Jonathan-Mac
Well-Known Member
I use an S5.
L-MOUNT Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Lumix 50mm f/1.8 and Sigma 50mm f/2 DG DN comparison
- Thread starter Jonathan-Mac
- Start date
Lenstip have done a full review of the Sigma 50mm f/2 DG DN and have awarded it their Editor's Choice since it performs really well, without any significant disadvantages other than some vignetting on full frame.
https://www.lenstip.com/655.1-Lens_review-Sigma_C_50_mm_f_2_DG_DN_Introduction.html
https://www.lenstip.com/655.1-Lens_review-Sigma_C_50_mm_f_2_DG_DN_Introduction.html
Jonathan-Mac
Well-Known Member
Good to see a positive review of this lens. It is excellent and I enjoy using it but I suspect it's not selling too well due to it's high price in comparison to other 50mm f/1.8-2.0 lenses on both L and E mounts. I think it should be priced around €100 less than it is as it seems odd that the most basic of primes should be in the highest-priced tier of I-series lenses. I'd also prefer it if it were 55mm and closest focus was at least 10cm closer. Those three things would differentiate it a lot more from the competition and I think would have been wise commercial decisions.
Nomad Nate
Active Member
Wanted to resurrect this thread to see if anyone had any more to add to this comparison. It seems like the sigma lenses tend to come with a little more contrast built in and a little warmer.
Jonathan-Mac
Well-Known Member
I know there are a few other people with the Sigma but I don't think it's a great seller for the reasons I've already stated. I use mine when I don't need AF-C, the extra 1/3 of a stop or weather resistance. The image quality between the two is very, very similar.
Nomad Nate
Active Member
Just curious what you guys would say comparing the 50 1.8 to the 65mm? I really like the look of the sigmas and the build but I'm struggling deciding on a lens because the Lumix are just lighter and cheaper and have proper sealing but the rendering of the sigmas, to me, looks better (but then again that could be potentially fixed with Lightoom import setting).
Really interested to see what comes of the new pancake lens that's rumored. I don't have high hopes for the 18-40 being anything super appealing but you never know.
Really interested to see what comes of the new pancake lens that's rumored. I don't have high hopes for the 18-40 being anything super appealing but you never know.
Pete_W
LMF-Patron
I have the Sigma 35mm f2 and the 45mm f2.8 and love both of them. Compact, really well built, aperture ring, sharp. So I've been considering the 65mm lens myself. Here in Australia it is difficult to find the 65mm in L-mount at a decent price. The E-mount version is often on sale. So I am waiting....
Jonathan-Mac
Well-Known Member
I don't have the 65mm but I've only heard good things about it. For me it's too long to be a normal prime but I did have that field of view with the Pentax 43mm on APS-C for a couple of years and it works fine for many things.
Yes, the Sigma 50/2 will be a hard sell in many cases when compared to the Lumix 50/1.8, with the weather sealing being the big thing, at least for me. Everyone will need to make their mind up.
Yes, the Sigma 50/2 will be a hard sell in many cases when compared to the Lumix 50/1.8, with the weather sealing being the big thing, at least for me. Everyone will need to make their mind up.
Image quality of the Sigma 65/2.0 DG DN is clearly better than the Lumix 50/1.8, but like others said already, it is a different focal range.
I used to have all 3. The Lumix 50/1.8, the Sigma 50/2.0 DG DN and the Sigma 65/2.0 DG DN. I sold the Lumix and kept both Sigmas.
The Lumix is not bad, but I liked the other two more.
MattGeo399
Member
Hey Dirk, I'm wondering if you could share your thoughts on the Sigma 50mm vs 65mm? I haven't come across a comparison between the 2 of them. I know the 65 is larger and heavier, but I'm curious about your use cases for each one. When do you decide to use one vs the other? Thanks.
I basically never use the 65mm, because it is too big/heavy for my taste. Its image quality is excellent, but a little bit on the "clinical side", compared to the 50/2.0.
I never did a side by side image quality comparison between the 65mm and 50/2.0. But I love the image quality of the 50mm. I do not need sharper
Since I bought the Leica Q3 43, the Sigma 50/2.0 gets less use. Not because of the image quality. Because of the whole Q3 package "small size & lightweight/5.6MP EVF/ 33MP thanks to pixel binning". The Leica Q3 43 basically replaces my MFT system.
It would be interesting to do one day a side by side shot between Q3 43 and 50/2.0, but I do not have a 60MP sensor in L-Mount and the S1R2 does not have pixel binning, to get both down to 33MP.
I never did a side by side image quality comparison between the 65mm and 50/2.0. But I love the image quality of the 50mm. I do not need sharper
- Panasonic - DC-S5M2
- 50mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 023
- 50.0 mm
- ƒ/2
- 1/5000 sec
- Pattern
- Auto exposure
- ISO 100
Since I bought the Leica Q3 43, the Sigma 50/2.0 gets less use. Not because of the image quality. Because of the whole Q3 package "small size & lightweight/5.6MP EVF/ 33MP thanks to pixel binning". The Leica Q3 43 basically replaces my MFT system.
It would be interesting to do one day a side by side shot between Q3 43 and 50/2.0, but I do not have a 60MP sensor in L-Mount and the S1R2 does not have pixel binning, to get both down to 33MP.
MattGeo399
Member
Hmm that is what I'm worried about with the 65mm, that it is too big and heavy, which would result in me not grabbing it as often as I should for such a nice lens. I'll keep mulling over the 50 or 65mm. Thanks for the feedback!
pdk42
Moderator
Just shoot raw and downsize in PS or similar. It’s the same end result.
No. Leica does not crop the image. They do pixel binning like smartphones. I do not think that I can replicate pixelbinning with software.
At least not with LR6.
Nevyn72
LMF-Patron Gold
Pixel binning vs resizing in post – what's the difference (and why it matters)?
These two concepts are often confused, but they work very differently and serve different purposes:
Pixel binning is a process that happens at the sensor level, during image capture. Multiple pixels (typically 2x2 or 3x3 groups) are merged into one “superpixel” to improve low-light performance, reduce noise, and increase dynamic range. The tradeoff is that the final resolution is lower, but each pixel has better image quality in terms of signal-to-noise ratio.
Resizing in post (a.k.a. downscaling) is done after the image or video is recorded, using software. The full-resolution file is resampled to a smaller size for delivery, editing speed, or format compatibility. This process doesn’t enhance noise or dynamic range—it just reduces file size and perceived detail.
Real-world differences in daily use:
These two concepts are often confused, but they work very differently and serve different purposes:
Pixel binning is a process that happens at the sensor level, during image capture. Multiple pixels (typically 2x2 or 3x3 groups) are merged into one “superpixel” to improve low-light performance, reduce noise, and increase dynamic range. The tradeoff is that the final resolution is lower, but each pixel has better image quality in terms of signal-to-noise ratio.
Resizing in post (a.k.a. downscaling) is done after the image or video is recorded, using software. The full-resolution file is resampled to a smaller size for delivery, editing speed, or format compatibility. This process doesn’t enhance noise or dynamic range—it just reduces file size and perceived detail.
Real-world differences in daily use:
- In low light, pixel binning often gives you noticeably better results: cleaner images, less noise, and more usable detail—even if the resolution is lower.
- With good lighting, capturing at full resolution and resizing later can preserve more fine detail, giving you sharper results if you plan to crop or print large.
- For video, pixel-binned footage may look cleaner at high ISOs but slightly softer than oversampled footage from a full-resolution readout.
- Editing performance may be better with binning, since you’re working with smaller files right from the start.
- Pixel binning improves quality at capture time, especially in tough conditions.
- Resizing in post is flexible but doesn’t improve the raw sensor data.
- For night shots, binning is your friend. For maximum sharpness and flexibility, shoot full-res and scale later.
Quentinquirelino
Well-Known Member
I would disagree. With binning you lose more than you gain. You will get better DR and less noice on pixel level, but you will lose detail. With resizing in post you have better control over how much detail to trade for less noice and you have actually the have about the same DR.
But there is a advantage for binning, if it's really on sensor level, like the A7SIII is doing. It reads four pixels at the same time, to speed up the read out. But the Leica's with the 60 Mpix Sensor can't do that. The only reason for them are smaller files.
Nevyn72
LMF-Patron Gold
You're absolutely right — binning does sacrifice detail, and resizing in post often gives you better flexibility and control when working in good light. The difference comes down to when and why each method is used.
True sensor-level pixel binning can improve per-pixel signal quality, leading to cleaner shadows, less visible noise, and more usable dynamic range — especially in low-light or high-contrast scenes. The total dynamic range of the sensor doesn’t magically increase, but the cleaner output often allows for better shadow and highlight recovery without introducing artifacts.
In contrast, resizing in post gives you full control: you keep all the detail from the high-res capture and decide yourself how much sharpness or noise reduction you want during export. Especially when done with high-quality downscaling methods (e.g. bicubic or Lanczos), this often results in better overall detail than binned images — assuming the original image is properly exposed.
Regarding Leica — I don’t own a Q3 or M11 myself, so I can’t verify firsthand, but according to several discussions and reviews, it seems that the 60MP Leica models do not perform true sensor-level binning. Instead, they offer reduced-resolution DNG files (36MP or 18MP), but the processing appears to happen via software downsampling or line-skipping, not actual pixel binning at the readout level. This means you don't get the benefits like faster readout or improved noise performance — mainly just smaller file sizes.
Some sources to support this:
Newsshooter notes that Leica's lower-resolution DNGs don’t offer better DR or low-light advantages:
www.newsshooter.com
Reddit feedback confirms it doesn’t behave like typical binning:
So I’d summarize it this way:
True pixel binning, as done on some smartphones or the Sony A7SIII, helps in low light and for fast readout.
Leica’s lower-res modes seem to be more about convenience than actual image quality gains.
Resizing in post remains the best option when you want full resolution and maximum flexibility in editing.
Hope that helps clarify!
True sensor-level pixel binning can improve per-pixel signal quality, leading to cleaner shadows, less visible noise, and more usable dynamic range — especially in low-light or high-contrast scenes. The total dynamic range of the sensor doesn’t magically increase, but the cleaner output often allows for better shadow and highlight recovery without introducing artifacts.
In contrast, resizing in post gives you full control: you keep all the detail from the high-res capture and decide yourself how much sharpness or noise reduction you want during export. Especially when done with high-quality downscaling methods (e.g. bicubic or Lanczos), this often results in better overall detail than binned images — assuming the original image is properly exposed.
Regarding Leica — I don’t own a Q3 or M11 myself, so I can’t verify firsthand, but according to several discussions and reviews, it seems that the 60MP Leica models do not perform true sensor-level binning. Instead, they offer reduced-resolution DNG files (36MP or 18MP), but the processing appears to happen via software downsampling or line-skipping, not actual pixel binning at the readout level. This means you don't get the benefits like faster readout or improved noise performance — mainly just smaller file sizes.
Some sources to support this:
Newsshooter notes that Leica's lower-resolution DNGs don’t offer better DR or low-light advantages:
Leica Q3– 60MP Full-Frame BSI CMOS Sensor & 8K up to 30p - Newsshooter
Leica has announced the Q3, the first new Q-series camera in four years. This fixed-lens camera features a similar body and construction to its predecessor,
www.newsshooter.com
Reddit feedback confirms it doesn’t behave like typical binning:
So I’d summarize it this way:
True pixel binning, as done on some smartphones or the Sony A7SIII, helps in low light and for fast readout.
Leica’s lower-res modes seem to be more about convenience than actual image quality gains.
Resizing in post remains the best option when you want full resolution and maximum flexibility in editing.
Hope that helps clarify!