This video is sponsored by HelloFresh. Visit strms.net/hellofresh_dustinabbotttwi and use code POGHF91907 for a limited time discount plus free shipping
Keep the 135, sell the 50 1.4 before the lens mount snaps lol. Ask me how I know :'( I loved the lens, but if you ever drop your camera it'll snap at the mount.
I just bought the Samyang/Rokinon lens based in part on your reviews. Also have the 135mm 1.8 Rokinon which is stellar. Your review is pretty spot on for the Samyang. I really like the Sigma but was turned off by its size. I have the Sigma 85mm 1.4 DG DN and love it but didn't want a large/weighty 50mm. The Samyang is a stellar lens optically. Makes beautiful images. The autofocus is.....decent. You are right about it being accurate as well as the speed. I find the AF very accurate but a bit slow for stills. It doesn't cause much of an issue but if your subject is moving somewhat sporadically or quickly (think kids running around or sports) it falls apart pretty quickly. I can get some keepers in these situations but not as many as I would like. I find the AF in the 135mm 1.8 better in this regard. Overall, since 50mm isn't my favorite focal length I opted to save some $ and enjoy the optics and size of the Samyang. If I someday find myself need faster AF for sports...I will upgrade the larger Sigma. Overall, I just love that we have so many choices with the Sony system with the 3rd party lenses
I loved my Samyang 50 1.4 until it snapped... build quality gets a 0 from me lol. The 4 lens mount screws go ~1/16" into... wait for it... plastic. I dropped my camera fell from 1 1/2 feet with the lens hood on
Love the comparison and the new format Dustin. Clean and to the point. This was exactly the video I was hoping for. Keep up the great work and the innovation!
Based on Dustin's review - I picked up the Rokinon 50mm f1.4 85mm f1.4 135mm f1.8... I didn't pick these up because of their price - I really needed to consider weight as a factor as I have a hand injury... Like the keep my equipment small and light. I sacrifice a lil sharpness/contrast for smaller and lighter. Dustin does an AMAZING job with his reviews. BTW - I was able to grab the 50mm for 479.00 for the version ii. Thanks Dustin for everything!!!
Very good comparison, well detailed, well illustrated, well said 👏🏻 To be perfect I'd love more on AF capabilities, like during a sport activity 😉 Fine job, keep the good work 😊
With Sigma I expect more distortion as it is part of their design logic - to factor in software correction. Still this lens is bulky. And I actually prefer a less sharp corner rendering wide open as the entire idea of using a 1.4 lens is subject isolation and a kind of selective focus. On the other hand sigma lenses have that extra bite & on a high res sensor the extra detail comes out. Apart from the obvious comparison with the samyang & the sony, the amount of lenses that one has for the Fe mount in this 45-65 focal length is enormous. The main choice is actually between a slightly slower compact lens vs a much bulkier faster option. In terms of form factor I feel samyang has addressed this more. The sigma has targeted a market which wants that build & optics but at significantly less cost than the sony 1.2 & even the yet to be announced sony 50mm f1.4.
Thank you for the very detailed and technical review & comparison!! Your channel and videos are always insightful and helpful when deciding to buy a new lens!!
I just grabbed the Samyang and the autofocus is WAY faster than any RU-vid review shows. I don't know what's going on with your copies but the AF is every bit as fast as my Sony native lenses on my a7iv. Could it be the camera body adding performance to the lens? (it's also as fast as my Samyang 45mm which I believe you compared before, as well)
I own the a7IV, so I don't think that's the thing. I can only report what I've seen, but I'm delighted that you're happy with the focus speed. It's really a great lens.
I am curious what your take is on the rendering differences between the Samyang and Sigma. I know you have mentioned several times prior that the rendering is really special on the Samyang. Does this refer to the color rendering? The bokeh quality? The rolloff from sharp/in focus to out of focus areas? All of the above? I have loved the images coming out of the Samyang but can't compare it to the Sigma. Just curious on your take?
I always found Sigmas to produce warm colors with a slight green tint that I never liked, one of the main reasons why I always favored Tamron lenses when comparing them in camera shops to Sigma lenses. I think color is a really undervalued factor when deciding to buy lenses as some might show not only a tint/temperature shift but also some colors being more saturated than others. This can end up being difficult to correct in post if it's consistent.
The Tamron 17-70 apsc is warmer than the Sigma 18-55. It's a lens by lens case. The reality is there is no such thing as an objective white balance lens, they all shift colors one way or another.
Hi Eddy, ironically it is Samyang that has had the reputation for tending very warm in their color rendition in the past, but their new optical glass is much more neutral.
@Dustin Abbott Yes I've seen from your reviews throughout the years that the Samyang gives warm colors. Still remember the comparison between the tamron SP 15-30mm and the samyang 14mm f2.8!
Hi Dustin, I love all your reviews. This is off-topic but I thought this would make a good review idea if you have not done it already. It is a filter comparison with high-end vs lower-end from Amazon basics, Neewer to the high-end brands. The magnetic ones are the new thing of course as well. I don't find any of these on youtube and so many lens reviews everywhere. Thank you, sir.
Thanks for the suggestion. I do occasionally throw in filter reviews, but they tend to be when the companies contact me and ask me to cover their products.
Hi Dustin, when comparing photos of the Yashica, you can see in the lens flares that when taking the Samyang (11:39) some figure is blocking the access of the light to the Yashica. At the moment, the lighting conditions are not the same as for the Sigma 50mm. That's it, for next time. The conditions for comparing photos should be the same. Otherwise, I salute you and thank you for your work, which is fantastic. Peter
Hi Petr, I'm not sure that's the case, but in this scenario I was actually recreating the shot for comparison after I had to return the Sigma. It's not always possible to have both lenses at the exact same time.
The 50mm 1.4 mark 2 samyang ist just a steal. It has such a beautiful rendering, absolute awesome. My most favorite lens in my kit and I also own GM lenses. Sold my sigmas. They are too clinical. He also mentioned the rendering of the samyang which is phenomenal.
@@DustinAbbottTWI true, but I think at some point sharpness isn’t that important anymore. Of course it depends on what you want to do with it. As I am not taking landscapes with primes, I do not care for corner sharpness that much.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Is it possible to somehow make it sharper? I just bought the samyang and it's exceptional, but the sharpness is less than ideal at corners.
Can you compare the optical quality of the 40mm F1.4 vs the new Sigma 50mm F1.4? I recall when the 40mm was released, it was notably better in optics than the old 50mm, and the new 50mm doesnt seem all that different. But I'm very curious how noticable the differences truly are in images. I own the 40mm and honestly would prefer the focal legnth and size of the new 50. But I'm a stiffler for quality.
After reading your review, I will not buy any Sigma products in the future. Sanyo wins, except for focusing speed. But the most important thing about photography is image quality. And judging from other evaluation videos, Sanyo’s video focus seems to be more balanced.
Very good comparison! I'm now hesitating between the Samyang 50mm 1.4 II and the Sigma 50mm F2, reason is that I'm looking for something light for street photo. Can you tell me how these two lenses compared in therm of image quality?
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you for the reply! I have tested the lens yesterday evening and I like the rendering but there isn't any lens profile for Lightroom and that's an issue for me because of the vignetting and chromatic aberation. Finally I will try the Zeiss 55mm 1.8, I have seen your tests on this morning and this one look very good (and the price is the same than the Sigma 50mm F2)
The one thing I never really understood is HOW 50MM 1.4s GOT SO BIG. A typical 50mm 1.4 lens back in the manual days have a filter thread of ~55mm and is about half as long as today's. EverytimeI hold up a 50/1.4 Planar T* of the Contax/Yashica Mount and the Sony-Zeiss's 50/1.4 FE , I cringe at the latter's size. Yes, I know that focus motors and auto-diaphragm actuators take up space, but they shouldn't take up that much space and they shouldn't take up much length if any. If anything, the advent of mirrorless systems allows lens elements to encroach much further towards the rear than was possible with a mirror box in the way. This is especially true of Gaussian 50mms given that most of the additional correction elements are added in the back, usually with the rear three become five with two becoming doublets (ala Sumilux-M ASPH). And, no, it's not just Sony with their Zeiss and GMs either. These SIGMA ARTs and Samyangs are huge as well.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Not exactly. Take the 1.4/50 Sony-Zeiss ZA for example. The barrel is a hell of a lot bigger than the front element or any of the lenses inside. The barrel is about TWICE the diameter of the biggest lens element. I think there is, at least at some levels, a disregard for lens bulk on high end lenses targeted at professionals and lens snobs. Perhaps the assumption being that they don't care.
( Makes me wonder if there are any known instances where a manufacturer has renounced issuing a just finished lens because they considered to have lost face (in regard to a competing lens) if they went ahead.. )
@@DustinAbbottTWI No. I search for a hypothetical illustration.. say Samsung had released its 135 just before Sony's, and that we would know of Sony having in extremis added say an aditional coating, whether sealings, or not issue it at all. Or say samsung had released its 35-150 before Tamron's.. Oh no..that's still another kind of stupid speculation lol ('Naturally' this question is not applicable to Canon, lol. Anyway, only an insider could know/divulge a story of this intersting kind I guess)
It's been some years since I reviewed the 55mm, and while I found it a nice, sharp little lens, it never wowed me in terms of the look of the images. I personally find the rendering from the Samyang much more interesting.
Yes, either the Samyang is slighter wider (49mm or so), or the Sigma is a little longer (51mm or so), or possibly both. I didn’t find the Samyang wider compared to the Sony Zeiss Planar, so I suspect it is the Sigma that is a little longer than 50mm
Are you unhappy with the Samyang? I would move to the Sigma for two reasons: 1) if you want the top sharpness in the center at F1.4 and 2) if you need a lot of autofocus speed.
Reason NOT to buy the samyang - It's lens mount screws go ~ 1/16th of an inch into *plastic*. If you drop the camera, it will snap lol ask me how I know
@@DustinAbbottTWI yup, I loved this lens, but I can never use it again professionally knowing about this design flaw. I've dropped many cameras w/lenses attached over the years, often only short distances, but this is just unacceptable. If someone bumps into me during a wedding, or I knock my camera belt into a railing, I can't have a lens snapping off lol.
I love Sigma, but one thing I am sick of is people saying Sigma has superior build quality. If the lens is too big, too difficult to handle, then the build quality is not better. Build quality is relative to form. If a company decides for lighter materials, smaller form, and there is no proof that durability is compromised, then it's build is no worse. It's better. If someone made an iron lens, I wouldnt say thats the best build quality. I've noticed this comment on every review (not yours specifically). People will review the 105mm F1.4, and say the build quality is amazing. I own that lens, I love it, but the build quality is not a strong point just because it's a tank.
That's a very valid point. I would say as an evaluation of the feel of materials I would say the Sigma is built better out of these two lenses, but your point is valid.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks for the respectful reply. I've been watching your videos for years now, and should've mentioned I like the comparison too. Also, to be clear, I do own the Sigma 40mm F1.4 and the 105mm, so I personally am very "tolerant" we should say of the chunky style, but yeah, I always find it a bit of a misnomer. If the 50mm was just a little smaller, I'd definitely have added it to my L mount collection. Too bad no Samyang for me.
Damn! That was the review I was waiting for but I'm not even more confused than before lol. There is definitely NOT a clear winner in this situation unfortunately for my peace of mind x_x One thing that REALLY bugs me however and that wasn't explained in the video is WHY the new (Sigma 50mm F1.4) is bigger than their own (Sigma 85mm F1.4) which I already own?? It doesn't make any sense at all unless it's their new "Linear AF" system that makes it that much bigger? I was really expecting the 50mm focal lens to be the smallest of the bunch since usually the 50mm lens are the smallest and less complex compare to 85mm or 35mm. I would probably go with the Sigma if it wasn't about the super bulky size, now I'm really hesitating. I like the fact I already have 3 brand new Sigma e-mount lens for my A7IV, so I could continue with the brand though I don't mind having a mixed bag of brands like I used to with my previous R6, and I really like the 7 years of warranty vs only 1, with better customer service if anything bad happens. You basically get no support from camera store or the manufacturer if you buy at Amazon too. The (Samyang 45mm F1.8) is 2x less expensive than their (50mm F1.4 II) but then that one is only just 200$CAD less than the Sigma, and all Sigma lens always go on sale for about 200$ from November to January so I could still get it eventually brand new for the same price of the Samyang that prolly won't go on sale for as much or at all.
It wasn't as compact as I would have liked, no, but it is smaller than what their previous lens was. Samyang is a little better at making compact lenses, it's one of their strengths.
I’m kinda sad about the big size too. I’ve got a bunch of Sigma lenses that I love, including 24/85 1.4. I also have the Sony 20/1.8 and 35/1.4 GM. I’m leaning more toward the Sony 50/1.4 simply because of the size/weight. Not in any rush - I have plenty of time to figure it out.
@@RandumbTech I feel you but the thing is the brand new Sony 50mm F1.4 is still outrageously expensive and not even that sharp wide open from the reviews I've seen, definitely not as much as the F1.2 which is the best 50mm lens out of all brands on the market. If at least it would be as sharp as the F1.2 and as good everywhere else but with a max aperture of F1.4 then it would explain the price but having flaws at 1900$CAD no thanks for me. I still haven't read an explanation anywhere that says why Sigma's 50mm is bigger than their 85mm, completely illogical. It is so disappointing that I'm starting to consider the "Samyang 45mm F1.8". At only 300$CAD instead of 1000-1200$ and being 4x lighter, 3x cheaper, much smaller yet even sharper wide open! It's way too many cons for the Samyang/Sigma F1.4 just to be less than a full stop... not so convincing imo. I feel like Sigma wanted so much to be the first on the market that they cutted corners and rushed the lens just to come before Sony.
That's complicated, as I like things about both. I'm hoping the rumored 50mm F1.4 GM will bring the strengths of both together, and that may be my personal winner if it does.
@@TigerWould2 While I understand your point and so feel like some corners have been cut down on third parties for mirrorless cameras, I'm still wondering what's the big deal about having the camera or Adobe automatically do the basic corrections for RAW files, as I don't know a single person out there who's gonna turn that off or not do it every time. Now unless there is a significant loss of quality from correcting post rather than first through optics, I don't mind and would rather have a smaller lens. I used to have a R6 with a native (RF 70-200 F2.8, 50mm F1.8) but also a (Samyang 85mm F1.4) and a (Tamron 24-70 F2.8 GM2 with EF/RF adapter) and I can say there was definitely a worse auto-focus on these 2 third party lens but then again... Samyang was an unofficial RF lens with reverse engineering so that was to be expected, like it kept focussing on the breast rather than the eyes for some reasons (-_-), while the Tamron without being bad, could had been better but that was due to the fact I had a mount adapter even if it was from Canon for Canon. Now that I sold everything 2 months ago and went with a (Sony A7IV) with 3 Sigma native lens (85mm F1.4, 100-400mm, 24-70 F2.8 Art) I can say the AF is incredibly good and just as good as when I was 100% native with the R6 and RF lens. The camera store told me that going with these Sigma E-Mount it was the same as being native since Sony gave all the coding to them unlike what happened with the unofficial Samyang for Canon RF. Now I'm just wonder why the F the new Sigma 50mm is somehow BIGGER than the 85mm?!?
Sigma let me down when they bought out the Sony emount 35mm F1.4 , that lens was so damn heavy & the AF was as bad as I'd ever seen AF. I sent it back & have not bought Sigma lenses since, I got the Sigma apse 30mm & 16mm ..again both poor AF the 30mm got sold as it was poor ... I had the original samyang 50mm & the AF was poor too . If I had a choice today I'd be buying the Samyang Mkii all day long as the lens is compact & I do not want a brick on the front of my camera like the sigma is .
It's unfortunate that Sigma used that stopgap measure of putting out ported EF mount lenses as Sony E-mount before they started to design real mirrorless full frame lenses. The autofocus just wasn't up to par compared to native lenses. They've been a lot better recently.
All picture. ..was a lot brighter on Samyang so not a good way to look and compare ...your last comment on the flat surface ....that it was worse on the Samyang....Yes! But only just because the whole picture is clearly brighter....Sorry! But, unfortunately, I thought the whole test/comparison felt a bit sloppy.🤔
Have you ever stopped to consider that if one lens produces a brighter lens with equal settings that this may actually be a strength for the lens? (light transmission)
I'm 100% with Hector on this one. I think a buyer needs to buy based on their own needs, and I wouldn't say that there is a clear cut winner that I can say "you must buy this one!"
I would love if there were more Sony or Sigma options for 50mm in the f1.8 or f2 range. These 1.4 and 1.2 are too big and expensive for me. I'm using an Apo-Lanthar 50/2, but sometimes I'd like AF.
