom line on the lenses: you can't beat the Zeiss 55mm f1.8. It provides an unbeatable combination of IQ, AF speed and accuracy, and size/weight. Sony needs a small 35mm f1.8 to match it.
Personally, for 50 mm range, I go for the Zeiss 55 mm, as the size is much smaller. However, if it comes to 35 mm range, I would definitely choose the Sigma, as when you compare the Zeiss 35 mm f1.4, there are not much different in size.
I believe until today the zeiss is the very best Fe lens, it make the system so compact, the pictures I get from it and my a7rii are just a dream. Waiting for the tamron, but that zeiss will go with me to my grave :) , Is a "No never" sale one.
Greetings, I'm like you have Sigma 17-50mm and Sigma 50-100mm Art with MC-11 adapt. I shot a night time boat ride and found that the Sigma was doing a little hunting. But you said something that I will try next time in low light. I will lower the Aperture so instead of using 1.8 wide open, I'll use 2.0 or 3. I just rented the Sony G 70-200 f4 for the Labor Day weekend, so I'll get to see how native glass works in all the areas. Love this A7iii though. Nice review and thanxx!!!
You can t compare a native lens to a non native with an adapter and say which focuses better..You can t compare a 1.8 to a 1.4..Build quality the sigma is fantastic..The image quality the sigma is better on my d850 it s stellar simply as are the 85 and the 135 art..They were all tack sharp out of the box..never had any issues...Maybe i am lucky..yeah and i really don t like anything small..By the way all fast sony lenses are just at the same size and weight of dslr lenses..for me you have much better balance with dslr s rather then a big lens attached to a tiny cam..if you re carrying 4 or 5 lenses and a sony mirrorless or a D810 and 4 5 lenses you wont have any weight advantage..just my opinion.
When I had the Sigma MC11 on my Canon lenses I could never achieve wide open on my EF 50 f1.2, 1.4 was the best it would go. Video AF on the Canon lenses was shite, basically unusable. Moved to native Sony to save frustration.
i use a7R3 + mc11 + 24 1.4 sigma (canon, got it fo 465$) and 50 1.8 stm (105$) canon and for i've continues AF in video with the sigma, but not with the canon. Eye AF is nice, smooth and snappy on both.
“Now for the big question on everybody’s mind...” Bokeh. Come on man, the one thing no one wants to admit to. It’s all bout dat bokeh, brah. It’s hard to beat a Zeiss lens, well, except maybe consistently in price. Lol
I've seen a comparison between sigma and the 55 zeiss and at corners wide open, the zeiss was much much less sharper than the sigma, they were appalled and baffled at the discover, maybe it was a defective copy? Did you find that both are same as image quality? cause i have the sigma 50 art for canon, but I'm switching to A7 iii and I'm considering in between the sigma 50 native Emount, Zeiss 55 and Zeiss 50 1.4. What woul you choose in between these? also, do you think it's worth to spend the extra money to go with the 50 1.4 Zeiss? thanks a lot
I found arguably a fraction difference in favour of the Sigma, but that was a tiny difference that for me didn't justify the additional size compared to the Zeiss hence why I switched and have been more than happy with it - but I'm also not that fussed about keeping the f1.4 over the f1.8 - that would need to be your choice ultimately
They are the same lens as far as I know. It's really a Sony lens but using Zeiss coatings - it's just some refer to it as a Zeiss because it has a Zeiss badge on the side, while others state Carl Zeiss because that's written around the front element
@@DaveMcKeegan OK, thank you. I know the Lens design is made by Zeiss, it could be Cosina that produces the Lens for Zeiss/Sony. The Zeiss coating are probably also made by Cosina under license from Zeiss.
The chromatic aberration on the Sony makes some shots almost unusable compared to very low CA on the Sigmas. I understand this isn't a technical review and the Sony has a definite weight advantage, but that's a serious issue you're just overlooking. The Sony is in no way, 'optically similar' as you claim and I hope your viewers won't be fooled into thinking so.
lazy Sigma throwing an Mc11 into a tube of plastic.....good glass but looks a joke on the A7 series. 55 1.8 is the must own lens for any A7 users. Sony have hit a brick wall with the lenses now because there almost as big as DSLR lenses in the faster apertures defeating the whole point of mirrorless.
It's not that the Zeiss is impressively compact. A Nikon 50mm f1.8 AI-s on an adapter is still smaller and lighter (granted it doesn't have AF but still). It that the Sigma f1.4 art is ridiculously large for a 50mm f1.4.
LOL! I'm almost 47! The weight of the lenses is a serious consideration for me now. I'm currently looking at M43 cameras and lenses, after having rented the awesome Panasonic G9. The lenses are tiny and light-weight, and are generally sharp even wide open (some are lackluster - but that's to be expected). I'm doing my research and waiting till the end of the year to make a final decision. I'm looking forward to what new technology and features Photokina will be featuring in September..
Both lenses track pretty well. Although I noticed a slight delay in the Sigma reacting to needing to change focus. But this is possibly something that having an FE mount lens could improve
The 55mm is slightly sharper than the 35mm, however they are obviously rather different focal lengths and the difference isn't that extreme so pick whichever focal length suites you best
with the mc-ll you can't lump all Canon lenses together, my 70/200 is like you described, at least after 135mm, but my Canon 50 f1.4 doesn't have that issue, but my 40 pancake does, so all Canon lenses aren't the same, my old Sigma 50 and 85 f1.4 work good with the mc ll but don't use the very outside focus points, but out far enough, but I discovered that only Art lenses will video focus with the mc ll adapter, also my Tamron 24/70 f2.8 VC focuses good with the mc-ll, this is on the A7r lll, my Sony 55 f1.8 I really love, I bought it for the size and weight, it's a great lens, and so is the 85 f1.8, but at night time doing street photography the focusing slows down a bit with the 55, but it's still ok, but basically if you already own Canon mount glass, the mc ll is worth a try depending on the lenses you have, if Sigma Art then for sure, but for a Sony Camera the native glass will always be better, but there are the new Native Sigma Art lenses for Sony and the new Tamron 28/75 f28 for Sony, and some other glass also that has a native mount
Wait. As someone who is planning on making the switch from canon to the sony a7iii, are you telling me that the canon mount sigma with the adapter with perform the same as the sigma wth the native sony mount? I assumed that performance and auto focus issues would all disappear once the its a native somy lens?
I can't comment on how the FE mount Sigmas will perform as I haven't tried them, however I can say that from what I have seen of my testing so far, that EF mount Sigma's with the MC-11 adapter work very well.
I own the 55 (on a A7M1 to be upgraded to the A7M4 when available) and absolutely love it. Currently I'm a bit torn if to go for a combo of the 55 and the soon to be released 35mm 1.8 or keep the kit small and go for the Batis 40/f.2 to conver the mid-ground instead. Any thoughts are highly appreciated.
Entirely personal choice Nik, I've opted for the 35mm as it's smaller and cheaper than the Batis and it's replacing my Sigma 35mm ... Although the 40 is a great lens with good close focus as well. There is no wrong answer
Hey Nik 👋 I have the original A7 as well and I’m thinking of grabbing the 55. How do you find the autofocus in lower light ? I wouldn’t expect perfection but I’m hoping it’s decent..
@@NARC4K hi there, honestly I'm struggling with it a bit at the moment. Not sure if it's just my camera being one of the first batches or if that's a general issue. Don't get me wrong I think it's a great lense, I own it now for the second time. But autofocus and the absence of image stabilization in lense and camera make it quite difficult for me in lower light situations. So far I tried mostly slow moving objects but will try stills tonight and come back to you with how that feels.
@@NARC4K Hi me again, well still struggling but it works ok in DMF Mode, center focus point with manual correction. I haven't checked the firmware of the lense yet since it's pretty new but if I can figure out a way to overcome the focus issue I'll comment back here.
Yes the weight of the Sigma is a pain. But, I found a way to make it less heavy. Well not if you put it on a scale obviously but for the body. Wrap the neckstrap with the sticky side in around your lower arm, and use a wriststrap around the wrist. When you don't use the camera you can just drop it and the large areas it hangs on makes it feel as the camera weight is about a third.
Thanks so much for the review. Considering my options in moving to e-mount. May not wait for the Sigma Art, considering this. About your video, not sure why, but your ears look super red. Maybe it's due to the back lighting? Skin tones around your nose and lips also look red-saturated. Enjoying the videos, otherwise!
Depends what you are looking for from the camera. The A7II offers the same sort of image quality as the III but lacks the AF, shooting speed and battery life of the III, so you would have to decide which aspects are more important to what you shoot
In that case the A7II and some good primes like the 85mm F1.8 would probably be the better choice for you since the AF should be sufficient enough for your needs and you don't really need fast lightning fast shooting speeds either for portraits
Dave, good video. For me the Zeiss makes the most sense. I switched over from Nikon and have two old Nikon lenses left. A 16-35 that dropped at an event and catches at 17mm so I can't sell it but it still gets to 16mm. The other is a Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art lens that I mount with the commlite adapter. Believe it or not I actually get Face detection and eye AF on my A9 with these two lens. As soon as I sell my Nikon 200-400 f4 vr, Nikon 80-400 AF-S, the 50mm Sigma 1.4 Art and a couple of other pieces of Nikon gear. I plan on buying the Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8 and a A7R3. That will leave me trying to find a good 35mm. I think keeping the Primes smaller 85mm 1.8, 55mm 1.8 and a Sony Zeiss 35mm 2.8? Helps off set the weight of the Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM, the Sony 24-105 f4 and my Tokina 16-28 f2.8 EF mount with MC11 adapter in my bag for shooting weddings and events.
am i the only one that saw this: zeiss at 1.8 is brighter than sigma at 1.4 , this doesn't make any sense unless the sutterspeed was changed or the ISO which would make the whole comparison ideea nok
The settings were kept the same, the difference is down to light transmission. While the Sigma has a 2/3rds stop faster aperture, the transmission of the lens is only T1.8 which is the same as the Zeiss, so the amount of light getting through the lenses is pretty much the same www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sigma-50mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1252_1035_1306_1009 -
I wish Sony actually produced a decent 35mm & 50mm F1.8 lens ..they dont even have a 35mm ..F1.8 ...? the new sigma art FE mount lenses are way to big & top heavy ... Samyang 50mm F1.4 is not great at focus & very soft too... looks like the 55mm Zeiss is the one...
I was VERY SURPRISED this Zeiss is called a Sonnar T* 1.8/55. It should have been called the Carl Zeiss Ultron T* 1.8/55. Go GOOGLE Ultron T* 1.5 50mm, you'll see why! The have both the 1.4/50mm Planar T* and 1.8/55nn Sonnar T*. I'll tell you that the 1.8 is SHARPER around the periphery than the 1.4 and as sharp in the middle, but both are exceedingly sharp compared to say the Contax mount Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50. The only flaw with the 1.8/55 is the longitudinal chromatic aberrations which might show if you have very fine, high contrast, blurs immediately in front and behind the point of focus wide open. As long as everything is sharp there is no aberration, if the aperture is stopped down 2 stops it goes away completely as well. The 1.4/50 FE is about the same size as the Sigma and I can't give up the 1.8 because of its size!
You have to understand Sony (and Zeiss) priority in designing FE lenses. The first priority is to create EXTREME RESOLUTION lenses capable of supporting 40+ MPs with headroom for future sensor improvements. That is the lenses have to be exceedingly sharp -- much more so than the traditional 6 or 7 element Planar (Gaussian) designs that has been the staple for 50 years can deliver. The 1.8 55 is designed to be extremely sharp across the frame with literally no aberrations IN THE PLANE OF FOCUS. To do so, aspherics are used to bring the light back to the plane and correct for aberrations -- especially off center. Outside of that plane of focus you pay the price of longitudinal CA and also onion ring bokeh. When stuff are really out of focus it really doesn't matter, in fact they can be quite pleasing. But, just ahead and behind, with black on white contrasts you may see magenta or green hueing. It really is hueing more than fringing. You will never see that taking a landscape (where everything is at infinity) or a brick wall where everything is at the same distance. You generally wouldn't see it in portraiture either where the background is relatively far off. You WILL see it if you photograph news print at an angle where everything is B&W and you have text just ahead or behind those lines that are sharp. But, really, does it matter in general photography? No, not really, because if you are in one of those rare situations -- like a black and white fence going from near to far in the frame -- all you have to do is crank the aperture from 1.8 to 2.8~3.3 and the hueing is gone.
Dwight sounds like you probably know your lenses but what most need to know is it any good in 'real world' terms, what are strengths/weaknesses etc and how does it stack up vs alternatives. Yes there is 'real native' Zeiss and Zeiss collaborative lenses but one doesn't necessarily make for a better option, although prejudice (including mine) probably favours 'real' Zeiss. Still it's best to be objective and look beyond the brand hype (or promise). In that sense I suspect the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f1.8 is a great choice.
I've looked at Zeiss 55mm f1.8 before when I was using my A6000. At that time I was just shocked by the price for a f1.8 lens............ $900 for a f1.8 sounds too much
But it perform like the SIgma Art or better than the Canon L50mm f/1.2 is not only the aperture is the quality in general... but there is a cheaper Sony 50mm f/1.8 but obviously with worst image quality
Thats actually not true, The image quality is very good, as good as any lens even wide open, however the real issue is in the AF. The Af and color rendition is more important than anything. However I do like a creamy smooth bokeh, but I realize now for the average viewer completely blowing out the background makes for a boring image.
stop spreading that "mirrlorless helps me save weight" BS - 50 1.8s - aka nifty-50-ties of both canon and nikon (DLSRs) are ligther and smaller than that zeiss (not to mention like x5 and more times cheaper). and Sony Planar T* FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA Lens (for mirrorless) costs 1400$ and weights same as Sigma 1.4 art Canon (tough without adapter). imagine someone would compare Sony Planar T* FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA vs Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM (Mirorless vs DLSR) and did similar conclusions 🤦
Except the nifty fifty doesn't come close to the Zeiss in terms of optical quality ... Not to mention it has more plastic than a Barbie doll. Mirrorless can save weight even on high end lenses. Compare the weights of the Sony 12-24, 16-35, 24-105, 85mm, 100-400 ... All are lighter than the equivalent Canons
Sony also have Sony FE 50 1.8 which is smaller and way cheaper than the Zeiss. But the quality is just similar to Canon and Nikon 50 1.8 (IE: so so). The Zeiss 55 1.8 is a downsized wonder lens, not a glorified nifty fifty. 1.) it has very good light transmission. It is F1.8 and also T1.8. While Sigma F1.4 is T1.6. It means for brightness the Zeiss is less than 1/3 stop less bright than Sigma 1.4 open at 1.4. 2.) Sharpness, contrast and color are all spot on as we see on most review. CONS: some vignette, onion ring bokeh and purple fringing in out of focus area. And how it doesn't look pro and intimidating despite the price and quality.
noticed straight away videoing with a Sony the colors people do go on about it but Canon colors more flattering vibrant Sony maybe more realistic but has a green tinge as well what do u think can pick a sony colours like zip/
W N still notice a difference any Sony vlogs something with the colour saturation I think the a 3 has in way joined mirrorless world with ff the size evf also being able to shoot apsc extra reach even tweaked still prefer canon colour
No, the green tinged skin is not just white balance. It's common for Sony & Nikon ... has been so for years. Sony seems finally to have gotten away from it with their latest camera, the A7III. See this video by Dustin Abbott, where he sets white balance identically on the A7RIII and the A7III: ua-cam.com/video/riOJ3GSOX3I/v-deo.htmlm40s The A7RIII shows the green skin; A7III doesn't.
Well can't comment for everyone else but I didn't compare the E-mount Sigma because I only had the EF variant and couldn't justify paying for a mount conversion just for testing. Seeing comparisons between the Sigma E-mounts Vs EF, the image quality remains unchanged, the only difference is slightly better AF mainly in video
@@dannyklesh I have stuck with the 55 The Sigma is a great lens but it's so much larger to carry around and with all that extra glass they have the same T-stop levels so you don't really gain any extra light - so for me the Sigma didn't offer enough benefit to justify the extra bulk
Dave McKeegan I appreciate you getting back to me on this. Trying to find a comparison alone was needle in a haystack. And your point with the size is very much true. Let alone the fact DXO has the 55 marked extremely high like one of the best lenses of all time. Is the 1.4 to 1.8 a big factor or not really ?
Obviously they are quite different on paper, however when you consider that the Sigma lenses only have T-stops equal to the f1.8's they are actually closer than you think on paper
I love how Sigma are making high end lenses, but I was going to buy the 18-35mm f1.8 and after doing some research, I found that the Canon 24mm f2.8 STM (pancake) was 80% cheaper, lighter and smaller and had a 30% closer MFD, with just a little less resolving power... ART lenses should be considered a niche product rather than the answer to everything
It's really a case of what you need. The 18-35 is an awesome lens and the only zoom on the market with an f1.8 aperture ... But if you don't need f1.8 at all then yeah it's bit of a waste. That's why I am downsizing my lenses from f1.4 to f1.8 because I don't really need them but for DSLRs all the high end lenses are fast apertures
Isn't the Canon 24 2.8 an EF-S lens? If your full frame you can't use it and if your Sony you can't use it on the MC-11 adapter. I have it and I'm selling it because I can't use it on my Sony A73.
Yes it is, and the 18-35mm too... I just wanted to make a point that the ART lineup, while being fantastic glass is not suited for everyone. I think too many people buy lenses on sharpness alone
I bought a Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 to replace my old sigma and didn't think IS would be such a big deal, but after a trip to the Netherlands, I am so happy I had this. I could just walk around with the shutter speed at 1/13s (to blur people) or lower and know that the picture would still be tack sharp, even on my 50D
Absolutely Andy I mean really the Zeiss is bigger than the Canon 50mm f1.8 and the Sony 85mm f1.8 is bigger than the Canon f1.8, but the Canon's aren't anywhere close to the Sony's in terms of image quality.
yep, the ZEISS is stupidly good. And while its longer than the Canon f1.8 its also far more compact. Plus didn't the head guy from Sigma say it wasn't possible for lenses over 35mm on the E-mount to be small ( must read that up again ) or something like that.
I think the guy at Sigma was basically saying that longer than 35mm can't really be made smaller on mirrorless than DSLR. Think that's why the Zeiss is slightly longer than Canon. But the Zeiss has much better glass and a better optical design. But no doubt the Zeiss is a beast, also got the 28mm f2 now which is great
I don't hate DSLRs, I just think they have almost reached the limits of what they are capable of (in terms of AF etc) There are still some great DSLRs on the market and if you are shooting in extreme conditions then no mirrorless comes close to the likes of the 1DXII and D5 for ruggedness. But there is also no denying that mirrorless is coming on in leaps and bounds and has a lot more potential looking forward than DSLRs.
I don’t think people are hating, but it’s basically what film use to be when DSLRs started getting popular. You either evolve and adapt to the new technology or stay an old dinosaur and die with the old technology. It’s time to move on, and if you are in denial that the days of DSLR are numbered, you are not looking at the big picture.
Vasile Stan sounds like you had a bad copy. I own a 50 f1.4 Art and it's solid. I also have an 85mm 1.4 nikon and the sigma feels a better build quality than that. Sure it's weighty but it's solid
Both of them are plastic so I don't know what's the difference. When you get the lens any you are excited is nice but after a year you will get tired of carrying a 50mm art stone with you. Also had a 35 mm 1.4 who had an inconsistent exposure. So, you can say that I'm not sa Sigma fan
F1.8 is enough on a Sony A7III anyway given the fact that it's a low light beast.
The perfect A7iii prime trio is the 28mm f2, 55mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8.
With those three lenses you're pretty much set for everything.
I'm getting mine in a few weeks with said three lenses and I can't wait 😁
100% agree!
I did have that 28,...but...I got the 35 1.8 and I sell it, I never really like it, but this 35 I love it. Tamron will launch a 20 mm on 2020...that would be a nice adition.
Exactly the Comparison review I was looking for. Kept my Sigma from my DSLR days but wanted something smaller so looked at the Sony FE50 f1.8 and hated it. Then just got the Zeiss used for $360 USD and it seems pretty good. Especially for the price.
Was choosing these 2. Now I've decided on Zeiss, my main reason was also to downsize the weight. This video helps.
Just want to note that these ‘Zeiss’ lenses are actually Sony Zeiss lenses. This means that Sony designs and make the lens, and Zeiss slaps on their T* anti reflective coating and check quality control. Bit of a marketing trap if you ask me, as I’m sure lots of people bought this lens believing it had been designed by Zeiss.
Good point Snap Shoot. They are obviously not true Zeiss lenses, however Zeiss do work along side Sony when designing the lens, given that Zeiss have such a reputation for lenses I doubt they would just slap their name on any old junk as it wouldn't reflect well on them.
Can you back up your "Zeiss just does the coating and slaps there name on it" statement?? I don't think for one minute Sony don't design it but i think it's more than the coating that is Zeiss how about the elements?
jackodon74 Okay my original comment was a slight overstatement, but their website reads: “ZEISS supports Sony throughout the optical design and development process and then tests and approves the prototypes. Finally, ZEISS determines the test specifications for serial production.” Essentially providing guidance in the optical design and maintaining quality control.
So you're saying people blindly buy a lens because of the name on the label? They don't try and see if it's any good? They don't care about the quality because the name is all that matters? If that's the case then I don't see the problem. They don't care anyway.
Ni5ei A lot of people are enticed to the fact that it has ‘Zeiss’ in the name, and talk about it’s beautiful ‘3D pop’ that Zeiss lenses are known for. The issue is, is that there is no ‘3D pop’ in these Sony Zeiss lenses as far as I’m concerned, and people are literally only mentioning it because of the Zeiss name, not from looking at the images. Okay, they may not blindly buy the lens because of the name (some will though), but I would definitely care if I’d spent money on an already expensive lens believing that the extra cost was the result of it being made/designed by Zeiss. It’s like Leica. No one buys it for the best image quality or performance, but for the name and experience using it. My original comment was to not discredit the lens (because it’s great and I have one myself) but inform the consumer. It doesn’t matter whether they care or not.
Subscribed yesterday and love your channel so far! 👍
One thing I'd like to add about autofocus comparisons is that larger aperture lenses will inherently be prone to slower focusing due to the amount of glass being moved. Many people don't take that into account and believe that the bigger lenses should focus quicker.
More glass = more mass = harder to move as quickly
Just my .02
Thank you and welcome :)
Very good point, although it does vary lens to lens as another factor to consider is the size of the motor system itself, smaller lenses while having smaller elements generally also have smaller AF motors, where as larger lenses have larger motors with more torque to be able to move the larger elements
Most of the time the issue of corner focusing is because the lens contrast comes down therefore posing an extra
to the focusing sensor that works using contrast incidentally. The sharper and more contrasty the edges of a len is, the easier it will be to get a fast and accurate focus.
I’m looking forward to the new tameron 28-75 f2.8
everyone is :D
love your channel. you have also covered things that ive been concerned over for my switch from canon to sony. just subscribed. thanks for the content
Zeiss already made a concave lens in the olden days, the Zeiss Ultron, I don't think it was originally about weight, but that may be why they brought the design back.
I was shooting the Sigma for around 3-4 years and it served me really well. But instead of the Sony I choose the Loxia:-)
In your example I can see a typical Zeiss trademark which the Sigma simply doesn’t seem to have. The structures feel a lot more dimensional. The Sigma seems to have a flatter Rendering. This is not just a bit, it’s actually quite a significant difference:-)
The things I dislike about this video is that there is a lot of talking. As a viewer or someone who is interested in these lenses I basically have to take your words for granted. I would rather listen to what you have to say AND see examples that undermine on what you mean. 1 image comparison is not that much. But otherwise nice video still:-)
You mean underpin :-)
Undermining is to take away foundations of an argument, underpinning is to support it - they are both building references. But otherwise good use of English :-)
The Sigma 50/1.4 Art (1.79 pounds) weighs almost 3X as much as the Zeiss 55/1.8 (0.63 pounds).
I have the a7iii sigma art and canon L. And I use the original metabones.
I get super fast AF (stills) with all. EyeAF is crazy quick and accurate on both.
I wonder if the MC11 just doesn’t handle the canon lenses as well.
I had the tamron 150-600 g2 cannon fit with the mc11 on my Sony a7iii, auto focus was an absolute no go 🙅♂️
If you're trying to use the Canon lens, you have a limited AF area. Basically the center 70% of the viewfinder. You'll notice the grey bracket lines on the screen in Wide Area AF. If you're using Spot focus, you have to remember to keep the box in that area. Considering I use face detect and Eye-AF and shoot mostly portraits, the 70-200 has great AF on the MC-11.
My photo guru (the only person who ever taught me something) told me once that we are lucky to have heavy cameras and lenses. If one does not feel the weight, then one knows is busy with photography. My experience shows this is correct.
MC-11 Adapter only works well with the Sigma lenses for obvious reasons. Pony up for the Metabones adapter works much better.
Can't go wrong with the Zeiss. The bokeh it produces looks incredible.
Dave - Love your reviews, reports, commentary, and sense of humor. Would love to see some of your work incorporated into your videos. Bottom line on the lenses: you can't beat the Zeiss 55mm f1.8. It provides an unbeatable combination of IQ, AF speed and accuracy, and size/weight. Sony needs a small 35mm f1.8 to match it.
please add to title that you are using a Sigma EF with adapter... these days we expect a video using the new Sigma lenses for Sony FE
Personally, for 50 mm range, I go for the Zeiss 55 mm, as the size is much smaller. However, if it comes to 35 mm range, I would definitely choose the Sigma, as when you compare the Zeiss 35 mm f1.4, there are not much different in size.
I believe until today the zeiss is the very best Fe lens, it make the system so compact, the pictures I get from it and my a7rii are just a dream. Waiting for the tamron, but that zeiss will go with me to my grave :) , Is a "No never" sale one.
I did the same thing a year ago. With the adapter the Sigma weighs 3.3x the 55/1.8 (950g vs. 284g). It’s a no-brainer.
Greetings, I'm like you have Sigma 17-50mm and Sigma 50-100mm Art with MC-11 adapt. I shot a night time boat ride and found that the Sigma was doing a little hunting. But you said something that I will try next time in low light. I will lower the Aperture so instead of using 1.8 wide open, I'll use 2.0 or 3. I just rented the Sony G 70-200 f4 for the Labor Day weekend, so I'll get to see how native glass works in all the areas. Love this A7iii though. Nice review and thanxx!!!
Zeiss for the same reasons like you .... I have a tamron 28-75 f2.8 , it is good for day light but dim or low light still auto focus problem
You can t compare a native lens to a non native with an adapter and say which focuses better..You can t compare a 1.8 to a 1.4..Build quality the sigma is fantastic..The image quality the sigma is better on my d850 it s stellar simply as are the 85 and the 135 art..They were all tack sharp out of the box..never had any issues...Maybe i am lucky..yeah and i really don t like anything small..By the way all fast sony lenses are just at the same size and weight of dslr lenses..for me you have much better balance with dslr s rather then a big lens attached to a tiny cam..if you re carrying 4 or 5 lenses and a sony mirrorless or a D810 and 4 5 lenses you wont have any weight advantage..just my opinion.
It's hard to compare picture quality if you shoot with different aperture. Could you please upload RAW files?
When I had the Sigma MC11 on my Canon lenses I could never achieve wide open on my EF 50 f1.2, 1.4 was the best it would go. Video AF on the Canon lenses was shite, basically unusable. Moved to native Sony to save frustration.
i use a7R3 + mc11 + 24 1.4 sigma (canon, got it fo 465$) and 50 1.8 stm (105$) canon and for i've continues AF in video with the sigma, but not with the canon.
Eye AF is nice, smooth and snappy on both.
Nice review, but I wish you could have said more about bokeh comparison
am sticking with Sigma, F 1.4 Saves me alot
“Now for the big question on everybody’s mind...” Bokeh. Come on man, the one thing no one wants to admit to. It’s all bout dat bokeh, brah. It’s hard to beat a Zeiss lens, well, except maybe consistently in price. Lol
I've seen a comparison between sigma and the 55 zeiss and at corners wide open, the zeiss was much much less sharper than the sigma, they were appalled and baffled at the discover, maybe it was a defective copy? Did you find that both are same as image quality? cause i have the sigma 50 art for canon, but I'm switching to A7 iii and I'm considering in between the sigma 50 native Emount, Zeiss 55 and Zeiss 50 1.4. What woul you choose in between these? also, do you think it's worth to spend the extra money to go with the 50 1.4 Zeiss? thanks a lot
I found arguably a fraction difference in favour of the Sigma, but that was a tiny difference that for me didn't justify the additional size compared to the Zeiss hence why I switched and have been more than happy with it - but I'm also not that fussed about keeping the f1.4 over the f1.8 - that would need to be your choice ultimately
Do you know if the are differences of the first version Sony FE Carl Zeiss Sonnar 55mm 1.8 and the later version Sony FE Zeiss Sonnar 55mm 1.8 !?
They are the same lens as far as I know. It's really a Sony lens but using Zeiss coatings - it's just some refer to it as a Zeiss because it has a Zeiss badge on the side, while others state Carl Zeiss because that's written around the front element
@@DaveMcKeegan OK, thank you. I know the Lens design is made by Zeiss, it could be Cosina that produces the Lens for Zeiss/Sony. The Zeiss coating are probably also made by Cosina under license from Zeiss.
The chromatic aberration on the Sony makes some shots almost unusable compared to very low CA on the Sigmas. I understand this isn't a technical review and the Sony has a definite weight advantage, but that's a serious issue you're just overlooking. The Sony is in no way, 'optically similar' as you claim and I hope your viewers won't be fooled into thinking so.
lazy Sigma throwing an Mc11 into a tube of plastic.....good glass but looks a joke on the A7 series. 55 1.8 is the must own lens for any A7 users. Sony have hit a brick wall with the lenses now because there almost as big as DSLR lenses in the faster apertures defeating the whole point of mirrorless.
Hi, I have the Sony Sonnar T FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA. Is this the same Zeiss lens as on your video?
Yes, the lens was a joint venture between Sony & Zeiss
It's not that the Zeiss is impressively compact. A Nikon 50mm f1.8 AI-s on an adapter is still smaller and lighter (granted it doesn't have AF but still). It that the Sigma f1.4 art is ridiculously large for a 50mm f1.4.
Anybody realised the sound of the aperture ring of the zeiss? Its a bit annoying for that price
LOL! I'm almost 47! The weight of the lenses is a serious consideration for me now.
I'm currently looking at M43 cameras and lenses, after having rented the awesome Panasonic G9. The lenses are tiny and light-weight, and are generally sharp even wide open (some are lackluster - but that's to be expected).
I'm doing my research and waiting till the end of the year to make a final decision.
I'm looking forward to what new technology and features Photokina will be featuring in September..
Agreed about the weight. Carrying heavy cameras used to be much easier. Not so easy as you get older.
I had the g9, great body but when u see the difference in pictures with fullframe you wont regret selling the lumix g9 at all......
Did you try any focus tracking tests? I'm still holding out for the one thing my camera might do better!
Both lenses track pretty well. Although I noticed a slight delay in the Sigma reacting to needing to change focus.
But this is possibly something that having an FE mount lens could improve
which lens is sharper ... zeiss 55 f1.8 or Sony fe 35mm f1.8 ... please answer ... thank you
The 55mm is slightly sharper than the 35mm, however they are obviously rather different focal lengths and the difference isn't that extreme so pick whichever focal length suites you best
Dave McKeegan p
Should test the new sigma e mount native for Sony
with the mc-ll you can't lump all Canon lenses together, my 70/200 is like you described, at least after 135mm, but my Canon 50 f1.4 doesn't have that issue, but my 40 pancake does, so all Canon lenses aren't the same, my old Sigma 50 and 85 f1.4 work good with the mc ll but don't use the very outside focus points, but out far enough, but I discovered that only Art lenses will video focus with the mc ll adapter, also my Tamron 24/70 f2.8 VC focuses good with the mc-ll, this is on the A7r lll, my Sony 55 f1.8 I really love, I bought it for the size and weight, it's a great lens, and so is the 85 f1.8, but at night time doing street photography the focusing slows down a bit with the 55, but it's still ok, but basically if you already own Canon mount glass, the mc ll is worth a try depending on the lenses you have, if Sigma Art then for sure, but for a Sony Camera the native glass will always be better, but there are the new Native Sigma Art lenses for Sony and the new Tamron 28/75 f28 for Sony, and some other glass also that has a native mount
Wait. As someone who is planning on making the switch from canon to the sony a7iii, are you telling me that the canon mount sigma with the adapter with perform the same as the sigma wth the native sony mount? I assumed that performance and auto focus issues would all disappear once the its a native somy lens?
I can't comment on how the FE mount Sigmas will perform as I haven't tried them, however I can say that from what I have seen of my testing so far, that EF mount Sigma's with the MC-11 adapter work very well.
use single point af when focusing outside of the phase detect area
What about eye detect AF support with the lenses ;)
Works great on both lenses
I'd like to know about the bokeh of these two lenses, how they compared to each other.
Bokeh is obviously all personal opinions and some people dissect it more than others, but I've not really noticed a huge difference between the two
I own the 55 (on a A7M1 to be upgraded to the A7M4 when available) and absolutely love it. Currently I'm a bit torn if to go for a combo of the 55 and the soon to be released 35mm 1.8 or keep the kit small and go for the Batis 40/f.2 to conver the mid-ground instead. Any thoughts are highly appreciated.
Entirely personal choice Nik, I've opted for the 35mm as it's smaller and cheaper than the Batis and it's replacing my Sigma 35mm ... Although the 40 is a great lens with good close focus as well.
There is no wrong answer
@@DaveMcKeegan thanks Dave, really appreciate it.
Hey Nik 👋 I have the original A7 as well and I’m thinking of grabbing the 55. How do you find the autofocus in lower light ? I wouldn’t expect perfection but I’m hoping it’s decent..
@@NARC4K hi there, honestly I'm struggling with it a bit at the moment. Not sure if it's just my camera being one of the first batches or if that's a general issue. Don't get me wrong I think it's a great lense, I own it now for the second time. But autofocus and the absence of image stabilization in lense and camera make it quite difficult for me in lower light situations. So far I tried mostly slow moving objects but will try stills tonight and come back to you with how that feels.
@@NARC4K Hi me again, well still struggling but it works ok in DMF Mode, center focus point with manual correction. I haven't checked the firmware of the lense yet since it's pretty new but if I can figure out a way to overcome the focus issue I'll comment back here.
is it fair to compare a 1.4 to a 1.8 in terms of weight? NO.... NO it isn't. Nikons 50 1.8g weighs three times less than the Zeiss.
Yes the weight of the Sigma is a pain.
But, I found a way to make it less heavy. Well not if you put it on a scale obviously but for the body.
Wrap the neckstrap with the sticky side in around your lower arm, and use a wriststrap around the wrist.
When you don't use the camera you can just drop it and the large areas it hangs on makes it feel as the camera weight is about a third.
Thanks so much for the review. Considering my options in moving to e-mount. May not wait for the Sigma Art, considering this.
About your video, not sure why, but your ears look super red. Maybe it's due to the back lighting? Skin tones around your nose and lips also look red-saturated. Enjoying the videos, otherwise!
I have the canon 80D should I upgrade to a7 ii with glass or a7 iii kit?
Depends what you are looking for from the camera. The A7II offers the same sort of image quality as the III but lacks the AF, shooting speed and battery life of the III, so you would have to decide which aspects are more important to what you shoot
I like shooting portrait!
In that case the A7II and some good primes like the 85mm F1.8 would probably be the better choice for you since the AF should be sufficient enough for your needs and you don't really need fast lightning fast shooting speeds either for portraits
They are both top expensive for my non-profit needs. But I will always prefer lighter and smaller.
Dave, good video. For me the Zeiss makes the most sense. I switched over from Nikon and have two old Nikon lenses left. A 16-35 that dropped at an event and catches at 17mm so I can't sell it but it still gets to 16mm. The other is a Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art lens that I mount with the commlite adapter. Believe it or not I actually get Face detection and eye AF on my A9 with these two lens. As soon as I sell my Nikon 200-400 f4 vr, Nikon 80-400 AF-S, the 50mm Sigma 1.4 Art and a couple of other pieces of Nikon gear. I plan on buying the Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8 and a A7R3. That will leave me trying to find a good 35mm.
I think keeping the Primes smaller 85mm 1.8, 55mm 1.8 and a Sony Zeiss 35mm 2.8? Helps off set the weight of the Sony 70-200 f2.8 GM, the Sony 24-105 f4 and my Tokina 16-28 f2.8 EF mount with MC11 adapter in my bag for shooting weddings and events.
Thank you so muchh🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
am i the only one that saw this: zeiss at 1.8 is brighter than sigma at 1.4 , this doesn't make any sense unless the sutterspeed was changed or the ISO which would make the whole comparison ideea nok
The settings were kept the same, the difference is down to light transmission. While the Sigma has a 2/3rds stop faster aperture, the transmission of the lens is only T1.8 which is the same as the Zeiss, so the amount of light getting through the lenses is pretty much the same
www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Sigma-50mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1252_1035_1306_1009 -
Zeiss, you read it rong.
I wish Sony actually produced a decent 35mm & 50mm F1.8 lens ..they dont even have a 35mm ..F1.8 ...? the new sigma art FE mount lenses are way to big & top heavy ... Samyang 50mm F1.4 is not great at focus & very soft too... looks like the 55mm Zeiss is the one...
Sony need to stop releasing body's and concentrate on the glass more, there APSC glass line up is pathetic, no fast zoom after how many years.
I was VERY SURPRISED this Zeiss is called a Sonnar T* 1.8/55. It should have been called the Carl Zeiss Ultron T* 1.8/55. Go GOOGLE Ultron T* 1.5 50mm, you'll see why! The have both the 1.4/50mm Planar T* and 1.8/55nn Sonnar T*. I'll tell you that the 1.8 is SHARPER around the periphery than the 1.4 and as sharp in the middle, but both are exceedingly sharp compared to say the Contax mount Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50. The only flaw with the 1.8/55 is the longitudinal chromatic aberrations which might show if you have very fine, high contrast, blurs immediately in front and behind the point of focus wide open. As long as everything is sharp there is no aberration, if the aperture is stopped down 2 stops it goes away completely as well. The 1.4/50 FE is about the same size as the Sigma and I can't give up the 1.8 because of its size!
You have to understand Sony (and Zeiss) priority in designing FE lenses. The first priority is to create EXTREME RESOLUTION lenses capable of supporting 40+ MPs with headroom for future sensor improvements. That is the lenses have to be exceedingly sharp -- much more so than the traditional 6 or 7 element Planar (Gaussian) designs that has been the staple for 50 years can deliver. The 1.8 55 is designed to be extremely sharp across the frame with literally no aberrations IN THE PLANE OF FOCUS. To do so, aspherics are used to bring the light back to the plane and correct for aberrations -- especially off center. Outside of that plane of focus you pay the price of longitudinal CA and also onion ring bokeh. When stuff are really out of focus it really doesn't matter, in fact they can be quite pleasing. But, just ahead and behind, with black on white contrasts you may see magenta or green hueing. It really is hueing more than fringing. You will never see that taking a landscape (where everything is at infinity) or a brick wall where everything is at the same distance. You generally wouldn't see it in portraiture either where the background is relatively far off. You WILL see it if you photograph news print at an angle where everything is B&W and you have text just ahead or behind those lines that are sharp. But, really, does it matter in general photography? No, not really, because if you are in one of those rare situations -- like a black and white fence going from near to far in the frame -- all you have to do is crank the aperture from 1.8 to 2.8~3.3 and the hueing is gone.
Voigtlander uses the "Ultron" name on recent lenses. Sonnar is more closely associated with the Zeiss brand than Ultron.
Dwight sounds like you probably know your lenses but what most need to know is it any good in 'real world' terms, what are strengths/weaknesses etc and how does it stack up vs alternatives. Yes there is 'real native' Zeiss and Zeiss collaborative lenses but one doesn't necessarily make for a better option, although prejudice (including mine) probably favours 'real' Zeiss. Still it's best to be objective and look beyond the brand hype (or promise). In that sense I suspect the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f1.8 is a great choice.
I've looked at Zeiss 55mm f1.8 before when I was using my A6000. At that time I was just shocked by the price for a f1.8 lens............ $900 for a f1.8 sounds too much
But it perform like the SIgma Art or better than the Canon L50mm f/1.2 is not only the aperture is the quality in general... but there is a cheaper Sony 50mm f/1.8 but obviously with worst image quality
Image quality of the 50 1.8 is still very good, af... Not so, atleast not on the older gen a7. The 50 1.8 oss (crop lens) is also very good!
Thats actually not true, The image quality is very good, as good as any lens even wide open, however the real issue is in the AF. The Af and color rendition is more important than anything. However I do like a creamy smooth bokeh, but I realize now for the average viewer completely blowing out the background makes for a boring image.
Sounds are just sounds.....
stop spreading that "mirrlorless helps me save weight" BS - 50 1.8s - aka nifty-50-ties of both canon and nikon (DLSRs) are ligther and smaller than that zeiss (not to mention like x5 and more times cheaper). and Sony Planar T* FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA Lens (for mirrorless) costs 1400$ and weights same as Sigma 1.4 art Canon (tough without adapter). imagine someone would compare Sony Planar T* FE 50mm f/1.4 ZA vs Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM (Mirorless vs DLSR) and did similar conclusions 🤦
Except the nifty fifty doesn't come close to the Zeiss in terms of optical quality ... Not to mention it has more plastic than a Barbie doll.
Mirrorless can save weight even on high end lenses. Compare the weights of the Sony 12-24, 16-35, 24-105, 85mm, 100-400 ... All are lighter than the equivalent Canons
Sony also have Sony FE 50 1.8 which is smaller and way cheaper than the Zeiss. But the quality is just similar to Canon and Nikon 50 1.8 (IE: so so).
The Zeiss 55 1.8 is a downsized wonder lens, not a glorified nifty fifty.
1.) it has very good light transmission. It is F1.8 and also T1.8. While Sigma F1.4 is T1.6. It means for brightness the Zeiss is less than 1/3 stop less bright than Sigma 1.4 open at 1.4.
2.) Sharpness, contrast and color are all spot on as we see on most review.
CONS: some vignette, onion ring bokeh and purple fringing in out of focus area. And how it doesn't look pro and intimidating despite the price and quality.
noticed straight away videoing with a Sony the colors people do go on about it but Canon colors more flattering vibrant Sony maybe more realistic but has a green tinge as well what do u think can pick a sony colours like zip/
W N still notice a difference any Sony vlogs something with the colour saturation I think the a 3 has in way joined mirrorless world with ff the size evf also being able to shoot apsc extra reach even tweaked still prefer canon colour
Andrew Bristoe The "green tinge" has to do with white balance. Buy a white card and custom set the WB.
No, the green tinged skin is not just white balance. It's common for Sony & Nikon ... has been so for years. Sony seems finally to have gotten away from it with their latest camera, the A7III. See this video by Dustin Abbott, where he sets white balance identically on the A7RIII and the A7III: ua-cam.com/video/riOJ3GSOX3I/v-deo.htmlm40s The A7RIII shows the green skin; A7III doesn't.
Is there a reason no one like NO ONE has done a review on the sigma art E MOUNT vs the Ziess 55
Well can't comment for everyone else but I didn't compare the E-mount Sigma because I only had the EF variant and couldn't justify paying for a mount conversion just for testing.
Seeing comparisons between the Sigma E-mounts Vs EF, the image quality remains unchanged, the only difference is slightly better AF mainly in video
Dave McKeegan if you had to go 55 ziess or 50 art e mount what would you go for ? I have a guy willing to sell me the 55 for 500 and the art is 900
@@dannyklesh I have stuck with the 55
The Sigma is a great lens but it's so much larger to carry around and with all that extra glass they have the same T-stop levels so you don't really gain any extra light - so for me the Sigma didn't offer enough benefit to justify the extra bulk
Dave McKeegan I appreciate you getting back to me on this. Trying to find a comparison alone was needle in a haystack. And your point with the size is very much true. Let alone the fact DXO has the 55 marked extremely high like one of the best lenses of all time. Is the 1.4 to 1.8 a big factor or not really ?
Great review for individual lenses but at the same time very poor choice of lenses. I mean you are comparing size and weight of 1.8 vs 1.4 🤷♂️🤷♂️
Obviously they are quite different on paper, however when you consider that the Sigma lenses only have T-stops equal to the f1.8's they are actually closer than you think on paper
Tamron*
what about bokeh quality :(
I find both isolate the subjects beautifully and the backgrounds look nice and smooth
They both have 9 blade apertures so I'd say they may be fairly similar.
The zeiss is a bit swirly
Sony SEL50F14Z
I love how Sigma are making high end lenses, but I was going to buy the 18-35mm f1.8 and after doing some research, I found that the Canon 24mm f2.8 STM (pancake) was 80% cheaper, lighter and smaller and had a 30% closer MFD, with just a little less resolving power... ART lenses should be considered a niche product rather than the answer to everything
It's really a case of what you need. The 18-35 is an awesome lens and the only zoom on the market with an f1.8 aperture ... But if you don't need f1.8 at all then yeah it's bit of a waste.
That's why I am downsizing my lenses from f1.4 to f1.8 because I don't really need them but for DSLRs all the high end lenses are fast apertures
Isn't the Canon 24 2.8 an EF-S lens? If your full frame you can't use it and if your Sony you can't use it on the MC-11 adapter. I have it and I'm selling it because I can't use it on my Sony A73.
Yes it is, and the 18-35mm too... I just wanted to make a point that the ART lineup, while being fantastic glass is not suited for everyone. I think too many people buy lenses on sharpness alone
true I love my sigma 18-35mm though honestly such nice lens. I wan't a V2 with weather sealing and if they could put OIS in it that would be crazy.
I bought a Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 to replace my old sigma and didn't think IS would be such a big deal, but after a trip to the Netherlands, I am so happy I had this. I could just walk around with the shutter speed at 1/13s (to blur people) or lower and know that the picture would still be tack sharp, even on my 50D
Hey dumb bell get some dumbbells 10lbs to strengthen your wrist and arms. Kidding! Like most of your video's. Great info.
Zeiss！
Zeiss its german, you read different.
How should it be said?
Zeiss themselves pronounce it 'Z - eye - ss'
In German it’s pronounced ‘tz-eyes’. Starts with a definite T-sound, otherwise pretty much the same.
As a Nikon user I prefer Nikon glass always have and all ways will
congratulations
Remember when I said about the size of FE lenses....
Absolutely Andy
I mean really the Zeiss is bigger than the Canon 50mm f1.8 and the Sony 85mm f1.8 is bigger than the Canon f1.8, but the Canon's aren't anywhere close to the Sony's in terms of image quality.
yep, the ZEISS is stupidly good. And while its longer than the Canon f1.8 its also far more compact. Plus didn't the head guy from Sigma say it wasn't possible for lenses over 35mm on the E-mount to be small ( must read that up again ) or something like that.
I think the guy at Sigma was basically saying that longer than 35mm can't really be made smaller on mirrorless than DSLR.
Think that's why the Zeiss is slightly longer than Canon.
But the Zeiss has much better glass and a better optical design.
But no doubt the Zeiss is a beast, also got the 28mm f2 now which is great
Keeps touching the sigma front while the cap is off.
I was touching the filter thread rather than the glass itself
Almost seems like now that you've become a Sony pony you're almost hating on DSLR's?
I don't hate DSLRs, I just think they have almost reached the limits of what they are capable of (in terms of AF etc)
There are still some great DSLRs on the market and if you are shooting in extreme conditions then no mirrorless comes close to the likes of the 1DXII and D5 for ruggedness.
But there is also no denying that mirrorless is coming on in leaps and bounds and has a lot more potential looking forward than DSLRs.
I don’t think people are hating, but it’s basically what film use to be when DSLRs started getting popular. You either evolve and adapt to the new technology or stay an old dinosaur and die with the old technology. It’s time to move on, and if you are in denial that the days of DSLR are numbered, you are not looking at the big picture.
shaolin95 what on earth are you talking about?... I think you need to read the comment again...
shaolin95 how do you know that I'm not a Sony mirrorless shooter myself???
Ab85 main not even sure what that means... but sure...o...k...
1st
Had a Sigma 1.4 Art for Nikon mount. The worst lens ever. It's too heavy and the build quality is not that great.
Vasile Stan but the picture quality is phenomenal, you can't deny that
Vasile Stan sounds like you had a bad copy. I own a 50 f1.4 Art and it's solid. I also have an 85mm 1.4 nikon and the sigma feels a better build quality than that. Sure it's weighty but it's solid
''the build quality is not that great''
you can keep your Nikon plastic lol
Both of them are plastic so I don't know what's the difference. When you get the lens any you are excited is nice but after a year you will get tired of carrying a 50mm art stone with you. Also had a 35 mm 1.4 who had an inconsistent exposure. So, you can say that I'm not sa Sigma fan
That's the Sickma ritual... order 5 or 10, test them and send all except the best back.