The comparisons you do are by far the most helpful/informative side by sides I've seen. No gimmicks, no BS, just informative and very easy to watch/listen to. Thanks mate! Am picking up the Sigma 50mm Art second hand, so help you out by buying through affiliate link so dropped you a few $$ via the support link. Appreciate you work!
This was an exceptionally good comparison/review, and I say that having watched all of the major CZcams photography channels. You even made the resolution and focus analysis technically engaging without a test chart with all those patterns on it. That Sigma ART lens is a winner.
I'm somewhat new to photography but I've watched a lot of product reviews and comparisons. This should be a textbook example on how to do a short, concise and very informative review. A joy to watch.
The most comprehensive, straightforward and sensibly conscise video comparison on these two lenses out of the other five vids I've seen. Nice job. Thanks.
Superb. No annoying talking heads or funny mannerisms, hairstyles, T-shirts. No showing off the expensive studio and it equipment, no name-dropping, no poorly disguised allusions to how great and successful you are. No bias to any brand (i.e. no fanboyism!). Just good, useful information, presented in a clear and interesting way. And although the Sigma lens seems to be the winner on most of the things tested we can still decide in favour of the Canon (lighter, weather sealed) when what we want most is a beautifully blurred background and maximum subject-separation. For landscapes and cityscapes, we can use a slower (and cheaper!) lens that is better corrected at smaller apertures but that would be necessary only if it made any difference at the sizes we print or display.
It's an awesome lens for bokeh, no doubt about that, and it's actually better on mirrorless, IMHO, since the direct focusing is more reliable with that shallow depth of field.
Good Comparison, thank you very much. My thoughs as i own the 85mm 1.2 and use it 85% of the time, at least: - Noise: doesn´t matter - Resolution: my 85mm 1.2 is cristal clear in the center, anything else doesn´t matter. Maybe i was just lucky. If you spend the extra buck because of 1.2 instead of 1.4 you (should) use it at 1.2 nearly all the time...if you use it at 1.4 mostly you bought the wrong lens. - Sealing: Matters! - Weight: Doensn´t matter - Vignette: lol i even like that, i add more in post - bad borders: doesn´t matter, this is no landscape or architecture Lense after all...and if you want to use it for that Stop 8 and Tripod are mandatory anyway. For my style it even helps if the center is the most importend section. - Bokeh: Next to sharp center the most important point. - Price: Does matter!
Wow! it's 9 years later and you blow most lens review channels out of the water. This was a breath of fresh air, most lens reviews are just weekend cheer leaders for what ever lens they found on ebay recently that they can write a review about. I swear you could put a trash kit lens from the 2010 in front of them and they would celebrate it and pull buzz words out their ass like film-like and "it has character".
Your review was spectacular. Most camera reviewers read spec sheets and press releases or discuss strengths and weaknesses without concrete real world examples. Your video is extremely professional and well produced and I learned something having watched it. Thanks for taking the time to create valuable and stimulating content. Being a Nikon user, I would like to see you use your abilities to talk about what you see as the advantages and disadvantages of the Sony, Canon, and Nikon systems as well as the mirrorless Olympus and Fujifilm offerings.
I have the sigma since three years and used it for a lot of jobs, extremely sharp lens, but it's too heavy (I use 50mm as my main lens for 95% of my pictures) and often has an unimpressive rendering, lacks a lot of pop and micro contrast. It's an old lens and everything but I find the Canon 50mm 1.2 to have a lot more character and microcontrast, I'm going to switch between the two. Then, if your main purpose is shooting landscapes wide open ok maybe sigma is a better choice, but for portraiture (and shooting people in general) there's no competition between the two. And, sigma 50mm is often inconsistent in focusing, at least my copy but I read that it's a really common issue, more likely than not.
This is one of the best lens reviews i've ever seen. I am a Sigma fan. I am now glad to see that Sigma beats Canon with most of the conditions and specs including much less price. I just discovered your channel but i will also watch other reviews in a short while. I can simply say i will recommend this review to all my friends who are insisting Canon is much more better than Sigma. I use sigma 35mm 1.4 art and 35mm is incredible lens for weddings, landscape or Daily Street photography. Once again thanks for this helpful review.
Great review - I'm looking seriously at the Sigma (my first non-Canon L lens), so I was a little concerned, but your review clearly shows that the Sigma is better.
Another problem many review forgot to mention, sigma is actually darker than canon at the same aperture ISO shutter speed, about 2/3 stops maybe. Probably due to its lens coating.
This is the cream of reviews Matt. Thank you for not wasting our time. Subscribed for that fact alone! One question - in the later comparisons, you’ve listed both sides as Canon. Was that in error? You have Canon 50mm f/1.4 on the left and Canon 50mm f/1.2L on the right. Just curious. Thanks again for a STELLAR video. - David
Hey David, Glad you liked it :-) Yes, this video was my first attempt at using chunks of previous videos as templates to speed up production, and it led to all sorts of errors like that. I fixed some of them and re-published the video (which is where the (fixed) part of the title came from, but I didn't catch everything. Back when this was published, CZcams had a feature that allowed me to overlay the correct camera names, so I didn't need to upload a new copy, but that feature has since been disabled. Oh well :-) You probably got the general idea.
Matthew Gore - Thanks for answering back so quickly:) Yup, got the idea right away! I’m sold either way. Please keep the content coming if you can. Between you and Mark Bone, I’ll be up and running in no time. Thanks again Matt!✨
Great review. You have quite the presentation. I have a Sigma 1.8 which I love. Thinking of selling the Canon lenses I have and get this the 1.4 I appreciate your efforts here!
IMPORTANT! The Canon is actually longer than 50 and the Sigma is a true 50. Most big brand 50mm lenses are actually 51.something millimeters because that's just one of those photography things handed down from the past when 50mm lenses weren't precisely 50.
This was bloody brilliant. Have been trying to find a replacement for my nifty fifty 1.8, because it's softer than the results of a particularly spicy curry, and the detail you go in to has helped convince me (after my own in-store test shots with it too, versus Canon's ~£300 1.4) that the Sigma is definitely a good deal at the price it's at now. Thanks for being so thorough!
Great comparison video, I own the Sigma and gave my nifty fifty away. Sigma 50 is an amazing lens but is heavy as you pointed out. Thought about changing to a larger 1.2 aperture but this video has convinced me to continue bearing the weight. Sigma garners quite a few compliments on it’s appearance and the magazine quality photos. They can make an everyday pic look like a professional photoshoot product.
Matthew, thanks for your review again I was thinking to get the canon 50mm f 1.2.....until i watch this now....Should i go for Sigma? Great video. Plus the Sigma is about $400 cheaper? Thanks!
+LOLA'S STUDIO Unless you really don't like the bokeh on the Sigma (some people don't, I guess), I'd go with the Sigma. It's very sharp, and the AF is pretty fast and reliable. Not much wrong with it, except that it's big and heavy for a 50mm lens.
+Matthew Gore I like the bokeh on the Sigma more hahaha and yes most pix from the Sigma lens are sharper than the Canon....But yes it is bigger and heavier.......but that is $400 diff....Thanks again for your quick response.
Clipped bokeh circles and onion rings are not exactly attractive in terms of bokeh so I'd take the Sigma over the Canon 1.2 any day. There's also no point having soft backgrounds if nothing is particularly sharp in the photo, which seems to be the case with the Canon lens.
Very nice comparison. Really appreciate. But a lot of people use 50mm for indoor portraits where the sharpness matters in the subject area only. It would have been great to see some indoor portraits comparison. But thanks a lot for the nice comparison.
Thanks for this excellent and detailed review. I like your systematic approach the review, a good pace to the commentary and clear crisp graphics on screen. The only thing I would change would be to see the vignetting examples individually rather than both at once, it's hard to focus on the detail on the two screens. This video is the best lens comparison of these two lenses I have seen. Thanks again!
Reggie Brown I actually think Christopher Frost's testing of resolution leaves something to be desired. He takes one frame at a certain focal length and f-stop, and judges both center and corner sharpness from that same image, without refocusing for the corners. So if he tests a lens that has field curvature, that lens may actually be capable of better resolution than his results show.
Years ago, I bought a 50/1.2 but it had bad backfocusing problems. The shop went through another three and they all misfocused, so I got a 35L instead. The new EOS R and R5/6 will give those backfocusing EF lenses new life.
I was torn between one or the other, but I was sold on the Sigma right when I saw the sharpness results. I don't mind the extra weight so much, I always have battery grip on my 6D to counter it becoming front-heavy with heavier lenses anyway. Cheers mate!
Yep.. most useful, perhaps extending the sigma tests using M43 (gh5) for filming (popular in many countries) both native and ef via adapter. That would be a unique presentation. Thanks for a very comprehensive (and surprising ) result.
Sigma usually have a micro usb port for updating the firmware. Not sure if this has, but that's another thing to keep in mind. As far as APSC goes, it has the "holy trinity" with 16mm, 30mm and 56mm, how would the 30mm compare with the nifty fifty? Thanks for the very scientific and methodical review
You just saved me hundreds of dollars!!! Thanks for putting so much time and effort into your reviews, they really help make it very clear that "L" might just stand for "Loser"
Please tell me in comparison which lends is better between a Cannon 50mm 1.4 or a Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art? I need to know to decode which one between the two to go with? I use it for filming videos. Thanks
Brilliant video with plenty of examples, thank you. Although I don't think you mentioned it I think the Sigma also had better colours. Time and time again 3rd part lenses seem to outdo the Canon version.
You do a fantastic job sir! Thank you for sharing! I've been on the hunt for a good 50mm going from Canon's 1.2 to the 1.4 for faster focus, then the Tamron 45mm and I'm getting my 1.8 fixed this week. I think I might have to try out the Sigma. Every photog needs a good, reliable 50!
For a super fast prime, nobody wants to shoot at f8. In fact, if you are at f8, chances are you should be using an ND filter. Their core reason to be is for portraits or other similar concepts where you are isolating the subject at all costs. IMO, YMMV. Of course there are exceptions, but at f8 why choose the Canon f1.2 L over the f1.8 STM? There is no logical reason. On the other hand, the reasons for choosing these lenses over much cheaper options are really art reasons. It is incredibly difficult to measure such things. So we focus on the measurables. But ask Julia Trotti why she loves the Canon f1.2. And she's no dummy. And the usage also comes into play for specialty things like astrophotography where the Sigma atomizes the Canon into lens dust. Having barked and complained and whinged like a petulant child, I still enjoyed your review and found it useful.
Hi, Matthew, Brilliant, succinct and clear technical data encompassing unbiased opinions. Thank you so much. As a favour, would you be able to do a Video on a Sigma 150mm-600mm Sports lens to be fine tuned by using a Sigma doc? This process uses Free Sigma firmware and it is tedious and long drawn one. The clips I watched relating to this process, do not cover much and not clear. Many thanks.
Nice comparison. But i can say about my Sigma 50mm Art that the AF performance while using Canon 5dmk4 is sometimes quite bad, but at f2 you can somewhat overcome the issue. The focus goes from being front to back, even if you happen to have decent amount of light around you, so you pretty much can't adjust it to be accurate. Even though i do like the images you are able to get with the lens, if the plane of focus happens to be where you put it :D
You should do more of these. It would be great for us more low budgeters, if you explore some of the Vintage Lens's. I'm really interested in purchasing an Olympus 50mm 1.4 lens but a review like this would help a lot
Hi Vincent, I'd love to do more of these... they just take a long time to make, and since I don't really make any money from them, it's hard to justify spending all of the time :-) I am making more, though... just generally have to stick with more popular lenses. I'll see about starting a Patreon page or something, maybe I can expand a bit.
Great review Matthew! Looks like no reason to pay more for red rings! But what do you think about front/back phocus on Sigma lens? Did you have such problems or Sigma catch right phocus exactly the same as Canon? thank you!
thanks for posting this: I had been mulling buying the Canon 50mm F1.2 for dance photography, but I think I will be taking a serious look at the Sigma 50mm F1.4.
You are demonstrating relative sharpness across the frame, which you want in most landscapes. However, one would generally not use a 1.2 or 1.4 lens for landscapes at any aperture because such lenses are generally across apertures than say a 50MM f2, which a is better everyday 50MM than a large aperture lens. One buys these lens to shoot wide open with a primary subject in the center third of the frame to get that blurry, dreamy, drawing effect in the out of focus areas. I just find the images from the Sigma to be clinical compared to the Canon. I would say the same about the Zeiss Planar vs the Zeiss Otus, which is similar in design to the Sigma. In the end, I do not mind some vignetting or chromatic aberration to avoid the clinical feel the Sigma imparts to me.
I see. It looks like this is something that I'll need to explain in a future video... my fault. There are several reasons that I use landscapes for testing sharpness. First, it's more interesting than using a test chart (and the subject doesn't matter for sharpness as long as there is detail to compare). Second, models move. This makes comparisons impractical for a couple of reasons: first, they can introduce motion blur into the image, and second, if they've moved it makes the images different in composition, and thus harder to compare. Third, many lenses exhibit field curvature to some degree or another, so different parts of the image may be sharper with different lenses, and it's not always obvious to people who are comparing the images whether a particular area is blurry purely because of its resolving power or because of field curvature. Consequently, I shoots test shots that are beyond both lenses "infinity" focus setting, where field curvature is not a significant issue. If I were focusing on a model who is much closer, then I'd also run into the problem of matching focus points. If I were to focus on the near eye of the subject but in one case the focus is perfectly on the eye surface and the other case it's on the eye-lashes (or somewhere in between), and we're talking about the depth of field that you get at f/1.2 or 1.4, then this can cause a significant difference in the appearance of sharpness in the rest of the face, and again, the cause for that may be unclear when simply viewing the images. So, these are a few of the reasons that I shoot landscapes for these tests. Ultimately, some people will prefer some lenses for reasons other than resolution, contrast, distortion, vignetting (etc.) characteristics. I frequently hear people say that one lens or another has a certain ineffable quality to it... a magic or emotion or whatever. Those things, however, are subjective by nature, and I can't reasonably compare them... so I'll compare what I CAN compare. And of course it makes no difference to me which lens people prefer... I'm only here to show you some information about the lenses, I'm not selling them, and I have no stake in the matter. That said, it's much easier to add a bit of barrel distortion and softness into a sharp image than it is to get more resolution out of a soft one.
Matthew Gore , perhaps I have been more critical than I intended. For that, I apologize. I realize that you and others that do these lens tests are just trying to help people and there is probably no good way to set up the perfect test. I just get a bit frustrated with the focus on sharpness (not just you as most lens reviewers do so as well. For example, the Canon 24MM-105MM f4 ver 1 has a reputation among lens reviewers as not having the best sharpness. When I take a portrait with it, the person's face is plenty sharp. If it were sharper, you would see every pore and minor blemish on the person's face. I read an interview with a Nikon optical engineer in which he discussed the challenges in optical design and trade-offs that much be considered. To a question about vignetting, he said he could design lenses without vignetting, but there would a trade-off somewhere else, such as color saturation, contrast, price, etc. So, in the end, one's preference will depend on what you value in a photograph. As far as that Sigma is concerned, I would not buy it even if I liked the images it produced. A 50MM lens that is about 5 inches long is just wrong!
Mark Nakib Thanks Mark! You're one of 8 people who have supported my channel since I've started accepting fan funding. It's an elite group :) And it's already been a big help... I'm working on my next video now. All my gratitude - Matt
Well, personally, you've had a hand in 3 lens purchases already for me. You've saved me probably over $1000, so it's the least I can do. I wish I had more than $5 to give but I'll try to keep it coming in the future as long as you keep putting out such quality stuff.
I have been enjoying the Sigma 50mm quite a bit and the quality is great, but recently I noticed on my shoot at an event something worth mentioned. I'm not sure if there's something I am overlooking and maybe you might have a suggestion or idea. I was using my Canon 5D4 w/24-105mm lens and had the Sigma ART on my 5D3 (both with UV filters). When I aimed the Sigma in the direction of the windows (it was a mid afternoon event) the whole image in my viewfinder had a noticeable haze...When I did the same thing with the Canon lens the haze was not present, except where the windows were located. I tried removing the UV filter, which was a Tiffen included with the Lens, and it still looked the same. I thought the free filter included might be the problem as it was a low end Tiffen filter they included with the sale of the lens. The Sigma lens looks great normally on all my shoots, but it seems strange it would exhibit this much haze when facing towards the windows. Have you heard of any similar stories with haze. Thanks........
The "haze" that you mention is "flare", and more specifically, it's a type called "veiling flare". There's always a bigger danger of getting flare if you use a UV filter on your lens, so I recommend never using them, and it's also usually significantly reduced by using your lens hood (which also protects the front element from fingerprints and damage). Large aperture lenses like the Sigma are often more susceptible to flare (especially if the hood is not used); that's normal and to be expected... they're designed to gather a lot of light. The lens hood is part of the lens design that reduces flare, so always use it. Of course, it's also really important to keep your optics clean. If the front element is dusty or oily, that will catch and diffuse light, and cause flare. Anyway, there's not much else I can suggest. Use the hood. No UV filters. Keep it clean. I've never had any particular problems with flare on the Sigma lenses, so you're probably looking at normal behavior for an f/1.4 lens.... but it would be interesting to see how they compare to other models. I'll keep that in mind when I'm doing future reviews.
From the weight/size of the R-mount, and the new design (not to mention the price), I'd guess that the Canon will be markedly better. Better for bokeh, anyway, and better in overall resolution, but I don't know if anyone really cares about better resolution in this case :-)
Photographers do not buy a lens with aperture 1.2 to take a remote view, this test is irrelevant and does not emphasize the beauty of a lens shot with a reduction of 1.2. Because a sharp drop on the sides or slightly less sharp on the sides, really irrelevant to a lens that is considered a lens for street photography or portraits, you should do the same test with the photographs for which these lenses are intended
I felt I could expect good things when you even included a sound test :) I am interested in it for portrait photography so I would have liked some more portraits w bokeh Thanks it was helpful overall
In your opinion, would the Sigma would be better for weddings where many times you don;t get a second chance at getting a shot? Your reviews are always very detailed....Kudos...................................................................Philip
Hi Philip. My general opinion is that you shouldn't shoot any of the crucial moments of a wedding with a wide aperture prime, at least not set at its widest aperture. It may be fine if you're at a distance (in which case it's easier to nail focus), but otherwise, the depth of field is just too shallow for me... I'd rather get a little more in focus for these shots and be safer if focus is on the nose instead of an eye, etc. I tend to shoot with f/2.8 lenses for that sort of thing... but that's a matter of taste. That said, if I had to choose between these two lenses, I'd stick with the Sigma; for me, it was much more reliable than the Canon (and it's even better on Sony).
@@MatthewGore Hi Matthew. I agree with you with the depth of field issue at a wedding for crucial moments like the vows, rings, first kiss, etc. I actually use my 24-105mm f/4 lens for all those moments and really looking for a fast prime for things like the bride's house, the park and engagement shoots, etc. On another note, I have watched many of your reviews and you do a stellar job. They're all really well done. I was hoping the Sigma ART 24-70mm 2.8 was more of a good choice to replace my 24-105mm, but a little scary the way it was missing focus, but then again that was with really fast movement on a basketball court, so it may be fine for weddings where nobody is moving that fast. I am still trying to make my mind up on that lens to use with a Canon 5D4. I think I may buy the Sigma 50mm ART however once wedding season starts here in NJ... (soon). Thanks..............................................................................Philip
bro this is how you do a review. You killed this shit man, appreciate the time you spent on this!
The comparisons you do are by far the most helpful/informative side by sides I've seen. No gimmicks, no BS, just informative and very easy to watch/listen to. Thanks mate! Am picking up the Sigma 50mm Art second hand, so help you out by buying through affiliate link so dropped you a few $$ via the support link. Appreciate you work!
Thanks Nathan :-)
This was an exceptionally good comparison/review, and I say that having watched all of the major CZcams photography channels. You even made the resolution and focus analysis technically engaging without a test chart with all those patterns on it. That Sigma ART lens is a winner.
This is the best lens reviewer I ever seen! So informative!
Him and Christopher Frost are my favorites.
I'm somewhat new to photography but I've watched a lot of product reviews and comparisons. This should be a textbook example on how to do a short, concise and very informative review. A joy to watch.
The most comprehensive, straightforward and sensibly conscise video comparison on these two lenses out of the other five vids I've seen. Nice job. Thanks.
Superb. No annoying talking heads or funny mannerisms, hairstyles, T-shirts. No showing off the expensive studio and it equipment, no name-dropping, no poorly disguised allusions to how great and successful you are. No bias to any brand (i.e. no fanboyism!). Just good, useful information, presented in a clear and interesting way. And although the Sigma lens seems to be the winner on most of the things tested we can still decide in favour of the Canon (lighter, weather sealed) when what we want most is a beautifully blurred background and maximum subject-separation. For landscapes and cityscapes, we can use a slower (and cheaper!) lens that is better corrected at smaller apertures but that would be necessary only if it made any difference at the sizes we print or display.
My R6 and the canon 50mm 1.2 L really gives unique pics. The bokeh is legendary.
It's an awesome lens for bokeh, no doubt about that, and it's actually better on mirrorless, IMHO, since the direct focusing is more reliable with that shallow depth of field.
Good Comparison, thank you very much.
My thoughs as i own the 85mm 1.2 and use it 85% of the time, at least:
- Noise: doesn´t matter
- Resolution: my 85mm 1.2 is cristal clear in the center, anything else doesn´t matter. Maybe i was just lucky.
If you spend the extra buck because of 1.2 instead of 1.4 you (should) use it at 1.2 nearly all the time...if you use it at 1.4 mostly you bought the wrong lens.
- Sealing: Matters!
- Weight: Doensn´t matter
- Vignette: lol i even like that, i add more in post
- bad borders: doesn´t matter, this is no landscape or architecture Lense after all...and if you want to use it for that Stop 8 and Tripod are mandatory anyway.
For my style it even helps if the center is the most importend section.
- Bokeh: Next to sharp center the most important point.
- Price: Does matter!
Wow! it's 9 years later and you blow most lens review channels out of the water. This was a breath of fresh air, most lens reviews are just weekend cheer leaders for what ever lens they found on ebay recently that they can write a review about. I swear you could put a trash kit lens from the 2010 in front of them and they would celebrate it and pull buzz words out their ass like film-like and "it has character".
Your review was spectacular. Most camera reviewers read spec sheets and press releases or discuss strengths and weaknesses without concrete real world examples. Your video is extremely professional and well produced and I learned something having watched it. Thanks for taking the time to create valuable and stimulating content. Being a Nikon user, I would like to see you use your abilities to talk about what you see as the advantages and disadvantages of the Sony, Canon, and Nikon systems as well as the mirrorless Olympus and Fujifilm offerings.
Your comparison of image sharpness and quality is very nice and clear. I really appreciate that. Great video.
You forgot to mention the main selling point of the cannon at least for me : Weather Sealing
I have the sigma since three years and used it for a lot of jobs, extremely sharp lens, but it's too heavy (I use 50mm as my main lens for 95% of my pictures) and often has an unimpressive rendering, lacks a lot of pop and micro contrast. It's an old lens and everything but I find the Canon 50mm 1.2 to have a lot more character and microcontrast, I'm going to switch between the two. Then, if your main purpose is shooting landscapes wide open ok maybe sigma is a better choice, but for portraiture (and shooting people in general) there's no competition between the two. And, sigma 50mm is often inconsistent in focusing, at least my copy but I read that it's a really common issue, more likely than not.
Wouv... No shitting around, just pure necessary info.. Congrats man.... What a good review...
Matthew, your comparison is flawless!
It is just another perfect review of yours.
Thanks a lot.
This is one of the best lens reviews i've ever seen. I am a Sigma fan. I am now glad to see that Sigma beats Canon with most of the conditions and specs including much less price. I just discovered your channel but i will also watch other reviews in a short while. I can simply say i will recommend this review to all my friends who are insisting Canon is much more better than Sigma. I use sigma 35mm 1.4 art and 35mm is incredible lens for weddings, landscape or Daily Street photography. Once again thanks for this helpful review.
Best lens review I have ever watched, technical and evidence based. I usually don't comment on videos but had to let you know.
Cheers,
Now, in 2021, Canon 50mm 1.2 focuses just great with R-cameras!
And its picture is better to my eyes.
Great review - I'm looking seriously at the Sigma (my first non-Canon L lens), so I was a little concerned, but your review clearly shows that the Sigma is better.
The age of watching reviews that absolutely suck has ended. Thank you for this review, it definitely determined what I am going to purchase.
Another problem many review forgot to mention, sigma is actually darker than canon at the same aperture ISO shutter speed, about 2/3 stops maybe. Probably due to its lens coating.
Dxomark shows Sigma transmission at 1.8 and canon at 1.5
It seems that I've just watched the best and all-round lens comparison in my life! Thank you, Matthew!
Glad you liked it :-)
ive watched a looot of lens/camera reviews but this was so far the best, in depth, on point review ive ever watched
Your reviews are better than some of FStoppers. Great work!
Thanks!
This is the cream of reviews Matt. Thank you for not wasting our time. Subscribed for that fact alone! One question - in the later comparisons, you’ve listed both sides as Canon. Was that in error? You have Canon 50mm f/1.4 on the left and Canon 50mm f/1.2L on the right. Just curious. Thanks again for a STELLAR video. - David
Hey David, Glad you liked it :-) Yes, this video was my first attempt at using chunks of previous videos as templates to speed up production, and it led to all sorts of errors like that. I fixed some of them and re-published the video (which is where the (fixed) part of the title came from, but I didn't catch everything. Back when this was published, CZcams had a feature that allowed me to overlay the correct camera names, so I didn't need to upload a new copy, but that feature has since been disabled. Oh well :-) You probably got the general idea.
Matthew Gore - Thanks for answering back so quickly:) Yup, got the idea right away! I’m sold either way. Please keep the content coming if you can. Between you and Mark Bone, I’ll be up and running in no time. Thanks again Matt!✨
Great review. You have quite the presentation. I have a Sigma 1.8 which I love. Thinking of selling the Canon lenses I have and get this the 1.4 I appreciate your efforts here!
Excellent comparison! Very informative and well-produced. Earned a subscriber in me! :)
IMPORTANT! The Canon is actually longer than 50 and the Sigma is a true 50. Most big brand 50mm lenses are actually 51.something millimeters because that's just one of those photography things handed down from the past when 50mm lenses weren't precisely 50.
This was bloody brilliant. Have been trying to find a replacement for my nifty fifty 1.8, because it's softer than the results of a particularly spicy curry, and the detail you go in to has helped convince me (after my own in-store test shots with it too, versus Canon's ~£300 1.4) that the Sigma is definitely a good deal at the price it's at now. Thanks for being so thorough!
Same!
Due to videos like these, you are my go to guy for lens comparisons. Thanks for this!
Thanks, John, glad you find them useful!
i think canon 50mm1.2l is for portrait not for other things don't you aware of that????
its not for landscape
Nice review but weather sealing forgotten (pros for cannon)
Great comparison video, I own the Sigma and gave my nifty fifty away. Sigma 50 is an amazing lens but is heavy as you pointed out. Thought about changing to a larger 1.2 aperture but this video has convinced me to continue bearing the weight. Sigma garners quite a few compliments on it’s appearance and the magazine quality photos. They can make an everyday pic look like a professional photoshoot product.
The best comparison I have ever seen on these two lenses.
Seriously the best review I've ever seen. I wish all reviews were this good
thank you, this is the best sigma 50 1.4 art review video on youtube
Thanks buddy. Really detailed comparison. Couldn't wait to see your next 1635IS review.
Takes a soft portrait lens, tests it on sharp cityscape and forest :D I'd take the canon 50 1,2 any day for portraits and people! )
Matthew, thanks for your review again I was thinking to get the canon 50mm f 1.2.....until i watch this now....Should i go for Sigma? Great video. Plus the Sigma is about $400 cheaper? Thanks!
+LOLA'S STUDIO Unless you really don't like the bokeh on the Sigma (some people don't, I guess), I'd go with the Sigma. It's very sharp, and the AF is pretty fast and reliable. Not much wrong with it, except that it's big and heavy for a 50mm lens.
+Matthew Gore I like the bokeh on the Sigma more hahaha and yes most pix from the Sigma lens are sharper than the Canon....But yes it is bigger and heavier.......but that is $400 diff....Thanks again for your quick response.
I have owned the canon 50mm 1.2 and i would say definitely go with the sigma!
i have and sigma and canon on sony a7sll ///sigma good for contrast image/not for art/// bokeh is absent/////canon is art.and best for me
Clipped bokeh circles and onion rings are not exactly attractive in terms of bokeh so I'd take the Sigma over the Canon 1.2 any day. There's also no point having soft backgrounds if nothing is particularly sharp in the photo, which seems to be the case with the Canon lens.
Very nice comparison. Really appreciate. But a lot of people use 50mm for indoor portraits where the sharpness matters in the subject area only. It would have been great to see some indoor portraits comparison. But thanks a lot for the nice comparison.
Thanks for this excellent and detailed review. I like your systematic approach the review, a good pace to the commentary and clear crisp graphics on screen. The only thing I would change would be to see the vignetting examples individually rather than both at once, it's hard to focus on the detail on the two screens. This video is the best lens comparison of these two lenses I have seen. Thanks again!
the reviews you do keeps everything real and authentic to the lenses!
You and Christopher Frost make the best lens review videos!
Reggie Brown I actually think Christopher Frost's testing of resolution leaves something to be desired. He takes one frame at a certain focal length and f-stop, and judges both center and corner sharpness from that same image, without refocusing for the corners. So if he tests a lens that has field curvature, that lens may actually be capable of better resolution than his results show.
wrong
i can see the difference at 480p. how sad
So glad you included night shots mate.
Years ago, I bought a 50/1.2 but it had bad backfocusing problems. The shop went through another three and they all misfocused, so I got a 35L instead. The new EOS R and R5/6 will give those backfocusing EF lenses new life.
just purchased the Sigma 50mm, thanks for the great review!
Hey Josh, glad you found it useful :-) Enjoy the new lens!
Really phenomenal work on this review. Continue on with this format, please.
I was torn between one or the other, but I was sold on the Sigma right when I saw the sharpness results. I don't mind the extra weight so much, I always have battery grip on my 6D to counter it becoming front-heavy with heavier lenses anyway. Cheers mate!
Hey, Matthew. Nicely put together and presented video. Thanks, Man
Yep.. most useful, perhaps extending the sigma tests using M43 (gh5) for filming (popular in many countries) both native and ef via adapter. That would be a unique presentation. Thanks for a very comprehensive (and surprising ) result.
Sigma usually have a micro usb port for updating the firmware. Not sure if this has, but that's another thing to keep in mind. As far as APSC goes, it has the "holy trinity" with 16mm, 30mm and 56mm, how would the 30mm compare with the nifty fifty? Thanks for the very scientific and methodical review
Really great video, seriously man.. fantastic
You just saved me hundreds of dollars!!! Thanks for putting so much time and effort into your reviews, they really help make it very clear that "L" might just stand for "Loser"
thank you for a very informative and precise review of these two lenses!
This is the best comparison of two lenses I ever saw...very helpful statistics! Thanks a lot !
u just got a new subscriber! best comparison video I have watched
Thanks James! It was a fun one to make :-)
Please tell me in comparison which lends is better between a Cannon 50mm 1.4 or a Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art? I need to know to decode which one between the two to go with? I use it for filming videos. Thanks
BeautyByDamaris The Sigma is definitely the better lens, although it is heavier and larger.
Thank you so much Matthew Gore for answering my question. Subscribed to your channel
Respect, this video is all I ever wanted. You keep at it.
The best review of Sigma Art 50 ever .. thank you !
Brilliant video with plenty of examples, thank you. Although I don't think you mentioned it I think the Sigma also had better colours. Time and time again 3rd part lenses seem to outdo the Canon version.
You do a fantastic job sir! Thank you for sharing! I've been on the hunt for a good 50mm going from Canon's 1.2 to the 1.4 for faster focus, then the Tamron 45mm and I'm getting my 1.8 fixed this week. I think I might have to try out the Sigma. Every photog needs a good, reliable 50!
Oh and I'm from Seattle as well! www.nakean.com
Very competent and complete review, well done!
For a super fast prime, nobody wants to shoot at f8. In fact, if you are at f8, chances are you should be using an ND filter. Their core reason to be is for portraits or other similar concepts where you are isolating the subject at all costs. IMO, YMMV. Of course there are exceptions, but at f8 why choose the Canon f1.2 L over the f1.8 STM? There is no logical reason. On the other hand, the reasons for choosing these lenses over much cheaper options are really art reasons. It is incredibly difficult to measure such things. So we focus on the measurables. But ask Julia Trotti why she loves the Canon f1.2. And she's no dummy. And the usage also comes into play for specialty things like astrophotography where the Sigma atomizes the Canon into lens dust. Having barked and complained and whinged like a petulant child, I still enjoyed your review and found it useful.
All of the reviews are super accurate, will done!!!
Found your channel through /r/photography. Fantastic, to the point, lens comparison/review. Thank you.
Hi, Matthew, Brilliant, succinct and clear technical data encompassing unbiased opinions. Thank you so much.
As a favour, would you be able to do a Video on a Sigma 150mm-600mm Sports lens to be fine tuned by using a Sigma doc?
This process uses Free Sigma firmware and it is tedious and long drawn one. The clips I watched relating to this process, do not cover much and not clear. Many thanks.
Nice comparison.
But i can say about my Sigma 50mm Art that the AF performance while using Canon 5dmk4 is sometimes quite bad, but at f2 you can somewhat overcome the issue.
The focus goes from being front to back, even if you happen to have decent amount of light around you, so you pretty much can't adjust it to be accurate.
Even though i do like the images you are able to get with the lens, if the plane of focus happens to be where you put it :D
You should do more of these. It would be great for us more low budgeters, if you explore some of the Vintage Lens's.
I'm really interested in purchasing an Olympus 50mm 1.4 lens but a review like this would help a lot
Hi Vincent,
I'd love to do more of these... they just take a long time to make, and since I don't really make any money from them, it's hard to justify spending all of the time :-) I am making more, though... just generally have to stick with more popular lenses. I'll see about starting a Patreon page or something, maybe I can expand a bit.
Matthew Gore I understand.
very well done comparison.. I was already set on the Sigma, but the high weight and large formfactor kinda throw me off.
Great review Matthew! Looks like no reason to pay more for red rings! But what do you think about front/back phocus on Sigma lens? Did you have such problems or Sigma catch right phocus exactly the same as Canon? thank you!
One of the best video on lens comparison. To the point. Thanks.
Brilliant take. All plausible doubts answered. Thank you.
thanks for posting this: I had been mulling buying the Canon 50mm F1.2 for dance photography, but I think I will be taking a serious look at the Sigma 50mm F1.4.
One is an artistic lens with tons of characters and the other one is sharp lens for landscape you shoot at 5.6-9f
WoW your reviews are just the best!
I think it depends on what you are going to shoot. For portraits, i would go for the canon. For landscape, the sigma would be the first choice.
You are demonstrating relative sharpness across the frame, which you want in most landscapes. However, one would generally not use a 1.2 or 1.4 lens for landscapes at any aperture because such lenses are generally across apertures than say a 50MM f2, which a is better everyday 50MM than a large aperture lens. One buys these lens to shoot wide open with a primary subject in the center third of the frame to get that blurry, dreamy, drawing effect in the out of focus areas. I just find the images from the Sigma to be clinical compared to the Canon. I would say the same about the Zeiss Planar vs the Zeiss Otus, which is similar in design to the Sigma. In the end, I do not mind some vignetting or chromatic aberration to avoid the clinical feel the Sigma imparts to me.
I see. It looks like this is something that I'll need to explain in a future video... my fault.
There are several reasons that I use landscapes for testing sharpness. First, it's more interesting than using a test chart (and the subject doesn't matter for sharpness as long as there is detail to compare).
Second, models move. This makes comparisons impractical for a couple of reasons: first, they can introduce motion blur into the image, and second, if they've moved it makes the images different in composition, and thus harder to compare.
Third, many lenses exhibit field curvature to some degree or another, so different parts of the image may be sharper with different lenses, and it's not always obvious to people who are comparing the images whether a particular area is blurry purely because of its resolving power or because of field curvature. Consequently, I shoots test shots that are beyond both lenses "infinity" focus setting, where field curvature is not a significant issue.
If I were focusing on a model who is much closer, then I'd also run into the problem of matching focus points. If I were to focus on the near eye of the subject but in one case the focus is perfectly on the eye surface and the other case it's on the eye-lashes (or somewhere in between), and we're talking about the depth of field that you get at f/1.2 or 1.4, then this can cause a significant difference in the appearance of sharpness in the rest of the face, and again, the cause for that may be unclear when simply viewing the images.
So, these are a few of the reasons that I shoot landscapes for these tests.
Ultimately, some people will prefer some lenses for reasons other than resolution, contrast, distortion, vignetting (etc.) characteristics. I frequently hear people say that one lens or another has a certain ineffable quality to it... a magic or emotion or whatever. Those things, however, are subjective by nature, and I can't reasonably compare them... so I'll compare what I CAN compare.
And of course it makes no difference to me which lens people prefer... I'm only here to show you some information about the lenses, I'm not selling them, and I have no stake in the matter.
That said, it's much easier to add a bit of barrel distortion and softness into a sharp image than it is to get more resolution out of a soft one.
Matthew Gore , perhaps I have been more critical than I intended. For that, I apologize. I realize that you and others that do these lens tests are just trying to help people and there is probably no good way to set up the perfect test. I just get a bit frustrated with the focus on sharpness (not just you as most lens reviewers do so as well. For example, the Canon 24MM-105MM f4 ver 1 has a reputation among lens reviewers as not having the best sharpness. When I take a portrait with it, the person's face is plenty sharp. If it were sharper, you would see every pore and minor blemish on the person's face.
I read an interview with a Nikon optical engineer in which he discussed the challenges in optical design and trade-offs that much be considered. To a question about vignetting, he said he could design lenses without vignetting, but there would a trade-off somewhere else, such as color saturation, contrast, price, etc. So, in the end, one's preference will depend on what you value in a photograph.
As far as that Sigma is concerned, I would not buy it even if I liked the images it produced. A 50MM lens that is about 5 inches long is just wrong!
wow!!! very nicely done!!! very informative and helpful!
Great quality content. Im looking forward you doing comparison between Canon 85mm 1.4L IS and Sigma 85mm Art 1.4.
hi Matt, waiting for rewiev of Tamron 15-30
Your stuff is very helpful and I really appreciate it! Keep at it, for all of our sakes!
Mark Nakib Thanks Mark! You're one of 8 people who have supported my channel since I've started accepting fan funding. It's an elite group :) And it's already been a big help... I'm working on my next video now. All my gratitude -
Matt
Well, personally, you've had a hand in 3 lens purchases already for me. You've saved me probably over $1000, so it's the least I can do. I wish I had more than $5 to give but I'll try to keep it coming in the future as long as you keep putting out such quality stuff.
got my 50art because of this review. thanks matt :)
This video is amazing!! Great job! You deserve way more subscribers!
Very informative about the distortion ,very nicely explained !
Thanks, Matthew! Good job!
Awesome review! Is it any surprise that the bokeh on the Canon is better?! The Canon was a step ahead in the blur department to start with!!!
I have been enjoying the Sigma 50mm quite a bit and the quality is
great, but recently I noticed on my shoot at an event something worth
mentioned. I'm not sure if there's something I am overlooking and maybe you might have a suggestion or idea.
I was using my Canon 5D4 w/24-105mm lens and had the Sigma ART on my 5D3 (both with UV filters). When I aimed the Sigma in the direction of the windows (it was a mid afternoon event) the whole image in my viewfinder had a noticeable haze...When I did the same thing with the Canon lens the haze was not present, except where the windows were located. I tried removing the UV filter, which was a Tiffen included with the Lens, and it still looked the same. I thought the free filter included might be the problem as it was a low end Tiffen filter they included with the sale of the lens.
The Sigma lens looks great normally on all my shoots, but it seems strange it would exhibit this much haze when facing towards the windows. Have you heard of any similar stories with haze. Thanks........
The "haze" that you mention is "flare", and more specifically, it's a type called "veiling flare". There's always a bigger danger of getting flare if you use a UV filter on your lens, so I recommend never using them, and it's also usually significantly reduced by using your lens hood (which also protects the front element from fingerprints and damage).
Large aperture lenses like the Sigma are often more susceptible to flare (especially if the hood is not used); that's normal and to be expected... they're designed to gather a lot of light. The lens hood is part of the lens design that reduces flare, so always use it. Of course, it's also really important to keep your optics clean. If the front element is dusty or oily, that will catch and diffuse light, and cause flare.
Anyway, there's not much else I can suggest. Use the hood. No UV filters. Keep it clean. I've never had any particular problems with flare on the Sigma lenses, so you're probably looking at normal behavior for an f/1.4 lens.... but it would be interesting to see how they compare to other models. I'll keep that in mind when I'm doing future reviews.
I wonder how the Sigma holds up against the R mount version of the 50mm f/1.2
From the weight/size of the R-mount, and the new design (not to mention the price), I'd guess that the Canon will be markedly better. Better for bokeh, anyway, and better in overall resolution, but I don't know if anyone really cares about better resolution in this case :-)
Photographers do not buy a lens with aperture 1.2 to take a remote view, this test is irrelevant and does not emphasize the beauty of a lens shot with a reduction of 1.2. Because a sharp drop on the sides or slightly less sharp on the sides, really irrelevant to a lens that is considered a lens for street photography or portraits, you should do the same test with the photographs for which these lenses are intended
I felt I could expect good things when you even included a sound test :)
I am interested in it for portrait photography so I would have liked some more portraits w bokeh
Thanks it was helpful overall
this is so cool! thanks, mate! very useful! couldn't understand if I should buy Sigma, but now the decision is made.
Dear Mathew,
would you please someday review the Canon 135mm f2 Lens? Great videos! way better than most people out there..
Great review dude, earned a subscriber. Gonna get the Sigma 50mm 1.4 for my A7R, wish me luck with the focusing haha
great information. stuck between these two but i've come closer to a decision thanks to this.
Hey man, that was a great review and very helpful. Thanks for helping me decide.
Glad it was helpful!
I'm in the market for a new lense and this review was really helpful. I appreciate it.
In your opinion, would the Sigma would be better for weddings where many times you don;t get a second chance at getting a shot? Your reviews are always very detailed....Kudos...................................................................Philip
Hi Philip. My general opinion is that you shouldn't shoot any of the crucial moments of a wedding with a wide aperture prime, at least not set at its widest aperture. It may be fine if you're at a distance (in which case it's easier to nail focus), but otherwise, the depth of field is just too shallow for me... I'd rather get a little more in focus for these shots and be safer if focus is on the nose instead of an eye, etc. I tend to shoot with f/2.8 lenses for that sort of thing... but that's a matter of taste. That said, if I had to choose between these two lenses, I'd stick with the Sigma; for me, it was much more reliable than the Canon (and it's even better on Sony).
@@MatthewGore Hi Matthew. I agree with you with the depth of field issue at a wedding for crucial moments like the vows, rings, first kiss, etc. I actually use my 24-105mm f/4 lens for all those moments and really looking for a fast prime for things like the bride's house, the park and engagement shoots, etc.
On another note, I have watched many of your reviews and you do a stellar job. They're all really well done. I was hoping the Sigma ART 24-70mm 2.8 was more of a good choice to replace my 24-105mm, but a little scary the way it was missing focus, but then again that was with really fast movement on a basketball court, so it may be fine for weddings where nobody is moving that fast. I am still trying to make my mind up on that lens to use with a Canon 5D4. I think I may buy the Sigma 50mm ART however once wedding season starts here in NJ... (soon). Thanks..............................................................................Philip
I'm Iraqi .
I wanna say that you're the best in reviewing lenses..
about sigma it's amazing but it is not affordable for most amateurs photographers😳
curious as to why you felt the need to state where you're from.
+Pradhyumna Gupta I wanted to tell him that his channel is familiar for people all around the world 🙂..