Comparing them side-by-side in the field reveals that the Sony is ever so slightly wider but the difference is barely worth mentioning. If you buy something after clicking the link, we will receive a small commission. Although the Sigma is visibly larger, it is also worth pointing out that it is very lightweight for this type of lens. Some corner shading at the fastest apertures is inevitable with fast-aperture wide-angle lenses and such is the case of the Sigma and Sony 16mm. Sony RX100 VI Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Sigma 135mm F1.8 Art Sigma 60-600mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM +2 more Reply to thread Reply with quote Complain However, the Sigma has a higher magnification (0.10x versus 0.078x). Both lenses incorporate an internal focus unit, which is driven by an internal stepping motor on the Sigma and a generic AF motor on the Sony. The full-frame E-mount series has grown exponentially in the last couple of years. I'm gonna go follow you on the Gram now. For me personally, that's why I use the 35mm almost all the time. I have the 16 and 56 and they are nothing but fast sharp and quality lenses. I prefer the Sony 35mm f1.8, but the reason is because of focal length. If you use manual focus (which you stated you do), just note the Sony 35mm focus ring is a lot tighter than the Sigma 16mm. I did initially wonder whether my Sony 16mm sample had a problem but others reviews of the lens have also confirmed that the performance at f/2.8 is disappointing. The former affects the straight out-of-camera JPGs while the latter influences the look of the RAW files. I see you’re stuck between the Sigma 16mm vs 30mm f/1.4 lens for your Sony E-mount camera! amzn_assoc_placement = "adunit0"; Not necessarily a bad thing but if you use manual focus these are things to note. In this video I compare both lenses with real-life portraits. Here the Sony lens is at its sharpest between f/8 and f/11, while the Sigma peaks at f/5.6. By f/11, diffraction starts to affect the sharpness of both lenses. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast. The focus ring of the 16mm is very very loose. Honestly, one of the best but also most frustrating things about having a camera with interchangeable lenses is picking which lens to invest your hard-earned money into. I found both lenses to be quick in good light, with only a slight deterioration in performance in low light conditions. Looking at my samples with the profile applied, I didn’t find distortion to be an issue with either lens. Mount: Sony E-mount Format: APS-C Focal length: 19mm (28.5mm in 35mm equivalent terms) Lens configuration: 8 elements in 6 groups Lens coating: Super Multi-Layer Coating Angle of view: 59.3° Minimum focusing distance: 20cm Magnification: 0.135x Aperture blades: 7 circular blades Aperture range: 2.8 to 22 Filter … It can be reversed over the barrel but can be a little difficult to twist off at times. The Sony APS-C range has faced some neglect as of late due to much of Sony’s focus being funnelled into lens development for the extremely popular full-frame FE system. Still owns the 16mm because its crazy sharp and excellent low light lens. This makes sense though, as the Sony, which is classified as a pancake lens, has fewer optical elements and a slower maximum aperture of f/2.8. The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art is a great value when compared to the Sony 35mm f/1.4 because it outperforms the Sony in some ways for around $700 less. Between the two, the Sigma seems to suffer more but this is to be expected from fast lenses. Overall I find the rendering of the Sigma more true-to-life than that of the Sony. Bokeh will always look smoother on an overcast day vs a contrasty, sunny day. Last updated: November 15, 2019 Go to Comments. Size and weight wise, we’ve found that either lens is a good match for Sony E-mount cameras, though we hardly need to point out that any camera paired with the Sony 16mm will result in a more discreet and portable combo. I would like to stay native Sony but the 16 just seems like a solid comparable and affordable alternative. Interchangeable lenses for the Sony E-mount digital camera series with full-frame image sensors are added as members of the Art line. The imperfections of Sony E-mount lenses, such as distortion, are either corrected in-camera or via a profile applied in your post production software. Your personal data won't be recorded until the form has been submitted successfully. . The difference can be seen by looking at the two images below. I don’t often make sweeping statements about sharpness, as the differences between lenses are often quite subtle, but in the case of these two primes, I can say beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Sigma is much sharper and has better contrast at all aperture values up to f/4. Whereas the Sony peaks at around f/5.6 at the centre, the Sigma’s performance is almost identical from f/2 to f/5.6. The size I'm not too concerned with either. Read our detailed comparison of the Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS vs Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC DN C to find out their strengths and weaknesses, and decide which one to choose. I'm trying to figure out how far away from a subject I would need to get a solid shot with either the 35 or the 16. There are difference in color rendition as well. Flare and ghosting can occur with either lens, especially when shooting in the direction of bright light sources, but I didn’t find it overly invasive. I use the Sigma 16mm at f1.4 for all of my videos (www.youtube.com/hikyletaggart) and I've done a review on both lenses. Make Offer - Sigma 35mm F1.4 ART DG HSM NEW PRIME WIDE Lens for SONY CAMERA in FACTORY BOX SIGMA 35mm F1.2 DC DN SPORT PRIME LENS for SONY E NEW in FACTORY BOX & CASE $1,499.00 I personally prefer the sigma lenses over the Sony lenses. The Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN Lens and 30mm f/1.4 DC DN Lenses are specifically designed for the Sony E-Mount APS-C crop factor cameras like the Sony A6500, A6400, and A6000 for example. This is mainly thanks to a massive effort from Sony but also the result of third-party manufacturers investing in the system. We were not asked to write anything about these lenses, nor were we provided with any sort of compensation. The Sony features a lightweight aluminium alloy finish. The Sigma does seem to produce a little more barrel distortion than the Sony, but the difference is subtle. Last Updated on January 12, 2021 by Melissa Teng. amzn_assoc_tracking_id = "mlscomp-nsa-20"; 00. Sigma Contemporary Lens Bundle Includes Sigma 16mm f/1.4DC DN - 30mm f/1.4 DC DN - Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC DN for Sony E-Mount Cameras, Black $1,087.00 Get the deal Last updated: June 14, 2018 Go to Comments. The focus ring of the 16mm is very very loose. If the sigma 30mm is anything like the other two sigmas in it's class I would go for that one as it is cheaper than the other two currently. Sold the 35mm mainly because of the 35mm does not fit my shots. Although the performance is closer from f/5.6 onwards, the Sigma does retain some extra sharpness and micro contrast. This is due to the Sigma having more focus breathing when focusing at the shortest distance. I believe that all these features combined make it worth the extra expense in comparison to the Sony lens. Just trying to get a feel for what's better for everyday use whether it's going to the park and shooting sports or shots of the kids. *There is also a third 16mm prime for the E-mount, the Samyang Rokinon 16mm f/2 manual focus lens. Because the Sigma 16mm and Sony 16mm are wide-angle lenses, it isn’t particularly easy to achieve a pleasant shallow depth of field unless you focus close to your subject and use the fastest apertures available. Happily, the autofocus of both lenses are very smooth and quiet for both stills and video shooting. Thanks for reaching out on here. TechnologyMafia on the Tube definitely helped and then the MFer decided to go against all the praise he gave the Sigma so now I'm just lost. amzn_assoc_ad_mode = "manual"; Thanks! Like someone else said, 16mm and 35mm are very different focal ranges. Where mirrorless cameras go head-to-head! amzn_assoc_ad_type = "smart"; Looking at the examples below, we can see that the Sigma does indeed produce a smoother, more pleasant background blur than the Sony, especially when used wide open. The Sigma’s ring is much more precise, not to mention that the rubber ribbing and extra thickness make it easier to grab and twist. 4.8 out of 5 stars 363. The Sigma 16mm f/1.4 and Sony 16mm f/2.8 have the same focal length which equates to a 24mm equivalent field of view in 35mm terms. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. Say I purchased the 16, if I was to crop the shot down to what I wanted, how that would look or if it would look too distorted? Also, most of it disappears in images taken with the Sigma by f/2.8 but with the Sony at this value, it can occur. But I've wondered how much slower does it actually work? Sigma 19mm f/2.8 DN Art. We were not asked to write anything about these lenses, nor were we provided with any sort of compensation. This is why the announcement of the Sigma 16mm f/1.4, with its 24mm equivalent field of view and fast maximum aperture, was such breath of fresh air for E-mount users. Returning to the scene we used for the field of view comparison, we can see that the Sony lens produces a slightly cooler rendering than the Sigma. I'm not worried about video because I only do photos right now. If you use manual focus (which you stated you do), just note the Sony 35mm focus ring is a lot tighter than the Sigma 16mm. amzn_assoc_search_bar = "false"; Neither is classified as weather-sealed but the Sigma benefits from a brass bayonet mount that is surrounded by a special sealing to keep dust and moisture out.
Disco Elysium Harry Portrait, No Gods, No Masters'' In Latin, How Do You Mix Fly Bait And Coke, Rockcastle County Property Valuation Administrator, Italian Fries Burger King, Wagner Paint Sprayer Manual, Ritz Paris Bedroom, Christine Woods She-ra, How Big Is A 40 Lb Pig, Falken Vs Goodyear, Who'd You Rather Be The Beatles Or The Rolling Stones, You Are A Reflection Of Your Parents, Sognare Di Piangere, Arado Ar 196 Bismarck,
