Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 … 5 6 end

hiepphotog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

philip_pj wrote:
It certainly has the usual lens measurers' approval.

We all look for different things in a lens and to be honest none of the technical metrics really disqualify any lens if its overall strengths make it fit for purpose, for one's own purpose that is, and if it turns out great results.

None of the usual suspects have seen fit to include any infinity or even middle distance images that I can find. Many people would like to see how image depth is defined and rendered, perhaps some kind soul can provide a set of images they have shot or a link, to something other than the usual 'near focus far bokeh' fast 35 photo? That might help characterise the lens well for general use?

Lloyd Chambers posted some nice comparisons (close to mid distance) between the Sigma and the Canon. The Sigma, overall, has more "pop" and generally produces smoother bokeh than the Canon , despite what have been suggested so far. Definitely, the Sigma doesn't have that "glow" that some seem to adore. I would buy the Sigma over the others because it has better control of color aberrations. It's more like a mix between the old Contax 35 and the new Zeiss 35, the ability render 3D pop at WO with high resolution across the frame when stop down. It might not be as good as either, but at the price it is going for (and how much the Contax costs), it is an extremely enticing lens.

Jan 17, 2013 at 06:53 PM

watson83
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

I did a comparison with the Canon 35mm f/1.4L : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mh0TbylMtxg

And the new Canon 35mm f/2 IS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmV0qtGPUsw

I don't have the Zeiss
The Sigma really holds up well against the Canon lenses though.

Jan 17, 2013 at 07:44 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

Nice comparison, covers a fair amount of ground. I would be interested to see a follow-up with a bit more focus on image quality, including the intangibles thereof, i.e. 3D, subject separation, boke from pin-light sources, and so on.

Jan 17, 2013 at 09:11 PM

zhangyue
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

vitix wrote:
I 've been thinking to replace my 35 1.8dx by the sigma but the pictures I've seen don't look special at all. It just has good rates but seems ordinary, far from any zeiss look.

If this thing has leica or zeiss name on it, you will see what response people will be and you will see how much people willing to pay for this kind of performance.

The WO performance just so great make me rember leica used to say the only reason stop down lens is DOF control. This applied to this sigma.

The WO without any hint of haze especially important for longer distance subject isolation at 35mm. It reach MF look more easily with high performance WO on FF.

Jan 17, 2013 at 10:08 PM

philip_pj
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

thanks for the reply and vids, watson. I guess this is the market Sigma are chasing - the advanced CaNikon crowd if you will, so it's good to see they have some information on the basics, see how the new kid on the block stacks up against the OEM gear.

I am one of those out on the fringe, who looks for that elusive 'total final image quality' rather than the metrics served up ad nauseum by the measure sites like our beloved DxO and DPR, as a basis for buying/using. Not surprisingly I am a Zeiss/Leica user. An image may have been shot with the sharpest lens under the sun, that does not mean it makes the cut for me. It need some special magic to get there, an arty look most might think. carsten's posts above are more eloquent on this front.

I am a little interested in this one despite the audacity of the company describing it as an 'art' series of lenses. Initial cons against it are the weight, which is quite substantial, and the complexity, which is considerable given the less than heroic efforts by this low end maker in past endeavours. And of course AF, which, though controversial, I feel is simply a poor way to go, especially with high Mp cameras.

Lloyd's blog index gave me a few links to P&S standard efforts, shots featuring a few pots in his backyard - not very attractive pots or plants either. I tried to click one hoping for better, and got a dirty dialog box asking me for membership details - the hide of some people!

I expect Sigma will sell lots of these, but thus far most middle distance shots have a cool forlorn look to them. Time will tell, it always does.

Jan 17, 2013 at 10:21 PM

wiseguy010
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

Peire wrote:
I did compare Sigma 35/1.4 with my 35/2ZF 3 weeks ago.

Apart from lacking of the Zeiss look (colours,microcontrast) Sigma is better in any other respect.

Well, then it will remain Zeiss for me. The apparently better technical performance of the Sigma is much less important than the Zeiss look for me. It is the Zeiss look that made me choose for Zeiss lenses starting some years ago. That hasn't changed since then.

Besides that I can't imagine there is really that much difference in technical performance between these kind of high quality lenses.

I must admit that I like the current developments with Sigma resulting in a higher quality than before. I might be interested in their coming 120-300 2.8 lens (a lens that Zeiss will never make).

Jan 17, 2013 at 10:32 PM

wiseguy010
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

Jochenb wrote:
The sigma looks great. Nice sharpness, CA control,... but when you're used to the bokeh of the 35/1.4 ZE/ZF it's difficult to love that of the Sigma. It's not on the same level IMHO.

I agree. I saw some pictures with the Sigma with quite a nervous bokeh even wide open.

Jan 17, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Mescalamba
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

MTF is better, sure..

But bokeh, not sure. Personality? More or less classical Sigma (which sometimes is nice). This one is quite neutral tho. Slightly boring. But I wouldnt mind having one.

Still would take Zeiss (especially C/Y) over this. Cause even when it doesnt have top MTF, its still Zeiss with everything that comes with it.

Or Leica..

Jan 17, 2013 at 10:40 PM

zhangyue
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

Don’t want defend sigma and I would try to avoid involve any discuss like this. Until I see sample test at exact same condition with Zeiss or Leica, I am not convinced sigma will be inferior.

I personally always research MTF performance to understand lens. (Though I haven’t be able to see one for sigma) Otherwise, there is no way I can use it wisely. For example, I know my 35cron R can be a good lens for portrait but not landscape or flat object for its extreme field coverture, or I wouldn’t focus and recompose to put subject 1/3rd frame.

Good MTF always suggest much versatile lens in the end, especially for 35mm fast glass. 21 SEM is great with great MTF, another example is 90AA, I don’t see people complain their Bokeh and say boring lens. What make Zeiss 21 a legend lens, corner to corner sharpness at 21mm, period. What make this sigma great: WO sharpness and almost perfect stop down performance.

This is difficult designed focal length given we don’t have many good fast performer so far after almost half decade. Leica 35lux M FLE has good wide open but also FC makes it less ideal for flat field,(the same with Leica R) but I don’t see often people complain Leica is bad, on the contrary, people say WO soft is glow, FC is 3D. This is unfair game. You see what you believe to see, you hear what you believe to hear. (In audio)

For landscape, under full sun, f8, with both lens have good MTF, I doubt you can survive double blind test. What are we talking about here? In this case, Whoever has flat field performance to the extreme corner, who wins. Just like 21 Distagon did, an indisputable king in this focal length. I am sure my Leica 35lux R will lose to this Sigma here. So if I travel with only one 35mm lens, I will bring sigma, if I have it.

Jan 17, 2013 at 11:35 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

wiseguy010 wrote:
Jochenb wrote:
The sigma looks great. Nice sharpness, CA control,... but when you're used to the bokeh of the 35/1.4 ZE/ZF it's difficult to love that of the Sigma. It's not on the same level IMHO.

I agree. I saw some pictures with the Sigma with quite a nervous bokeh even wide open.

Under the right conditions ANY lens can exhibit nervous bokeh, even a supertele that usually demolishes backgrounds. A few pictures tells us very little unless you have several other lenses tested under identical conditions.

Jan 18, 2013 at 12:22 AM

Lars Johnsson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

wiseguy010 wrote:
Jochenb wrote:
The sigma looks great. Nice sharpness, CA control,... but when you're used to the bokeh of the 35/1.4 ZE/ZF it's difficult to love that of the Sigma. It's not on the same level IMHO.

I agree. I saw some pictures with the Sigma with quite a nervous bokeh even wide open.

The Sigma bokeh is rather nice. The lens is really fantastic. I also own both the Zeiss ZE 35/1,4 and the Zeiss ZE 35/2 lenses. Actually the Sigma is a great lens even compared to those. And wide open it beats any of those lenses.
It's funny that nearly everyone in the thread that write about it and how much better the Zeiss or other lenses are, have never even used the lens

Jan 20, 2013 at 04:17 AM

OneAnt
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

Lars Johnsson wrote:

It's funny that nearly everyone in the thread that write about it and how much better the Zeiss or other lenses are, have never even used the lens

Its funny that many of us with no access to try them, were able to determine that the Zeiss were exactly what we wanted.

Landscapers might like the Sigma and I suppose some street photographers might like the Sigma for its $ and AF ...but this one doesn't.

Jan 20, 2013 at 07:16 AM

wiseguy010
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

Lars Johnsson wrote:
wiseguy010 wrote:
Jochenb wrote:
The sigma looks great. Nice sharpness, CA control,... but when you're used to the bokeh of the 35/1.4 ZE/ZF it's difficult to love that of the Sigma. It's not on the same level IMHO.

I agree. I saw some pictures with the Sigma with quite a nervous bokeh even wide open.

The Sigma bokeh is rather nice. The lens is really fantastic. I also own both the Zeiss ZE 35/1,4 and the Zeiss ZE 35/2 lenses. Actually the Sigma is a great lens even compared to those. And wide open it beats any of those lenses.
It's funny that nearly everyone in the thread that write about it and how much better the Zeiss or other lenses are, have never even used the lens

It is also funny that some people always think the newest lens is the best one. And than finding out after some time that this is not quite true.

Jan 20, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Cadaver
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #14 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

I think the best analysis when comparing lenses will always come from the photographer who owns and uses all the lenses discussed in the comparison. I have to put some solid faith in Lars' conclusion since he fits this criteria.

Jan 20, 2013 at 01:23 PM

Rickuz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

I am quite interested in this lens, however I am seeing many reports on focus issues.

People are getting mixed results depending on distance between lens and subject. This is something that I've encountered before when using lenses from Sigma.

Jan 22, 2013 at 09:24 AM

asabet
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

zhangyue wrote

on’t want defend sigma and I would try to avoid involve any discuss like this. Until I see sample test at exact same condition with Zeiss or Leica, I am not convinced sigma will be inferior.

...Leica 35lux M FLE has good wide open but also FC makes it less ideal for flat field,(the same with Leica R) but I don’t see often people complain Leica is bad, on the contrary, people say WO soft is glow, FC is 3D. This is unfair game. You see what you believe to see, you hear what you believe to hear. (In audio)...

I agree - people give the benefit of the doubt to Leica, Zeiss, Canon, and Nikon. Not to Sigma or Cosina.

I had the opportunity yesterday to do a brief, casual comparison between my Sigma 35/1.4 and Nikon D600 and my brother's Leica 35/1.4 Lux FLE and M9P. In each case, I took a shot with my camera/lens, and my brother stepped up and took a shot with his camera/lens from the same position. Positions varied a bit, but still interesting to look at.

All of these are at f/1.4. In each comparison, the Leica is the first and Sigma is second:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Edited on Jan 29, 2013 at 01:35 AM · View previous versions

Jan 22, 2013 at 12:32 PM

philip_pj
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

thanks asabet.

On my typically poor work monitor the top image in each set looked better, but on a CM'd NEC it is the second of each set that shines. The second lot show more vignetting, last one esp. but not detrimental. More contrast in the second set and faster focus fade, better tonal separation. Different colour temp but both are quite good in that respect too.

BTW, two questions: what do you both prefer, as you processed them, and why? and which blues are more accurate in the first set of images?

All-in-all, as I have no buying interest in either and don't even know what an 'FLE' is, both are good, very good, with more than enough sharpness in the focal plane. A lot of factors contributing of course, different sensors, colour processing pipelines, etc. as well as lenses. I would not expect either to appeal like a CY 35/1.4 on a modern sensor though.

zhangyue, agree. I use a CY 35-70 for landscape and intend to get a 35/2 Summ for what it does well; 430 grams and decent price (about that of this Sigma) is a bonus. If CZ/Sony made the RX1 lens for A mount that would get there first however. And - will people be using the Sigma in 20 years time?

Jan 23, 2013 at 06:52 AM

asabet
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

Hi Philip,

I tried to match the WB/colors to an extent in processing, so any issue with colors comes down to processing rather than camera/lens.

My main point was to show the difference in bokeh. I like the way both lenses render. The Leica seems more jarringly 3D to me, while the Sigma is smoother. Vignetting is certainly stronger for the Sigma.

"FLE" stands for floating lens element and indicates that this is the latest version of the 35 M Summilux.

Amin

Edited on Jan 29, 2013 at 01:35 AM · View previous versions

Jan 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM

zhangyue
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #19 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

I am surprised you can match color this close

Thanks for the effort. I have no experience of sigma QC. consider its 1/6th price, Sigma worth it's asking price even do manual focus

Don,t be fooled by leica vignette performance, leica do correction on RAW level with 6 bit coded lens.
I would be happy to buy 35fle someday when I saved enough. Don't take my point wrong. I just want reinforce my point about the "value" of this Sigma.

From iphone

Jan 23, 2013 at 03:36 PM

michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

asabet wrote:
....
All of these are at f/1.4. In each comparison, the Leica is the first and Sigma is second:
...]

Thanks for posting this - those are insanely close. The Sigma wins on price alone in my book!!

Jan 23, 2013 at 08:31 PM

1 2 3 … 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 end