uscmatt99 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
ulrikft2 wrote:
Indeed, I think people are emotionally siding with the zeiss here. Might be sunk-cost-fallacy playing up? I don't know.
The sigma has me wanting a new nikon fullframe slr-body again. I have the 50 1.4 sigmalux already, with a 35 and 85 1.4 as well, It would be an amazing kit.
I'm not sure what I'd buy now with both lenses on the market, priced as they are. If they were priced the same I'd get the Zeiss, but as they are I'd probably have gotten the Sigma. It depends on your expectations and shooting habits I think. With the Zeiss at f/1.4, I'm willing to put up with the softness/haze at 100% and the occasional intense purple fringing, because the out of focus rendering at all distances looks more pleasing to me than the Sigma, which can get busy but not the majority of the time. But if I wanted eyelash sharpness and great contrast at 100% for environmental portraits, or if I shot landscapes frequently at f/1.4-f/2.8, I'd get the Sigma.
Stopped down at f/5.6 and beyond, it's hard to say for me at this point. In reviewing some of my favorite landscape photos of uniformly distant subjects, I'm disappointed I didn't stop down to f/11 more frequently. I got too used to the performance of the 100/2 at infinty at f/5.6 where there is critical sharpness across the field at f/5.6. On the 35/1.4 at f/5.6, the central detail is stunning, but there is definite progressive smudging as I move out to the edges and corners related to field curvature, with the lens focused to the hard infinity stop. However, for subjects that have interesting details at the edges and corners closer to me than the center, the results are much better with phenomenal retention of detail. I almost sent the lens in for servicing at first, but after reviewing more photos it seems to be inherent in the design. I'm not sure if there is a flatter focal plane for the Sigma, but I'd rather have a flat field most of the time.
|