Good morning everyone.
Today, I want to show you how the exact same scene looks with 4 different APSC focal lengths:
- 23mm (35mm equiv)
- 90mm (135mm equiv)
- 140mm (200mm equiv)
- 300mm (450mm equiv)
Which one is your favourite?
#lenscomparison
Comparing Sigma’s New 18-50mm f/2.8 to Sony’s 16-50 f/3.5-5.6
Sigma today announced its new 18-50mm /f2.8 DC DN lens -- a small zoom lens for mirrorless cameras with APS-C sensors -- and photographer Gordon Laing decided to see how it compared to Sony's 16-50 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.
Sigma claims that it is the smallest and lightest f/2.8 zoom lens for APS-C mirrorless cameras on the market and the size and relative affordability makes it not just a viable but a compelling option to photographers who shoot with Sony E and Leica M-mounts according to PetaPixel 's Ryan Mense in his review.
While Laing forms his own opinions on the lens in the video above that are certainly worth your attention, he also decided to test the performance against Sony's 16-50 f/3.5-5.6 -- both of which he mounted on a Sony a6400 -- to see how it performs and which would be a smarter buy.
It should be noted that the Sigma lens is nearly double the price of the Sony kit lens, but since both lenses are seen as "kit" options, both are likely on the radar for new photographers who are looking to find a capable, compact, and lightweight all-in-one zoom lens.
In a landscape photography test, Laing found that the Sigma at its widest 18mm delivers sharp corners and detail throughout, while Sony, shot at 16mm, shows a dramatic difference and fails to keep up. Zooming in to 35mm on both lenses, Sony delivers a sharper image but still lags behind the performance of the Sigma.
When used as portrait lenses and shot at 50mm, the Sony lens has to increase its aperture to f/5.6 while Sigma benefits from an f/2.8 throughout the zoom range, which contributes to the differences in defocused backgrounds that can be seen behind Laing.
Sigma portrait at 50mm f/2.8 Sony portrait at 50mm f/5.6
Also at 50mm with both lenses set to their widest available aperture, Laing demonstrates a much shallower depth of field and the difference in the appearance of the bokeh. He concludes that Sigma offers a step up in rendering quality over the basic Sony kit zoom.
Sigma bokeh at 50mm f/2.8 Sony bokeh at 50mm f/5.6
In a similar manner to still portraits, when it comes to videos, Sigma again offers more opportunities for blurring in the background behind the subject compared to Sony. In the focus breathing test, Sigma comes out at the top as a better choice for videographers, too.
However, Sony's lens has a motorized zoom which is likely appreciated by videographers as it is able to deliver smoother and more consistent zooming. Sony's lens also has optical stabilization, a feature that Sigma's lens lacks. Each of the two lenses will suit shooters depending on the features they find crucial for their work and what they are willing to compromise on.
Laing believes that the Sigma lens proves to be a good zoom lens consideration for both stills and video shooters but he also says that he wishes the company had released a version of it for Canon's EF mount to make it accessible to other APS-C shooters.
More of Laing’s reviews and educational videos can be found on his YouTube channel and at Camera Labs, while his photographic work can be seen on his Instagram.
Image credits: All images by Gordon Laing and used with permission.
#comparisons #equipment #reviews #apsc #apscmirrorless #gordonlaing #kitlens #lenscomparison #sigma #sigma1850mm #sony #sony1650mm #sonya6400 #zoomlens
Sigma Versus Sony: Which E-Mount 35mm f/1.4 Lens is Better?
Within a few months of each other at the beginning of 2021, both Sony and Sigma announced 35mm f/1.4 lenses for full-frame Sony E-mount cameras. They were just begging for a comparison to be made.
This is not the first foray into the 35mm f/1.4 landscape for either company. Sony had the Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZA available for full-frame mirrorless cameras since 2015. On the other hand, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM ART lens has an E-mount but functionally is the older DSLR design fitted with a non-removable converter. In both cases, the new lenses compared here are not updates, but completely original designs. Let’s take a closer look at the Sony 35mm f/1.4 G Master and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art to determine which new lens comes out on top.
Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art
Design and Build Quality
Looking at the lenses side by side, the most apparent difference in form would be that the Sigma is longer. In practical use, the extra length was never a problem in finding a spot in my bag or with handling. If you run a very tight photography setup with limited space and an extra half-inch here means taking away a half-inch of gear elsewhere, this might be a problem. For most of us though, it’s not a deal-breaker.
The same goes for the weight, where the Sony is a quarter-pound lighter. Like with the slight difference in size, the weight is not enough of a difference that I find could influence any purchasing decision on its own. I respect that the Sony lens achieves these marks, but at the end of the day, I can’t say it’s extremely important comparatively. We aren’t talking two inches and almost two pounds of difference like the Sony 14mm f/1.8 GM versus Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM.
Continuing the theme of non-difference makers, both lenses share 67mm threading for filters, meaning one won’t have any extra hidden ownership cost over the other in this area.
Both lenses feature the same set of controls including the focus and aperture rings, aperture de-click switch, focus hold button, and focus mode switch. The aperture ring can either be set to specific f-stop numbers manually or be controlled through the camera using the “A” setting.
Surprisingly, it’s Sigma that goes a step above here with the addition of an aperture locking switch. This prevents the aperture ring from moving off of the “A” setting, which avoids the scenario where the camera doesn’t want to respond to aperture changes and the photographer only later realizes the ring had mistakenly moved to manual. Points go to Sigma for thinking of this because it’s not uncommon for the aperture settings to get twisted while mounting the lens to a camera or throughout use when my hand works in that area while shooting.
Spending a couple of weeks with the lenses is not going to paint the full picture of build quality, but I did my best. Throughout my time on the island of Kauaʻi, I dealt with plenty of dust, rain showers, sand, wet surfaces, humidity, and sudden temperature changes. Even after the most trying conditions, there were no apparent ill effects on either lens. This is not to say nothing will develop over time, but they both seemed trustworthy enough to not baby around as far as my limited time could tell.
Image Quality
This is what it all comes down to. When I think about the differences between the Sony and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses, and why someone would pay $500 more for the Sony, these are the three main reasons I can come up with.
Distortion
The very first thing I noticed when shooting identical frames with both lenses is the distortion differences. In the example below, I’ve drawn a line above the horizon to more plainly see that the Sigma exhibits barrel distortion whereas the Sony is very well controlled.
Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art
Of course, barrel distortion is not the end of the world and can be automatically corrected while importing images to RAW processing software. I can spin an “advantage” to the Sigma in that it also gives more field of view to a scene over Sony. Say I’m photographing in a forest with no easily identifiable horizon line; it may be welcome to have more of the scene in my composition at the cost of distortion that no one can even tell is there.
Sony on the left, Sigma on the right. Sigma Sony Sony Sigma
Sharpness
Both the Sony and Sigma lenses have enough apparent sharpness that crosses the threshold of being good lenses to being great lenses. However, at the extreme edges of the frame with the Sigma, there is more of a drop-off of sharpness with photos taken wide open compared to Sony. The Sony lens keeps things together remarkably well. When stopped down to f/8 in the example below, both lenses are identical in sharpness.
Sony 35mm at f/1.4, full crop top right corner. Sigma 35mm at f/1.4, full crop top right corner. Sony 35mm at f/8, full crop top right corner. Sigma 35mm at f/8, full crop top right corner.
Related to lens sharpness, I’ll add that when I compared vignetting, flaring, and color fringing, I found that all of these are equally well controlled. Jumping to the section below, you’ll find some ghosting and aberrations crop up in the Sigma f/1.4 and Sony f/8 images.
Bokeh
I also compared the out-of-focus qualities of these lenses. Both feature an 11-bladed circular aperture, which for quick reference is a step up from the 9-bladed aperture that their predecessors I mentioned at the beginning of this article used. More aperture bladed should mean even more perfectly circular bokeh with less noticeable straight edges, and that’s exactly what we get.
The difference I see is how defined the out-of-focus edges are. With Sony, the edges of the bokeh balls melt away and into each other. Sigma on the other hand has a more distinguished shape and each ball holds up as its own rather than smearing.
Honestly, it’s two different looks and I wouldn’t necessarily say one is better than the other. It depends on personal taste. If you like to shoot with out-of-focus lights in the frame, the Sigma might actually have more pop and more of a "wow" factor. That said, Sony’s lens will likely be a touch better at blowing out unsightly backgrounds into indistinguishable bokeh pudding and for that, I would consider it the more traditional winner in this area.
Autofocus
Neither lens totally blew me away in autofocus performance at f/1.4 when paired with the Sony a7R III. Both are perfect for less demanding autofocus needs like face tracking a person around the frame or Animal Eye AF for pet portraits, but when it came to tracking anything faster, neither performed well most of the time.
After tinkering away with my camera’s tracking sensitivity settings and seeing if the Sigma and Sony were just a little finicky on their preferences, I deemed both lenses equal in their autofocus performance when paired with the a7R III.
Sony at f/1.4 Sigma at f/1.4 Sony at f/1.4 Sigma at f/1.4 Sony at f/1.4 Sigma at f/1.4
It's a Good Year to Buy a 35mm Lens
At the beginning of this comparison, I wrote that the size and weight were nothing that distinctly made a winner, but throughout testing it was clear the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM always had as slight of an edge as it did in those two physical categories. There was never any single area that instantly crowned it a winner, but Sony holds an edge nonetheless. It’s after compounding everything I threw at the two lenses that the slight edge-case wins added up.
Sony is the winner of this comparison, and I think it’s worth spending the extra $500 for it considering the lifetime of lens ownership.
But wait! It needs to be said that the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art is not bad by any means. I’m sure there will be some of you who will compare these two lenses and decide for yourself that the Sigma is still the better value, and that is completely reasonable. The Sony is my winner, but there was no loser.
#comparisons #equipment #reviews #35mmlens #comparison #emount #emountlens #gmaster #lenscomparison #lensreview #sigma35mmf14dgdnart #sony35mmf14 #sonyemount #wideanglelens
Leica 24-70mm f/2.8 Versus Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8: Is There a Difference?
While reviewing the Leica 24-70mm f/2.8, I was able to spend some time with a lens from Sigma that has been accused of being the exact same lens in a rehoused body. But is it?
_Editor 's note: The following evaluation is meant to be viewed after reading the full review of the Leica 24-70mm f/2.8, as most of the information below focuses on showing how the Sigma lens performs in comparison to those results and is written from the assumption that readers have familiarized themselves with the same assessment of the Leica lens.
Special thanks to LensRentals for providing the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN for the purposes of this comparison._
Side by side, the Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-70mm f/2.8 ASPH lens is very similar to the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN Art Lens: the focus and zoom rings appear to be practically identical. The main visible differences lie in the shape and material of the lens hoods, the shape of the barrel near the lens mount, the presence of an AF/MF switch that is only found on the Sigma, and the solid metal material that is unique to the Leica.
As mentioned in the Leica 24-70mm review, when using the Leica lens on a Leica system, you can simply override the autofocus by adjusting the manual focus ring which arguably removes the need for the AF/MF toggle switch. Even if the optics are the same as both lenses, the Leica version does have a slight advantage in the durability department that comes from having a metal housing, but that makes it slightly heavier than the Sigma version as a result.
The Sigma lens weighs about 100 grams less than the Leica version, and while this isn't really a significant difference, it does at least seem noticeable when hand-holding the camera, since the system is just that much less front-heavy. As for the comfort and ergonomics, both feel very much the same. Sleek, responsive, smooth to the touch, with both versions of the lenses focus and zoom rings responding at nearly identical speeds.
Visually, it does feel like more of the "status symbol" when shooting with the Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL version mounted versus the more subtle Sigma lens. Even though the camera was always the Leica SL-2, the system as a whole felt less flashy when I used the Sigma Art lens. There is just something about seeing the yellow text on the side of the lens that stands out.
Before We Test…
To test these lenses, I used a Leica SL-2 and found that, effectively, the images from both of these lenses were incredibly similar to one other, but there were some noticeable performance differences when using the Sigma lens on the Leica SL-2 body that I will get to in a moment. It is also worth noting that for the purpose of this comparison, no lens-profile adjustments were made to the images shown in this post, so the corner behavior can be plainly seen from lens to lens. I also want to mention that in my testing, simply applying the lens profile for the Sigma lens in post-production makes the RAW images look nearly identical to one another.
Performance & Bokeh
As far as image quality, colors, and sharpness are concerned, both lenses perform incredibly well with nearly identical images coming out of each lens. Where they differ, however, is most noticeable while actually shooting. While the autofocus on the SL-2 is nowhere near as fast as the new generation of mirrorless systems From Nikon, Sony, or Canon, there is a significant performance difference between each of these lenses on a Leica camera.
For instance, if for example, an autofocus task were to take 0.5 to one second to lock on to an object with the Leica lens, the Sigma lens would take 1.5 to 2.5 seconds in the identical situation. This behavior was consistent regardless of the environment or lighting.
The images all came out sharp and clean in both cases, but the time to autofocus with the Sigma lens always took noticeably longer. On a Leica SL-2, this delay made using the Sigma version almost unusable when I attempted to shoot a moving subject wide open.
Sigma 24-70mm DG DN Art at 24mm and f/8 Leica Vario 24-70mm f/2.8 at 24mm and f/8
I also noticed that the camera was slower to boot up when I used the Sigma lens versus the Leica lens, which leads me to believe these issues are caused by firmware that could, theoretically, be adjusted by Leica in the future. Additionally, the Sigma lens does have very noticeable distortion and vignetting present (on the wide focal lengths) in the RAW files when compared to the same shots using the Leica lens. These issues are quickly and easily removed with the built-in lens profiles in editing applications like Capture One and Adobe Lightroom, but the issue definitely stands out when you compare the RAW files side by side.
Leica Vario 24mm at f/2.8 Sigma Art 24mm at f/2.8
While the bokeh patterns appear very similar between the Leica and Sigma lenses, what is also apparent is that there is a difference in the "bokeh zone" between these two lenses. Below is an example of a photo shot at the minimum focus distance at f/2.8 with both lenses with the (camera left) eye as the focal point. You may notice the Sigma lens is a little more front-focused.
Sigma 70mm at f/2.8 Leica 70mm at f/2.8
Beyond this short list of differences, as noted the lenses are otherwise quite similar.
Additional Sample Images
Leica 70mm at f/2.8 Sigma 70mm at f/2.8 Leica 70mm at f/8 Sigma 70mm at f/8 Leica 24mm at f/8 Sigma 24mm at f/8 Sigma 70mm at f/2.8 Leica 70mm at f/2.8 Leica 70mm at f/8 Sigma 70mm at f/8
Strengths and Weaknesses
Both of the lenses score well in the overall image quality department in my opinion. However, the Leica outperforms the Sigma lens significantly in autofocus speed on the Leica SL-2 system. This is probably not an issue that extends beyond Leica camera bodies, though. Even though both lenses have "slower" autofocus performance than other full-frame mirrorless systems on the market, if speed is important to you, then the Leica version is definitely the winner here if you plan to use it on a Leica camera.
If you use these lenses on an L-mount system other than Leica, the ability to quickly change the AF/MF mode using the button(s) on the Sigma lens is a definite advantage.
One thing is clear though: as much as the optical formula appears to be the same on both lenses, they certainly have some notable differences that make it difficult to label the Leica just a "rehoused" Sigma. While optically identical, there are other factors to consider.
Sigma Strengths
- Slightly less weight
- Costs significantly less money than the Leica lens
- More subtle than the Leica lens for travel/street photography
- AF/MF, Lock, and programmable button available on the Sigma lens
Leica Strengths
- Leica's metal lens looks and feels better than the Sigma plastic version
- "Lens Profile" seems to be applied automatically with the Leica system
- Looks and feels more professional than Sigma version
- Works better on Leica cameras
The Same, But Different
Over the course of testing these lenses, other than the physical differences (since we can compensate for the vignetting in post quickly), the only real variations between these lenses seem to be the prices and the autofocus speed performance on Leica cameras. Another big difference is the price: the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN Art Lens for Leica L is available for just $1,099 while the Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-70 f/2.8 ASPH Lens is $2,795. If you're shooting on Leica, that might be worth it for superior autofocus speed. Everyone else will find very few reasons to select the Leica over the Sigma, especially when the latter is available for almost three times less.
The Verdict
While the Sigma lens may have a few additional features with the AF/MF switch and button, the lenses have basically the same performance. Optically speaking, the images are nearly identical with only very subtle differences when shot at the lens's respective focal and aperture extremes, so you won't be making a bad choice either way. In the end, you'll just have to make your decisions based on personal preference, the intended use of the lens, and how much you want to spend.
#comparisons #equipment #reviews #2470mm #artlens #comparison #lmount #leica #leicavario #leicavssigma #lenscomparison #review #sigma #sigma2470mmf28dgdnart #sigmavsleica
Client Info
Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.04
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst