The result? As expected, Digital IS does make a difference with both lenses. To test, I turned Digital IS on and off for both lenses and shot comparison footage to see how they compare. The Canon M50 has digital image stabilization, so I was curious to see if there was any difference using a lens (like the 11-22mm) that has internal stabilization versus a lens without it. To test this out, I mounted the Canon M50 on a monopod and took a walk. The Canon 11-22mm has it, the Sigma 16mm does not. The Canon 11-22mm’s maximum aperture of f/5 (at 16mm) had the opposite effect - bringing the background into the same depth of field as the subject for an image that didn’t look as cinematic. The result? Creamy backgrounds on the Sigma which give the image an almost three-dimensional quality by pulling the subject forward and receding the background. Even with the ND filter, the Sigma 16mm was able to maintain ISO 100 at f/1.4, while the 11-22mm had to raise its ISO to 400 to match exposure. To test this, I shot video on an overcast day with both lenses on the Canon M50, plus a Tiffen variable neutral density filter (which is needed when shooting video at 1/50 24fps). That large f/1.4 aperture on the Sigma 16mm EF-M isn’t just good for low-light shooting, but for giving your photos and videos a more dramatic look with beautiful background bokeh. I thought that the Canon might have a slight edge over the Sigma (because third party lenses sometimes don’t perform as well), but thankfully that wasn’t a problem. Thanks to the M50’s exceptional Dual Pixel Auto Focus mode, focus speed and accuracy was exactly the same between the two lenses. The result? Far less noise, soft depth of field, and a surprisingly sharp image with superb highlight roll-off and color. By the time I reached the Sigma’s maximum aperture of f/1.4, ISO had dropped all the way down to 200 - far lower than what the Canon 11-22mm could ever dream of achieving. I set the Canon M50 to Auto ISO, then slowly opened-up the aperture. I ran the Sigma 16mm and the Canon 11-22mm lens through a low-light test to see their relative ISO performance. But let’s take a closer look at the Sigma 16mm compared to the Canon 11-22mm to see how it performs. For Canon users looking for EF-M lens options, the Sigma lenses couldn’t come at a better time, because Canon-for whatever reason-has never expanded their EF-M lens lineup with anywhere near the breadth of their full-frame EF lens options.įor many, the Sigma 16mm should fill a huge need for filmmakers and photographers looking for a relatively affordable, high-quality, semi wide-angle prime lens for their Canon EF-M cameras. The Sigma 16mm f/1.4 lens is one of three new EF-M prime lenses now being offered by Sigma (including a 30mm lens I reviewed here). So when Sigma announced a new 16mm prime EF-M lens with a large f/1.4 aperture, I jumped at the chance to review it. Not a problem when shooting video outdoors in plenty of light, but in low light, I’ve had to raise the M50’s ISO super high to compensate which causes footage to lose sharpness and display noise. As much as I like the 11-22mm, I’ve unfortunately been bitten more than once by its small f/4-5.6 aperture. For about a year now, I’ve been filming all my travel vlog content using a Canon M50 with a Canon 11-22mm EF-M variable zoom lens.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |