Sigma 60mm F28 Ex Dn Art Portrait Lens Sony E Mount
Two of the primeval portrait lenses for the Sony Eastward mount organization were the Sony Due east 50mm f/1.viii OSS and the Sigma 60mm f/two.8 DN A. The old appeared in 2011, just a year afterwards the E mount was launched, whereas the latter arrived in 2013 and is one of 3 of Sigma "Art" lenses for mirrorless cameras with a Sony E or Micro Four Thirds mountain.
Despite their age, nosotros felt it was worth comparing these ii lenses side-by-side given the ever-growing in involvement in Sony's range of APS-C cameras featuring the Eastward-mount. Let's have a look and encounter what they have to offer!
Ethics argument:Sigma UK provided us with a sample of the Sigma 60mm f/2.8 to test for three weeks. We bought the Sony 50mm f/1.eight for our own personal apply. We were non asked to write anything well-nigh the lenses, nor were we provided with whatever sort of compensation. Within the article, there are affiliate links. If you buy something afterwards clicking the link, we will receive a minor committee. To know more about our ethics, you can visit our full disclosure page. Thank yous!
[toc heading_levels="2″]
Main Specifications
Sony 50mm f/i.8 OSS
- Mount: Sony Due east-mount
- Format: APS-C
- Focal length: 50mm (75mm in 35mm equivalent terms)
- Lens configuration: 9 elements in 8 groups
- Angle of view: 32°
- Minimum focusing distance: 39cm
- Magnification: 0.16x
- Aperture blades: 7 circular blades
- Aperture range: 1.8 to 22
- Filter diameter: 49mm
- Atmospheric condition-sealing: No
- Optical stabilisation: Yep (Optical SteadyShot)
- Dimensions: 62 x 62mm
- Weight: 202g
Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN A
- Mount: Sony East-mount
- Format: APS-C
- Focal length: 60mm (90mm in 35mm equivalent terms)
- Lens configuration: viii elements in vi groups
- Angle of view: xx.4°
- Minimum focusing distance: 50cm
- Magnification: 0.139x
- Aperture blades: seven circular blades
- Discontinuity range: ii.eight to 22
- Filter diameter: 46mm
- Conditions-sealing: No
- Optical stabilisation: No
- Dimensions: 60.8 10 55.5mm
- Weight: 190g
Design and Ease of Apply
Nigh lenses designed for the Sony APS-C system are fairly light and compact, and the Sony 50mm and Sigma 60mm are no exception. The Sony is just a little taller, thicker and heavier than the Sigma only these differences get irrelevant one time you mountain the lens onto your camera.
Check the price of the Sigma 60mm f2.viii on B&H Photograph.
Whereas the fastest aperture of the one-time is f/1.8, the latter is limited to f/2.8. Both accept a minimum discontinuity of f/22 and seven circular discontinuity blades.
The build quality of both is good cheers to the combination of metallic and plastic parts, including a solid metal mount. The simply drawback is the lack of atmospheric condition-sealing. Be aware that when you lot milkshake the Sigma in "ability off" style (when the photographic camera is off or the lens is discrete from the mount), you will notice that the focusing mechanism makes a rattling dissonance. This is no cause for business equally information technology happens with all Sigma DN Art lenses and disappears once y'all plow the photographic camera on.
As far as concrete features go, there is only one to speak of: the large wing-by-wire focus ring that occupies most of the barrel. While the Sony'southward is ribbed and therefore a little easier to take hold of and twist, that of the Sigma is more prone to superficial scratching due to its smooth and shiny surface.
Both lenses come with a rounded plastic lens hood (the Sony'south is noticeably longer) and a clip-on lens cap. They besides feature a filter thread (49mm on the Sony versus 46mm on the Sigma) to which you tin can attach ND filters.
Sadly, neither lens has a particularly impressive minimum focus altitude (39mm on the Sony and 50mm on the Sigma), so they are of lilliputian apply for macro piece of work.
Optical Quality – Through the lens
Sharpness
Looking at side-by-side images taken a curt focus distance, we can meet that the Sigma is sharper than the Sony at the eye between f/two.viii and f/four, whereas the results become much more similar from f/five.6 onwards. On the Sigma, sharpness peaks at f/4 whereas the all-time performance is found at f/5.half-dozen on the Sony.
By f/11, diffraction starts to influence the sharpness of the paradigm simply it just becomes noteworthy at f/16.
Every bit for the Sony's fastest value of f/1.viii, information technology is significantly softer than f/2.8 on either lens.
We can discover a like trend with images taken at a longer distance: the Sigma is over again a little sharper than the Sony at f/two.8 and f/4 only things fifty-fifty out later f/5.6.
As well interesting to note is that the Sigma's corner sharpness is much improve than the Sony's at all values.
Information technology isn't very often nosotros can say this almost two lenses in a similar category but the Sigma seems to have the Sony beat in terms of overall sharpness, which isn't surprising considering the Sigma's reputation every bit an excellent performer.
Bokeh
If the Sigma wins in terms of sharpness, the Sony certainly has the advantage of the faster f/1.viii aperture, which is capable of rendering a shallower depth of field with larger specular highlights than the Sigma whose maximum aperture is only f/two.8.
The Sigma is aided past its slightly longer focal length, which helps to blur the groundwork and compensates to some degree for the lack of a very fast maximum aperture but it isn't capable of producing the aforementioned results as the Sony. What is also interesting to note is that at f/2.eight, the highlights begin to take on the shape of the seven blade diaphragm on the Sony.
With the correct background, you'll notice the both produce a balmy swirly consequence that suits portraits very well. At their fastest corresponding apertures, the specular highlights assume a true cat's eye shape nearly the border of the frame.Though the Sony at f/1.eight undoubtedly produces the nearly visually pleasing result, I personally find the rendering of the Sigma more attractive when both lenses are set to f/2.eight.
Flare
The Sony and Sigma, similar most lenses, aren't allowed to flare and ghosting, though I never constitute it specially invasive. The worst examples always occur when you shoot into direct sunlight, such as in the two sample images beneath.
Chromatic aberration
Chromatic aberrations can exist more than problematic on the Sony. It is nowadays at f/1.viii and f/ii and may fifty-fifty rear its ugly head at f/four. As for the Sigma, I didn't come beyond any relevant examples of chromatic abnormality during my testing menses.
Distortion and Vignetting
The Sony lens produces very little native distortion and that which does exist is either corrected in-photographic camera (JPGs) or in a post-production software with the native lens profile (RAW). In fact, if you disable the profile corrections in Lightroom, there is inappreciably whatsoever divergence betwixt the corrected and uncorrected versions.
Slide to the correct to see the uncorrected version, to the left to see the corrected version
In the case of the Sigma, you'll notice that Lightroom makes a small adjustment if you activate the dedicated profile in the Lens Corrections section.
Slide to the right to see the uncorrected version, to the left to come across the corrected version
Some balmy vignetting is present up until effectually f/5.vi on the Sony lens, or f/2.8 on the Sigma, only it can be corrected either manually or by applying the dedicated lens profile.
Field of view
The Sony 50mm offers a field of view equivalent to 75mm on full-frame cameras, whereas the Sigma 60mm offers a slightly longer 90mm. Both can be classified every bit medium telephoto primes and adapt a variety of genres including portraits, weddings, events, travel and even landscapes in some cases.
Colours
The Sigma appears to take a slightly cooler rendering than the Sony when set to the aforementioned white remainder. Proceed in heed that if y'all use the RAW files, you can adjust the colours of your image in post-production to suit your gustation.
Stabilisation
One of the biggest advantages of the Sony lens is the inclusion of Optical SteadyShot (optical stabilisation), which is especially useful if y'all own a Sony APS-C trunk that doesn't have in-body stabilisation such as the popular a6000/a6300 models. Those who own the latest model, the a6500, will consider optical stabilisation less of a deal-billow because information technology already incorporates 5-axis in-body stabilisation.
In our tests with the Sony lens on the a6300, we were able to accept sharp images downwards 1/five of a 2nd following a few attempts but our success rate was higher betwixt 1/10 and 1/fifteen of a second.
In the instance of stabilised bodies such as the a6500, the photographic camera uses 3 axes on the sensor and 2 axes on the optically stabilised lens to produce a combined 5-centrality stabilisation system. Our review of the camera revealed that combining optical and in-body stabilisation doesn't provide a tangible advantage over optical stabilisation on its own. For this reason, it wasn't a surprise that we were only able to manage a slightly better result of one/4 of a second with the Sony 50mm.
The Sigma isn't stabilised, then it is best to stick with safe shutter speeds in a higher place 1/20 of a second if y'all desire sharp results on a not-stabilised body.
Autofocus performance
To test the autofocus of the two lenses, I used the a6300 with the latest firmware (version one.10). Information technology uses Sony's most recent hybrid autofocus system which comprises 425 stage detection AF (PDAF) points and 169 contrast detection points. You lot can find out more about the a6300's autofocus system hither.
At that place is very trivial to say confronting the autofocus mechanism of the Sony lens: information technology is quick in good calorie-free in both single AF and continuous AF, specially when combined with the phase detection autofocus organization (PDAF) of the latest Sony bodies, and only slows down a petty in poor light conditions or scenes with little dissimilarity.
The Sigma, on the other mitt, is somewhat more sluggish because the PDAF squares only work at the very heart in Wide or Expand Flexible Spot style. In whatever of the other modes and anywhere else across the frame, the lens relies on contrast detection autofocus. It works well in S-AF with static subjects just once you try to rail moving subjects, exist they slow or fast, the lens has a hard time keeping up. In fact, I used the lens at a parade and less than half of my images were in focus.
The AF mechanism of both lenses is very quiet, making them useful for stills and video piece of work.
Manual focusing
The wing-by-wire manual focusing experience of both lenses is fine merely betwixt the ii, we tend to adopt the Sony's focus band, not merely considering it has a ribbed design only besides because information technology provides smoother transitions than the Sigma.
The fourth dimension it takes to travel from infinity to the minimum focus distance on the Sony depends on the speed at which y'all turn the ring: turning it quickly takes 1 i/4 of a turn whereas turning it slowly requires near 3 full turns.
The Sigma requires a 3/4 plough regardless of how fast or slow you turn the ring.
Conclusion
As we've already seen, the Sony 50mm and the Sigma 60mm each come with their own set of advantages and disadvantages.
The Sony provides two principal benefits over the Sigma: the inclusion of optical stabilisation and complete compatibility with Sony's latest PDAF arrangement. Thanks to the former, you can employ shutter speeds downwardly to effectually ane/5 of a second on any Sony APS-C trunk, stabilised or not, whereas the latter is advantageous if you lot oftentimes shoot moving subjects or want to apply Sony's Eye AF office to its full potential.
What surprised me nearly the Sigma was its sharpness at all apertures beyond the frame, regardless of whether you prepare it to a brusque or long focus distance. This makes it a skilful option non simply for portraits merely also street and landscapes. At the nearly of import apertures of f/ii.viii and f/four, it beats the Sony while all values at f/five.6 and beyond are extremely close.
As for the out-of-focus rendering, the Sony has a leg upwardly on the Sigma because of its faster maximum discontinuity of one.8. That said, we do find that the Sigma has a very nice bokeh rendering at f/2.8.
Finally, there is the small-scale matter of price to consider. Since neither lens is recent, you tin discover them both at a proficient toll 2d-hand. However, if you programme to buy them make new, be enlightened that the Sony generally costs between $xx and $40 US more than the Sigma.
Cull the Sony 50mm f/1.viii if you lot:
- own a Sony APS-C body that lacks in-body stabilisation and want more than stability for video or hand-held photography in low-lite
- shoot moving subjects on a regular ground
- place more importance on shallow depth of field than sharpness
Choose the Sigma 60mm f/2.eight if you:
- want the sharpest results possible
- plan to shoot landscapes and street with this focal length (the corners are very sharp)
- tend to shoot static or very wearisome-moving subjects
- own a stabilised Sony APS-C camera like the a6500
Check the cost of the Sony 50mm f/i.8 OSS on
Amazon | Amazon UK | B&H Photo | eBay
Check the toll of the Sigma 60mm f/ii.8 DN A on
Amazon | Amazon United kingdom | B&H Photo | eBay
Second-mitt Sony lenses on
MPB US | MPB UK
You may likewise be interested in:
- Sony E 35mm f1.8 vs 50mm f1.8
- Sony 35mm f1.eight vs Sigma 30mm f1.4 vs 30mm f2.eight
Sample Images
Sony 50mm f/1.eight OSS
Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN Art
Source: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/e-mount-lenses/sony-50mm-1-8-vs-sigma-60mm-2-8-dn/