14mm battle: Sigma f/1.4 'Art' vs Sony f/1.8 'G Master' 

I own Sony 14 1.8 and I shoot ton of astro. Let me tell you guys. If you only shoot astro, then go for the Sigma. But if you happen to shoot astro, landscape and video work, then go for the Sony. Why? Because you can use H&Y 100x100 mm filter system on the Sony. And there are tons of 100x100 mm filter you can choose. I own NDs, Polarizer, Black Mist 1/4 and Black Mist 1/8 100x100mm filters. They are very convenient to use on the Sony. You can’t do this on the Sigma.

Great work, Christopher 💪 That comparison was what everybody was waiting for! 🥳 Awesome tre review as always

At $1599 USD, the Sigma is currently $100 more expensive than the Sony. Still, the Sigma is less expensive per pound :-)

I sold my canon RF mount bodies a while ago - i like sony but was also annoyed by the third party ban. As time goes on and more lenses like these are released i find myself feeling even better about my choice to switch systems. Also a fan of the 35-150 f2 tamron

Thank you! You’re doing the videos that actually matter! Appreciated! 🙏🏻

I never buy these lenses, but your voice is so suiting and sometimes also use your videos for falling asleep - comforting voice! Best lens reviews ever! And I did buy some lenses, after your reviews. Thank you!

Christopher: At what magnification ratio do you test your lenses? It would be interesting if you did a video showing your test setup/procedure sometime. Thanks for the work you do!

Awesome! Exactly what I was looking for.

The center sharpness of the GM actually looks a bit sharper than the Sigma to me. However, in the corners, I am not sure if one is better than the other. Sony appears to show more smaller, finer details, but there is a kind of motion blur that deterioriates the corner image quality. The Sigma doesn't have that motion blur thing but doesn't show that extra finer details at f1.4 or f2. I am not trying to defend the Sony, but curious if anyone has similar observation, and understands the reason for such differences.

I agree by what you presented , sigma hands down if you don’t need the closeup wide open sharpness or mind the extra weight . Thanks for your review . Always liked and owned sigma lenses . The company just keeps making better lenses , it is their goal !

The difference in weight is an instant deal breaker for me in that case, since the image quality is pretty much the same, so does the price - the answer is clear

good video mate! thxxx

Is the Sigma 14mm f1.4's light transmission brighter than the GM lens at their widest aperture?

In the center the Sony looks a touch sharper om right upper, while Sigma left side of target looks a touch sharper. Just before that the collage of images, Sigma looks like it has more contrast

omg, the center sharpness on the GM is insane

Thank you Chris - that hurts every GM owner, but I will never carry a 1.2 kg brick around

Chris, how does the 1.4 Sigma compare to the 1.8 Sigma 14mm? Just want to get something for Nikon, but there is none at the 1.4 aperature…

Any difference is so small its really not worth worrying about. The only questions are - do you need f1.4 over f1.8, and are you ok with the extra weight. I'll stay with the Sony GM myself.

Another great video - easy choice for me though, I can't afford either!

I don't agree with the coma comments. I can clearly see sagittal astigmatism and a bit of coma in the Sigma corner at f/1.4 and f/2. I could live with f/2 but f/1.4 would bother me; and 1.4 is the whole point so its a shame. Whereas the Sony corner is perfect at f/1.8.

The Sony is a good performer in the infrared spectrum . I haven’t tried the sigma 14mm 1.4 - the sigma 14mm 1.8 version was absolutely hopeless in ir .

Two super nice lenses to choose from...a nice "problem" to have. 🙃

Looking good

If the sigma closer to 700g and was cheaper than the sony it would be a clear winner but since it isnt. Then the Sony wins for me Sigma is overall better in image quality

Now I believe it, Chris Frost's review is the definitive. Now will wait for the secondhand market to heat up, in the meantime will the sigma 14mm decentre itself?

I have the excellent Sony 14mm 1.8 GM which I can recommend, but I wish for a bit more compact Lens, fx a APO-Lanthar Voigtländer or similar with at least the same optical performance as the Sony, but I can live a 14/15mm Lens with max aperture of 4.0/5.6

Great Thank You!!!!!!!

Sigma is going to sell a lot of these lenses, and it won't just be to Astro photographers. If you shoot landscape a wide lens is always useful though stitching is an option in many cases. If you shoot architectural photography or indoor work this lens is going to be a real treat. The Sony will still be preferred for close up work or if you have to hike.

As this lens will be added to my travel kit, and not used as often as my other lenses weight is a huge consideration. This is why I went with the already amazing Sony lens.

I am more interested in the Viltrox 16 f1.8. for Sony FE. allot smaller and lighter and way less money but with excellent image quality.

Thanks!-)

I'm happy with my Laowa 15

Its... nice. I guess. For anyone who just has to have f/1.4, then here it is. Its not much of an edge over the Sony, but at least it's a better option to their own dated DG HSM. So thats something. I was most dissapointed to see that the distortion is worse on the Sigma, which would be more concerning in video use and yes, i know, serious video shooters should just use cine glass, but c'mon, I'm a little irritated that manufacturers are preferring to rely so much more on software corrections, granted, i know modern lenses are really pushing the envelope.

For me this proves one thing : that the sony engineers were able to produce such a nice performing lens in such a small package!

Great again.. You're the best lens reviewer ever. Thanks Chris.

I think XA lens elements use ED glass. That is the secret sauce for correcting spherical aberrations and color aberrations at the same time while staying smaller than competition. Other manufacturers also can create ashpericals without onion bokeh but not on ED or low refraction type glass usually. I chose Sigma 20mm DG DN over 20mm G because Sigma had better overall sharpness across the frame for my astro or low light handheld landscape use cases. In case of 14mm lenses, the size and weight difference is too much sadly. Sony really miniaturized.

Come on, Canon, get with it!

Great🎉

All this just means that as Sony users, we have options which is really why I'm glad to be in the ecosystem. Based on the comments below, we all have our preferences and it's great that we have a couple of different lenses to choose from.

Sigma sigma sigma u makin me fall in love although my r6 sucks cause it cant take 3rd party lenses💔 aside from ef

I like shooting wide, however, it's not all that often I would need a 14mm prime. I would appear to be one of those for whom the semi standard 16-35, & other wide angle zoom of these general focal lengths invariably suffice. Love Sigma glass, even some of their heavy Art primes, but just couldn't see myself lugging this ,qualty, beast around. The real deal breaker for me is the inability to readily attach the Cpl and Nd filters to the front element. Often shooting landscapes, flowing creeks and rivers sees me often using filters.No desire to attach, or attempt to, filters to rear of the lens. Also, have zero interest in astro, though each of these may appeal to those who like this genre.

Great comparison. Just one addition for the focus breathing: with the GM you can use Sony's automatic breathing correction in camera.

Also in night shot the SOny showed light stars across the hanging lights off the start without stopping down. That can be annoying, and I wonder how that could interfere in astro,...coma I think its called? You do great to the point work, and I love you for it!! I think the clear winner here is the one that gets sold for 30% less used :-)

The Sigma is much too big for my bag. FYI, Haida make an adapter for the GM to suit their M10 system.

Hi Christopher, I was looking for a comparison of these two lenses and came across your channel. If I could offer up one opinion for possible improvement, I definitely agree it's important to discuss the size and heft of lenses, but I don't think "build quality" is really the appropriate term. Especially for modern lenses, there are so many design decisions that can impact the long-term reliability and functionality that you just cannot ascertain without completely taking the lens apart. A few years ago Roger and Aaron over at LensRentals published a teardown of a Lumix S Pro 70-200mm f/2.8, and I found it extremely illuminating. There were so many examples of robust (but expensive) mechanical design decisions that they applauded (like how the halves of the inner core are connected), but then wrapped up with a failed glue joint on an electromagnetic coil which was impacting OIS reliability, noting that Panasonic could have learned from Sony/Zeiss who had the exact same issue years prior (and subsequently fixed it). I'd highly recommend giving it a read if you haven't come across it already. My main point is I think, for modern lenses at least, I think we need to start reserving the term "build quality" for times we've done a full disassembly to look for potential areas for mechanical and electronic failures, or at least adding a disclaimer that even if it feels good in the hand, there are still many things inside that could fail. I'm just afraid manufactures of manufacturers making design decisions that "review" well but end up being a detriment to the long-term functionality.

There is no way I would ever consider such a heavy lens. I shoot a lot of astro, but have to travel by air most of the time to get to dark locations which makes carry on weight a real issue. I can take the Sony 14mm GM and 20mm G (another great lens for astro) and still be much lighter than the Sigma. Even if I include a 20-70G for other situations, it is not a lot heavier. Sigma makes good lenses but this one is not for me.

Stick with Sony GM lightweight, compact, everyday use & carry. 1.4 is not a top priority for me. Back to DSLR sigma art line is heavy. I know that feeling on that day. I don't want to carry extra weight from the lens. So, if 1.4 is the top priority go with sigma art. Everyday use or carry to shoot all day go with GM. 1 Kg len is not good for video at all. So considering what you paid for.

Chris - Pepsico should pay you.

The Sony is the slightly sharper lens in real world use. Both lenses aren’t suited to be tested on short range image charts. Overall they seem to be fairly similar, except that one is an unwieldy brick.

This is a review a lot of Sony users including me have been wondering now for about a day since Sigma's 14mm f1.4 was released.

Sigma created a compelling and remarkable 14mm lens, no doubt. But I don’t think I heard mention of the other advantages of the Sony lens, which are: focus breathing compensation, active image stabilization, and the ability to shoot faster fps on supported cameras.

It seems to me that the Sony lens is sharper, contrary to your assessment. The Sony resolves the lines better than the Sigma. On the flip side, it seems that the Sigma has better light transmission.

What would you do if you could get the Sony 14mm 1.8 GM for 1133€ and on top 200€ Summercashback and 100€ Welcome to Alpha Cashback? So that's 833€ for it at the end. The sigma would cost 1599€ in Germany and i could use a 125€ coupon so 1474€ for the Sigma 14mm 1.4. I want to photograph Nightsky so astro and landscape with the lens on my A7R V. The weight is not important for me

I would get the Sigma for astro and nigh sky photography and the Sony for everything else.

Spoiled for choice, eh? I wish Sigma would make a super wide fast lens for Fujifilm.

I believe, that you`re getting "selected lens versions" from the individual lens manufacturers for testing! Therefore, your very good test results, can be only valid for the individual lens you have tested!

I do prefer the warmer colors of the Sigma, but I just can't get over the size/weight. Unless you are shooting astro or fine art architecture where you plan to use every pixel, the Sony 14 seems like the smarter buy.

Beast wins ! 😎😎😎

Different horses for different courses. I have the 14 GM which I primarily use for cityscape, architectural and some landscape. I'm happy with the size, weight and it's "sharp enough". It's easy to bring along as a 2nd or 3rd lens in the bag. I don't shoot night sky, although if I was really into that, I would be all over the new Sigma. That being said, it would never be brought along as a 2nd or 3rd lens in the bag.

In the middle of the frame. I see Sony a little bit sharper to my eye ........

The Sigma costs $ 1,310 and the Sony costs $ 975. Should I pick the sony? Or the difference in performance is substantial and go with the sigma instead?

Sony wins the center image sharpness, but why not test the center image sharpness at different apture

Sigma ftw 😊.

I will still take the GM over this new sigma. Because its so much smaller and lighter.

Sony fanboys clearly owned.....

I also wonder how does transmission look on both of those lenses. Sigma has 19 elements compared to 14 on Sony. Each of these lose some transmission (when light "enters" and "leaves" the glass). It might be so, that Sigma isn't much brighter when it comes to images taken at same exposure settings... The difference in DoF of course is still there.

Chris i look on your videos usually when buy lenses or thinking about upgrades but in this video you make mistake !!! there win Sony because in real life outside on the street if you will do same photos with 2 lenses from same place same angle same light then sony will wins in sharpness for far subjects and Sony have better colors - Sigma press colors out too much - really i dont know how to explain that ! and you say sigma take more light with that 1.4 - now i have question - whats the point from that 1.4 if sharpness is on 0 ????

I often find that what I see as a viewer doesn't match the conclusions by Christopher. In this case, the Sony lens is clearly way sharper based on the video. I find it hard to believe that the reverse would be true when pixel peeping.

Don’t agree with your recommendation .. the only thing considerably better with sigma is aperture other than that I see Sony is better .. the sharpness is very close that it becomes irrelevant( although I see Sony in this test sharper in the center wide open ) however what’s important than that is contrast, which will eventually affect coma .. I see the sigma is not really good at 1.4 or even f2 for Astro if that’s how the contrast is but we need more testing .. and btw I’ve seen the MTF charts for both companies the Sony was sharper but that’s your conclusion .. plus that lens is a lot bigger which something should be a selling point for most photographer

Sigma is hands down, the better lens!