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

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

p.5 #1 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

wiseguy010 wrote:
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.

really? i just figured they were run through portrait pro or something? they definitely look like the fine detail and contrast was lowered just on her face. maybe it's the compression?

Jan 27, 2013 at 06:48 PM

erichard
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Zhangyue, Yes, I'd like to see a:b tests under controlled circumstances, but absent that, what I noticed seems to be rather consistent under many circumstances for each lens, not just Wiseguy's, or the Sigma photos on this thread.

As for the two photos, I can see that the second one looks a bit processed (more than the first, though I'm guessing in reality she has a near flawless complexion in any case), and maybe I'd have done less, but that's not what I'm focussing on. It's more about the tonal gradations mirroring what the eye experiences. When I look at people or wherever, I don't see highlights burned out, and it's not so much that the highlights are clipped per se, but that they push very high giving a very harsh appearance, probably lacking a bit of color as well (but we need a controlled experiment to know). I just mention the observation because it seems so pervasive in the shots up so far on the web. I imagine that under ideal circumstances, the sigma harshness could be controlled, but is there a difference under less controlled circumstances? I'd like to know.

Jan 27, 2013 at 07:29 PM

wiseguy010
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #3 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

sebboh wrote:
wiseguy010 wrote:
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.

Jan 27, 2013 at 07:41 PM

wiseguy010
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

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

You have some serious problems.

If these are my worst problems I am a very happy person.

Jan 27, 2013 at 07:55 PM

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

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

wiseguy010 wrote:
It could be the compression (from Photobucket) I suppose. I don't have such advanced portrait-software.

In the second one I can remember lighting up the whites in the eyes a bit. But that's nearly all I did. Her skin is almost flawless, so I didn't have to do anything there.

But coming back to the bokeh of these pictures. The object was in front of a brick wall (at the right) and trees and bushes (on the left). In my opinion a very difficult challenge for good bokeh. That's why I posted these. The portrait itself doesn't matter in this respect.

it just looks weird to me, not the usual 3D look i'm used to seeing from the ZE 35/2 even though i can see it in her hair and jacket. it could very well be compression since her skin is so smooth the algorithm just threw out some of the subtle tones – i can see evidence of aggressive compression in the bokeh areas as well.

i really don't understand how you can consider that to be a challenge for good bokeh though compared to the sigma images you posted. the sigma shots typically have extremely harsh light or very little distance between subject and background or in many cases both. in your images you have a near subject and distant background, which is the classic recipe for smooth bokeh. if you want to show a challenging photo find one where the background has extreme contrast and is very close to the focus plane.

here is a very similar picture to your second one in terms of focal length subject distance (and subject) but the background is even closer (theoretically making bokeh worse), processing was simply clicking on the LR creamtone preset and adding a little vignetting:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

the bokeh looks pretty smooth despite the fact that there are bright highlights reflecting off steal pans in the background, but nobody should be surprised by that because of the ratio of subject distance to background distance.

Jan 27, 2013 at 10:49 PM

tsdevine
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #6 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

I sold my 35 f/2 ZE before picking up the Sigma, so I can't do a direct comparison. Here's a peaceful respite from the bokeh discussion....

Canon 5D Mark II
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM
2.5s @ f/9 (ISO 100) + Marumi 3 stop ND + Marumi Super DHG Polarizer

-Tim

Jan 29, 2013 at 12:09 AM

asabet
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #7 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

wiseguy010 wrote:
Well, then show me some pictures with such ugly bokeh from any of the 2 Zeiss-lenses.

Zeiss 35/1.4:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/only_to_be_kind/8347826909/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/giuseppeb/6934807554/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rbruni/5807868251/

Zeiss 35/2:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/taehaphotography/7525537944/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tianlianghau/6963367480/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tianlianghau/6906438760/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelleclercq/7557001212/

I think the Zeiss 35/1.4 probably has the nicest bokeh of any modern 35/1.4, but absolutely any fast lens will produce ugly bokeh in certain situations, and the Zeiss lenses are no exception. It is meaningless to cherry pick examples of bad bokeh for a lens.

Jan 29, 2013 at 01:52 AM

asabet
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #8 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

wayne seltzer wrote:
What no infinity crops? What are you trying to hide?

Here's a processed f/1.4 test shot with distant point of focus. Click through for the full res version:

Jan 29, 2013 at 02:12 AM

jojomon11
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #9 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

wiseguy010 wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
wiseguy010 wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
wayne seltzer wrote:
wayne seltzer wrote:
What no infinity crops? What are you trying to hide?

Michael, I guess you didn't get my joke.

I was just saying the same thing you said to me about my RX1 infinity shots back in Dec.
Can you post any 100% crops from the infinity shots?

In the Canon forum you can find a lot of of pics from all different distances with the Sigma lens. There are a couple of long threads.

I had a look into those threads, but there are many pictures with really horrible bokeh. I almost directly had the Voiglander 20/3.5 color skopar in mind. That lens can also give this kind of nervous bokeh in certain situations.

The lens has rather nice bokeh. Better than the Canon/Nikon 35mm lenses. But not as good as the Zeiss 35/1,4. Every lens can give nervous bokeh in certain situations like you wrote. The Sigma doesn't do that more than other brands.
It's also very different to actually use the lens and compare it against other brands in real life shooting, than looking at a few web-sized pics on internet. Every review of the lens that I have been reading (6-7 at least) also confirm it's very good and the bokeh is better or at least as good as the competition. It's easily the best 35mm AF lens for Canon/Nikon. And it also competes with the best 35mm MF lenses. It does this with a price that is much lower than the others also.
Please show a link to all those pics with horrible bokeh? And that would be much better if shot with all the other 35mm lenses. If you say it's similar to the Voiglander 20/3.5 lens. It's obvious that you have never used the lens.

Here are some to start with:

And there are many more. I find this kind of bokeh very distracting and sometimes even horrible.

And yes, I have used the Voigtlander.

Now I am waiting for your pictures of flowers and Boedha statues in Thailand (those that I have seen a lot from you).

Do not posted my picture for your use in your thread without permission!!!

Jan 29, 2013 at 02:27 AM

snapsy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #10 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

Only true way to compare bokeh is two lenses side by side with the same subject matter. There are so many scenes where even the best bokeh rendering lenses will look unflattering. Here is a thorough comparison of the Sigma against the Canon 35L, with lots of bokeh shots: http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L

Jan 29, 2013 at 02:32 AM

wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #11 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

asabet wrote:
wayne seltzer wrote:
What no infinity crops? What are you trying to hide?

Here's a processed f/1.4 test shot with distant point of focus. Click through for the full res version:

Thanks! Looks nice and sharp at far distance. I still like the extra microcontrast of the Zeiss lenses but it is great to have another great choice at 35mm focal length.

Jan 29, 2013 at 03:27 AM

mpedersen
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #12 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

I really like the Sigma... But something keeps making me want to pick up the Zeiss :/

Jan 29, 2013 at 06:33 AM

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

p.5 #13 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

asabet wrote:
Here's a processed f/1.4 test shot with distant point of focus. Click through for the full res version:

that is remarkably good cross the frame performance for f/1.4.

Jan 29, 2013 at 06:39 AM

asabet
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #14 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

Here's f/5.6 from a slightly different spot:

Jan 30, 2013 at 01:17 AM

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

p.5 #15 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

snapsy wrote:
Only true way to compare bokeh is two lenses side by side with the same subject matter. There are so many scenes where even the best bokeh rendering lenses will look unflattering. Here is a thorough comparison of the Sigma against the Canon 35L, with lots of bokeh shots: http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L

By the parameters of this test, the Sigma pretty much beats or even trounces the 35L in every way. Less CA, more resolution (for a flat field at that distance), and so on. It is possible that the 35L is better than the Sigma in some way, but after this test, and a couple of others I have seen, it seems unlikely.

I imagine that Canon will redesign the 35L at some point, given that various lenses are beginning to appear which outperform it in some way or other (or all, in the case of the Sigma). I also imagine, given Canon's recent price tendencies, that it will be incredibly expensive, maybe more than twice the cost of the Sigma.

I would be curious to see a comparison between the Nikkor 35/1.4G and the Sigma. I imagine that the Nikkor would do a bit better than the 35L, being much newer, but I expect the Sigma would still outperform it in several areas, such as flatness of field and CA.

Jan 30, 2013 at 09:46 AM

Dergiman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #16 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

carstenw wrote:
I imagine that Canon will redesign the 35L at some point, given that various lenses are beginning to appear which outperform it in some way or other (or all, in the case of the Sigma).

Outperforming in all cases is a bold statement. I am sure that the Sigma 35/1.4 has some flaws as well. I am wondering how good contrast, microcontrast, color, colorseparation, LoCA, and field curvature are. I am not impressed by the Zone B performance of the Sigma 35 on the TDP site at f2-f4. And the AF poll in the Canon forum is not the best.

Jan 30, 2013 at 05:02 PM

asabet
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #17 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

Dergiman wrote:
carstenw wrote:
I imagine that Canon will redesign the 35L at some point, given that various lenses are beginning to appear which outperform it in some way or other (or all, in the case of the Sigma).

Outperforming in all cases is a bold statement. I am sure that the Sigma 35/1.4 has some flaws as well. I am wondering how good contrast, microcontrast, color, colorseparation, LoCA, and field curvature are. I am not impressed by the Zone B performance of the Sigma 35 on the TDP site at f2-f4. And the AF poll in the Canon forum is not the best.

Based on my experiences, I'd say the following:

Contrast: No such thing as "better" in this category

Microcontrast: Sigma is higher

Color: Neither one better than the other

Color separation: Pretty much a BS category IMO.

LoCA: Sigma has less

Field curvature: Canon may be better here. It's the only reason I can think of for the weak edge performance shown at TDP, other than technical error by TDP. Every other site shows better edge performance for the Sigma. Maybe the difference is that TDP is using close range, flat targets.

AF: Can only speak to my copies of the lenses. My Sigma occasionally misfocuses with far distant targets. Didn't seem to happen often with the Canon, but I don't know whether that was the camera (5D vs D600) or lens.

Edited on Jan 30, 2013 at 05:16 PM · View previous versions

Jan 30, 2013 at 05:10 PM

Dergiman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #18 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

How do you like its´close up performance? I am thinking about replacing the Canon 35L and the ZE35/2 with the Sigma. The ZE35 is a real champ close up and the look at longer distances is unique.

Jan 30, 2013 at 05:15 PM

asabet
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #19 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

Most of what I'm doing with the Sigma is close up stuff, and there the AF has been very solid, and the image quality is the best I've ever seen from a 35mm lens. I previously had the ZF 35/2 (on a Nikon D700), and I don't think the Sigma gives up anything to that lens except maybe slight preference for the Zeiss out-of-focus rendering (hard to be sure about that without side by side comparisons).

Relative to the TDP test, my close up stuff doesn't tend to be flat though. I'm not shooting maps for reproduction. I'm mostly taking photos of people, and the Sigma excels there.

Jan 30, 2013 at 05:19 PM

Dergiman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #20 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?

asabet wrote:
Most of what I'm doing with the Sigma is close up stuff, and there the AF has been very solid, and the image quality is the best I've ever seen from a 35mm lens. I previously had the ZF 35/2 (on a Nikon D700), and I don't think the Sigma gives up anything to that lens except maybe slight preference for the Zeiss out-of-focus rendering (hard to be sure about that without side by side comparisons).

Good to hear! Got to test drive the Sigma myself.

Jan 30, 2013 at 05:22 PM

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