Sony Sony A7 IV, Sigma 40mm or 50mm?

[Milan-B]

I need some advice.
For the purposes of photographing old books/documents of size 58cm x 48cm and 83cm x 58cm, I need to choose one of these two lenses that I would use on the Sony A7 IV:
1. Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
2. Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG DN Art
I can only choose between those two lenses (unfortunately, other variants are not possible)
I would use the lens on the Sony A7 IV camera.

The camera would stand on a tripod (attached to the wall) above the books/documents AND could be moved in height. Probably, the distance of the camera from the books/documents would be from 75cm to 90cm, depending on the size of the books/documents, whether the lens is 40mm or 50mm.
Which of the above two lenses should I choose? Apart from sharpness, the most important thing for me is to have as little distortion as possible in the photo

Thank you.

Milan

 

[MoonMind]

If you use a tripod and since you want to photograph documents, the super-fast aperture isn't really needed or even helpful; if you're serious, you'll close down the aperture to make sure of sufficient depth of field. My approach would involve either macro lenses or high-grade zooms.

Zooms would come especially handy if you're not entirely sure about your working distance options - but I think you're pretty flexible. so maybe you can ignore that aspect.

All that said, I'm no Sony specialist (though I know my way around Sigma), so can't offer you any advice from experience as to what lens to choose instead of either of the two Sigma lenses. If I had to choose a lens for document shooting and I essentially got to choose the working distance, I'd still pick my older Nikon 60mm f/2.8G (and I do own both Z mount Macro lenses - but the 105mm is probably too long, whereas the 50mm doesn't offer any real advantages over a lens I've come to trust, and the little 50mm can be a little unsure of itself when autofocusing).

A couple of observations The 40mm f/1.4 (as well as the older 50mm f/1.4 HSM) is a DSLR lens and really quite big; somewhat more importantly, it no longer features in Sigma's official line-up (I just checked). If you really want to go with a "normal", super-fast Sigma lens, I think the newly announced 50mm f/1.2 DG DN is probably your best bet; it's even more versatile than the 50mm f/1.4 DG DN (shorter minimum focus distance, wider aperture). From my short research, I'd suggest a much more mundane option, however: the Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro. It's optically solid by all accounts, and its 50mm focal length as well as its flat macro image field makes for potentially better document shooting.

Other than that, a good zoom lens would probably do the trick. Seeing as you're going to use a recent Sony body, I'd probably try the 20-70mm f/4 G first, even though you'll probably not need 20mm for document shooting. But that lens is modern, light and has good IQ (as long as you use lens corrections). Yes, a GM lens or one of the faster Sigma options might be even better optically, but you're honestly probably outgunning the job as it is ...

Again, just my opinion. If you're looking for a prime to scratch more than one itch (understandable!), I'd, again, go for the new Sigma 50mm f/1.2 DG DN; hands down.

M.

 

[fredlong]

I would choose the 50mm for potentially less geometric distortion. Unless the 40 has a significantly flatter field. For other general purpose uses, I'd prefer the 40mm. Although I'd rather use something around 100mm for this type of copy work. Or an adapted enlarger lens.

Not very helpful I guess.

 

[Milan-B]

If you use a tripod and since you want to photograph documents, the super-fast aperture isn't really needed or even helpful; if you're serious, you'll close down the aperture to make sure of sufficient depth of field. My approach would involve either macro lenses or high-grade zooms.

Zooms would come especially handy if you're not entirely sure about your working distance options - but I think you're pretty flexible. so maybe you can ignore that aspect.

All that said, I'm no Sony specialist (though I know my way around Sigma), so can't offer you any advice from experience as to what lens to choose instead of either of the two Sigma lenses. If I had to choose a lens for document shooting and I essentially got to choose the working distance, I'd still pick my older Nikon 60mm f/2.8G (and I do own both Z mount Macro lenses - but the 105mm is probably too long, whereas the 50mm doesn't offer any real advantages over a lens I've come to trust, and the little 50mm can be a little unsure of itself when auto-focusing).

A couple of observations The 40mm f/1.4 (as well as the older 50mm f/1.4 HSM) is a DSLR lens and really quite big; somewhat more importantly, it no longer features in Sigma's official line-up (I just checked). If you really want to go with a "normal", super-fast Sigma lens, I think the newly announced 50mm f/1.2 DG DN is probably your best bet; it's even more versatile than the 50mm f/1.4 DG DN (shorter minimum focus distance, wider aperture). From my short research, I'd suggest a much more mundane option, however: the Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro. It's optically solid by all accounts, and its 50mm focal length as well as its flat macro image field makes for potentially better document shooting.

Other than that, a good zoom lens would probably do the trick. Seeing as you're going to use a recent Sony body, I'd probably try the 20-70mm f/4 G first, even though you'll probably not need 20mm for document shooting. But that lens is modern, light and has good IQ (as long as you use lens corrections). Yes, a GM lens or one of the faster Sigma options might be even better optically, but you're honestly probably outgunning the job as it is ...

Again, just my opinion. If you're looking for a prime to scratch more than one itch (understandable!), I'd, again, go for the new Sigma 50mm f/1.2 DG DN; hands down.

M.

Thank you for your detailed answer.
The problem is that my budget is limited, the most expensive lens I can currently buy is the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG DN Art. In that price range, there are almost no macro lenses for the Sony A7 IV (Sony e-mount).
That's why I'm hesitating between the Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art and the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG DN Art, primarily because of the price. 35mm lenses also fit into my price range, but I believe that they were too wide for what I need.
I looked at the suggested Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro, it seems ok to me, the only thing I don't know is whether the Sigma Art 40mm and Art50mm or the Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro would give me better image quality (sharpness, vignetting, distortion)? The books and documents I photograph often have faded ink.

I don't have good experience with zoom lens (for the way of photography I use), I used a Canon EF-S 15-85mm zoom lens on my previous camera (Canon 60D). After a year of intensive use, a problem appeared. The camera was constantly facing "down", towards the documents and books I was photographing, and there was a problem. The lens changed the focal length by itself, that is, when I set it to 35mm, it would just slide to 50mm, that is, I could not control the range in between at all. This happened because that lens is quite heavy (and does not have a lock in it) and the force of gravity would pull it down. The lens was taken to the service center and I was told to try that exact, long-term position (which I use) of the camera - lens, and that there is nothing that can be done - to fix it...
I wouldn't get a zoom lens for that reason.

 

[Milan-B]

I would choose the 50mm for potentially less geometric distortion. Unless the 40 has a significantly flatter field. For other general purpose uses, I'd prefer the 40mm. Although I'd rather use something around 100mm for this type of copy work. Or an adapted enlarger lens.

Not very helpful I guess.

Any advice is welcome. A little while ago I found out that Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art has less distortion than 50mm?! Now I'm even more confused.

 

[mnhoj]

How about a legacy manual focus macro lens in the 50-60mm length? Books don't move too fast. ( :
Nikon 55mm 3.5 comes to mind but most would be fine - never met a macro lens that wasn't sharp. Easily adaptable, very modestly priced and near flat field.

 

[MoonMind]

Thank you for your detailed answer.
The problem is that my budget is limited, the most expensive lens I can currently buy is the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG DN Art. In that price range, there are almost no macro lenses for the Sony A7 IV (Sony e-mount).
That's why I'm hesitating between the Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art and the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG DN Art, primarily because of the price. 35mm lenses also fit into my price range, but I believe that they were too wide for what I need.
I looked at the suggested Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro, it seems ok to me, the only thing I don't know is whether the Sigma Art 40mm and Art50mm or the Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro would give me better image quality (sharpness, vignetting, distortion)? The books and documents I photograph often have faded ink.

I don't have good experience with zoom lens (for the way of photography I use), I used a Canon EF-S 15-85mm zoom lens on my previous camera (Canon 60D). After a year of intensive use, a problem appeared. The camera was constantly facing "down", towards the documents and books I was photographing, and there was a problem. The lens changed the focal length by itself, that is, when I set it to 35mm, it would just slide to 50mm, that is, I could not control the range in between at all. This happened because that lens is quite heavy (and does not have a lock in it) and the force of gravity would pull it down. The lens was taken to the service center and I was told to try that exact, long-term position (which I use) of the camera - lens, and that there is nothing that can be done - to fix it...
I wouldn't get a zoom lens for that reason.

Thanks for the insights.

If anything, what you're saying is reinforcing my recommendation for the Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro. Its IQ is fine for the task at hand (it's very sharp, with little optical problems). You can look at the DXOMark test (from the time they did helpful lens testing regularily):

Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro lens review

Lens options for Sony’s full-frame A7 series of mirrorless cameras are increasing all the time, and the new $498 Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro adds another choice in this popular prime lens focal length. Great for general-use photography and portraiture, the Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro also boasts 1:1 macro magnification with a 16cm/6.3-inch minimum focus distance, for high-quality close-up photography. FE-mount lenses also remain compatible with Sony E-mount mirrorless cameras such as the A6300, offeri

www.dxomark.com

This lens will produce as good or better image quality than any of the fast Sigma lenses. For reproduction, you need depth of field, i.e. a fast maximum aperture is simply not needed - nor is it useful. And you'll be using a tripod anyway, so, even less reason to shell out too much for something that's not necessary.

Even as a carry-around, the Sony has a lot going for it: It's much smaller and much lighter than either of the two Sigma lenses. Its only "fault" seems to be that it focuses somewhat slowly (as is common with macro lenses) - so, it's less of a street and event lens, but that's just about it for "issues". It's also quite a bit less expensive. The Sigmas only make more sense if the money's literally burning a hole in your pocket. Also, the FE 50mm Macro will remain useful even if you add another prime later, depending on need and taste. You have a great many options there, not least the wonderful Sigma 35mm f/2 Contemporary (best bang for the buck if you don't need weather sealing, IMO). But I digress ...

Anyhow,if you're after the best prime you can get in that range, get the new Sigma 50mm f/1.2 DG DN - it's spectacular, and that's only from initial testing. I'm sure it'll end up topping most rankings. It's not as useful as a reproduction lens, but it'll tick all other boxes (except for world's fastest AF - but that's not why you buy a f/1.2 lens). From my experience with the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8, I can tell you that the 5cm closer can make a real difference, provided close-up IQ is good enough (not guaranteed with a normal lens, par for the course with a macro lens).

I'd definitely stay away from the Sigma 40mm f/1.4. You've invested in a Sony mirrorless body - why weigh yourself down with a humongous DSLR lens? The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG DN strikes me as not especially useful for reproduction - with its 45cm minimum focus distance, it's just not made for that, and after the arrival of its f/1.2 stablemate (which sports 40cm MFD, at least), it just doesn't have enough going for it except possibly price - but it's still more expensive than the Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro, so ...

If you just need a lens for reproduction, John's recommendation is as good as any, even though I'd personally prefer the Nikon 55mm f/2.8 Micro over the f/3.5, but that's just a matter of taste.

The zoom thing, well ... You experienced zoom creep in an aging amateur lens - that's common. It doesn't happen with all zooms, though - and Sony's G lenses are generally very well made and nicely balanced. But of course, there's no walking away from such an experience. Again, this makes me think the Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro is the lens to get.

I've had my say, however. Let's see what others recommend!

M.

 

[Milan-B]

hanks for the insights.

If anything, what you're saying is reinforcing my recommendation for the Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro. Its IQ is fine for the task at hand (it's very sharp, with little optical problems. You can look at the DXOMark test (from the time they did helpful lens testing regularily):

Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro lens review

Lens options for Sony’s full-frame A7 series of mirrorless cameras are increasing all the time, and the new $498 Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro adds another choice in this popular prime lens focal length. Great for general-use photography and portraiture, the Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro also boasts 1:1 macro magnification with a 16cm/6.3-inch minimum focus distance, for high-quality close-up photography. FE-mount lenses also remain compatible with Sony E-mount mirrorless cameras such as the A6300, offeri

www.dxomark.com

This lens will produce as good or better image quality than any of the fast Sigma lenses. For reproduction, you need depth of field, i.e. a fast maximum aperture is simply not needed - nor is it useful. And you'll be using a tripod anyway, so, even less reason to shell out too much for something that's not necessary.

Even as a carry-around, the Sony has a lot going for it: It's much smaller and much lighter than either of the two Sigma lenses. Its only "fault" seems to be that it focuses somewhat slowly (as is common with macro lenses) - so, it's less of a street and event lens, but that's just about it for "issues". It's also quite a bit less expensive. The Sigmas only make more sense if the money's literally burning a hole in your pocket. Also, the FE 50mm Macro will remain useful even if you add another prime later, depending on need and taste. You have a great many options there, not least the wonderful Sigma 35mm f/2 Contemporary (best bang for the buck if you don't need weather sealing, IMO). But I digress ...

Anyhow,if you're after the best prime you can get in that range, get the new Sigma 50mm f/1.2 DG DN - it's spectacular, and that's only from initial testing. I'm sure it'll end up topping most rankings. It's not as useful as a reproduction lens, but it'll tick all other boxes (except for world's fastest AF - but that's not why you buy a f/1.2 lens). From my experience with the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8, I can tell you that the 5cm closer can make a real difference, provided close-up IQ is good enough (not guaranteed with a normal lens, par for the course with a macro lens).

I'd definitely stay away from the Sigma 40mm f/1.4. You've invested in a Sony mirrorless body - why weigh yourself down with a humongous DSLR lens? The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG DN strikes me as not especially useful for reproduction - with its 45cm minimum focus distance, it's just not made for that, and after the arrival of its f/1.2 stablemate (which sports 40cm MFD, at least), it just doesn't have enough going for it except possibly price - but it's still more expensive than the Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro, so ...

If you just need a lens for reproduction, John's recommendation is as good as any, even though I'd personally prefer the Nikon 55mm f/2.8 Micro over the f/3.5, but that's just a matter of taste.

The zoom thing, well ... You experienced zoom creep in an aging amateur lens - that's common. It doesn't happen with all zooms, though - and Sony's G lenses are generally very well made and nicely balanced. But of course, there's no walking away from such an experience. Again, this makes me think the Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro is the lens to get.

I've had my say, however. Let's see what others recommend!

M.

Thank you very much for your time, explanations and advice. You have helped me a lot. I will probably buy the Sony FE 50mm f/2.8 Macro, your explanations and recommendations led me to that decision.

Thank you for your help.

Milan
P.S sorry for my not so good English.

 

[Milan-B]

How about a legacy manual focus macro lens in the 50-60mm length? Books don't move too fast. ( :
Nikon 55mm 3.5 comes to mind but most would be fine - never met a macro lens that wasn't sharp. Easily adaptable, very modestly priced and near flat field.

I was also thinking of installing an adapter on the Sony A7 IV and then using an old lens with manual focus. But, old books often have "wavy" pages, so in one book the height/thickness of the book often changes, so that might be a problem.
And I hope that the technology of making optics has advanced, that new lenses have brought new quality solutions. But the idea is not bad, that's why I thought about it earlier.

 

[MoonMind]

P.S sorry for my not so good English.

Your English is fine! Welcome aboard, btw. - I was so focused on the issue that I forgot to greet you!

M.

 

[Milan-B]

Your English is fine! Welcome aboard, btw. - I was so focused on the issue that I forgot to greet you!

M.

Thank you very much once again - for your kindness too. You have been most helpful, I appreciate it.

 

[The Electric Squirrel]

For repro use the Sigma 50/1.4 Art DG DN isn't a number one choice. It's a fantastic lens, but relies on software distortion correction. The older Art might not, and the 40/1.4 seems quite straight according to tests I've seen.

But as @MoonMind has already pointed out, for repro work that large maximum aperture is more of a hindrance than a strength. As you'll be shooting at f/5.6 minimum anyways, the compromises made in a more portrait-oriented normal lens probably aren't the ones you'd want. A macro lens, like that 50/2.8 or - say - a Sigma 105/2.8 A would probably suit your needs much better.

What you might want to be looking for are a flat field of focus and a short close focusing distance. So macro lenses and such. One funny lens that might work is the Sony G 40/2.5, but I'd still hesitate recommending that one.

 

[Milan-B]

Sony G 40/2.5,

I'm sorry that I'm only answering you now, I've been very busy. Thank you for your advice and explanations, I'm definitely going for the Sony 50/2.8 macro. I looked at the Sigma 105/2.8 A, it's great lens , but since I'm going to be photographing very large format old books, large format plans and maps, I'm afraid that the 105mm is, unfortunately, unsuitable for me. I also read about the Sony G 40/2.5, it definitely intrigued me, I agree with you that it could work as a solution, but I'm not able to experiment at the moment, but I will definitely try to borrow the Sony G 40/2.5 sometime in the future from someone and I can see what it is like for this type of photography that I need.Thank you once again for your advice and time.

Best regards,
Milan

 

[The Electric Squirrel]

I'm sorry that I'm only answering you now, I've been very busy. Thank you for your advice and explanations, I'm definitely going for the Sony 50/2.8 macro. I looked at the Sigma 105/2.8 A, it's great lens , but since I'm going to be photographing very large format old books, large format plans and maps, I'm afraid that the 105mm is, unfortunately, unsuitable for me. I also read about the Sony G 40/2.5, it definitely intrigued me, I agree with you that it could work as a solution, but I'm not able to experiment at the moment, but I will definitely try to borrow the Sony G 40/2.5 sometime in the future from someone and I can see what it is like for this type of photography that I need.Thank you once again for your advice and time.

Best regards,
Milan

Don't worry, this is a discussion forum. It's a pastime, not a responsibility. Or at least that's how I view it.

To be honest, I've thus far glanced over the 50/2.8 macro completely, to the point I barely knew it existed. But after reading Philip Reeve's review of it I'm quite sure it'll unlikely disappoint you. After all, repro work is a bit different from general photography, but that lens seems to have at least very low distortion and mostly well behaved chromatic aberrations, and stepped down a bit should be sharp across the frame. These are much more important for succesful repro work than smooth bokeh and such.

So it seems a safe bet for your line of photography. Worst case is it'll get you safely started, and if you find it has some fault that bothers you, you'll at least know what to look for and avoid in the future.