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 4 5 6 end

zhangyue
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

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

Any lens will fail if shoot this way.
Some has red blow up, poor WB, no focal point, not so great on compose. Even most beautiful Bokeh won't save thise fotos. And Some of photo add too much contrast like 'swing', I can make any photo look this bad from 351.4zeiss, not to mention 35f2.

So, you don't get your point supported. Sorry! I feel the same way: you trying to look for fault of lens to support your point which stretch too much in this case.

Plus, most of samples doesn't show poor bokeh but merely average test shots.

Jan 26, 2013 at 02:39 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

wiseguy010 wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
And show similar pics from the other 35mm lenses that have much better bokeh

as usual we will never see those. You have never even used the lens and already made so many posts about it's terrible bokeh. And how much better your 35mm lens is

We are all different but that's not something most people here would do without any experience or knowledge about a lens. Instead you start to write about a 20mm voigtlander lens you have!!! A lens that has nothing in common with the Sigma or other 35mm lenses in this thread.
And yes, I post pics from Thailand with the lenses that I use and write about. I belive that's much better than write about lenses that I never have seen or used

And I don't post other people's pics either, Fred have rules about that.........how do you even know what lens those different pics are shot with?

You can talk a whole day, but these pictures are just plain ugly. Sorry.

yes, they're ugly but i've seen no evidence that any other 35/1.4 would do better in the same situation. from what i know of the other options i would say they would do worse.

Jan 26, 2013 at 04:24 PM

wiseguy010
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

zhangyue wrote:
Any lens will fail if shoot this way.
Some has red blow up, poor WB, no focal point, not so great on compose. Even most beautiful Bokeh won't save thise fotos. And Some of photo add too much contrast like 'swing', I can make any photo look this bad from 351.4zeiss, not to mention 35f2.

So, you don't get your point supported. Sorry! I feel the same way: you trying to look for fault of lens to support your point which stretch too much in this case.

Plus, most of samples doesn't show poor bokeh but merely average test shots.

Well, then show me some pictures with such ugly bokeh from any of the 2 Zeiss-lenses.

Jan 26, 2013 at 04:30 PM

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

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

Jan 26, 2013 at 04:44 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

wiseguy010 wrote:
zhangyue wrote:
Any lens will fail if shoot this way.
Some has red blow up, poor WB, no focal point, not so great on compose. Even most beautiful Bokeh won't save thise fotos. And Some of photo add too much contrast like 'swing', I can make any photo look this bad from 351.4zeiss, not to mention 35f2.

So, you don't get your point supported. Sorry! I feel the same way: you trying to look for fault of lens to support your point which stretch too much in this case.

Plus, most of samples doesn't show poor bokeh but merely average test shots.

Well, then show me some pictures with such ugly bokeh from any of the 2 Zeiss-lenses.

i've seen a ton, i would recommend just doing a flickr search. otherwise i'll find some samples to link you too when i get around to it.

Jan 26, 2013 at 04:56 PM

Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Jan 26, 2013 at 05:21 PM

naturephoto1
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

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

There are times and places where a zoom is most appropriate. As an example, toward the end of October, I went to Mount Rainier NP and at Paradise in the Park you are supposed to stay on the asphalted Pathways. The color was amazing. At the time I only had my Lumix G1. Now I have the X-E1. But, I was fortunate to have my Aspheric 14-45mm Lumix along with my Leica f4 70-210mm Vario Elmar lenses with me that I used to among other things pick apart the landscape. Today, I would use the XE-1 with a battery of Leica R lenses including several zooms.

Rich

Jan 26, 2013 at 05:30 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

here is an actual comparison of the close focus bokeh of the sigma and ze by a random person on flickr. not the most informative but it actually tells you something unlike to terrible cherry picked shots.

Jan 26, 2013 at 05:47 PM

wiseguy010
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

sebboh wrote:
wiseguy010 wrote:
zhangyue wrote:
Any lens will fail if shoot this way.
Some has red blow up, poor WB, no focal point, not so great on compose. Even most beautiful Bokeh won't save thise fotos. And Some of photo add too much contrast like 'swing', I can make any photo look this bad from 351.4zeiss, not to mention 35f2.

So, you don't get your point supported. Sorry! I feel the same way: you trying to look for fault of lens to support your point which stretch too much in this case.

Plus, most of samples doesn't show poor bokeh but merely average test shots.

Well, then show me some pictures with such ugly bokeh from any of the 2 Zeiss-lenses.

i've seen a ton, i would recommend just doing a flickr search. otherwise i'll find some samples to link you too when i get around to it.

Yeah right, but you can't show one.

I already searched, but was not able to find one. The Sigma-pictures were found in a few minutes however.

Jan 26, 2013 at 08:15 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

wiseguy010 wrote:
sebboh wrote:
wiseguy010 wrote:
zhangyue wrote:
Any lens will fail if shoot this way.
Some has red blow up, poor WB, no focal point, not so great on compose. Even most beautiful Bokeh won't save thise fotos. And Some of photo add too much contrast like 'swing', I can make any photo look this bad from 351.4zeiss, not to mention 35f2.

So, you don't get your point supported. Sorry! I feel the same way: you trying to look for fault of lens to support your point which stretch too much in this case.

Plus, most of samples doesn't show poor bokeh but merely average test shots.

Well, then show me some pictures with such ugly bokeh from any of the 2 Zeiss-lenses.

i've seen a ton, i would recommend just doing a flickr search. otherwise i'll find some samples to link you too when i get around to it.

Yeah right, but you can't show one.

I already searched, but was not able to find one. The Sigma-pictures were found in a few minutes however.

i didn't show one because i didn't do the search yet since i already made my decision about those two lenses for myself and don't really care to waste my time for somebody that is just looking to justify their own belief. i went for a hike with my daughter instead.

my personal opinion from viewing many images and trying out the ZF 35/2 myself is that the Z* 35/2 has terrible bokeh compared to most similar lenses (well the zm 35/2 is even worse) while the Z* 35/1/4 has excellent bokeh for the focal length but can produce supprising funkiness particularly in the corners at surprising times. from the comparisons i've seen the sigma seems better behaved and more predictable in it's bokeh, but not quite as gentle as the Z* 35/1.4 at short distances. the sigma seems to show onion rings slightly more readily as well, but neither lens seems to show them that often.

i'm sure somebody like lars who actually has all the lenses in question knows more about it than me though.

oh, i just did a search and found this in the first batch: ugly bokeh from the ZE 35/1.4

Jan 26, 2013 at 09:26 PM

wiseguy010
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

sebboh wrote:

oh, i just did a search and found this in the first batch: ugly bokeh from the ZE 35/1.4

And which one has the ugly bokeh? This one?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61400086@N05/5637561965/

Or this one with the 35/2?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/57262408@N02/8247201524/

The 35/2 has sometimes a little noisy bokeh when it is used as a pseudo macro (which lens doesn't). Besides that it has a great bokeh. The 35/1.4 even has a smoother bokeh however. Both are in another league compared to what I have seen so far from the new Sigma, but that one has other qualities I suppose.

This one was made with the 35/2 and the circumstances for a good bokeh were quite difficult. But the 35/2 managed it quite well.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Ditto here:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

And now I am done discussing with people who are blinded by the many dollars they spent on their latest toy.

Jan 26, 2013 at 11:00 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

wiseguy010 wrote:
And now I am done discussing with people who are blinded by the many dollars they spent on their latest toy.

umm...... ok. just so you know, i have no interest in buying the sigma and i own the zeiss c/y 35/1.4, so i have no vested interest in saying the sigma has better bokeh.

your 2 images have mediocre bokeh at best and those types of images are the easiest bokeh situations for any lens (near portrait with distant background), much more conducive to good bokeh than any of the samples you "produced" from the sigma.

Jan 26, 2013 at 11:12 PM

Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

That's very funny

The Zeiss owner saying he is done talking with people who are blinded by the many dollars they spent on their latest toy (sigma)

Yes Sigma lenses are so expensive toys compared to Zeiss!!!

Jan 26, 2013 at 11:34 PM

Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

sebboh wrote:
wiseguy010 wrote:
And now I am done discussing with people who are blinded by the many dollars they spent on their latest toy.

your 2 images have mediocre bokeh at best and those types of images are the easiest bokeh situations for any lens (near portrait with distant background), much more conducive to good bokeh than any of the samples you "produced" from the sigma.

+1

Again he is just trying to make the Sigma bad and his own lens good

Jan 26, 2013 at 11:36 PM

erichard
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Those are a couple beautiful shots from the 35/2 Wiseguy. I've loved the lens since came out, but I think it doesn't quite still get the respect it deserves, that it used to get prior to the f/1.4.

After looking through many shots from the Sigma around the web, one thing that subtly detracts from the Sigma in my view is the highlight region. What I notice is that the highlights tends to be harsh, lacking detail and depth more often than not. I'm not sure if it's just bad technique from the photographers or coincidental subject matter, but when I view the Zeiss shots in comparison, each zone, including the highlights, paints a picture that brings real depth to the photo in color and tone. It's the kind of difference that you see between shooting midday on a sunny day vs. the afternoon on a cloudy day (for any lens). Excess contrast I suppose, but really harshness vs. subtle complexity, regardless of the sun. Maybe I'm imagining it, as no one has yet to mention this.

Wiseguy's photos show off the highlight region admirably.

Jan 27, 2013 at 06:53 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

wiseguy010 wrote:
I find this kind of bokeh very distracting and sometimes even horrible.

You have some serious problems.

Jan 27, 2013 at 10:29 AM

zhangyue
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

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

Nobody say zeiss is bad here. And most agree z351.4 is smoother. The thing is A/B test is needed to draw conclusion justify its bad bokeh reputation, or highlight problem here. but not with cherry picking with decent for zeiss and worse ones for sigma.

Again, most people just don't buy this conclusion, especially consider some of them have both z and s.

Jan 27, 2013 at 11:58 AM

philip_pj
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

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

I'd like the last two images much better if the young lady had real skin instead of waxy plastic on her face; as depicted, she is appears as featureless and characterless as a very nice looking doll.

'The thing is A/B test', Yes, yes, you must adjust for all extraneous factors, so any difference is only the lens. The lens is often the least significant contributing factor to image appearance, behind RC software, post workflow, sensor chars, camera colour processing, lighting, typle of shot, and so on and so forth.

Jan 27, 2013 at 12:08 PM

wiseguy010
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Lasse Eriksson wrote:
That's very funny

The Zeiss owner saying he is done talking with people who are blinded by the many dollars they spent on their latest toy (sigma)

Yes Sigma lenses are so expensive toys compared to Zeiss!!!

They are in the long term. While I am still shooting with my Zeiss lenses in about 30 years from now your Sigma lenses were replaced multiple times.

But I understand your point.

Jan 27, 2013 at 06:22 PM

wiseguy010
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

philip_pj wrote:
I'd like the last two images much better if the young lady had real skin instead of waxy plastic on her face; as depicted, she is appears as featureless and characterless as a very nice looking doll.

Always nice, such a Dpreview-level post.

You forgot to ask if I fell on my head as a baby. That's what they do there as well.

For your information: Pictures were hardly/not post-processed.

Jan 27, 2013 at 06:27 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 end