The Chinese site Xitek (google translation here / found via Photorumors) posted the worldwide first test of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens. And they compared the performance with the Sony-Zeiss Planar lens ($1,500 here at Amazon), Nikkor 58mm lens ($1,700) and more important the Zeiss Otus ($4,000 here at BHphoto).
Just click on the images to see a larger size version. Hard to say form these images if the Sigma can match the Otus. What do you think?
One more thing: Pixelistas contactet Sigma which said the $1499 AUD price leaked by a store in Australia is not true (Source: Australian CameraPro).
0 Responses
Purple fringing look bad
Yep, the Otus is more harmonic, althaugh the Sigma shows a tack of sharpness more.
To me, the purple fringing implies they’ve not got the focus quite in the right place, assuming it’s a flat card they’ve focused on.
A slight slant on the card would be nice to see to tell how much the bokeh fringing is under control – I know my Sigma 35mm art handles it well.
Why do Sony’s corners have much less fringing than the center? It seems the center is not in focus. If the results are from the single image it could be caused by focal plane curvature.
Incredible how the nikon and zeiss-sony look bad against Otus and Sigma. Thanks Sigma for changing the world with your amazing lenses.
Sigma again rox!
Different magnification (different cameras?) in a lens comparison?! WTF? Just compare the bars at 0.7 for example, before claiming any advantage for the Sigma. The only reasonable conclusions here seem to be that 1. both lenses outresolve the cameras used and 2. the testers have no clue what they are doing.
The top two are 50mm lenses, the bottom at 58. That`s where the magnification difference is occurring, if anything it proves they`re using the same chart to camera distance for consistency.
Quite possible. But to measure lens resolution consistently, you do not have to use the same distance, but the same magnification…
It would not explain why the 3.5 is about 66 px high on the Sigma vs 71 on the Sony. Also, the difference between Nikon (84) and Otus(83) ought to be larger. All can be explained by linear resolution increase from 21 to 24 to 36 MP though, with the Nikon vs Otus difference being either measuring inaccuracy or failure to adjust magnification (as compared to image height) precisely when shooting the chart.
Sigma is close to 50mm, it should be even wider though — at least previous sigma 50 has 46mm of focal length, Sony is close to 50mm. Nikon is 58mm, Otus is 55.
Sigma seem to be putting out great lenses with every release they make these days. While it’s great to have edge to edge sharpness at the affordable sigma prices sometimes I prefer the look of a flawed lens that adds character.
It’s easier to add “character” in post than it is to cover up the flaws when you don’t want them. The Sigma looks quite impressive in this test.
To me the one of reasons for not having edge to edge sharpness is to have nice bokeh and OOF renderings. I doubt many people touch those in post. I agree the sigma is impressive.
I didn’t think one had too much to do with the other. One of my sharpest lenses (a Canon FD 55/1.2 Aspherical) also has some of the nicest OOF presentation.
That’s a good example of a lens I was talking about in my first post. It has it’s own character but then in test charts wide open it may not be able to match the otus. Does that make it a bad lens? To me it doesn’t. It’s another lens that would be interesting to see tested against the otus like the 55mm fe.
“…may not be able to match the Otus…”?
The Otus is, up to now, the sharpest lens in its range,ever. Does that automatically make every other lens in its range a bad lens? I certainly hope not. Of course, the Otus doesn’t do F1.2, but at matching apertures I’d expect it to beat everything else.
Regardless, I don’t have an Otus. I’m comparing my sharpest 50ish lens, to other 50ish lenses I have. The FD 55 is sharper, especially wide open, than the nFD 50/1.4, but also has better bokeh. That’s what I was trying to explain: as far as I know, there is no trade-off between corner sharpness and out-of-focus rendering. There are soft lenses that also have bad bokeh, and there are plenty of sharp ones that also render OOF areas nicely.
they should all be tested on the A7r, which is highest resolution body that can fit all of those lenses
My ranking would be: Otus – Sigma – Sony Zeiss – Nikon
agree.
Ditto. The Sigma is pretty damn close to the Otus, though. And the center fringing on the Sony is a head-scratcher.
I also agree. The Sigma is neck-and-neck with the Otus on sharpness but by this small test alone the macro contrast seems almost too high and certain details/tonality is missing. It will be interesting to see shots with the Sigma in real life. Certainly for most of the DSLR crowd the Sigma will be a no-brainer.
Yeah from this bogus test where all the lenses other than the Sigma are OOF. I’d agree.
i have only the Otus and can’t judge the sigma, so: it’s simply the best lens i ever have! just amazing!
hm..
Zeiss Otus über alles!
It would be more interesting, to compare with the Sony-Zeiss Sonnar FE 55/1.8 at A7R (all lenses at A7R).
And the Sony-Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 ZA SSM is a much better challenger at the A7R than at the A99 (I have compared)
one has to see real life shots to compare all paramaters. On this b&w, Sigma is what I would chose. One could now say that Otus is better, but that is pulling the thing by the hair, and a hair that costs more than a wooden beam more expensive. Bring us real life shots in differnt situations and lighting, and we can compare. One thing is clear, for those who are not belonging to Bill Gates gentlemen club, the Sigma does the job, for the price difference you can buy the camera that goes with it and a plane ticket to anywhere to test it.
The Sony 50mm is comically bad in comparison. Now Sigma will offer a better 35, 50, and 85mm. Yikes!!!
I’d say the Nikon is comically bad 🙂
I had 35ZA before, sold that just 2days after I bought sigma 35, if real world test later on still like this, I’m going to sell another 50 Sony lens again, sigma with its USB dock is just awesome.
From what I understand, the Sigma USB dock will not be available for the A-Mount.
Sigma will release it for Sony and also Pentax this year, someone contacted sigma and they answered it. They said they will release in future but not gonna release it until march this year because they already decided to go for production, but it’s coming this year, I read it in dyxum.
35ZA? They don’t make one for A-Mount.
The E Mount 50 and A Mount 50 where probably engineered about the same time. This test looks pretty bogus. The OTUS doesn’t even look that good and we know that lens is amazing. So for now… this test looks bogus, wait to someone legit reviews it.
All I can conclude from these images is that the Nikon is piss-poor!
Conclusion- Sony Zeiss is out of focus. The fringing is a dead giveaway.
Sony is just not good enough. Take it.
Oh, please, not good enough for what? One half-baked test certainly doesn’t show it all.
Why do you feed the troll?
Yep, good question.
LOL your name is apt. Anyway, other review sites have shown that Sony’s high end lenses are amongst the best. Hopefully a reputable reviewer will substantiate this test. Otherwise it looks pretty bogus.
Na I was a ZA fanboy then i seen tests that said altho the ZA was steller in contrast colour ect the corners were soft ; ( .As i have APSC i went 35 art and i have no doubt in sigma
Well, the sigma has the best test chart for sharpness and lack of CA narrowly edging out the Otus. I may no longer rue that Zeiss has not released an a-mount version. Looking forward to real-world shots.
The sony & nikon lenses performed terribly…but I have seen beautiful real world examples of the Sony lens so with all lens tests – charts are only a part of the equation.
If only we had a budget ff a-mount body… Hint hint
what was the aperture?
Probably wide open, since all of them are F1.4
Sony-zeiss and probably Nikon is out of focus. Sad to see one more bad lens test…
Highly unlikely. Both Nikon and Sony are just not up to the modern standards. They are just overpriced.
Yeah, hate to agree but every review I’ve said concurs. Even Nikon has admitted that sharpness was not their goal with the 58mm–well, that’s their excuse anyway. Aside from the fringing to Sony-Zeiss certainly seems better than the Nikon but still far behind the other two. I also would be interested to see the FE55 in this comparison.
I have not received any result with that much fringing using my Zeiss 50mm on either the a99 or 900 at f1.4. Bad copy maybe? Otherwise, the Sigma does look nice, but I will still take my Zeiss as the AF is still faster, I surmise, and the OSPDAF makes facial recognition and tracking more than sufficient.
The purple fringing by the ZA makes me think that they probably used the regular SAL50F14, rather than the ZA. I can’t believe a $1500 modern Zeiss can be this bad at f/1.4.
In the corner, the Sigma appears to be better even than the Otus. Something looks very fishy with this comparison, or Sigma really outdid themselves this time around.
Can’t wait for real world test but this makes me want to get a A-mount camera again. I hope they test it against the 55mm 1.8. I plan to get that lens some time in the future.
Aha, the Chines site tests 4 lenses. The mighty Otus is only on par with the new Sigma, whereas the direct competitors look like cheap crap. Looks like the test is a little bit sponsored by Sigma or by Sigma Fanboys.
I know that Sigma’s new lenses are very good and even better than its competitors on Canikon/Sony side, but I doubt, that in direct comparison the Sony and Nikon would look that outclassed.
Looking at the samples it seems that the Nikon and the Sony samples were messed up deliberately.
As for the ZA, which I own, I can say that corner sharpness wide open is indeed a little bit disappointing, and purple fringing wide open is also an issue – but in the real world I love the colors and the snappy contrast of it. And as usual every lens has its wakenesses – one need to able to circle around.
I have a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM and using it with my A99. The problem at this lens is low light focus performance is poor, not reliable. Some days it performs good, some days terrible. I know it sounds silly but I lost lots of photos because of this inconsistency. How is it on ZA?
I went for the ZA because I could stand the focus shifting issue on the SAL anymore, and on the Sigma which I had a chance to test for about two weeks didn’t convince me either.
The ZA makes it far better than these two but it has also some (for my usage minor) issues. Corner sharpness can be problematic for certain conditions, but it improves already very visible by stopping down to 2 or 2.2, and is kind of non-issue at f4. Wide open in high contrast areas purple fringing can be quite pronounced. The AF is one of its highlights – both, very fast thanks to SSM and extremely accurate under almost every condition.
Whether it is worth the steep price tag – everybody needs to judge for himself.
Thanks… I think ZA can address my problem in focusing. Let’s wait for the price tag of this new comer. Thanks for the reply btw. Cheers
Why is it that with every test published anywhere, the testers are always accused of being biased in favour of the winners (or biased against the losers)? Why?
Either all tests are essentially rigged, which also makes is it essentially pointless to criticise any particular result, or anything that disagrees with a person’s prior assessments must by definition be wrong because every individual is infallible.
I assume not having barked at the same tree than the usual whining fanboys. And I did not try to argue that the ZA should be the best one because I won it. I know it is not the best 50mm prime around, and I don’t care.
What I don’t like are such tests which show its unsubstantial character only on the second view.
I have 50/1.4za on a850 as well. Corner results are almost excellent, did you send your copy to service for check & fine tune ?
I have the zeiss 50mm and I don’t see those results- as in ever. Lets wait for the real reviews her folks.
I’ve used the 50mm, on the A850, and A99 with excellent results.
The Sigma is crazy sharp and bright like jumping out of your monitor bright?
The Otus and the Nikon have a similar color with the Otus being crazy sharp. Nikon is really strange with their lenses and the 58 is proof of it. Some of Nikon’s lenses have distinct character to them that have a pleasing aesthetic when sharpened in post.
The only reason I say that is because my Nikkor 12-24 F4 is soft compared to the Tokina 11-16 which I sold. The Tokina is razer sharp all around. It maintains this sharpness even as a 16mm prime on my D800. It’s that good but it doesn’t have that ‘look’ I get with the Nikkor. Mind you in the situations described I’m shooting F7.1-F9 on a tripod.
Yeah this looks like a bogus test. The Sigma image is smaller in every shot and some of the other lenses might even be OOF. Let’s just see how it does with a real reviewer like DXO. I expect it to be in the same league as the CZ 50/1.4 but with different rendering.
Yeah, DxO, a “real” reviewer 😀 laughed hard. Where the performance of the lense is dependend on the RAW-Format of the Camera. Thats real, at least when you test everything inside one camera lineup.
Also they dont even have a review of the 50mm ZA anyway and dont want to include it as they care a shit about Sony and dont want to support them anyway. Ever noticed that every lense test, _every_, performs the worst with Sony Cameras? Its due to their RAW-Converter they use for the test.
Do you call this a real review?
Even though the sizes are not exactly the same, I judged them before even looking at the names of the lenses, and I came up with the Sigma (I guess that’s 311) in first place, the Zeiss Otus in second, the Sony in third, and the Nikon in fourth place. Sigma did an outstanding job.
Bla bla the site does not load for me (and I can’t read Chinese), otherwise my iphone makes sharper photos than these, so everything looks quite fake, would say SAR1..
I don’t know what to think , the test looks bad . I will hold on for a better test , but i hope that this sigma lens will replace my current 50mm .
But to be honest this test looks like crap to me ….
Looking good but with the effort of elements and groups it’s actually now wonder. The Sigma is also quite a bit bigger than the Sony and the Nikon, so no wonder it’s more optically corrected. Real world examples are more interesting though. The corners of my 50mm pictures are almost never in focus so I couldn’t care less about the sharpness there. Bokeh is much more important for these kind of pictures.
I own the Sony Zeiss 50mm F1.4 ZA and have NEVER experienced chromatic aberation like that shown in this test. My 50mm F1.4 ZA is stupid sharp — very close to my 85mm F1.4 ZA. It appears the ZA used in this test has misaligned elements. Perhaps it got damaged in shipping?
I tested 3 samples of the ZA and none of them have been excellent, also they all performed more or less the same.
Okay for an 600$ lense, nothing more, nothing less. I decided to not buy any 50mm back then as all have been either shitty or much to overpriced.
The Sigma seems to be the first 50mm which is not a piece of crap and its not overpriced. Its even better then the ZA so, gogogo Sigma!