Two weeks ago, I released my review
of the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens.
Well, it must be 50mm February
because today Sony is announcing this
their own 50mm f/1.4 G Master.
Let's get undone!
♪ Gerald Undone ♪
♪ He's crazy. ♪
- What's happening, everybody?
I'm Gerald Undone and sticking feathers
up your butt does not make you a chicken.
So for disclosure, Sony lent me this lens to make this video
I don't get to keep it. No money changed hands,
and Sony does not get any input on this video's production
or get to preview before it's posted.
And the same goes for Sigma with their 50mm,
but that was for the previous video,
but I'm still borrowing it under that same terms.
Not sponsored, no money, no preview.
This video does have an actual sponsor, though,
and that's Storyblocks.
And also I'd like to continue to thank Camera Canada
for the previous lenses that they lent me
for that comparison I did for the Sigma.
Now, if you haven't watched that previous video
on the review of the new DG DN art lens from Sigma,
I highly recommend that you do
because it would take way too long for me to recompare all
of those lenses again against this new one.
So we're gonna be just going off
of the conclusions of that previous video
and comparing that to this new Sony lens.
So please watch the video first
if you're seriously considering buying one
of these 50mm lenses 'cause I think collectively
both videos will really paint a clear picture for you.
Now, when it comes to the actual build and
features of this new lens, it is nearly identical,
which I think is important, to the other recent G Masters
that Sony's been making in the primes:
The 35mm f/1.4, for example. I have it right here,
and you can see that my 35mm on the right compared to 50mm
They're almost like, from a distance..
You can't really tell a difference in, you know.
Weight-wise, they're really hard to tell from just the hand.
There's just a few more features that are now
on the 50mm lens, which I appreciate.
First off, there's now two function buttons
instead of just one.
And there's also the addition of an iris lock switch
which I've said in recent videos
that I really like because it stops me from getting
in that place where I have the aperture set halfway
between A and f/16.
And then you can't change it on your camera,
you wanna know what's going on,
you can put it on A and lock it
and then you're only controlling it on your camera.
But if you do choose to control it on the lens,
it goes all the way from f/1.4 to f/16
And, of course, you can do that clicked or declicked,
whichever you prefer. And then as usual,
you have your AF/MF switch.
Now, when it comes to weather ceiling,
Sony rates lens as being dust and moisture resistant,
but in all the press briefs they always mention
they're not a hundred percent dust and moisture proof,
just resistant. And there's also the fluorine coating
on the front element to repel water and oil.
And there is a pretty sizable gasket around the lens mount
which is nice to see.
Now compared to the Sigma, the more recent one, the DG DN.
That's the one we're gonna be focusing on for this comparison.
Most of the features are the same on both lenses,
which is great.
There's an extra function button on the Sony lens.
And the Sony lens is, you know, considerably shorter.
It's noticeably lighter. I wouldn't say significant
but it is noticeably lighter.
The Sigma comes in at 660 grams
and the Sony G Master is 516 grams.
Now, when it comes to focusing, regarding autofocus first,
this is using Sony's latest and greatest XD Linear motors
which are fast, silent, highly responsive,
great for photo and for video. No complaints about them.
Probably some of the best focus motors in the business.
And usually I would say
that they're leaps and bounds ahead of what Sigma's doing.
But as I mentioned the previous video,
this new lens from Sigma is their first prime to
have their new fast linear motors.
So in this case, the delta between the two
is much, much smaller than it used to be.
And for many users, they probably won't even
notice the difference.
Manual focus is a different story, though.
As I mentioned in my Sigma video,
the focus ring on the Sigma lens is very large
and nicely dampened, and it feels good to move.
But the focus response for Sony cameras is non-linear.
Meaning that if you move it faster, it moves more
than if you move it slower; it doesn't have set points.
This means that you can get good focus pulls
because it is well dampened and the throw is very long,
if you move it slow, but the focus pulls aren't repeatable.
You're gonna have a hard time doing the exact same pull
because it's not linear.
The Sony lens, on the other hand,
is perfectly linear, and that's great.
So you can do repeatable pulls,
but I find it a little bit sloppier. The focus ring:
it's a little bit looser, a little bit smaller.
Now when it comes to focus breathing, I did a roundup
of these lenses, the the three that we talked
about before, and found that the new Sigma was actually,
you know, probably the worst, unfortunately.
The G Master was gonna be a big thing
for me 'cause focus breathing has been an issue
on this G Master, and they told me it was improved,
and it is. It's not gone, but compared to the other 50mm
that we are comparing it to, including the f/1.2 version,
this has the best focus breathing performance
that I've seen. And keep in mind that unlike the Sigma,
if you do have one of the Sony cameras
that has the focus breathing compensation option,
it will work with this lens
to completely eliminate the focus breathing.
Now, I touched on that f/1.2 G Master version from Sony.
Now, I don't have that with me today
to show any direct comparisons,
but I have already used that lens extensively,
and reviewed it,
and I have a pretty good memory of that lens.
And when I did my press brief with Sony,
they also were able to share with me some MTF charts
showing the comparison between the f/1.4 and the f/1.2.
Now, I can't share those with you directly
because they are, you know, secret MTF charts, if you will.
But in that, what I observed basically in the comparison
shots and the MTF charts is that wide open,
the f/1.4 and the f/1.2 are pretty similar in the center.
Out towards the corners, the f/1.4 wide open performs
better than the f/1.2.
In the center, it's remarkable that they're both
equally as sharp, more remarkable to the f/1.2.
But when you stop down both lenses,
the sort of perfect sharpness on both lenses
is achieved sooner on the 1.2.
So you'll get the best results out of that lens
at a wider aperture than you would on the f/1.4.
Let's say it's a f/1.8 versus an f/2.
So you're gonna get that extra third stop
on the f/1.2 when achieving equal sharpness,
if that makes sense.
All right; now let's open up Lightroom,
and I will show you the images that I actually
have captured to compare.
And once again, I'm using the same cameras that I was using
in the previous video, the a1 and the a7R V--high megapixel,
and I have the profiles turned off on all these lenses
so we can see how they look in their uncorrected state.
Okay.
So it looks like there's actually an update for Lightroom.
So while we're wait for that to install
why don't I tell you about today's sponsor Storyblocks?
So sometimes you don't have the shot you need
and there's no way you're gonna be able to go out
and get it before you run outta time, run outta money,
or run outta patience by completely derailing
your creative momentum.
And that's where Storyblocks comes in.
Storyblocks is a stock media platform
that boasts a massive library of high quality assets
aimed to strengthen your video production.
Their subscription model provides predictable costs,
unlimited downloads, and no messing around
with royalty fees or complicated licensing.
They have ample 4K and HD video files, images,
and motion graphics templates that you can use worry-free
for both your personal and commercial projects.
And the platform is intuitive and easy to use.
And new content is added regularly
with a focus on in-demand keywords to
deliver up-to-date assets to satisfy your project.
And if you're a Premiere user Storyblocks now
has a plugin that integrates its entire library right
into Premiere Pro.
If you've never browsed Storyblocks before,
I think you'll be truly impressed by just how exhaustive
and useful their library is, and I encourage you to
learn more about them by
using the link in the description below.
So this first shot is to just show
the Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration
because the chromatic aberration was one
of the biggest weaknesses that I had with the Sigma.
So if we take a look here,
I would say that we're getting somewhat similar results
but maybe slightly better on the G Master
which is on the left.
Okay, now for this one, same thing.
Sony on the left; Sigma on the right.
This one we're gonna look at lateral chromatic aberration,
vignetting and distortion.
And we can see that there actually
is more vignette on the Sigma.
As far as distortion though,
maybe slightly worse on the Sigma.
Definitely both have some noticeable
pin cushion distortion here.
Maybe the Sigma slightly worse, but it's minor.
But the vignetting is significant.
I'm actually noticing the Sony is a little bit sharper here
in the center, and I am noticing, again
more chromatic aberration laterally on the Sigma
which was the biggest issue I noticed
with the Sigma was that red fringing on everything.
And you can see as we move across
that the Sigma has it where the Sony doesn't.
Let's take a look down over here
for some sharpness as we move further across.
Again, much more pronounced chromatic aberration
on the Sigma, less so on the Sony.
Sharpness, though, as we move out, you're pulling hairs here
to try and determine which one of these is sharper.
They're both in pretty good shape, I would say.
To go a little further into that
center versus corner sharpness, here is a shot
where we focused right in the center of this fence.
Now here, I would say the Sony does look
a little bit sharper.
We're at like 230%, and it's minor, but I'm seeing
a little bit more softness around here than I am here.
A little bit of a win in the center to the Sony, for sure.
And if we go up to the edges, this is where I find
that the differences are pretty marginal,
just like we saw saw on the previous chart.
Again, maybe like a really, really small win here
for the Sony, but very, very minor.
But we are seeing that vignetting again
and maybe slightly more distortion.
Now, this was a test that I did with all the lenses
where I stopped them down f/1.4, f/2, and then f/2.8.
And we looked at the text here and this highlighted
sort of the biggest weakness of the Sigma.
And then also where it resolves itself.
So wide-open on both lenses, Sony on the left,
you can see there is much less chromatic aberration
and better sharpness wide-open in the center on the Sony
than there is on the Sigma.
And this, you know, as we go across the frame,
you can see that that's the case here.
But if we stop down to f/2, the Sigma improves dramatically
with the chromatic aberration. The Sony still wins.
And at f/2, the Sony achieves
almost its ideal sharpness already.
You don't even have to really go to f/2.8 on this lens,
but you can see at f/2, the Sony is terrific,
and the Sigma has just improved
to maybe where the Sony was at f1.4.
And then now finally at f/2.8,
I would say they seem interchangeable.
The chromatic operations pretty much resolved in Sigma,
and they look about the same to me.
This almost looks like the same lens to me at f/2.8.
Now, another thing I talked about a lot
in the previous video was close focusing,
and I found that the Sigmas did better than the Planar
when it came to close focusing.
Not only could you get closer and have a bigger reproduction
but it was sharper when doing so.
It was able to prevent some aberration
that sort of gives that glisteny softness
on really close focused subjects.
And I would say the same is actually true.
I still think the Sigma is the choice,
if you like to close focus a lot.
Here, you can see the Sigma on the right is slightly larger.
There's slightly greater reproduction when
at the closest possible focus point.
And if we punch in the center here,
we can see the logo is slightly sharper,
and there is more detail on the Sigma
than there is on the Sony.
So the Sigmas are still doing best for close focusing.
It's minor again,
but if you're somebody who close focuses a tremendous amount
well, again, like I said in the previous video,
don't buy 50mm for that purpose,
but if you really like 50mm, and you like to close focus,
the Sigma is still the better choice.
And the actual numbers on that are 0.41 meters or 1.35 feet.
That's the minimum focusing distance
on the new Sony 50mm f/1.4 G Master.
And by the way, the front filter thread is a 67mm,
the same as the 35mm G Master and so on.
Okay, now let's take a look at bokeh.
And we can see here that they're actually
quite similar from a distance.
Let's punch in, have a closer look.
Yeah, this is really close.
They're both using an 11 bladed iris.
We have slightly bigger orbs on the Sigma
because again, I do these shots at minimum focus.
So because the minimum focus is closer on the Sigma
then you get a bigger outer focus orb in the background.
But that's, that's the reason why it's different.
Instead, we're just looking at the texture of it.
They both do well to not have much of an outer membrane.
They both do well to minimize onion-ringing.
The Sigma is maybe slightly busier than the Sony,
but maybe slightly smoother in the way the iris shapes.
I mean, very, very similar, I would say.
Let's stop them both down to f/2.0 and see what happens.
Yeah, same, maybe slightly more circular on the Sigma
but slightly busier on the Sigma.
But again, I would not choose between these lenses
based on the bokeh.
They're very, very, very similar.
Here is an image that I took at f/16 on the Sony.
If you wanna look at some sunstars
and flair as expected from a G Master,
is incredibly well controlled.
I was darting around a tree trying to get the sun to come in
and it barely lost any contrast in the frame.
And there's very little ghosting and artifacts.
Now, those texture and detail shots that I did
on the Sigma for the previous video, I also did them
on the G Master because I had the lens at the same time.
I so wanted to talk about it in that previous video
but, obviously, it was under embargo.
But, so we can actually look at them side by side like this.
And I find that for just this kind of purpose
where chromatic aberration isn't an issue,
vignette isn't an issue, that kind of thing,
where you're just shooting some stuff at medium close range
and just looking at some details.
They both do a really, really good job, and at first glance,
hard to even really tell the difference between them.
They're so, so, so similar.
Here's another example where they look almost identical.
It's punching in the middle here. That's even closer.
These are so close.
Yeah, slight difference in focus point
but extremely similar.
Even the way that it transitions outta focus
the way that the sort of the blur
in the background is very similar.
Again, look at the way it transitions outta focus.
Look at the color.
They're so, so similar.
And even punching in.
So, you know, we can do test charts, and in that case,
the Sony sort of justifies its price increase
by saying, look, I am better.
I'm better at chromatic aberration.
I'm better at being sharper sooner in aperture
when it comes to the very fine details when you zoom in,
and I'll give that to 'em.
this is the better lens optically, unless close focusing
at the absolute cusp is important to you.
But when it comes to just taking photos of random things,
you can hardly tell the difference
other than some vignetting, you know?
So, but there's profiles for that again.
So if you put profiles on,
you can't tell the difference really
between these two lenses when just shooting practically.
When shooting tests, you can. So it comes down to that.
Is money no issue, and you just want the best f/1.4?
This new Sony is the best f/1.4,
and it's smaller and lighter and it matches.
If you have other G Master like the 35mm or the 24mm,
you're gonna get a more similar experience in that regard.
Or if you rig it up in a certain way
or if you use gimbals a lot
and you wanna swap the lenses around,
you're gonna have a convenience in knowing
lenses are similar in size and weight.
You could say the same thing actually
if you've been buying the Sigmas as well.
If you've got there 35mm or 85mm,
then you're gonna get those conveniences, as well.
But if you're already on the Sony system,
and you wanna keep the lenses congruent,
then you get that advantage.
It is smaller and lighter.
It does does feel better in the hand.
It feels better on a Sony body when it comes to balance
than the Sigma. The Sigma does still have a bit of that sort of
elongated vibe that gives it a little bit
of a forward lean in your wrist when you use it.
So overall, the Sony is a superior lens.
And if that's all you wanted to know,
it's better in pretty much every regard
except for close focusing.
But it's 50% more than the Sigma lens.
And that 50%, in my opinion, only really shows up
as being worth it, if you will,
in those almost synthetic sort of test charts.
It doesn't show up in the real world.
Not 50% better. 5%, 10%, 15% more money, maybe,
but not 50% more money.
Two weeks ago, I released my review of the new 6, 6, 6.
Two weeks ago, I released my review of the new 60mm. 60mm?
Two weeks ago, I released my review of the new
Sigma 50mm f1.4 arrrt. farr farr
(babbling)
It must be 50mm February, because toe-day, toe-day.
So for disclosure Sony lent me this lens to make this video.
They don't get to keep it. They don't get to keep it?
I don't get to keep it. They can keep it if they want.
That's up to them.
Alright...
I'm done.