Upload & Sell: On
| p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4? |
Donít 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 havenít 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 wouldnít 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 donít 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 donít 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 donít 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.