Which 50mm you thinking?! Also *DISCLAIMER* Shooting Commercial Video and or Photo in Yosemite national parks requires permission and/or a permit, we had all required authorization to do so and appreciate the support from the NPS!
The Sony is a little more Sharp has 1.4 but personally, for the portrait, it makes no difference. Above F2, the difference is almost zero. And for the price I prefer Sigma. I was too disappointed with the result, the 24mm GM that I had. The 20mm 1.4 dg dn art, my gives much more pleasure.
Wait … so the Sony is better at f1.4 IN THE CORNER (which you won’t use for portrait) and the Sigma is better at narrower apertures EVERYWHERE ELSE (which you WILL find important)? The prices should be reversed.
@@anonymousl5150 Dunno mate it's quite the opposite, you need to be a better photographer in order to compose more elements in a shot. Have the 50mm 1.2 SONY GM, the DoF is so thin I often have only in the plane of DoF rather than both. You know the better you become the more you'll see that bokeh is just the easy mode on a camera, try to shoot wide lens, no DOF and compose a good shot, then show me.
@@sarfios That's because you shouldn't be shooting wide open all the time in the first place. Learn how to shoot without relying on bokeh for subject separation. And 50 mm is not just a portrait lens with maxed out bokeh either.
In the world of lens, you shouldn’t say that, or everyone will be shooting with their phone. Because phone gets 70% of camera’s work done for free. If u want to play with a mirrorless camera, 400 dollars for a marginal gain to the public eye is the norm here.
@@whygamewhy try shooting with your phone in any kind of low light situation and then let me know if you still stand by your statement lol. Not to mention there are tons of other reasons why a camera phone cannot even compare to a mirrorless camera aka “real camera”
@@oldmanhendo7183 Like I said 70% of the function for 0 dollars, you lose some post potential and low light performance. You said that sigma is so much better for value because it achieves most of Sony for several hundred dollar cheaper. I am arguing that in the world of camera industry, that little improvements are worth the several hundreds more dollars because otherwise going from phone to camera is, by your logic, the least cost effective way to improve your photos in the first place.
Are you still planning to make a video on difference in stabilization with third party lenses? Can you give me a readers digest version here in the meantime?
Hello, why do you keep it? cause 1.2? I plan to buy a new 50mm (i just sold my 55f1.8) i l a pro video shooter. But in France the sony f1.4 cost 1600euros. the sigma 929 euros. And the f1.2 cost 2200euros but incan get an "old one" for around 1600euros.... What do you think of that? I work for corporate clients so the quality and the bokeh is important for me. I ve rent already the gm f1.2... Thanx for your answer!!! great videos anyway
Would be very nice to get a video where you would compare the IBIS and Active Stabilization for the video between the 3rd party lenses and native Sony lenses.
@@justonbrazda3846 In the previous video you mentioned "“The third party lenses it’s not going to be as good as is for the Sony lens believe me I’ve been testing that quite a bit” . That is why I was asking :)
Except for manual focus , the damping on the new Sigmas focus ring, is 100% better than the no existent of the Sonys . For people coming from manual lenses ,at least having some damping helps , Sony is like a toy in this respect , they don't seem to care about manual focus operation at all now on their new lenses, which is odd as many are being used for video these days. I think the Sigma is a more robust build too.
@@justonbrazda3846 Sure for stills , and interviews in video , but for general "B roll" AF is not the best option, then you need decent MF, or at least dampening of the focus ring ! Thats wot I mean , Sony either don't even understand this or don't see the video user market as big enough to bother adding it to their design. Although strangely the much cheaper Sigma do ..
Also include Samyang/Rokinon, its the lightest and cheapest I believe. The Sigma equivalent is always 50% costlier than the Samyang in my country, which is often very different from the dollar price.
Can't possibly be any difference in sharpness at f/9. Both lenses are capped by diffraction at that aperture. However chromatic aberration, coma, astigmatism and vignetting may appear different.
A RECENTLY CONDUCTED STUDY BY TANGENT MEDIA HOUSE SHOWED THAT THE VIDEOS SHOT WITH LATEST SONY ALPHA CAMERAS CAUSED MORE STRAIN ON THE EYES OF THE VIEWERS. SOME VIEWERS ALSO COMPLAINED ABOUT SWOLLEN LOWER EYELIDS AS A RESULT. ANY SIMILAR EXPERIENCE REGARDING THIS?
