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

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       4       5       end
  

Archive 2013 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?
  
 
CanonGuy4Life
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


I see more samples on here from 35 f/2, any reason this lens better quality images than the 35 f/1.4 zeiss?



Thanks



Sep 16, 2013 at 03:24 PM
Dpedraza
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


I have the 35mm f2 the 1.4 is a bit high(price) considering the competition out there. I can't say which is better i know the f2 is a very nice piece of glass though. If the 1.4 wasn't like 1800 new I'd pick one up but you can almost get 2 sigmas for that price which is a very nice lens.


Sep 16, 2013 at 03:44 PM
CanonGuy4Life
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


Ok thanks


Sep 16, 2013 at 03:48 PM
rirakuma
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


I did a bit of research on this before buying the 35/2. Some things you might want to consider is the weight/size and price, the 35/1.4 is massive in comparison to the 35/2 and its also almost double the price as previously mentioned. I believe the 35/1.4 has better rendition of fine details but the 35/2 has more pop or renders more vividly. Both lenses are sharp at f2, I don't need to stop down the 35/2 for sharpness, only for DOF. If you need the 1.4 then its a no brainer but if you're fine with an f2 just decide whether you want a vivid pop or fine detailed rendering. I've never personally used the 1.4 though so this is just a humble opinion based on my research.


Sep 16, 2013 at 04:22 PM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


From F2.8 and up, I'd say the F2 actually wins in some scenarios. But they're both very good. Their main problem is that the Sigma 35/1.4 is better, has AF, and sells at a lower price. Actually the Zeiss 35/1.4 seems quite redundant at the market right now. they either have to update it to be better than the Sigma, OR lower the price by half to be competitive.


Sep 16, 2013 at 04:50 PM
surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


I suspect there are more samples from the 35f2 because it's been around longer and it's cheaper.

The 35f2 is obviously smaller and lighter.
I lot of people like the perceived "3Dness" of the 35f2. What rirakuma calls in the previous post, "more pop."
Besides the general IQ differences, the 35f2 has pretty severe vignetting at f2 compared to the 1.4 at f2.



Sep 16, 2013 at 04:51 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


The 35/2 has more 3D and pop, and is much smaller, lighter and cheaper. I would say that the 35/1.4 wins in all other ways, subject to personal taste.


Sep 16, 2013 at 05:13 PM
wiseguy010
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


theSuede wrote:
Their main problem is that the Sigma 35/1.4 is better, has AF, and sells at a lower price.


That depends on how you define "better". If you mean a tiny bit hardly noticeable additional microscopic sharpness, then you are right. If you mean the absence of CA, you are right. In all other aspects (colour, bokeh, contrast, overall rendering, build quality, ...) I prefer the Zeiss lenses.

But there were already some heated discussions about this that I don't want to start again.



Sep 16, 2013 at 05:14 PM
wuxiekeji
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


Take a good look at the Samyang 35/1.4 too if you don't mind manual focus (obviously you don't mind if you're considering the Zeiss) and plastic housing (although Samyang's build is much better build quality than most Canon crap housing). If you get a good copy (and there is copy variation) the Samyang pretty much matches up to the Zeiss in sharpness, though it lacks a bit in microcontrast. From what I've seen Samyang definitely beats Sigma and Canon 35/1.4 hands-down, and put up against the Zeiss it's really hard to tell the difference without pixel peeping.

The main downside is the copy variation, so do some hard tests as soon as you get it. Or order 2-3 from Amazon and keep the best one. When their quality control sucks we customers don't have much better options ...



Sep 16, 2013 at 05:22 PM
theSuede
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


wiseguy010 wrote:
That depends on how you define "better". If you mean a tiny bit hardly noticeable additional microscopic sharpness, then you are right. If you mean the absence of CA, you are right. In all other aspects (colour, bokeh, contrast, overall rendering, build quality, ...) I prefer the Zeiss lenses.

But there were already some heated discussions about this that I don't want to start again.


I prefer side by side comparisons when you give all lenses compared equal circumstances to "discussions" where people tend to use their groin parts more than their eyes and brain to assess image "quality". I've done just comparisons, and we even did the Samyang, Nikon and Canon 35L just for the heck of it. The two lenses that performed best when weighing in both near and far performance was the Zeiss F2.0 and the Sigma.

"Rendering" quality differences? About zero. Some lenses had more obvious aberrations than the others at large apertures. And I don't count visible aberrations and distortions as "image quality". Some even had quite ugly, obnoxious nissen type bokeh at medium distance - and that includes the Zeiss 35/1.4 - that was arguably the worst of the bunch in that respect.

"Color quality" differences? Please show me. We got a score reliability of 0 percent (absolute zero) when doing double blind tests. The random generator actually scored higher than the human participants.

And I just MIGHT concede on one point, build quality. But let's wait and see how they hold up.



Sep 16, 2013 at 06:09 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



edwardkaraa
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


My experience with the 35/2 in addition to what has been said by others is the somewhat strong CA even stopped down.


Sep 16, 2013 at 06:28 PM
johnahill
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


The good thing for us is that there are now more great 35mm lenses than ever before especially in canon mount.

Zeiss 1.4
Zeiss 2.0
Canon 2.0 IS
Canon 1.4L
Samyang 1.4
Sigma 1.4

There all pretty damn good and really none of these should be a limiting factor in your photography.

I've personally used the Zeiss 2.0, Samyang and the Sigma, and I still have the Zeiss and Sigma.
With the Sigma I've had some great shots of my daughter that I would probably not have got with the manual focus Zeiss. I ran a test between the Zeiss and the Sigma and results were very close, there was a bit of flare in the sigma that didn't show up in the zeiss shots. So really I'm undecided which I will keep long term.

One thing at the moment that keep me from selling the Zeiss is the low used market value recently.



Sep 16, 2013 at 07:03 PM
Jochenb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


I owned both (and the Canon 35L) and I know the Sigma. I agree with Carsten.
BTW: wow, I can hardly believe that some people say there's zero difference in rendering. Usual those are the people that drool on specs and test charts. They all have a different look.
For example: the Sigma has a kind of bokeh that you won't see from the other ones, a kind I don't like. So that's one big difference already.



Sep 16, 2013 at 07:15 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


I am also not so impressed with the Sigma's boke, but this only happens in some shots, and it does have benefits, like its relative lack of aberrations, compared to the Zeiss lenses.

Ultimately, what sells me on the Zeiss lenses is the micro-contrast and the boke. The background separation and transition just has a different look to it, and I love it.



Sep 16, 2013 at 08:06 PM
vaflower
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


Really ? it is strange to me that some people think that there are no rendering differences between lenses.

The differences are from optical formula, but more importantly from each brand coating ingredients. Zeiss lenses are different from Canon and Sigma and even Canon L lenses are different from non-L lenses. I may not be able to pick apart 2 different lenses in a random shot of a brick, but for skin tone I can easily tell apart Zeiss lenses versus a Canon versus a Sigma if all are shot without PP.

Sharpness is easy to measure so sometimes get over-emphasized, but for me lens character and rendering are more important qualities given adequate sharpness. I owned a Canon 35 f/2 IS before and sold it to buy the Zeiss 35 f/2. The Canon f/2 may be sharper and more well corrected but Zeiss 35 f/2 has a better rendering.



Sep 16, 2013 at 08:30 PM
Mirek Elsner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


"Rendering" quality differences? About zero. Some lenses had more obvious aberrations than the others at large apertures. And I don't count visible aberrations and distortions as "image quality". Some even had quite ugly, obnoxious nissen type bokeh at medium distance - and that includes the Zeiss 35/1.4 - that was arguably the worst of the bunch in that respect.

I have been using the ZE35/1.4 since its introduction and used Canon 35L for 10 years. I used them both on the same camera for a while. I believe I didn't perform any side by side testing, but the difference in look, especially at shorter distances, is indisputable. With regards to the bokeh, I prefer Distagon 1.4 over 35L and over the Sigma. Could you post the blind test, by the way?


Edited on Sep 17, 2013 at 04:39 AM · View previous versions



Sep 17, 2013 at 04:19 AM
Mirek Elsner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


And I just MIGHT concede on one point, build quality. But let's wait and see how they hold up.

The Zeiss lenses are well built (or at least feel that way), but the anodized/knurled hard surface can easily get scratched, especially if these lenses rub against each other.



Sep 17, 2013 at 04:28 AM
Krosavcheg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


I rather like my 35/2 - perhaps I was expecting more from CY35/1.4, or perhaps since I find it more difficult to focus than 35/2 (ZF).
I did a shoot side by side with Sigma 35/1.4 and it appears (to me at least) that CY 35/1.4 shots (same can be said about all my CY shots for that matter) throws a magenta cast when I shoot in the forested areas here in Japan.
Haven't tried Ze/Zf/Zm 35/1.4 - it appears to be a different design, so may be performing differently.
Atm I am sticking to Sigma for convenience - it seems to be focusing properly.

Additionally, the focal length of CY35/1.4 is 36.5 mm...



Sep 17, 2013 at 05:10 AM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


Having Sigma Art lenses in the market may put a cap on the high thousand dollar lenses like the ZE 35/1.4, if so they have done everyone a favour. After scanning the whole 35/1.4 Art image thread it was hard to be critical.


Sep 17, 2013 at 06:57 AM
uscmatt99
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?


I've been using the ZF 35/1.4 since soon after it came out. My only other near comparisons are the CV40 SL-II, CV 35/1.2 on crop, and ZM 35/2.8 on crop bodies. My favorite of the bunch is the 35/1.4 on an FX camera, first the D700 and now the D600.

At a pixel level, it's not going to be as "sharp" as the Sigma until around f/4-5.6. It also has a fairly wicked amount of green/purple fringing at high-contrast interfaces wide open. It's one heavy bulky beast to carry around for the day. Finally, stopped down, one must really stop down to f/11 to get the corners to catch up with the center due to field curvature, though you lose acuity centrally in the frame once you go above f/5.6. In that regard the CV 35/1.2 seems to be better for a fast lens, an excellent lens at f/5.6, see Ron Scheffler's comparison to other rangefinder glass.

For me, the benefits of the lens are the dedicated manual focus helicoid, the accurate (on my camera) hard infinity stop, and the "rendering." My Sigma 50/1.4 had buttery bokeh, and a buttery look in the focal plane as well, if it managed to acquire focus. I prefer the out of focus rendering for both up close and mid distance subjects from f/1.4-2.8 to most if not all samples I've seen from the Sigma, let alone the other lenses I've used.

If I knew I was going to have both a DSLR setup and mirrorless (NEX in my case) setup running in parallel, and the Sigma was already out at the same time as the Zeiss, it would have been a tough decision for me. But at this point the Sigma doesn't offer enough to make me sell the Zeiss.



Sep 17, 2013 at 07:36 AM
1
       2       3       4       5       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       4       5       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password