Today we're discussing this new lens from Sigma.
This is their 50 millimeter f/1.4 Art DG DN,
which is their new designed for mirrorless,
different than the older adapted mirrorless
50 millimeter DG HSM, I believe it was called,
which is basically a big chonker of the original, you know
cannon lens with the Sony E adaptor like built into it.
This is designed specifically for mirrorless
like they did with the 35 and the 85 more recently.
And you can get this lens in L-mount and Sony E-mount.
I've got the E-mount version here
and I borrowed this lens from Sigma.
Obviously the video's not sponsored by Sigma,
they just lent it to me to make this review.
It's gonna go back when the video's done.
They don't get any input on this video's production.
They don't get to see it before it's posted.
But I also borrowed some other stuff,
including from Camera Canada,
the original E-mount 50 millimeter DG HSM
I was talking about from Sigma,
as well as the Zeiss 50 millimeter 1.4 Planar
for comparison to this lens.
And from Sony, I asked to borrow their a7R V
because I wanted to check all these lenses
with the highest megapixels I could get
with the latest Autofocus, et cetera.
And also a note on mechanical shutter.
And I also tested with the a1
but I switched the a7R V when
I was able to borrow that from Sony.
It's really, really wintery out
and really bright and snowy and that kind of thing,
so I'm shooting at a high shutter speed.
And if we're gonna talk about like Bokeh quality
and stuff like that, if you shoot at a high shutter speed
with electronic front curtain,
you can actually create some some different effects
with the Bokeh and so it's not necessarily
a fair comparison.
And the a1 doesn't have the ability
to turn off the electronic front curtain.
You're either in mechanical
with the electronic front curtain or you're in electronic.
There's no individual options.
Where other cameras, a7 IV, a7 III, a7R V,
have the ability to turn,
be in mechanical and turn the electronic front curtain off.
So that's why I decided to do those tests
with the a7R V.
But moving on to the actual physical design of this lens.
So this is similar like I said
to the more recent 35 millimeter that Sigma's made.
And it reminds me, you know, sort of
of a Sony G Master in what they've added to it.
So you've got your aperture ring
which comes with an aperture lock, which I appreciate,
so that I don't get stuck halfway between something
or change my aperture when I don't want to.
And you can set it to clicked or de-clicked
depending on how you like to use that.
There's an AF MF switch and a function button.
It has a 72 millimeter front filter diameter
and the front lens element is protected against, you know
oil and water and that kind of thing, has a coating on it.
And as far as weather sealing, it's rated as being dust
and splash resistant, but it's not as weather sealed
as the sports lenses because this is an art lens,
although it does have a small little rubber gasket
around the lens mount.
Regarding the sports lens comparison,
this is the first art lens and one of the few
of Sigma's lenses to have now like, you know
high powered linear actuators for their focus motors.
I think they're actually called HLA now
which is like high responsive linear actuators
or something like that.
And I think the previous lens that had that
was the Sigma 60 to 600, that sports lens.
So this one now,
I don't think even the 35 and 85 have it,
is the first one that has,
that was like (buzzing) really fast linear motors
that are silent, quick.
You can really feel the difference
for a Sigma lens if you will, when you put it on a
on like a modern Sony body and you just go from, you know
infinity to minimum.
It's super fast, silent, works great in video.
So autofocus is fantastic.
When it comes to manual focus, it's,
it's the same kind of thing that Sigma's been doing
for a little while now where
you have a really well dampened, large focus ring
for manual focus, but it's not linear,
meaning that if you turn it faster
it moves more than if you turn it slower.
But if you do turn it somewhat slowly,
'cause I feel like when people are trying to do focus pulls
they're not like jamming it.
If you do turn it somewhat slowly, the throw is
really long so you actually can get precise manual focus.
It's just not really repeatable is what I would say.
So depending on what's important to you there.
And then if we take a look at some focus breathing here,
this is the new Sigma and we can see
that it breathes quite a bit based on the tape measure.
We can see that it's moving over an inch on the tape measure
and the old Sigma here actually moves less than an inch,
so the focus breathing is better on the old Sigma,
and then the Zeiss is somewhere in between.
It moves slightly more than an inch, but not as bad
as the new Sigma, but worse still than the old Sigma.
And then as far as the more physical comparisons,
this is the best one of these three, in my opinion,
when it comes to how it feels on a Sony body.
It feels like it balances better and, you know
feels better in the hand where obviously
with the original one it's much longer.
So if you wanna see a little comparison here.
So, and the where the sort of center of gravity is,
it really has sort of like a tipping forward feel
when it's on the lens so that that's an improvement.
And then compared to the Planar,
which, you know, is not that different in terms of height
but this one is much girthier and it just feels
heavy and bulky.
Also because it's so much thicker,
there's tripod plate issues that I kind of forgot about
'cause I haven't used the lens in a while,
that when you put them on a Sony mirrorless camera
which are pretty compact, that it actually, you know
sits almost the same (chuckles)
like distance down from the body.
So if you put a long plate on it
it'll actually hit against the lens,
which is annoying and doesn't happen on the Sigma.
All right, so here's some sample images.
Like I said, it's winter here so you're gonna
you're gonna get a lot of snowy photos.
So look at this shot here, nothing fancy
but it just has some branches against a bright background.
And look at all of the fringing basically
on all these branches.
See this red?
And over here you can see that it's green
and then more red,
kind of fits with the Christmas colors of the winter,
but it's not supposed to be red and green
on all these branches.
And it happened in quite a few of the images
that I captured as well.
Another example would be this one here.
Again, all of these little branches have a red,
red fringing on them and it's, and it's rather pronounced
which is what made me want to test all three lenses
on the test charts to compare.
I was like, ah, is this lens
is my lens flawed because this seems like way too much
chromatic aberration, way more than I remember
when I used to use the older art lenses.
So I reached out to Sigma and they said that
it doesn't appear to be anything wrong
with the photos I sent based on them
assessing my raw images.
So let's look at the actual, the charts that I shot then.
We've got, this is the DG DN here, this is the new one.
So if we punch in right here, this is where I focused
and we can see that there is some longitudinal
chromatic aberration LoCA going this way.
You know, we get that, like I said
that green and that red here.
But if we compare this to the original art lens,
the HSM art lens, and we punch in, it's actually worse.
The original art lens was worse.
I just, I guess I'm not remembering what these
50 mil 1.4 art lenses looked like and this one's like,
you know, neon green and purple.
So it's, it's even sort of like a worse coloring
in my opinion in terms of it standing out.
And even more sort of like laterally along this line here
do we see that fringing.
This is the, the Planar here
and I would actually say that it's quite comparable to,
maybe a little bit better, to the new Sigma.
We can do a little side-by-side here.
Yeah, I mean what do you think?
Pretty similar I would say in terms of you know,
how much of that red magenta and how much of the teal color
we're getting in the frame.
So you know, bang for the buck we're getting the, the same
or better than the, than the Zeiss for less money
but it's not perfect.
I would say the biggest issue that I have with
the Sigma version is that it seems to show up
really pronounced in these type of wintery scenes.
It just happened to be unfortunate 'cause it's winter here
so you're getting all that fringing all over those branches
if you're shooting out in the snow.
And then I did this kind of chart as well.
This is the new DG DN and Lightroom corrections are off
so you can see how much distortion
the 50 mil actually has.
Hey, Editor Gerald here.
I just wanted to make a quick note
about something that I didn't mention
in the original recording,
which is that Sigma actually sent over a Lightroom profile.
I don't think anybody's ever done that before.
Normally you get the lens and you have to, you know
decide how to compare it whether without profiles
or with profiles because you don't have the profile yet
for the brand new lens.
But in this case I do.
So I can actually show you the distortion
and vignetting both profile on and off.
So we just discussed off, now if we look at these ones here.
So here I have the new Sigma
with that pin cushion distortion
and if I enable the profile corrections,
we can see that the distortion is mostly corrected,
as well we're getting some vignetting correction.
The peripheral illumination is, it's brightening up
around the outside edges there as you can see.
And if we compare that to the old Sigma art lens on and off,
we can see that the distortion
isn't really changing that much.
But there is some vignetting correction going on,
but not as much.
And then the Zeiss here again has a little bit
of pin cushion to be corrected, which we can see there
and a little bit of peripheral illumination,
the vignetting correction but not as much.
Okay, now let's talk about bokeh.
So this is at f/1.4 minimum focus.
This is as big as the orbs are gonna get
and we can take closer look at them.
Yikes.
They're good in the sense that they are
pretty even throughout and not much of
not much of sort of an outer thing.
They're a little bit busy on the inside though.
And as we move out toward the edge
we are getting a bit of a cat's eye effect going on.
And then if we stop down to f/2,
we're mostly rounding out.
We do still have a little bit of something
going on here though as far as you know,
cutting into the circles,
and the 11-bladed iris is doing well
to maintain circular performance at f/2.
I would say that the old Sigma on the right
actually appears to have less cat's eye effect.
It might be slightly smoother.
Okay, they did well,
the new Sigma removed some of this outer ring,
which is nice, but perhaps the insides,
the sort of onion rings
or whatever you wanna call this is less,
maybe less noticeable on the old Sigma.
Really we're, we're getting pretty nitpicky here.
If you were to just do it as a glance like this
you would probably say that's the same lens.
Okay, now if we compare to the Zeiss,
the Zeiss is quite smooth at times,
but I think we can definitely see the blades a little bit
more pronounced on the Zeiss than we can on the Sigma.
Alright, now we've just got another detail, sharpness,
and color comparison here as I stop down too
to sort of see what the sweet spot is on these lenses.
So this is the the new Sigma, the DG DN.
I know that this is the new Sigma because of the
red fringing on the text.
It's not supposed to look like that.
As we stop down though, we get rid of it.
As far as sharpness though, it's good by the way.
So let's stop down to f/2,
and it subsides pretty significantly
and the detail does improve.
So there's a significant improvement going to f/2
and then even f/2.8.
I'm seeing better clarity in this,
this strange text up here.
And then at this point
the aberration is almost completely gone.
If we switch back to the 1.4 and then back to the 2.8
you can really see this is the old HSM art.
So at 1.4 we're gonna see some of that purple around it.
And if we go to f/2, again noticeable improvement.
F/2.8 not as much of an improvement,
but now when comparing those f/2.0's on both lenses,
yeah, I would say they're actually pretty similar.
This is a tough call.
As it moves across the frame though
there's an advantage for the new Sigma.
Can definitely see that here.
Yeah, definitely the new Sigma definitely has an advantage
as you move out toward the edge.
Okay, now let's take a look at the Zeiss.
This is the Planar at 1.4.
Again, not as bad with aberration,
we're not seeing that red outline, but still pretty soft.
f/2.0, decent improvement,
f/2.8, significant improvement.
Here we can see when we compare the 2.8 of the new Sigma
on the left to the 2.8 of the Planar on the right.
That at 2.8 the Planar wins both
in center sharpness and just basically throughout the frame.
Yeah, this is sharper on the right
and the text here,
yeah, it's,
yeah, it's a significant advantage.
So if you're getting this lens to shoot wide open,
they're all within a certain realm of being comparable.
As you stop down, the Planar wins.
And in the corners,
the Planar, both lenses actually beat the old Sigma
and the Planar maybe beats the new Sigma a little bit.
But as far as wide open per dollar,
the new Sigma is probably the winner.
Best performance in the first couple stops
probably still goes to the Planar.
But per dollar, I don't know
if you can justify paying the the Planar price anymore.
As far as color reproduction,
by the way while we're in here,
I actually find the Zeiss to be maybe the most neutral,
a little bit, a little bit magenta, but fairly neutral.
The old Sigma is quite warm
and the new Sigma is a little bit less.
It's halfway in between the old Sigma and the Zeiss
but the Zeiss I think probably has the best color.
Now let's talk about close focusing.
So these images are as close
as I could get to the Rubik's cube
while keeping the center text as sharp as I could as well.
This one here is the old HSM Sigma.
Really, really good.
Let's zoom right in here.
Really, really good sharpness for the center here.
And overall size,
if we compare to the new Sigma
we're actually getting pretty similar results.
The new Sigma is maybe slightly sharper
and if we look at the size, the Rubik's cube, new old,
but compared to the Zeiss, a little bit further away
as you can see.
And I tried quite a few shots on the Zeiss
to get the center to look as sharp as the Sigmas.
If we compare this one to that one
you can see it's a little bit softer and I just couldn't.
I tried manual focusing, I tried doing high burst
where we like move like an increment at a time,
tried using autofocus,
and it just wasn't quite as sharp when close focusing.
So if you do a lot of close focusing,
either Sigma will give you a sharper,
sharper little details in the center of the, you know,
the little object that you're trying to bring up
than you will on the Planar.
But then again, if you're trying to do close focusing,
50 mil sucks for close focusing.
All these ones,
they're all in the same zone of like a 0.4 meters.
I'll tell you what the, what the new Sigma is 0.45 meters,
1.45 feet.
And pretty much any 50 mil I've ever used
is in that kind of like 0.4 to 0.45 meters,
which mixed with the focal length means
that you're not gonna get that good of macro reproduction.
So 50 mil is just, that's not where it shines at all.
But if you need a 50 mil and you also like to close focus,
then the Sigmas do perform better in this regard.
And then this one's to see what LoCA looks like
when, you know, shooting something in an actual
let's call it a practical environment.
I mean nobody, who shoots a fence like this,
but it really highlights if there's much of a LoCA problem.
And you know, there's some, as we saw on the chart
that there is some fringing here
and there's some fringing as we go out of focus
of the direction.
It doesn't show up as badly in a shot like this
as it does with flat branches against the background,
that sort of red, you know,
lateral mixed with the deeper with the green,
like those back lip branches are horrendous
on the new Sigma.
Do not get it for that purpose.
But you know, in a scene like this
where there's a lot of depth and complexity,
it's not as bad.
And then this is just some detail shots, you know, whatever.
I was just trying to see,
you know, what the little micro contrasts look like
when you get some sunlight on a texture.
And I was quite pleased with just sort of the overall
texture of these shots.
I think that it looks pretty good.
And these examples, I was happy with the detail, looks good.
And then sunstars and flair,
really pronounced sunstars I found on this lens
compared to some other ones that I've done,
you know, recently.
But there is also some flair.
I would say that compared to the G Masters,
I'm noticing actually more pronounced sunstars
on this lens but slightly worse flair,
if that, if that's worth anything to you.
And then I did this shot to get some sort of like
what we'll call it natural bokeh instead of
shooting fairy lights.
And so if I, if I out to focus the background
and focus instead on something up close,
this is what the out-of-focus orbs look like
on the new Sigma.
And pretty much the same result.
We're getting cat's eyeing over here,
but reasonably smooth when in the center of the frame.
Only a couple like this one
are we seeing any of that sort of onion ring.
But overall, pretty good result.
So really there's not a lot to complain about
with this new Sigma lens.
It really is a great option.
I don't love the, the chromatic aberration
in certain scenes, but in other scenes it's, you know
equal to the Planar and which, but for much cheaper.
So I would say the biggest difference
when it comes to optical quality,
if I already owned one of these 50 mill lenses,
I don't know that I would say
it's worth selling or switching or whatever.
If you were a new customer to 50 mil,
you needed a new 50 mil lens for your Sony system let's say,
then this is probably the one that I would buy
just due to size and weight
and pretty similar optical quality.
But the autofocus is probably the biggest difference.
So if there was, if there's two reasons
to actually sell what you got to switch to this one
it would be size and weight,
if you're breaking your back with the old lenses,
or you're just not comfortable using them,
or you need much better autofocus performance
or video autofocus performance,
then this lens is night and day better.
And if you're looking for a new lens for video, again,
this is the one to get compared to these two.
Now before I go,
for my fellow YouTubers and content creators out there,
I want to tell you about this promotion going on with vidIQ.
vidIQ, for those of you that don't know, is a suite of tools
that helps creators grow their YouTube channel
by providing extremely useful insights
into a past videos performance
and tips and ideas to accelerate future videos.
I've used a few of these platforms
throughout my YouTube journey
but vidIQ is definitely the best
and the one I recommend most.
And my favorite new feature by far
is the integration of AI into their platform
for both helping generate titles and video ideas,
but also this new AI YouTube coach
that's powered by ChatGPT.
I can't easily put into words how useful
and entertaining this technology is for YouTube planning,
but it's a game changer.
Now, while vidIQ does have several different pricing options
depending on your needs,
the AI functions are soon gonna be limited to the boost plan
or higher, which costs $49 per month.
But as a vidIQ partner,
I'm able to offer my viewers a 30-day trial for just $1,
which will include all the AI tools as well.
After the trial, the price will return to normal,
but this gives you a chance to see
if it's useful for your channel and growth.
Now, for full transparency,
vidIQ isn't paying directly for this video,
but they are offering me a substantial cut
of the revenue generated by any of your signups
and recurring monthly payments,
which is something I appreciate
because there's a lot of lousy affiliate programs out there,
but vidIQ isn't one of them.
So if you like this channel,
know that you'll also be supporting me directly
by signing up for vidIQ,
while also getting incredible tools
to help grow your own channel quickly.
Thanks for listening and thanks for watching the video.
Alright... I'm done.