Comparing the new Sigma vs Sony 50mm f/1.4 lenses 

This should be the standard for lens comparisons. Absolutely world-class. Thanks, Chris.

Great comparison! My memory on people complaining about the size and weight of Sony 50 1.2 is still fresh. While under this review, people seems not care too much anymore. I guess price shows its magic here.

What an exiting time to be shopping for an E-mount 50mm prime!

Thank you. Sweet and short and very much to the point - no unwanted waffling. Thanks once again.

Very nice and useful comparison. Thank you.

So it really comes down to the convenience of a smaller lens for the additional 500 dollars. In my opinion you're among the best reviewers on RU-vid. I always want to see what you and abbot have to say. I guess if money were no object, then I would go with Sony, but just from a practical standpoint, it would still give me pause to shell out an additional 500 dollars.

Great comparison, thank you.

I'll pay the extra $500 for the smaller size and weight, focus breathing compensation and faster shutter speeds on the Sony. I hope Tamron comes out with a similar lens, chances are it will be as small and lightweight as the Sony but at Sigma's price point.

For events and weddings the sigma would do perfectly fine and I don’t think anybody can’t tell the difference between the two. I would probably get the sigma and invest the rest of the money in a second body or another lens. Great job sigma! Can’t wait to see how Tamron will answer with a faster lens as well.

It's quite apparent Sony is sharper, but Sigma is not a bad choice either if money is a concern.

Thanks a lot for your excellent work ! Do you plan to review the Nikon Z 17-28 F2.8 ? I would love a comparison with the 14-30 F4 :)

Thanks, Chris. We are spoiled for choice on the Sony platform.

The look of the lenses is extremely subjective. You said that Sigma looks cooler - in my opinion GM looks much better ;-) I especially do not like these oversized lens hoods on Sigmas…

Thank you for your wonderful review as always. Nicely designed lens from Sony. But Sigma is also great, and both lenses are stunning!

still waiting for your samyang v-af series review, btw nice video as always 🥳

A real showdown!!!

Can you compare 20mm lenses? Thanks.

I hope you can do another 50mm comparison vid. Esp w samyang..

The Sony fits perfectly on any small gimbal.

Thinking of switching from canon to sony because of the lens size and weight. I like to have a lot of primes, and canons rf pro lenses are freaking massive.

the sigma seems like such a great deal when compared to the sony... but it's just so big. i think i'm gonna go for the zeiss 55mm 1.8. saves me a little bit of money and it's very compact. your review on the lens pointed out some of it's flaws which i believe were fixed with the newer T* version

how do they compare to the Samyang AF 50mm F1.4 II?

Hello Christopher. I need a lens hood for my Sony E 3.5-5.6/PZ 16-50 OSS lens. Can you help identify which hood will fit?

I couldn’t agree more about the build quality. I have the 35mm 1.4 GM lens from Sony and I can’t help but feel like at 1400 dollars it should feel a little more premium. The sigma lenses may be a little larger and weigh more but they feel better made in my opinion. I’ll personally be buying the art lenses from here on out.

Is this repost , as I am sure I saw this comparison of those two lenses from you few days ago ?

I don't like the 50mm focal length and the last 50 I ever had came with a Minolta X370 I purchased in the 90s. Once I learned the normal focal length is precisely 43mm, that stuck to me. If I'm to ever have a prime normal FF lens, it will be anything between 40 and 45, but never 50. I know, I have some issue.

This is interesting - it does appear that the top 3rd party manufacturers (like Tamron and Sigma) are now (and perhaps for sometime) have been making lenses that are fully competitive with the OEM brands. In this case, as you clearly point out image IQ is hardly the issue - this simply comes down to one point - does the size and weight difference for the Sony, which is smaller and lighter but not incredibly so, worth a premium of $450, which is literally 50% more than the Sigma? I am a Nikon shooter, but putting myself imagining my decision in this situation, I am not sure what I would do - I guess the other advantage to OEM is that there can be no excuses for things not working together in the future due to firmware updates etc... On a separate note, please review the new 85mm 1.2 S lens for Z mount as soon as possible - it would be interesting to see it put up against the Canon version - just as you did with the 50mm 1.2 lenses. Thanks for the great reviews - I really do believe you are the best lens reviewer on RU-vid - at least that I know about - please keep up the good work! -PD

Somewhere else I read that the Sony can go to full fps on say the A9, whereas the Sigma is more limited, I assume due to the max focusing speed on each lens. So that's another area the Sony is likely superior, although few people probably fall into the category to need this type of focusing speed.

I would like to know how it compares GM1.4 vs Zeiss Planar. Chelsea, the youtuber, said the GM is waaaaay better than Zeiss…apear to be a missleading image from the plastic FE 1.8 or “lemon” Zeiss. I think Zeiss must be optically waaaaaaaay on par with the new GM1.4 😉. Cheers, nice reviews like allways.

Hi Chris. May I ask what’s the difference in terms of “lens breathing”between these two lens?

Hello! Would really love to see some more vintage lens tests. Takumars, Helios, etc.

I have 1.4 Zeiss Plannar, how does it compare to the two lenses in your review? What about 1.2 GM? Can its $$$$ price be justified? It will be great to see 50mm shoot down between the 4 lenses

Plot twist: they’re the same lens in a different construction

The Sigma looks Amazing for the Price, especially the close up performance and flare resistance.

this is impressive

Sigma: 949 EUR, Sony: 1699 EUR - go figure ! Crazy, to pay that much more for Sony, for a little less lens size, and subtle better IQ. But for these 2% perhaps that much more money is insane. You won't see this in real life shots, only when pixel pooping, err -peeping 1:1 which is crazy, just saying.

Sony lens design is much more beautiful imo. But then again an extra $500 in my wallet is also beautiful!

Nice

Are you yourself still using the EF Sigma 50mm these days, as I recall you'd mentioned before? I'm an RF user and I still like that lens, I must say. My brother uses that one on his Sony camera; how do you feel the older Sigma stacks up? I like the corners of the new one, but the older model still holds up to my eyes on my 45MP sensor!

The biggest advantage on the Sony is that it unlocks the 15+FPS in burst shooting on the likes of the A1 or the electronic shutter modes of the A7siii. While the Sigma technically might still be up to the task, Sony simply doesn't allow for it and thus the Sony is pretty much your lens of choice if you intend to shoot any fast moving subjects in serial images. Otherwise, except maybe for the added fringing until f2.8 and the extra weight, the Sigma is pretty much the same.

After running around for 2 months now nearly every day with a 600mm Telezoom, every other lens is just small and lightweight now. :D Great comparison. Thanks :)

Great side by side reviewing. Very striking how identical they are. In my opinion, the saving of £600 with the Sigma easily wins against the more compact dimensions of the Sony.

Nice review as always! To my knowledge Chris is not an action shooter and doesn’t mention a very big selling point of the Sony vs Sigma on and A1 or A9 camera…frames per second…sigma capped at 15 while Sony lens will get 20 on A9 and 30 on A1. If you shoot sports/action (indoor Basketball for example) on a A1 or A9 the choice is clear…at least to me. 😊

There is one other key difference: Sony does hamstring the FPS on cameras like the A9 and A1 series for 3rd party glass. If you need the best stills frame rate, you'll have to spring for the Sony. If you're not shooting action, you won't notice, but if you are shooting sports or action (e.g. wildlife, dance, etc.) this could be a key factor.

Yo you still scaring that lady with the scary maze game

I’m buying the Sony. Exactly what I need right now and ina price range I can afford. Probably going to buy that 20-70 f4 lens too. Love the close focusing and f4 is more than enough as a travel and daily carry lens.

The Sigma is warm (yellow)，as always.

Great job by Sigma for getting that level of performance for a significantly lower price.

To me, Sigma seems to have the edge on bokeh smoothness from every comparison and test I've seen so far. Not a huge difference, but enough to be noticed. Especially in more challenging backgrounds. I think this will be my deciding factor, in addition to price. And when I want to go small and light, I will always have my Voigtländer Nokton 40mm f/1.2 SE (which I will NEVER get rid of - my favourite lens of all time). And I have also the Sigma 85mm f/1.4, which is one of my favourite lenses of all time as well.

Only difference is the fast fps you get with the GM.. the only issue is that at 50mm you won’t be shooting sports or wildlife so the Sigma is a no brainer

Great to see Sigma making such good lenses. If I didnt have canon I would definitly go with Sigma.

I think I’d prefer smaller lens eventhough it produces worse image I wouldnt care 😅

I feel like I’d have to crop in 20x to even see that chromatic aberration that I could correct with a simple edit in post. Sigma looks strong here and it’s basically a no-brainer at that price.

Damn, I would get the Sigma lense if I was a Sony shooter. 500$ is a lot of money 🤔

Why do some lenses get better contrast tan others? My understanding of optics needs improvement 😅

Day 1 of asking Chris to review the nikon Z 70-200 f2.8

sony has two customisable buttons...with same function!!! u cant have two separate functions even if you have 2 buttons...so sony has one, 2 times, for landscape and portrait mode, easier to reach

Lucky you, Sony shooters! :D

I would like to note that this particular comparison is quite a bit more direct, and IMO far more interesting than the DPR TV one. Mostly in the sense that the Sigma came off much better in this one, or, maybe, the Sony came off worse. Now we just need Roger Cicala to test 500 of each to see which review is more accurate.

With the 24-70 GM ii being sooooo good, I’d be hard pressed to justify buying either of them. Paired with the excellent 35 GM prime for low light situations, I think I’m all set. If I didn’t have the 24-70, I’d opt for the Sigma - it’s a better value.

I have Fujifilm cameras with excellent Fujinon WR primes for "compactness". On Sony I'll stick with DG DN Art Sigmas. If you want a compact lens on your Sony A7 - get the I series Sigma 65mm 2.0 - super sharp.

Miss the time when a 50/1.4 only costs 200 bucks.

On my screen it seems there is some minor colour fringing in the corners on the Sony?

Sigma 💪

Sad that the Samyang wasn‘t part of this. It should have been. Other than that I like your tests!

Amazing how good the Sigma is compared to the Sony. The smaller size en lighter body of the Sony are more important to me. You think the Sigma looks cooler? I find it a " not so pretty" lens. Well, a matter of taste, I guess.

I prefer the Sigma as the larger front allows for less cats eye bokeh balls compared to the GM, although there's the yellow shift with some colours from the Sigma.

damn it's 1500 in UK? jesus...

At almost half the price, I'd go with Sigma lens any time.

I'd definitely choose the Sigma. No not just because I have an L mount camera.

The sigma 50 1.4 is optically better than the 50 1.2 from the mtf charts. Smaller and more compact top. As for the Sigma, it really does look like they jammed a very similar optical formula (Sony from Sigma) That is rather common in the camera industry, things get rebranded eith the same optics. Although notably the Sony is mpre compact.

Sony are starting to take the p now with their lens pricing, especially in the UK. All it will do is encourage us to buy grey.

At this point is just weight and size for money

The difference in price is fairly vast here. Sigma is the clear choice if Sony doesn't lower the price a few $100.

The sony has better image quality in the center wide open

there's no point in spending more on the sony g master

Sigma lens : Sigma male Sony lens : Alpha male

Nearly halve the cost, Hello!

There is really no compelling reason to choose the Sony.

If we will still buying Sony for this price, they will never drop this price. Sony is better but not for this price.