Reading mode: Light Dark

Sigma or Sony 50 1.4 for A900

Go to last post
Sony, small and sharp and less expensive
--
Mark K
 
I'm buying a 1.4 lens to gain the advantage of being able to shoot at 1.4, and the Sigma is hands down the better lens wide open.
 
I just got my Sigma 50 f1.4. Here in Norway they are qute close in price.

after reading the test sites it is difficult to decide wicht one is better. I think the Sigma got a tad less vignetting at full opening, and a ittle bit different (Nicer?) bokeh. Then ofcause there is the USM, if it does not make any different in speed, it is at least more silent.

For me the choice was Sigma just because my brother got the Sony... :-D

After some testing the Sigma it is as expected a bit soft at f1.4 but it sharpens up considerably already at f2. The USM is plesently silent.

André
 
Sigma for me (as long as the slight extra cost doesn't rule it out)

My first shoot with the A900 and the Sigma (incl a lot of iso 1250 work) was on our local Subway/Metro. Examples in the models gallery on my website.

Grahame
http://www.grahamejenkins.co.uk
 
i think the tradeoff is in size and iq. the sigma is meant to be a highly impressive 50mm. it is also way bigger than most other 50s. the sony is a bit more traditional in this respect. my choice is for an m42 super-multi-coated takumar with a chipped adaptor.
 
It's a tough call. The Sigma is better wide open, but after that the Sony has better sharpness in the middle parts of the frame, whereas the Sigma has less sharpness in the middle, but better sharpness at the edges. I would certainly pick the Sigma for wide open shooting, but at f2 and above I'm not so sure. I currently use the Sony simply because of the size, weight, and cost. When I need something better than the Sony at f1.4, I use a SMC Takumar 50 1.4
 
Where does one get one of these m43 super...?
Thanks!
gillbod said:
i think the tradeoff is in size and iq. the sigma is meant to be a highly impressive 50mm. it is also way bigger than most other 50s. the sony is a bit more traditional in this respect. my choice is for an m42 super-multi-coated takumar with a chipped adaptor.
Click to expand...
 
I had SAL 50 1.4 (sold)

Sigma kills SAL @ 1.4 ... 2.8 (bokeh, sharpness)
  • Portraits Sigma
  • Landscapes @ F8 - Sony
Sigma rendition is closer to F1.2 lenses than 1.4

--
My gallery -> http://kubica.deviantart.com/gallery/
A900/A300/SAL50 1.4/S 12-24:70-300APO/T28-75
 
Jakub Kubica said:
I had SAL 50 1.4 (sold)

Sigma kills SAL @ 1.4 ... 2.8 (bokeh, sharpness)
  • Portraits Sigma
  • Landscapes @ F8 - Sony
Sigma rendition is closer to F1.2 lenses than 1.4
Click to expand...
Yikes, you must have had a terrible copy of the SAL 50 1.4. Even dpreview's tests show the Sony having better center sharpness. I know that I have a full -20 dialed in for my Sony's AF adjustment, and I'm wondering if yours had a similar issue?

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=23,38&fullscreen=true&av=1,1&fl=50,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4

I shoot a lot of square format, and there probably isn't a much sharper lens starting at f2.8 and higher than the Sony 50 if you crop square. My ZA 85 is better wide open, but they're in the same ballpark stopped down a bit.

As far as bokeh, I prefer the slightly busier Zeiss-like bokeh with more "pop," but, like all bokeh measurements, that's highly subjective.
 
have a look on ebay.

if you want to mess around, a 55/2 super tak will cost you not much at all, and is a nice way to realise that you can get very high quality glass at very affordable prices, if you are prepared to do away with automatic aperture and autofocus.

you'll lose some flare resistance because of the older coatings. but apart from that, you get sharp, well-built lenses with good bokeh, if you know what to get.
 
headofdestiny said:
Jakub Kubica said:
I had SAL 50 1.4 (sold)

Sigma kills SAL @ 1.4 ... 2.8 (bokeh, sharpness)
  • Portraits Sigma
  • Landscapes @ F8 - Sony
Sigma rendition is closer to F1.2 lenses than 1.4
Click to expand...
Yikes, you must have had a terrible copy of the SAL 50 1.4. Even dpreview's tests show the Sony having better center sharpness.
Click to expand...
On FF center is not much space, on APS-C maybe SAL is ok but Sigma is still better.

--
My gallery -> http://kubica.deviantart.com/gallery/
A900/A300/SAL50 1.4/S 12-24:70-300APO/T28-75
 
I bought a 50/1.4 because it was the cheapest in for a large aperture lens. I found I wanted a longer lens for portraits and a wider lens for group shots. I now have a CZ 135/1.8 and a 35/1.4G. I seldom use the 50mm except when I want a small lens in my pocket.

Cheers,
--

“Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin.
You can see larger versions of my pictures at http://www.dennismullen.com .
 
headofdestiny said:
Jakub Kubica said:
I had SAL 50 1.4 (sold)

Sigma kills SAL @ 1.4 ... 2.8 (bokeh, sharpness)
  • Portraits Sigma
  • Landscapes @ F8 - Sony
Sigma rendition is closer to F1.2 lenses than 1.4
Click to expand...
Yikes, you must have had a terrible copy of the SAL 50 1.4. Even dpreview's tests show the Sony having better center sharpness. I know that I have a full -20 dialed in for my Sony's AF adjustment, and I'm wondering if yours had a similar issue?

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=23,38&fullscreen=true&av=1,1&fl=50,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4
Click to expand...
this test chart only confirm what have been already said: Sigma best at full opening, Sony win stepped down, this test shows sony as quite a remarkably sharp lens at f8. However both lenses have most of their sharp areas above nyquist frequency, so if Im not all wrong, the difference in sharpnes should not make a practical difference.

I guess it depends on what you want to combine the lens with, if you already got a high end standar zoom, I guess it is the f1.4 - 2.8 performance you are after, this speaks for Sigma. The killer shapness of the Sony at around f8 cant be ignored if this is important for the use of this lens. For portraits lens on ApsC I would probably choose Sony.

These two lenses are both verry high quality, to sugest that one of them "wins hands down" as someone else here said, can hardly be taken serious (sorry). A choice between two great lenses that ends up as a matter of taste.

My brother said something about Sony 50 mmm having a problem with aperture blade hang up, (not a big problem - more like anoying) anyone with knowledge about this?
 
headofdestiny said:
It's a tough call. The Sigma is better wide open, but after that the Sony has better sharpness in the middle parts of the frame, whereas the Sigma has less sharpness in the middle, but better sharpness at the edges. I would certainly pick the Sigma for wide open shooting, but at f2 and above I'm not so sure. I currently use the Sony simply because of the size, weight, and cost. When I need something better than the Sony at f1.4, I use a SMC Takumar 50 1.4
Click to expand...
I agree.

Unless someone want a very quiet lens and shoot only below f2, I would not consider the Sigma.
 
I had the Sigma for more than 2 months which is borrowed from my friend after he sold the A700. I need to sent the lens back to Sigma for alignment as I could not manage to adjust the focus with my A900, the sharpest area is on the right side of the frame no matter how I adjust with micro-focus.

I got back the lens after 1 month and have some test shots, the AF hit rate for portraits shooting at f/1.4 is far from satisfactory unless the eye is within the cetnre focus area. Therefore, I have to stopped down to f/2 to be safe.

It is a little wider than standard 50mm lens and I found that was good for take indoor portraits when space is limited. I dont really like the skin tone of Sigma at all as I found that the colours are very 'dry' and 'flat' as compared to those from Minolta, Zeiss or Leica esp. when using fill-in flash.

I also got a copy of the MD50/1.2 (latest version), the butterly bokeh is unbeatable. But I need to work very hard to manual focus in order to get a sharp picture - even more painful than shooting the Sigma wide-open. Colour and contrast is execellent - much better than the Sigma.

Just my 2 cents
--
Enjoy it while it lasts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

oscarbarreraru
Finally I’m getting a Sony a900!
Replies
14
Views
3K
Michael Fritzen
Michael Fritzen
W
  • Question Question
What are considered the "best" a-mount lenses from Sony and Minolta?
Replies
10
Views
5K
alanlinde
alanlinde
W
Sony Type M focus screen for A900 - where to buy?
Replies
3
Views
4
neilt3
neilt3
F
a900 vs a850 viewfinder framing/coverage
Replies
2
Views
3
floyd_of_oz
F
Ralf B
  • Photo Photo
a900 RAW @ 6400 ISO: Apple Aperture vs. DXO PL 8.5
Replies
6
Views
1K
Ralf B
Ralf B

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top