鏡頭評測 誰是14mm之王 | 適馬 14mm dg dn 對比 索尼 14gm 鏡頭評測

Hello again everyone, and ever since I published my review of the ground-breaking new Sigma 14mm f1.4 lens yesterday, I've had lots of comments asking how it compares to the Sony 14mm f1.8 G Master lens. Both of them cost about the same, US$1,500 or about £1,400 here in the UK. But the newer Sigma lens offers a much brighter aperture, sucking in about 66% more light for your camera, which has understandably got astrophotographers very excited. But it's also extra useful for other kinds of photography, like shooting indoor events, and also helpful for video work, where every last extra bit of light can make a difference. So, let's put them side by side. I'm only going to cover some of the key features and quality differences here in this shorter video today. If you want full reviews with all kinds of extra details, check out the links in the description below, as well as affiliate links if you actually want to buy one, which goes towards supporting this channel. Thanks in advance, everyone! Firstly, there are some obvious differences in build quality, the first of which being the lenses' respective sizes and weight. At 460 grams, the Sony lens is lightweight and about a third the weight of the Sigma, which comes in at about 1.2 kilograms, or coming on to 3 pounds. It's the first ultra-wide lens I've ever seen that comes with an Arca-Swiss tripod mount, but the Sigma lens does feel a bit tougher in its build quality, admittedly. Both lenses are weather-sealed to a similar degree. Neither lens can accept front filters, but both of them can accept rear gel filters, although the Sigma lens even allows you to store them in a special hidden compartment in its lens cap, a feature I've never seen before anywhere else. Both lenses have autofocus motors that work very quickly, silently and accurately, and track your subject perfectly fine. They both show some focus breathing, too, although that's not really something terribly important when working at such wide angles. Both lenses have good controllability for video work, with nice aperture rings that can be set to turn smoothly or with clicks, but the Sigma lens has a couple of extra usability options. It has a switch to lock that aperture ring in or out of automatic mode, which is something I personally find quite useful, and it also has a manual focus lock switch, which could also be helpful for astrophotographers who want to lock their camera's focus to infinity when shooting out in the dark. Both lenses come with useful carry cases. The Sigma's is a bit bigger and better padded than the Sony's, though. Neither lens has image stabilisation. Overall, in terms of build quality, the Sigma lens is pretty monstrous in comparison to the Sony, but also feels a bit tougher. They both work excellently, but the Sigma lens does have one or two extra little features that can make themselves useful. Let's take a look at image quality, then. These test pictures were both taken on my Sony a7R III, with its full-frame 42-megapixel sensor. Inner camera corrections are turned on for this test. While I tested the lenses on the same camera, I tested them at different times, and with slightly different test charts. I upgraded my test chart a little while ago to a bigger one, with a smoother printed surface, but you'll be able to see any differences in image quality still quite clearly here. In the middle of their images, at their respective maximum apertures, both lenses are razor-sharp, with excellent contrast. Let's look in the corners. Both lenses are a touch softer now, but I can see the Sigma lens has a small advantage in resolution, just small. Stop down to f2, or f2.8, and the Sigma lens gets sharper, whereas the Sony lens, well, doesn't really, and that is in accordance with other reviews I've seen on the internet. They both stay this sharp down to f8. Stop down to f16, and they both begin to get softer due to diffraction. So overall, it seems to me that the Sigma lens does have a slight advantage in corner sharpness at f1.4, compared to the Sony at f1.8, and when stopped down, that advantage becomes a little bigger. If you turn off in-camera corrections, then you'll see that both lenses project a moderate barrel distortion. At their brightest apertures, both lenses suffer from heavy vignetting, unsurprisingly, a lot of darkness in their corners. But this is where the Sigma lens has another small advantage, because if you stop down to f2, you're actually narrowing the Sigma lens's aperture by a full stop, which means its corners are a little brighter than the Sony lenses. Again, that could be something helpful for astrophotography, where having to boost up the brightness in your image corners can make picture quality get a bit ugly. Here's at f2.8. It's not a big difference, but still another slight win to the Sigma lens here. Both lenses can get you similarly close to your subject here, but this time, it's the Sony lens that pulls ahead. At their brightest apertures of f1.4 and f1.8, and even if you stop down the Sigma lens to f2, it's clear that the Sony lens is far better optimised for close-up shooting. It's only really at f2.8 that the Sigma lens gets really sharp close-up. So if you're buying one of these lenses specifically to shoot close-up all the time, then the Sony is the clear winner for you. When it comes to work against bright lights, the Sigma lens has a small advantage here, showing a bit less flaring than the Sony lens, although it's not a big problem on the Sony lens. When it comes to correcting coma issues, which is essential for astrophotography, both lenses perform very similarly well, showing almost no coma smearing at their brightest apertures, and stop them down to f2 for anything that was there to be gone. Again, though, here you can see the Sigma lens's corners are just a touch sharper. Let's stop down to f11 and look for sun stars. On the Sony lens, they look just a little better defined here, just a little. Both lenses have very smooth quality bokeh, which is not to be taken for granted when shooting at such wide angles. Overall, both lenses perform very similarly here in a lot of ways. For astrophotography, the Sigma is noticeably better, with slightly sharper, brighter corner image quality, and of course, that much brighter maximum aperture, which makes a real difference when shooting at night. The Sony lens, however, is way smaller and lighter, making it a bit more handy for general use, and it's sharper when shooting close up. Also, I have to recommend the Sigma over the Sony lens here, because for the same price, you're getting a brighter aperture and slightly better sharpness. All wonderful things. But I totally accept also that some photographers will be put off by its huge size and weight, and prefer the smaller, handier Sony lens. Thanks for watching, everyone. Check out my Patreon page in the description below, where supporters get all kinds of exclusive bonus content just for them that I really enjoy putting together. Happy shooting, all you night owls out there.