I’d love to know what the Sigma is like shooting backlit situations. I had a Sigma 85mm EF1.4 with the MC-11 adaptor, and it struggled to focus on occasion, whereas I know have the Sony G Master and it focuses instantly. I’d be curious to know if Sigmas with the “native” mount have the same problem
The Sony's colors look a bit more accurate on my calibrated monitor where the Sigma shows a slightly green/yellow tint. The sharpness in the samples looks slightly better on the Sony but the Sigma is close. Assuming the focusing advantage carries over to video and perhaps shows an even bigger improvement for the Sony makes me lean to the Sony GM lens over the Sigma. Is the performance differential worth $500? Yes but just barely.
On my calibrated screen the Sony shows a magenta tone. The Sigma is just warmer. A 135mm focal length for video use is not that common, is it?
5 лет назад
@@MudvayneS10 Our screens must differ slightly, to me the Sony looks just right with the Sigma being slightly warm which is great for landscape but not ideal for portraiture. The 135 is generally considered a portrait lens but not being a serious videographer I can't comment on if or how it's used for video.
Sony colors are more close to the real colors. Sigma has a very interesting tint to the skin color, which may be of liking for some people but skin tones are definitely not so close to reality like the Sony ones.
@@renestaempfli1071 TWO major independent blind tests found Sony colors the most accurate vs Fuji, Canon, Nikon, . It figures Sony's best GM lenses are color matched to what colors the camera sensor will render. Boyan's statement has real basis of truth.
@@renestaempfli1071 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3LtQ6pFOlNM.html from that video, video footage is with Nikon I think and Sony lens looks a lot more like the Nikon.
@@BoyanZhelyazkov_theDoctor yes that Nikon magenta tint ... the sigma looks so much like a canon, odd how two lens same focal length give two very different colour renderings to the skin.
bought Sigma thanks to this review almost year ago, now Sigma is dusty inside already and i eye Autofocus 90% of a time misted eye and got eyebrows ore lashes! and it always hurts back and forth. Now I sold Sigma with huge lose because they didn't hold value! just got Sony one and 95% perfect focus in much smaller package with same amazing picture quality and better when stopped down, but with Sigma you won't get it because it will miss focus most of the time! Learn on my mistake, instead of saving 600 bucks I lost 600, time and sharp pictures.
Not only was the skin smoother off the sigma, but the skin tone also was more pleasant and her eye color was a nicer blue. I think the Sony was a little sharper. But subjectively, I think the Sigma is the better choice for a finished product. Good review. 👍
bought Sigma thanks to this review almost year ago, now Sigma is dusty inside already and i eye Autofocus 90% of a time misted eye and got eyebrows ore lashes! and it always hurts back and forth. Now I sold Sigma with huge lose because they didn't hold value! just got Sony one and 95% perfect focus in much smaller package with same amazing picture quality and better when stopped down, but with Sigma you won't get it because it will miss focus most of the time! Learn on my mistake, instead of saving 600 bucks I lost 600, time and sharp pictures.
Depends on what composition someone will work on and what lighting is around ;) Check 13:55 ... her blue eyes look here better on the Sony shot than with the Sigma ;)
"Sharpness" is probably the least important aspect of a lens, i don't know why people harp on about it. We're trying to tone it down with vintage lenses and diffusion filters after all. But hobbyist forums and even pro reviewers seem obsessed with it.
@asdad asdasd Sharpness has been "solved", it's been a long time since it was an exclusive thing. Cheap 50mm 1.8 lenses are sharp, most kit zooms are sharp. I use diffusion filters on my panasonic full frame lenses and so do a lot of people who go for the "filmic" look. What matters though, and here's where budget really comes in, is speed, bokeh, ca, flare, microcontrast, color, character, autofocus, durability, focusing distance, ois. I'm happy with my lenses, autofocus aside. I haven't been bothered by unsharp images since using a 100eur third party slow telezoom at 300mm 25 years ago.
@asdad asdasd What i'm saying is that almost all lenses are sharp enough for most applications. Sharpness isn't a problem today, it was 50 years ago. And aperture has little to do with sharpness. I've worked with the standard canon 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 lenses professionally and never been left wanting for sharpness. In the canon world, the sharpest lenses are the 300 2.8 prime, the 85, 35 and 24 1.4 primes and the 70-200 zoom. 1.2 is about low light and shallow dof. They're slow to af, they're heavy, typically used in studios. Many choose medium format over them. My point though is that sharpness isn't desirable to begin with. If you're a product or architecture photographer whose clients demand absolute edge to edge sharpness, ok. For prosumer portraits or landscapes, i don't think so. Portraits (and videography in general) in particular is why people, like i said, try to get way from the too perfect, too sharp look of modern lenses through vintage lenses and diffusion filters. It's not flattering, it lacks character. Specialist niches aside, sharpness is the second thing beginners look at after "how far does it zoom". Then they move on as they learn. I'm willing to bet, when you see a photo you like it's not because its sharp. And that you don't dislike photos because they're unsharp unless the photographer misfocused. It's not what makes a good photo, and almost all modern lenses are sharp enough, or too sharp. Tl;dr lack of sharpness isn't what's holding photographers back, and it's generally not the reason people upgrade gear. A good kit lens is as sharp as you'd need it to be, what it usually lacks is speed and build quality.
Sigma for portret. Sony's white balance is too cold compared to the Sigma. Sharpness is identical. Also... Get the Sigma 135mm and with the 500 bucks difference get a Sigma 24mm art lens 2nd hand in mint condition.
The gradations on the Sigma are smoother. You don't get the abrupt shadow to highlight differentiation that you get on the Sony. I tend to prefer the Sigma lens.
bought Sigma thanks to this review almost year ago, now Sigma is dusty inside already and i eye Autofocus 90% of a time misted eye and got eyebrows ore lashes! and it always hurts back and forth. Now I sold Sigma with huge lose because they didn't hold value! just got Sony one and 95% perfect focus in much smaller package with same amazing picture quality and better when stopped down, but with Sigma you won't get it because it will miss focus most of the time! Learn on my mistake, instead of saving 600 bucks I lost 600, time and sharp pictures.
I would definitely pick sigma Why the hell on this world i will ever need manual controlls when i have softwares to do that ? What will i do with close focusing distance ?😂😂
What I ask all photographers when it comes to Sigma lenses. How disposable is your income? How long do you keep lenses that you love? Do you like using older lenses on brand new, latest tech cameras because of its optical characteristics? Many older third party lenses, especially Sigmas, will not work on new systems. Once they discontinue a lens, they do not keep up with it working on new cameras. Not true with most OEM lenses. For instance, I can use my original Canon EOS lenses from the late 80s to the early 90s on any new EOS camera. For instance, my EF50mm F1.4 USM purchased in '93 works flawlessly today and the Sigma 28-200 purchased at the same time does not. I could go on and on.
I think it's worth noting that the Sigma's manual focus ring isn't electronically coupled to the focus motor. Turning the focus ring _actually_ focuses the lens instead of activating the motor. So if you for some reason really need to manually focus (like if you prefer manual focus for video), the Sigma may be easier to do it with.
I honestly prefer the output of the Sigma. The real f stop of the Sony is closer to an f/2.0 and it is a much cooler colour output lens where the Sigma is warmer and is effectively a f/1.78 lens.
Love your videos. They are informative and fun to watch. However with this video I have a tiny issue. When comparing the lenses with side by side comparisons, the model chnged poses. That changes how the light falls on her and alters shadows which alters the comparison. Properly done, her poses should not have changed at all. Then the light and shadows wouldn't have really changed.
Jared just added the 135 1.4 GM to my bag of tricks. So much faster and lighter than my 105 Sigma 1.4. That thing is like shooting my 200 f2 VRii. With all the gym closed the few months I don't think I can carry it anymore for a day of weddings. I have to do a head to head with my 105 1.4 Nikon but so far I'm pretty happy with the 135 1.8 on the A7R4 . I'll put it to the test this weekend at a wedding. Keep up the great work as usual.
I think the Sigma is really cool and it's enough, it does the job very well, for the af speed, for portraits or report i think it's quick enough, the Sigma Art series are really awesome... and a Stark is more badass than a Lanister ^^
I'm feeling pretty stuck. I'm about to buy A7 III and I can afford either Sony FE 35mm and 85mm ''cheaper'' lenses on one Sigma or Zeiss lens(50mm). I'm putting a lot of money into my hybrid set and I don't want to lose quality or sharpness, because of my lens. What would you suggest?
Petr Zakrzewski well I’m not sure what you went with but I’m selling some used gear that could save you some money. Selling my sigma 135mm 1.8 for $850 My sigma 50mm 1.4 for $725 And a Sony A7iii for $1700
Love old Japanese Nikkor lenses. I got a 80-200 2.8D made in Japan for an absolute bargain price and it's brilliant, not quite as sharp as the more modern 70-200's but the character and colours are just outstanding!
Hey J! Greetings from Germany! Thank you for another great review, it helped me to decide! I‘ve exactly compared both lenses as well... aaaand I bought the GM and my high expectations are more than fulfilled! Yes, the price fries ones balls, but damn, that thing is magic! I use it on a A7RIII 😃
I already bought the Sony 135 1.8 and I love it. I'm only watching this video because the FroKnowsPhoto team puts out the best content on RU-vid. I don't give a rip if Dan doesn't have a mic, his editing skills are the best since sliced bread.
@@kimsonpro I agree. I still listen to older RAWTalks during work, because they were funny and informative. Even if I don't care about the lens or product, I still watch for the personality.
@@joaquinnolasco5210 As do I man! Jared taught me how to use my first camera before I even got. I've been shooting on manual since day 1! This team is the best. ESPECIALLY for what Dan contributes! 😎
Currently I have both, and they are both great. Ultimately I will keep only the Sony for its slightly better performance, reduced size and weight, and to keep the same form factor with my other GM optics. But I am impressed what Sigma is doing.
Sigma, to my eyes, definitely looks more flattering in every shot! Impressive. It would be interesting to see how they compare when shooting anything where that added clarity is beneficial, like with architecture or wildlife. Sigma wins when it comes to portraits but I have a feeling Sony would dominate in almost every other field.
I just posted this same comment under Manny Ortiz video on the same comparison.. if your like me, you watch a ton of videos before purchasing anything. So, here are my thoughts. ... I bought the sigma yesterday because it was cheaper. But it hunts focus WAY more than my current 85mm 1.8. It was SO ANNOYING! If the sigma were my first lens, I wouldn't have known what I was missing. But within 30 minutes of practice shots, I knew I'd rather go back to my 85mm 1.8. Then something great happened. Found the GM 135 USED for $1500. So, selling my sigma for $1k and my 85mm for $500, and paying for the GM! trust me, if you can find a decent price for the GM, the extra money is WORTH IT! Especially if you are a hybrid shooter that needs quick focus for videography. I thought, "I can handle it being a little quirky with focus if I can save money", but I couldn't handle it lol. All I could think of was the number of GREAT model poses and faces I would miss focus on during a shoot, essentially wasting time and money (that I "saved" by going with the cheaper option).
I think it is worth it. Performance seems to be similar but when you consider the resale value, the sigma lenses do plummet in value. I’ve owned several sigma lenses and they’re great but found myself giving them away when sold them
Sigma color is more yellowish as usual. Color from Sony is more true. Don’t you mention about onion ring bokeh on Sigma lenses. The sharpest test of both lenses would be done by MTF charts comparison.
The 24mm 1.4 GM and The 135mm 1.8 GM are GREAT lenses !!! So Sony keep those GM primes lenses comming... Wish for 55mm GM, 300 4.0 GM 400 4.5 GM and more... oh yeah and a macro GM without stabilizer !
Had to get the Sony this time. I own a couple sigma lenses like 14-24mm DG DN 24-70mm 100-400mm 85mm1.4 but when it comes to portrait lenses, I find myself always shooting against the sun and I wanna have the luxury to add my own sun flare in P.S if I wanna and if I really want that flare I can use my 85mm Sigma because they seem to have the same rendition. So sun flare was a deal breaker to me and there's a way it renders nuance between subjects and out of focus background that I have not seen in this sigma + it comes lighter, build for and by Sony with those focus hold buttons, I didn't mind the price this time...so enjoyable.
The 24mm 1.4 GM and The 135mm 1.8 GM are GREAT lenses !!! So Sony keep those GM primes lenses comming... Wish for 55mm GM, 300 4.0 GM 400 4.5 GM and more... oh yeah and a macro GM without stabilizer !
Just ordered the Sigma, to use with my Z8. Don't really need 135mm that much, and the Plena is just too expensive for a lens that'll be collecting dust most of the time. Sharpness seems great, the only real concern is focus with the ftz adapter. Great comparison, interesting to see how the Sigma stacks up against the Sony lens.
@@shaolin95 Sigma need to find out how to build lenses for mirrorless cameras and not build in an adapter in every lens. Sigma 24 1.4 weights 50 % more than Sony 24 1.4 GM witch is a much better lens.
I shoot fashion and beauty and I'm by no means a super professional, big name photographer but I have been using a 24-70 and 70-200 for about 2 years now and I've started to move to primes. I use my 55mm 1.4 Zeiss for probably 70% of my compositions, my 24mm GM for those rare occasions where I need to compose wide and I just recently started looking at 85, 100 and 135 lenses to replace my 70-200 but I've quickly found out that since my main lens is a 55mm, the 85mm focal length doesn't really offer anything special compared to the 55mm and I'm not really getting that much closer with it either so for me it was a fight between either the 105mm Sigma or the 135mm GM! I have just decided I will order the 135mm GM because I really don't like how Sigma makes things in the image look... It's hard to explain, it's like I would focus on the model but then everything around the model would be one dimensional and flat, like you couldn't tell how far stuff was from each other, like for example, if you had two cars one behind another, they would literally just look like you glued two car stickers on top of each other, whereas when I tried the 135mm GM, it would make everything look 3D, just like my 55mm Zeiss Otus does and I LOVE THAT kind of look because it reminds me of those old film and cinema lenses! Plus it looks more realistic because it's not just a flat image and for fashion and beauty shots that's SUUUPER useful and makes the model stand out from the environment even at f8, f11 or f16! And the 135mm focal length is MUCH BETTER for head, head n shoulder, waist up, close up and detail beauty shots, since I use 55mm for basically everything else!
First point the definition on the Sony was much better. Secondly work out how many photos you will take using the 135 mm length. If it's into the thoundsands the as you say over there cents a shot would be saved to make up the 500 doller difference,? The most import thing about my lenses is it collects the most dater and in a way that I am pleased with the results. This you know and express often as is right with a review. I think if your a point and hope more frames is better guy then it won't Mather . I really like to compose recompose (then shot like crazy )= not really . I enjoyed seeing the difference in a real😅 world not charts...but please look again at the two lenses . The Sony added detail and therefore shape more pleasing in many ways rather not bad really.. Just waiting for a, Nikon z/s version . I also want to add I have seen on offer the Sony lens for 500 british pounds . So it never takes to long for price drops . Cheers.🎉
Both lenses are superb in terms of image quality, but for peace of mind im gonna spend more $$ for native GM and because of faster AF, lightweight, and not any speed restrictions...
For the price difference? Sony all day. It seems better in every category, and the color difference between the Sigma and the Sony is really throwing me off. I love Sigma; all my lenses are Sigma, but $500 isn’t a terrible price difference in my humble opinion.
Hold on there one second! Why are you saying that neither one of these lenses offer you ISIS? (@5:10) Are there lenses that offer ISIS? Will there be any lenses offering Al’Qaeda?
Great review! Your sense of humor definitely deserves more appreciation haha. I went ahead and picked up the Sony. I think native lenses are always the best choice.
only thing is i hate the lighting in the setup just too flat and it kinda shows up as shining a bit too much on her skin giving a unflattering appearnce. more subtitle lighting could have been better. skin is just too oily and makes a otherwise great photo kinda mehish.
Great video. Can’t decide between GM or Art 85mm for weddings... will you be doing this same sort of video but for the 85s at some point? Might be more interesting as I’ve read there’s more of a difference. Thanks.
I like the Sony lens better. Pity that all the shots are made with a flash (EDIT: LED panel). I'd like to see how the lens shine in pure ambient lighting and I think the Sony will win there on the overall rendering. Some really crispy sharp images, great shots, but I also saw that some of the shared RAW files had motion blur - well, at 135mm with a high-res body, the rule of proportionality does not hold anymore... shooting 50mp with 135 takes often 1/250s and shorter shutter speeds to avoid motion blur in my experience. 42mp is not much easier. :) EDIT 2: The Sony seems to give more depth to the images - e.g. seen on the models' right hand, her legs, the chair and even the carpet. There is more bite to the Sony.
mk0x55 wait until you’ve tested these 2 lenses on the A7RIV...you will see a much bigger difference in sharpness. With the A7RM3 difference was there but subtle. On the A7RIV you really see this lens pull way ahead
Im a Sony fan-boy. The Sigma looked better straight outta the camera. I can fix that EASY in post but that Sigma looked like butter. Still i'd buy the Sony #FanBoyConsistency GREAT VID (again)
tru dat! I got the Sigme 50mm ART and it was a hard blow for the wallet!but the lens is on my top 2 list for sure!its paired with my other lens on the list!Nikkor 20mm f1.8!almost same price which means its expensive!
That's why I'm keeping mine! Lol The Sony looks super sharp, but harsh looking in it's rendition. I'm honestly not a fan... Or a hater just because I own the Art lens. 😁
Yes... But you go into this knowing he will say "Meh" to the Sigma despite it being better (amusing) just like you watch angry photographer knowing he will puke rainbows holding a fuji.
Sony all day! I tried both and honestly in low light the sigma couldn’t even catch the green box in Eye AF, but that’s in harsh backyard party low light shooting, which for events those $500 will get you $1,000 more in return...same in video, the sigma kept back focusing
@@phillgriffith yes I saw that but haven't heard any reviews on the lens works after it's done. I have a Nikon 135 I was thinking about going Sony FE but idk...
@@tristanwilhelm9600 I suspect it will be identical to the what a native FE Sigma would be like. The lens, focus and aperture mechanisms must be the same???
Thanks for the comparison 🙏. Besides, this video makes me feel the world has yet not gone totally nuts, if even guys like you having a team and super routine all together producing RU-vid videos make tiny mistakes like around 5:28, where you mess up IBIS (In Body Image Stabilisation) vs ISIS (some sort of radical political terror organisation in Middle East) and OSS (Sony abbreviation for IS in lens) vs OIS (Fuji and probably also Olympus abbreviation for IS in lens, VR on Nikkor lenses, Canon I don’t know) and even use ISIS for in lens stabilisation. - Some more thing: If you want see how really bokeh looks like, get a Leica M10 and try the Summicron-M 50 as well as 90 and Summilux-M 35. Just creamy. No bubbles, no cat eyes, no swirly.
I just bought ... do you hear the drums? The ... Tada ... Sigma!! And why didn’t I go with the Sony? Was it because I couldn’t afford it? Well, yes, maybe that too... But first of all it was because the Sony doesn’t come in an EF mount version.
Are you calling Canikon terrorist lenses? Actually the closer focusing really does change a lot when shooting portraits (and other subjects) with the DOF becoming much shallower and giving some better bokeh! As far as DOF (not light) the closer shooting gives you perhaps what would be an f/1.4 vs the f/1.8. I think you really get quite a lot more for the extra $500. So far the rumors are it is the sharpest non-supertelephoto (NST) lens available.
