1. I bought the F1.2 about a month ago, kinda wish I bought this lens, the 1.2 is big and heavy, I would have saved a bit of cash buying this one but having said that, I’m not planning on selling the 1.2 for this.

  2. So happy to see the old intro again!

    Sony is killing it with their GM lenses, and Sigma is a fantastic price/performance balance for everyone else. Those on E mount are absurdly lucky with the available choices.

  3. New product release order of operation: Watch Gerald Undone’s video to see if its any good. . . then if you have time, go check out some other videos!

  4. Love the outakes..nice comparison Sony is overpriced for this lens to be sure thanks for a another valuable viewpoint.

  5. Hello Gerald, a few 24-70 2.8 and 28-70 2.8 lenses were released since your last 24-70 video. Can we count on seeing a part two?👉👈

  6. I’m glad Sony is making a quality 50mm for a much more approachable price point than the 1.2. The 1.2 is one of my favorite lenses, but the price tag is pretty steep and makes it out of reach for many photographers and videographers.

  7. wow!!! and now Gerald has his video out… So fasT!!!!! oh hey, I love the NG section toward the end…. truly undone until you have NG parts in… and ya now you have done the 50mm 😉 for price tag review I am looking forward to the Sigma F/2, but otherwise… Gerald’s review is the one I like the best 😛

  8. The 50 1.2 is my favourite lens I’ve ever owned and I’ve not had a single issue with him. Happy to hear they’re expanding their range though. Now if they’d just release an updated 16-35…

  9. Whenever there’s a new piece of gear hitting the YouTube release embargo I mosey my way over to Gerald’s video to get the testing and opinions I can trust!

  10. It seems to me that the Sony Sonnar T FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA Lens is nearly as good as the 1.4 GM for 1/2 the price. Also, the 55mm is smaller, lighter, and slicker too. It fits the Sony Alpha system better. Over the years, Sony has been supersizing their gear. We will soon be up to mirrored camera territory again.

  11. Any thoughts on light transmission? Is the 1.2 a true 1.2, where it gives an extra 1/3 of a stop of light compared to the 1.4?

  12. In a nutshell, it comes down to (1) if u r making money with this lens and (2) if ur priority is shooting video (focus breathing compensation)
    If your answers are YES, get the Sony.

  13. Thanks for yet another great video Gerald. The best part of the videofor me was the bloopers at the end. Have a great day dude!

  14. Saving everyone a bunch of time for this and every subsequent G master vs Sigma review:

    “Overall the Sony is better optically and feels lighter and is a little smaller. However it costs 50% more but it’s not 50% better. Buy the Sony if you have the money, otherwise get the Sigma”

  15. Lens design and manufacturing has gotten so good over the last few years, that if by some miracle, lens reviewers couldn’t compare lenses at 200%, the only differentiators would be cost, size, weight, aperture range, and features. That would make for very short reviews.That being said, you really do great reviews.

  16. Having watched the prior review, the fringing looked really bad in cases like the tree backlit by the sunny sky, which is a situation I find myself in a lot shooting outdoors. That alone would put the Sony over the top for me.

  17. I own the 50mm 1.2 GM and I would easily prefer this one: 1.2 version is bigger and heavier, and for amateur photographer like me size & weight is more important then an aperture difference

  18. Was that a pun towards the woke mob? “Putting feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken!” 😂 Thanks for the nice review. Keep at it Gerald!

  19. I love the new dg dn but if you already have the a1 and other GMs, best to grab the Sony. Wondering if the AF goes to 30

  20. Nice thorough comparison (and I liked the bloopers at the end : ) . The close up sharpness relationship seems the opposite of the 35/1.4GM vs the 35/1.4DN. +50% cost is more like 100% in Euroland..well alternatives are nice

  21. I would definitely consider the GM if my A7siii had breathing comp, but that’s not going to happen is it.

  22. Thanks for great comparison. It’s sad to see that sigma has still that CA issue that it had with 1st version of 50 1.4 hsm art…CA is so obvious on the shots, disturbingly. GM did a great job, superior sharpness even at corners, almost none CA and shorter, lighter..it’s just a better choice.

  23. WHAT IS HAPPENING! D D G UN D . . . Gots himself lots o 50s! This video not only shows how amazing Sony lenses are and can be, but it also shows how incredibly far sigma has come. You have to hand it to them competing with the tech monster that Sony is my hat is tipped for them. Like you had mentioned i could see if it was 15% more OK sure go with the Sony for all the Sony goodness, but 50% more money! Shoot you can buy some really nice things for $400. Well as always you have satisfied my tech lens nerdy detail fix for the week sir and for that i say good day.

    I’m gund and 2 wrongs don’t make a Right but, 3 lefts does.

  24. I don’t understand why everyone loves the Sony Zeiss 55 mm 1.8. My copy has horrendous fringing, and the autofocus is incredibly slow compared to my 35mm 1.4 GM. I feel the 55 mm is a bit too small as well. The weight distribution of the 35 mm GM is perfect for my A7iii.

    This looks eons above the 55 mm.

    Unfair to compare the two? Probably, as they are for different markets and different technology. But if you value the upgrades this 50 mm brings, there’s no question that the GM is better than the Zeiss.

  25. I am unsure if it makes sense to buy it in Europe. The 1.4 is 2000 euros and the 1.2 is 2300 euros. I think in Europe the 300 euros difference makes little sense… it should be closer to 500 euros to actually make sense

  26. The size of the 1.4 is a bit more attractive vs the 1.2, but I’m going to stick with my Zeiss 55mm 1.8. Sharp, compact and reliable

  27. 4:41 What’s happening with the exposure as you are racking focus? Please tell me that’s auto exposing based on focus point, because if not, Houston, we have a problem.

  28. Samyang 50 1.4 ii is definitely worth considering for the price (40%), weight (100g lighter), and focus breathing control.

  29. I called it… Actually Sony went cheaper than I thought. I was so sure about they will price it $1398 have the same size and weight as my 35 f1.4 GM. Great job Sony, now this is a lens I am very interested in purchasing…

  30. I think the Sigma is around $900 and the Sony is around $1300? So I think it’s not 50% less? Great review by the way. I always come here first. Always the best.

  31. This is just an FYI, OK? There is also an other 50mm e-mount lense, that you should consider and that is the Samyang 50mm 1.4 FE II. It’s smaller than the new Sony GM 1.4 and lighter. it’s aldo much less expensive. By the way, it’s razor sharp. Here’s the specs: weight: 419g. 80mmwide and 90mm long. The filter is 71mm. The cost is $589.00 list price…Not too shabby! Lastly, don’t forget about the Sony 55mm 1.8. It’s only 280grams, 70mm long and 64mm wide. Even if it’s a little “long in the tooth” it’s a razor sharp optic. You can pick up a used one for $550.00.

  32. You are my one stop site for equipment reviews. I especially like when you do comparisons between lenses or cameras like you did in this video. You present the facts and dig into the features, especially IQ and give us examples. There are too many reviewers who sound like fan boys or sales persons. I like it when you give camera manufacturers some pushback. The way that they manipulate the release of features in one camera versus another to promote sales is a joke.

  33. I wonder if the Sigma lns on a Sony body loses any camera features. I also wonder which is better for video. (I have an FX30).

  34. 9:17 That’s a remarkable amount of longitudinal chromatic aberration on the sigma lens. Dark text has become red 😅 It seems that Sony 50 1.4 GM is worse on close distance, but its longitudinal may be better at a far distance.

  35. the Samyang AF 50mm F1.4 II is almost a hundred grams lighter, has much less focus breathing, AF is good enough for most situations, really sharp and half the price..just saying

  36. Really like this video! (and all your others)
    Could you make a review on Sony FE 50 mm F2.8 Macro Lens (SEL50M28) interested to see your opinion on it, maybe even a comparison between that and the 90mm and/or sigma alternatives?

  37. I cannot wait to get this! The 500m f1.2 was just a little too heavy too me but finally the f1.4 seems like a great in between.

  38. that’s it and end of it .. sigma has the same amount if not more glass but they lack the formula. My only gripe with Sony is their price.. wish sigma finds the secret formula their management and engineers make Sony for much less .. wish

  39. What’s up everyone I’m Gerald Undone and when I make a blooper I reach for my crouch 🤣

    Love your videos!

  40. I love how Gerald says “if you’re seriously considering buying one…”

    You know we just watch you as entertainment at this point.

    I haven’t even owned a Sony since 2021!

  41. How much ???? Makes the exoFuji 33 1. 4 seem an utter bargain – now just wait for all the Sony fans to attack ….😵😵‍💫🤪

  42. In Europe the price difference is 79% (!) 1699 € vs. 949 € incl. VAT. You actually get the 35 1.4 + the new 50 1.4 from Sigma for just 90 € more than what you pay for the Sony GM 50 1.4 alone.

  43. Interesting review. The fact that Sony is not publishing the MTF charts is ridiculous. I really wonder why. Maybe the charts don’t look as good, because they rely too much on their in camera correction. They should have adopted the practice of publishing proper lens data sheets including mtf charts and other lens metrics as Zeiss has been doing for decades now. You can still download the data sheets for ancient Contax Zeiss lenses from the official Zeiss homepage. Of course Sony is not the only manufacturer that doesn’t publish proper information, most don’t do it nowadays.

  44. I think the only reason to go with the GM is if you’re a video shooter & need the focus breathing compensation (coming from someone who owns 4 GM’s). If you only shoot stills or don’t care about breathing, sigma is always a fantastic value 😁 I love my 85 DG DN

  45. I was so confused at the end with why it seemed like he was putting his hands down his pants….hahaha then realized must be a stop/start trigger..😂🤣

  46. Hi Gerald, great comparison. Sorry for newbie question, I was wondering whether to invest in this 50mm/f1.4 or rather just take Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM II instead. I know prime lenses usually better and f1.4 is superb. But looking at the cost if needed to choose between 50mm/f1.2 and 50mm/f1.4, I’d probably choose 50mm/f1.4, however the 24-70mm f2.8 GM II kinda more options and need to sacrifice the f1.4, yet the price different can be justified and I tested the 24-70 GM OSS II sharpness using A7RV is amazing. Which one do you think you might choose? or none of them. 😀

  47. I’m thankful Mr. Gerald came along long before the now upon us generation of content where the presenter may or may not even be human. Otherwise, wouldn’t we ALL have to ask ourselves “Is this man a machine, or is the machine a man, or….

  48. Why does Gerald keep grabbing his d*** every time he makes a mistake. is it a magic wand to erase the past

  49. At this point I think the options are so close, there’s really only one sensible consideration when choosing: Are you a professional and a member of Sony Pro Services? If yes – get the Sony. If no – get the Sigma (or Tamron) equivalent.

  50. If we pixel-peep, yes, the Sony wins, however in the more real-life scenarios you presented, the sigma’s image looks more natural to my eye, so i would probably take the sigma

  51. Appreciate you making the point that, under laboratory conditions, the GM is the better lens but that for general photography (ie for 99% of your viewers), there isn’t much in it. At one point it was like you were comparing the same lens against itself! I love your technical breakdowns but we mustn’t forget that, ultimately, these lenses are being used for photography, not pixel peeping. With this in mind, I assume the Sigma is a better choice if budget is your main priority. Money no object? The GM. Another top notch review, thank you.

  52. Hey Gerald, I just realized you never do Tamron lenses reviews right? Any reason why? Most of my lenses are Tamron which for the price/value that are usually the best option for E Mount

  53. I’ve got the Sony 50mm 1.2 GM, just started watching this out of curiosity, wondering why release this one except I’m guessing it’s hundreds of dollars cheaper & a little lighter/smaller. LOVE the 1.2 and won’t change but love the content & being in the loop!

  54. If they are that close it is hard to spend that extra 50% for this lens. Thanks Gerald for another great review.

  55. Sharpness, CA, bokeh and other pixel peeping nonsense aside, Sigma images actually look dull and flat and hard on the eyes to look at, especially when there’s a lot of different things going on in the image. Something like GM, Voigtlander, Zeiss or even some of the Sonys Cine line lenses produce much more pleasing and easy on the eye images aka. that ”medium format look.”

  56. One of the most nonsense and meaningless lens Sony has ever made!!! They already have f1.2 version. So, they should release the f1.8 mark II which has faster and more reliable focus instead.

  57. i love that you put your recording trigger under the table in that spot because for a moment I was confused what you were reaching for. That was an entertaining moment.

  58. Ouch when has $1500usd become affordable? IMO $1999 for f1.2 is better value. $500 more than this. Look at f1.4 vs f1.8 difference in 24mm 35mm that half a stop, 2/3 of a stop is where the money is. Let alone Sony 50mm f1.8 is cheap as chips. And you know what at f4 you wouldn’t be able to tell ‘real word difference’ anyway. You buy f1.2 because it can give you something f1.4 can’t give, for that alone you often have to pay 2x or 3x the price of the lessor lens.

  59. Is there a major difference between this one and the 50mm f/ 1.2 GM? I’m looking to get a 50mm and it would be mainly used for video. Would the better focus breathing make it a better option to go with the new f/ 1.4?

  60. Size, weight, being able to use focus breathing compensation and 30 fps shooting does the GM more attractive. Although the Sigma looks very good too

  61. I always have a question:every time Gerald would look at the side before he is getting undone, what is he looking at .?.????? before he gets undone?.?.??.?

  62. The Sony seems to have an exposure shift during focus pulls on the breathing test, does anyone else notice it?

  63. Hey man, I need your thoughts on something. I bought the ZV-e10 about a year ago. It is 24mp and obviously an apsc camera. I just purchased the Sony a7 IV, but I only have apsc lenses, so if I were to use my current lenses with it I would have to put in apsc mode at 16mp. Are the mega pixels what I should focus on, meaning I should use the ZV-e10 until I get FF lenses? OR since the a7 IV is a far superior camera otherwise, use it with the apsc lenses?

  64. I have the Sony A7RIV and loads of GM lens. Why are all the images so clinical and all of the lens give the same clinical look and all images are characterless. My Leica M11 with summilux lens gives more character. What do you think about this ?

  65. SONY is INSANE. They have Seven (7) 50mm lenses in their line up; nine (9) if you count the 40 and 55 which many will consider “standard” lenses.
    Sony 40mm/2.5 G
    Sony 50mm/2.8 Macro
    Sony 50mm/2.5 G
    Sony 50mm/1.8 OSS E
    Sony 50mm/1.8 FE
    Sony 50mm/1.4 ZA Zeiss
    Sony 50mm/1.4 GM
    Sony 50mm/1.2 GM
    Sony 55mm/1.8 ZA Zeiss

  66. Sonys lens lineup is so frustrating. Amazing lenses, but, there should be a standardized lineup like 16, 20, 35, 50, 85 in their “regular” lineup, G lineup and GM.

    Instead we have 1 regular and quite unacceptable 50 1.8, an over-performing 35mm non G lens, then no real modern option for a non-G wide lens, but the great 20mm G is there… but then 85mm has a “regular” and GM option but no G.

    For those of us that want a standard kit of lenses, it’s basically impossible since for video the non-GM 35mm is so good, there being no real acceptable affordable 50, and the wide end of things being balanced with the G 20mm is great, and then confusion hits again with the “regular” 85mm value compared to the GM’s… it’s just… nauseating. LOL!

  67. I do have Leica 50 1.4 and Sony 50 1.2 . and I’ve compared them and other lenses ,all best in class (most expensive) . and I’ve gotta say Sony and Nikon do CHEAT. with their latest lenses they added updates to their cameras – THAT MESS WITH RAW FILES .cameras adding artificial sharpness(you can see it on 600% zoom) and taking care of CA . Yes I know ! and again to be able to see this you have got to have the cameras and lenses handy to compare those raw files side by side knowing the scene where those taken . and only leica gives absolutely unedited raw files (though nwith ugly magenta). again you can trust me on this one . I own the gear including leicas that cost 4-6 times more than china’s cameras like canon Nikon Panasonic Sony etc – yet leicas lenses suck in comparison to top lenses of latter (which I hate ) even Hyped up Leica APO lenses 35 and 50 that sell for around 10k$ for 2.0f !! they suck big time
    @georges_angeles cheers

  68. Now we need a sony 35 f1.2 gm with good focus breathing performance because the 1.4 is horrible, only reason preventing me from getting it.

  69. Hi Gerald !!

    I am a family photographer here in Australia and I am struggling to find a new lens to bring my work into a next level !!! I currently have a Sony a7iii with a 85mm 1.4 and a 35mm 1.8 lenses. I really love the 35 (I use 80% of the time) but I prefer the quality and the depth of the 85 😅😅

    Im looking for something between 35-50mm or a zoom lens with a very high standard, sharpness and quality image.. Any recommendations ???

    I was going to sell my actual sony 35mm to buy the new sigma 35mm f1.4. but your video changed my mind hahahahha

  70. Some points to make for anyone considering the two. The CA differences absolutely show up in the real world. In daylight the CA for the Sigma is absolutely terrible. It will fringe on the strange of edges, even on portrait work. Fingers, on the inside of jackets on the side of faces. (Which you can kind of fix in post, sometimes)

    But the price difference isn’t 50%. The Sony version is DOUBLE the price of Sigma’s variant. For someone who shoots photos for a living, I’d say it might be worth it to pick up Sony’s because of the CA alone. But as a low light option, I think the Sigma does really well, and at half the price!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *