A comment from 2020 :). Nice thorough look at their performance. I've used a Sigma 50mm (and 35/85/105mm) Art lens for two years in model photography (both studio and location) and it does perform superbly. However, I recently got the Zeiss Otus 55mm and there's just something more about that lens from 1.4 to f2 that can't be described or even quantified in how it renders a scene. The contrast, the color, the sharpness, the bokeh (it's even more dramatic a difference than your test images show) is just another dimension. It might not be worth it to a more casual photographer to have that extra technical capability at max apertures, but as an experienced Sigma shooter (with the Nikon D850), I'm blow away by the Zeiss "look". What's unusual about the lens is that even though it is 55mm, it renders like an 85mm between f1.4 and f2. That means you can change your positioning and get wider (with great subject from background separation) or narrower (with completely smoothed out backgrounds) views without even changing lenses, something I've not experienced before with any Nikon or Sigma lens. And I'm able to shoot it with models on location, albeit I just shoot more slowly and more carefully, but it's a more organic and connected process. So I do not think it is confined only to the studio.
Check out my other channel. Get to know me and my passion for cars. How To Videos, reviews and much more car related content! By popular demand from my viewers. Enjoy! ru-vid.com/show-UCJUi1kRQ35PbGLLYTSnI6gA
Which one needs a calibration DOCK in order to keep that sharpness over time, and which one will have that same sharpness 50yrs. from now. Which one do you think will even be WORKING 15yrs. from now? There's the winner of your Vs.! 😂
I am 100% sure if you print the pictures I can tell you which ones are from the Otus each time. The contrast on the Sigma is so bad and the color rendering is just not even close to the Otus. In addition, all the problems with the auto focus on Sigma lenses and the high variance in quality of their lenses are just not mentioned. Makes the whole video look like an advertisement.
I just don't see how you can say they are neck and neck in the aberration test. the Otus looks much, much sharper to me. Maybe RU-vid's video compression does something strange?
What I think is happening, is the same thing happening in other of the shots compared in this test. They're not focused at the same spot. Really weird that you have an AF lens and an MF lens, and then don't focus with the AF lens first and then accurately replicate that shot with the MF lens. Same with the exposure. Instead of apologizing, why not just shoot again? Don't tell med the lens was returned before you checked, because you can surely anticipate my follow up questions then, right? ;-)
I hear more complaints about Sigma focus on Nikon D800 & D810s than any other models. This is kind of a mystery because the claims I hear is that the higher resolution camera bodies are suppose to reap the most benefits from the art line. More mythology?
I have the sony 55mm 1.8 sonnar zeiss. It's a beautiful lens with all metal build and super smooth focus ring (too bad it's focus by wire), weather sealed and just downright gorgeous images. Other lenses will produce great images too, but theres something about the zeiss (maybe it's the $1000 placebo) Either way I mainly buy zeiss for their build quality. Theyre tanks and will outlast any plastic build lens. If you look at other lens companies though you'll see other lenses in the same price range and are probably still built from plastic. Thats really the only reason I will buy them, otherwise they seem overpriced but build quality isn't usually something people take into account.
I agree with you on every point about the Sigma. The only drawback, for me, is the weight, since I also shoot a good deal of video. And if you're trying to stay light, the Sigma Art adds quite a few grams. I'm surprised you haven't reviewed the BlackMagic Ursa Mini 4.6K yet. peace.
Indeed, the only art I now have is the 24-35 f/2 and man it weighs like a tank. I keep it only because it shoots well in manual focus and saves me from buying a couple primes I don't use that much. I think the 50mm 1.4 art is just ridiculous in weight and size for a 50mm prime. If your trying to maintain a light and nimble bag the art line is a bad choice.
Thanks for the overview. You mentioned that you believe the Sigma is worth more than they are charging. I see it this way. Zeiss way over charges (price gouging) for their lenses and Sigma is representing the true market value of the lenses. Just a quick glance at B&H highlights this. The Zeiss lens for Canon EF shows 8 reviews, whereas the Sigma has 168. I think we can use that as a representative of sales although I know it's not accurate. Cheers, Greg
You missed the point... Sigma is making lenses of the same if not better quality than Canon and is making a profit charging less. If you want to pay a crap ton more money for a lens just because it say Canon on it that's your choice. I'm saying they are over charging.
Great review Famus! Really enjoy watching your vids, good energy and an independent perspective. I find many reviews just sounds like the same old dribble copying what everyone else is saying, example the 5D mark iv 4K subject. I have the 5D Mark iv and the Sigma 50 ART although I have not mounted it on the 5D yet. I have tried the Sigma 24 ART though and I love the way it renders.
I will not buy Zeiss for my Canon because it does not have auto focus. Kinda dumb to go backwards when it comes to focusing manual vs. auto. I bought the Sigma 50mm F1.4 and my Canon 24-70mm F2.8 has been put on the way side ever since. I definitely see better sharpness on the Sigma.
Thanks Faymusmedia for the comparison! I am going to buy another Sigma because Zeiss is over prised. Zeiss is better and has also better T-value which can obviously be seen in the brighter picture in this video. But, i am not out to show off. I have to have fun taking pictures so why not buy a lens better than i need... a Sigma.
I just saw the ,,Roger Cigala,, test from ,Lensrental.com, ang he did a IMAN Test on both the Zeiss and the Sigma and they are both egal sharp at 1.4 and the Sigma wins clearly at 2.0
Unfortunately, with your statements you are disqualifying yourself. Watch Chris Kane's videos. He can tell you how to photograph weddings with a manual lens. You can learn a lot there.
The rendering is not the same. For the video at the end I wish they could have been shot side by side in the same light. The sigma video image has a blown out highlights on the tree that is seriously bothersome. Nor do I know what camera you are shooting this on.. The Otus renders like Zeiss is known for.
dumb review..... sharpness was the only test... what about micro contrast, colour...ect.. the zeiss beats out the art in every category and build quality sooo ya
You must had just came from watching Dustin Abbott, lol. Listen, he just said the Otus is thee best but in real world and practicality, the sigma is amazing which the Art series is.
Well, nice try. You should have compared the Milvus 50mm f 1.4 as well.... If I look at the Sigma lenses whenever I tried them I had issues with focus consistency. A manual focus lens build like the Zeiss ones give you much better consistency than the Sigma.... THe advantage of auotofocus exists only if the autofocus delivers reliable results. In terms of Image Quality: sharpness is not everything. Bokeh, micro contrast as well as color renditions are other topics. Even in the video you could see the advantage of the Otus - and you will see it on the Milvus as well. And Bokeh? Creaminess ves roundness: I prefer Creaminess..... I will definitely not buy Art nor Tamron: both loose in Consitency: lets wait for the new Canon 50mm f1.4: I guess that’s one to take - and the Milvus as well....
Cheap Sigma lens vs best lens in the world. Really shows that pixel peeping is worthless. In the real word the sigma gets annihilated by the Zeiss. Just look at the whole picture.
ZEISS and Leica have the same problem,They BOTH are NOT GOOD with electronics .Thats why they both wil never ever build an AF motor inside there lenses.
Too many glass elements produces flatter images with less depth and color saturation. So depending on what you are looking for, these lenses may not be the best for you. The Zeiss 50mm f1.4 planar produces better images for me, better color rendition, depth, and contrast. These over priced lenses will only give you sharper images while sacrificing almost everything else.
"Too many glass elements produces flatter images with less depth and color saturation." Says who? WTF are you on about? Prove it by physics. "Zeiss 50mm f1.4 planar" is an old lens and since then has been surpassed by many lenses even from Canon and Nikon and Sony and many others. Even Tamron now produce a better 50. So it is outright incorrect to say that this old thing produces better images. "These over priced lenses will only give you sharper images while sacrificing almost everything else." This is complete horseshit peddled by those like you can only dream of owning such lenses. On the other hand many many photographers and those who have put these under lab testing say otherwise.
Which photographers? The sell outs are lingering all over youtube? Just because it's a an expensive lens doesn't make it superior to anything else. What me to prove what I was just saying? Read a few articles on what makes a great lens and a comparison article on a couple 50mm lenses. Educate yourself, do more research. yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/6/8/life-after-autofocus-comparing-a-set-of-superior-50mm-lenses-of-the-f-mount yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-of-3d-pop yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/11/12/depth-vs-flat-lens-quick-comparison yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics
omarchafa Lol! Iam laughing at you outright. You are a complete bell end. The articles you linked are by a mate of Angry Photographer - Ken Wheeler. And both are complete arseholes. He hasnt got a clue what he wittering about. Yannick has never touched the Zeiss Otus. And all those people who have... They really must be sell outs. Yeah right. Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art are among the greatest lenses made. Only Leica come close. Now troll off and stop reading other trolls. Before I put my boot up ur arse.
I watched this before I guess. This a comparing apples and pears. The lenses are for two different audiences. Let say their images quality is about equal, so that we don't argue about that. The handling is for sure different. The autofocus is hit and miss with Sigma. To focus manually on an DSLR (Nikon) is nearly impossible with Zeiss lenses. You need to mod the focussing screen and then you are far too slow to focus precious moments. This is very difficult. Digital is not forgiving any focus errors, whereas film does. Basically, Sigma is for those who are in a rush and with high hopes that the autofocus will work. Zeiss is for a true artist who has the time and is not in a rush.
You statement is so absurd and based in complete ignorance. The vast majority or pros, photographic expertise and testing labs, including DXOMark agree with this reviewer's findings. And from my own personal experience with both lenses, I agree. I actually sold my Zeiss Otus 55mm and replaced it with the 50mm f/1.4 Art Lens. Equal in optical performance and has auto focus meaning you get at least 40 percent more usable images even if your the best manual focusing wiz. The facts simple don't support your flawed opinion.
Dum dum yes I have owned and shot the Sigma line. They are excessively heavy with a iffy to unreliable focus. The color rendition is inferior to Nikons pro line lenses. The only one I have retained is the 24-35 Art as a journalism lens. I use that lens mostly on manual focus. Micro contrast which is extremely important for black and white transition is not that great either. Seriously think before you make another foolish and assumptive comment about a photographer that you know nothing about. Just because someone makes a you tube video doesn't make them a authority on a given subject.
even if that's true. spending another 800 dollars on a sigma for a total of 1600 is better than spending $4k on one lens. The price to performance ratio of the sigma is the smarter buy.
