Sony 14mm f/1.8 GM Review vs Sigma 14mm f/1.8 Art: The best astrophotography lens!

[@momchilyordanov8190]

Sony released absolute gems in their 14/1.8 and 20/1.8.

[@boutthere3374]

I just picked up the 20mm and for my needs it brilliant.Cheers.

[@rogziel]

I picked up the 20 1.8 to replace my Laowa 15 2.0 and haven't been disappointed. Also doesn't hurt you can get the 20 for half what the 14 costs.

[@WaitButHow]

I just got the 14/1.8 for A7 IV and can turn it into 21mm lens with a press of a button by switching to APS-C mode. Pretty versatile. Same can be said about 20/1.8, where APS-C mode would turn into a fast street photography lens.

[@mr.j5526]

The one time you get the Sony over the Sigma without much debate.

[@kenneth6102]

It's an old generation of Sigma lenses designed for DSLR refitted for mirrorless. The real contender would be the Sigma 14mm DG DN when it's released.

[@evilarhan1]

I keep hearing T&C Shop as "Teensy Shop" and I don't see how that's not better in every way.

[@Eikenhorst]

Another common usage for using a very fast, very wide prime lens is in underwater photography. Getting close to your subject there is key and especially at depth light is in short supply.

[@andalchen]

Can you change the aperture underwater though

[@Eikenhorst]

@@andalchen You can. The housing does allow for all camera controls to be used. It isn't as easy as the housings are fairly large and so ergonomics aren't great in general. You can often also zoom if you get the right zoom ring to fit the lens, but since you always want to be as close as possible this doesn't really make sense in general.

[@TonyAndChelsea]

Yes, good point that I didn't think of (because we haven't had the opportunity to use an underwater housing in a long time)

[@andalchen]

@@Eikenhorst Yes, but I thought this lens is manual aperture control only. Or maybe they have a special port that allows the aperture ring to be turned.

[@Eikenhorst]

@@andalchen No, it does have automatic aperture control too, you can see the 'A' setting on the aperture ring very clearly at 7:00. I don't think any underwater housing would allow control of the aperture ring indeed.

[@ggreyshade]

i just sold my sigma art 14-24 f2.8 and i bought the sony 14 1.8 GM and it just arrived. its so small and amazingly complimentary to my other sony 24 1.4 GM.

[@VLS28]

After 2 years that you have this sony 14mm , you think its much better than sigma art 14-24 f 2.8?

[@web]

Not sure those metric weight numbers are correct at 8:05

[@Wa_Ken]

it is accurate, as per the photographer.

[@TonyAndChelsea]

Yeah looks like I typed them in the wrong places

[@aps5150]

6:23 really got me. I intended my next body to be RF, but Canon doesn’t have a comparable lens and hasn’t opened the mount to other manufacturers. I’ll need to check out a Sony before spending all that money.

[@longliveclassicmusic]

But like he said… Do you actually seriously need this lens? Most people don't…

[@aps5150]

@@longliveclassicmusic for Milky Way photography, which I admittedly am still getting started doing. There are third-party EF lenses I could adapt which would probably be fine. But wide and very fast seems to be a rare combo!

[@reinhardwilting7996]

The focus curvation of the Sigma 14mm AF seems to be an issue when adapted to mirrorless cameras. On my Nikon D850 focusing is perfectly fine from center to corner. But adapted to my Nikon Z cameras with the same sensor the edges are defocused and soft, if focused on the center. The solution is a +3 focus correction for the Z cameras. It should be the same for Sony

[@v0ldy54]

Btw at 12:45 that's not coma, that's astigmatism ;)

[@DigitalSamTV]

At 8:06 how can the sigma be heavier than the Sony in pounds .. but much lighter than the Sony in grams? I don't get it.... Surely grams / pounds is proportional

[@loyalfans-kxngunkasaxxx2223]

It was a typo.. shoulda been 1170g = 2.6 lbs

[@balintk.9373]

For astro just buy a decent star tracker. Nothing can beat a low iso super long exposure with almost zero coma \ distortions. Also it costs much less btw.

[@WilliamJohnston]

Canon RF shooters should check out the Laowa 15mm f2 ‘Zero D’, it’s totally manual (which I tend to prefer for ultra-wide shooting anyway), and is extremely small and light - it even takes traditional filters and I found mine used for £550 in the UK. It’s so small it can be thrown in the camera bag ‘just in case’, though sounds like this new Sony is similar in that sense!

[@chanchito2009]

We need a review on the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM lens

[@TonyAndChelsea]

ok. I've been shooting and filming with it. I really love it.

[@MattHalpain]

16:36 16:56 I like what the Sony 14mm lens does for flower n foliage photos. As I am a hobby flower n foliage photographer.

[@Zarabozo]

7:06 - Your screen says the Sony is almost 3 times heavier than the Sigma - in grams. Further though, 2.6 Lb is 1,179 grams, but also in the Sony 1.1 Lb is really 499 grams, not 460.

[@loyalfans-kxngunkasaxxx2223]

It's suppose to say 1170g, they just left off the extra 1

[@davidthefat]

How’s it compared to the Zeiss 15mm f2.8 ZM other than the maximum aperture?

[@steveeb9567]

I owned a Zeiss Distagon 15mm F3.5 that was adapted to a Sony mount. The sweet spot was around f5.6-f8 and sides were fairly blurry. The minimum focus was really close and the blurry sides gave it a dreamy look for close up work like flowers. I wanted a fast, sharp lens for landscapes and night photography so I ended up selling it and buying the Sony 14mm. Like Tony said, most people are better off with the 16-35mm f2.8.

[@echoauxgen]

First GREAT that you showed the ultra wide perspectives and it is about the foreground subject with a big background. I, also, had the Sigma for a couple years before the Sony because I like MW capture. The Sigma has to be used at 2 or 2.8 due to coma dove stars and pincushion distortion, Capture One has a correction where you can see it and the foreground gets warped. Milky Way capture wide open is where the Sony is greatest. Doing a MW beach shot with a lifeguard chair 6ft away and a city 20 miles both are sharp (city zoomed 300%) even a ship anchored 1K yds. you can see through the glass of a person. Portrait view panos, not done at 14mm due to other lenses distortion, are so sharp and distortion free with 90% of frame with stars stitch perfectly in PS, Lr and ON1 Photo Raw but PTGui still more options. The heartbreaker is the Sony 1224 f/4 and f/2.8, 1635 f/4 and /f2.8, even the 1018 (1527) at full frame 12mm have been great for years for astro MW with no coma or pincushion and if shot at the new NPF rules per camera and mm no star trails. Yes more light at f/1.8 but also like a 20mm your SS will be faster to prevent star trailing. After years of being hooked to faster glass I have learned that on a Sony camera mark ii and above with ISO Inveranse no need to worry about ISO setting or loss of dynamic range the higher it is. Software is the real key, try this, I was at the Grand Canyon (2017) my first night I saw hikers on Bright Angel trail captured with A7rii and 12mm with 1224 f/4 at 30s, yes dark below with glowing stars above and bright hotel lights. At f/4 the highlights were controlled, 30s/6400 the shadows came out with great canyon colors and the stars where pinpoint amongst sky gas glow. The same settings will be needed for the 14mm f/1.8 (maybe faster SS). Also take a shot at 12mm then at 24mm and 24mm and 70mm, 24 looks really wide, just know your subject and what you desire!!! The 1224 is great for landscape and you will shoot 2 stops above for sharpness to and fro anyway.

[@brunoamoroso7216]

Which brand sells the CPL filter for the Sony 14 mm?

[@v0ldy54]

I'd still get a longer lens for astro tho, unless you really need 14mm for timelapse etc a longer lens will give you much more flexibility since you can do panoramas which will look much better than a 14mm shot.

[@DavidLilja]

I'm curios how the Laowa 15/2 stacks up against the Sony 14/1,8 GM. I would love the Sony but it's a bit steep in price. Will I regret getting the Laowa 15/2 instead or should I save some more to get the Sony 14/1,8?

[@popcornparam]

This is a vloggers paradise. Y is no one talking about that part.

[@FrankTaeger2021]

14mm makes your face look weird.

[@popcornparam]

@@FrankTaeger2021 you need a wide lens to vlog.

[@ken6260]

Because vlogging is death 😅

[@popcornparam]

@@ken6260 how dare you 😂😂😂😂

[@FrankTaeger2021]

@@popcornparam Wide, yes. Ultrawide? Not necessarily. A 14mm is different from say, a 20mm. With a mm and no crop you will have an acceptable level of facial distortion. Now, use a 14mm to get really close, as in vlogging, and you may not like the way your face looks like anymore. On full frame, I would argue that between 20-24 is a sweet spot for that, since it still looks good, even though with some cams you may really have to hold it out pretty far. 18mm may in fact work, but around 14-16 your face starts to look like a bloated balloon and most vloggers will want to avoid that.

[@jean-marcjodoin2323]

Does your rating / comment also apply to Nikon / canon version?

[@TonyAndChelsea]

yeah we've tried it on other platforms, too... BUT it's a pretty unique lens so if you're shooting Nikon or Canon you don't really have much of an alternative.

[@DanuteP]

Nice review. I had the Sigma for aurora and am now using the Sony 20mm f1.8. The Sigma was scary heavy and I hated using it in windy or very icy situations on the tripod. I probably won't get the Sony 14mm right now since the 20 works for me.

[@kalef1234]

Yeah I have the 20mm for astro too, it's damn good

[@LapseLifeProductions]

Great review as always! Looks like Sigma isn't in the same ballpark on this one. I've got the 12-24mm and don't use it enough to make sense for me to swap for the 14mm but would highly consider it if I get more into astro.

[@ClarkyAv]

I'd love to know how these compare to the Voightlander rectilinear super wide lenses. They're tiny and cheaper than these but supposedly have good optics!

[@patrickmayer7813]

Good optics, absolutely. But there is no comparison on the aperture size: Voigtlander 15mm, 12mm and 10mm have a maximum aperture of f5.6. That’s 4 stops less than those f1.8 lenses. Not great for astrophotography, separation of subject when wide open is much less. But, on a nice sunny day, their size is great when going out hiking.

[@BrianIrwin]

I know you mentioned the MC-11, but I will say that I found this to be super true with the Sigma 14mm on Sony, the Metabones never worked well, but the MC-11 made it good enough to use for concerts locking on the performers while including a lot of the attendees. I also agree with everything else, and am now using the Sony version, just need things to open more so I can use it at events :)

[@PhotoViking]

I replaced my Sigma 14/1,8 for the Sony 14/1,8. It is so much better. And just a friendly reminder that ”angelwings” are astigmatism, not coma. Sigma has a little coma too, but the big issue is the astigmatism.

[@wendystumbaugh695]

Is “coma” chromatic aberration?

[@PhotoViking]

@@wendystumbaugh695 No, coma makes ”lightpoints” at the edges look like comets. Chromatic aberration is when you get ”colorshadows” in strong contrastedges.

[@wendystumbaugh695]

@@PhotoViking I hadn’t heard of that term. Thank you!!!

[@photofrode]

I've no doubt it's better than the Laowa 15 as well, but it would be nice to see a comparison as it's such a good small lense for the price, and it takes front filters.

[@Spartacus1975]

I was waiting for this lens for almost 4 years 😆🌌 Perfect for my Milky Way shootings, very light and small, almost 800g less than the Sigma (more weight than my sleeping bag). Perfect on long hikes and climbes where weight is a great deal ⛺🗻

[@alexfox575]

i just bought this lens sony 14mm. I noticed a sound when you press shutter button on aperture above 1.8. At 1.8 it is silent and when you choose, for example 4.0, and press shutter button i hear this "chik chik" sound while focusing. Is it normal?

[@barthonhoff5547]

The Sigma is actually an DSLR lens adapted to Mirrorless. The next Sigma will be mirrorless and better than their current lens.

[@tongpopyro2691]

did you actually hear confirmation of the 14mm DN lens coming out or are you just hoping and wishing like i am

[@johnadams3038]

I was deciding to buy a new GM prime, and my choices were the new 14mm and 35mm but at the end decided to get the GM 35mm. Still wanna get it though

[@whfowle]

My use for the 14mm f1.8 is shooting in a cave like Carlsbad. It has over one stop advantage on the Canon and Nikon. Also, it is a lot smaller and lighter. And compared to the Nikon, is a prime. Many photo opportunities also force me to get really close to the subject in a cave.

[@tazzamund]

Excellent review - thanks Tony

[@CoachNation]

Excellent review, thanks. If I were at some point to get a 14mm prime I’m persuaded to go the Sony route. I completely get what you’re referring to about the CT landscape challenges (I live here, too).

[@subbbass]

7:07 the Sigma in g is much lighter than in lb. So i'll pick the Sigma ;-)

[@boutthere3374]

Thanks for this. I just figured out I do not need super wide and the Sony 20mm was a smart choice for my needs.Cheers.

[@WarpedMiniatures]

for filming and shooting small miniatures this lens is a godsend

[@djencode]

I have the 12-24 f2.8 and the wide angle is silly and dramatic and i love it!

[@spidersj12]

The Sigma is your best bet if you shoot anything other than Sony.

[@rdanielh78]

Thanks for the coupon, I had a good discount.

[@stjepanjina]

Tony, are you back to Sigma?

[@panopsata3038]

Let me guess, the in studio shot is not 4K?

[@TonyAndChelsea]

right, still filmed in HD but I wanted to show the screencasts in 4k.

[@IFrancyISantosI]

Nice. Long time no real review. I hope you doing more of that.

[@gewglesux]

Thanks T Dawg. I use my Nikon 14mm on my 850. works a treat!.

[@floriankupper5300]

Tony: at 7:06 the Sigma is 170 times the earths gravitational accelearation, something must be wrong. 🤓

[@neilb9937]

I have a fever and the only cure is less gear review videos. 🐄 🔔

[@TomReichner]

If this had really good close-up capabilities ... a.k.a. magnification, then I would switch to Sony in a heartbeat. I need a true wide angle lens that provides magnification of at least 0.5x. Sadly, this lens doesn't come even remotely close to that, with a maximum magnification of only 0.1x. Are there any lenses wider than 18mm that give maximum magnification of 0.5x without the need to add extension tubes?

[@dimdimich1]

Would like to know this too please!

[@rocksandoil2241]

There are times that this would be handle taking pictures of homes (appraisal) to get more in the photo. Stitching is a time consuming pain. But 18mm is "good enough" when faced with spending $1800... :)

[@lexnaturae6638]

Great review. However, comparison pictures both said "Sony," which was confusing.

[@rodfiori1968]

The “Sony” that you see in the side-by-side comparisons is referring to body they were shot with. Read further to the right for the lens distinction.

[@lexnaturae6638]

@@rodfiori1968 Thanks.

[@RossMcLendon]

Probably mentioning that the Sigma was designed for cameras with mirror boxes, while the Sony is natively a mirrorless lens. This is likely a big reason the Sony is so much smaller.

[@TonyAndChelsea]

yeah this is very true. these two lenses really highlight better than any other pair of lenses just how much reducing flange distance can improve lens design.

[@rickhelmke7893]

I’ve been enjoying your videos for the last couple years and usually learn something new but I’d like to ask a favor. Please leave the politics out of it.

[@adriangr.06]

Lens that are for portraits and special events

[@terrydanks]

Now he tells me! I am an astro guy. Bought the Sigma. It was supposedly a great lens for astro. Nope. It sucks really. Stars in the corners are just horrendously bad @ f/1.8 But, as a Canon shooter, this wonderful Sony lens, which so outshines the Sigma, is not really an option. That said, I had not noticed any AF issues. The Sigma seems to AF just fine on my R and R5. The lens, trashy as it might be wide open on stars, seems fine for terrestrial photos. Of course, unlike Tony, I have not compared it to the Sony.

[@DaveStern2]

you get the best rhyme of the comments award! "unlike Tony, I have not compared it to the Sony" :-)

[@yevgenbyelykh8611]

Try to use Irix 21/1,4 for astro. I have EOS R + Irix 21/1,4 and it works really well for astro! Not expensive lens (600€), MF, but really good glass.

[@harryhuang7]

its a full frame go pro

[@southfloridagardener5357]

i'm from ct also, there's a ton of hidden gems there.

[@forrestp33]

I got my new SONY 90mm Macro lens from KEH. I'm thinking of selling all of my Nikon equipment (Including a D7200) to them.

[@eternalwingspro4454]

I guess Sony G Master Lenses are fantastic overall. Although not always the best but I am sure none of them are bad.

[@TonyAndChelsea]

The newer ones are amazing. The original GM lenses (like the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8) were GOOD but definitely need an update!

[@Sockeye404]

I wonder what the actual T values are for these lenses. Does the Sony let enough light in for Astro? It has such a small opening. I also noticed more grain in the darks on the Sony, possibly because of that? Additionally this auto-focusing issue you face, I cannot second it, it works flawless on the Canon, even for the stars in the Milky Way.

[@TonyAndChelsea]

I recall the Sigma let in a little more light than the Sony, but the exposures were very similar. Thanks for the input on the focusing on the Canon system.

[@richardbedford6166]

Great advice, thank you.

[@adriangr.06]

Love the video but can you guys do Nikon lens that are affordable?

[@Mr09260]

Try the 20mm f1.8 >> if you want 14 mm cheaper lens in Nikon >> 14-30 f4 S

[@RickMentore]

Sigma may well advised to lower their price!

[@Donbros]

Sigma is 350 cheaper hm

[@adriangr.06]

Hello

[@TP-Fotografie]

Watch your pounds and Kilograms, Tony.

[@kalef1234]

Too bad Sony's cameras aren't as non-intrusove for astrophotography. Messing with the RAW files, star eater on pretty much all bodies in some form or fashion. 14mm 1.8 sigma is still REALLY GOOD. Just needs a discount now 😉

[@blindeyezphotography]

very useful, thanks!

[@ponderingnugget]

My sigma 14-24 focuses flawlessly, maybe a bad copy here.

[@shadyninja1]

Tony, what did you expect? It's a native lens

[@donstravelsandrants.]

Love these videos.👍💙😊

[@Voicewav]

Those landscape (with a person) shots are phenomenal.

[@lsaideOK]

Bad copy of the Sigma? Is evaluating just one copy of a lens that valid? Roger Cicala doesn't think so.

[@Knowbody42]

Gerald Undone came to the same conclusion comparing the Sony and Sigma 14mm f/1.8 lenses

[@terrydanks]

This whole "good copy/bad copy" drives me right up the wall! It is tantamount to "killing the ump." Maybe there are those of us who get the opportunity to cherry pick products from dealers' stock but most of us don't get a chance to play that game.

[@TonyAndChelsea]

We've tested two copies of the Sigma and had the same results. The other copy was a Canon EF mount. But also see sdp.io/flaws

[@lsaideOK]

@@terrydanks You must live a short drive from Crazytown! 😉 Read Roger Cicala. Much of what Tony said is factual. Heavy, big, no aperture ring, front weighted, bulbous front element. Some will probably be confirmed by others. Flare and ghosting with sun near the frame, for instance. But, his lack of interest in using the dock concerned me. The dock allows one to af fine-tune a lens for four different distances for a prime. Plus, one easily downloads firmware upgrades that Sigma provides. So, I think it is more scientific to try it than not. Af unreliability may be true of most copies. It was not designed for mirrorless and should probably be updated so I would probably arrive at a similar conclusion. But, I always test each lens I buy myself after handling the various choices at brick and mortar stores. Fortunately, I've only had to return one lens I bought and another I rented. I haven't had to do much of any adjusting with the docks but have benefited from firmware updates.

[@lasarith2]

Only took me asking then for 7 years …

[@ianjohnstone1061]

Non Tony - they'r Leopards..🙃AU

[@stephenpartridge686]

2.6lb equals 170gms? Wow I now weigh 1022lbs!!!! :)

[@jessedelice]

I got my Sigma f/1.8 for $600

[@dimdimich1]

👌

[@rowen0fstrata]

How?

[@EdgarHernandez-xj5mx]

It’s all about the 12-24. It’s just like double the price. ha ha

[@digitalclips]

You forgot to add 'dusty' in the intro...

[@lichtloper]

huge... must weigh a tonne

[@EH-pm1ke]

Ugh that laptop sticker, really? Helpful vid though!

[@Vikashlk7]

First Views hi

[@Mr09260]

The Best Astro Lens on the planet is the Nikon Z 20mm f1.8 S .. < No Vignetting and Coma wide open .. doubt if these 2 x 1.8 (Half stop faster ) lenses have that characteristic

[@lilnape2604]

I’ve heard the Sony 20 1.8 is even better.

[@v0ldy54]

It's good but definitely not the best, plus there's the problem you have to mount it on Nikon Z cameras which suffer from noise reduction in RAW files which can't be turned off

[@lilnape2604]

@@v0ldy54 where’d you find the info about NR that can’t be turned off?

[@v0ldy54]

@@lilnape2604 People investigating it are mainly on cloudynights etc, just Google "Z6 astrophotography.noise reduction" and you'll see what I'm talking about. Z6 and 7 should be fine for landscape astro tho, the problem comes if you also want to use them for deep sky which requires more advanced stacking

[@v0ldy54]

@@lilnape2604 People investigating it are mainly on cloudynights etc, just Google "Z6 astrophotography.noise reduction" and you'll see what I'm talking about. Z6 and 7 should be fine for landscape astro tho, the problem comes if you also want to use them for deep sky which requires more advanced stacking

[@dadasese69]

Didn't know that people still photograph night stars with Sony sensors???

[@WalkForFreedomOz]

I just bought a Sony and keen to try it out on the stars. ✨

[@tobyz.3452]

i can't believe you still have the racist sticker on your laptop... \ALL LIVES MATTER !!