I just can't make up my mind on this lens. I have read the Sigma while wonderful at wider apertures, doesn't get tack sharp at smaller apertures like many other 50's like a Zeiss say. Is this the experience of others.

I want it all: good centre sharpness wide open, reasonably smooth bokeh, good microcontrast, and very sharp from f/2.8 on.

Maybe my Zeiss C/Y 50 f/1.4 is good enough. Would the ZE 50 f/1.4 with the 9 bladed aperture be the best compromise.

I would also consider the 50L if it didn't seem to suffer from the same focus issues as the Sigma. HelenaN has posted some top images from the 50L in the Canon forum recently

There is a post-your-picture-thread on the Pentaxforums with the Cosina. I find this lens quite versatile and also usable full open.
Best, Georg

Whayne,

I will still be keeping my C/Y Zeiss 50/1.7 for landscape work, though it's likely not really needed.
The Sigma is pretty much of equal landscape quality, at least on the older bodies I have (5D, 30D).
There may be differences visible on a 5DII, but I won't be getting one of those right away.

Here are five "50mm" primes compared on my 30D:
http://www.pbase.com/tswen/50compare
Full size files.

The time of day varies between the shots, so don't read much into the white balance.

The Sigma does appear to have field curvature that the Canon 50/1.4 suffers less of.

The C/Y Zeiss 50/1.4 has good landscape sharpness, but my experience with that lens is that
it's bokeh is quite annoying in many situations. It also has not the best sharpness at minimum
focus distance, though I don't think the Sigma excels there either. Neither are macro lenses.
The Sigma really starts to sing at portrait distances.

Zeiss ZE f:1.4 is just a tad soft wide open, but that hint of softness evaporates from f2.0 onwards. As a landscape lens on my 5DII, the amount of detail and sharpness are stunning. As is, as usual with Zeiss, the rendering in terms of "3D" and colour.

A couple of examples from Venice:

Venice, Zeiss ZE 50 on 5D MkII

Zeiss ZE 50 on 5D MKII (2)

philber wrote:
Zeiss ZE f:1.4 is just a tad soft wide open, but that hint of softness evaporates from f2.0 onwards. As a landscape lens on my 5DII, the amount of detail and sharpness are stunning. As is, as usual with Zeiss, the rendering in terms of "3D" and colour.

A couple of examples from Venice:

Venice, Zeiss ZE 50 on 5D MkII

Zeiss ZE 50 on 5D MKII (2)

Thanks Philber, those shots certainly have superb detail and the Zeiss high contrast. I'm very pleased with my old C/Y Planar 50 f/1.4 on my 5D.

What's the bokeh like between f/1.4 and f/2.8?



Whayne,

I will still be keeping my C/Y Zeiss 50/1.7 for landscape work, though it's likely not really needed.
The Sigma is pretty much of equal landscape quality, at least on the older bodies I have (5D, 30D).
There may be differences visible on a 5DII, but I won't be getting one of those right away.

Here are five "50mm" primes compared on my 30D:
http://www.pbase.com/tswen/50compare
Full size files.

The time of day varies between the shots, so don't read much into the white balance.

The Sigma does appear to have field curvature that the Canon 50/1.4 suffers less of.

The C/Y Zeiss 50/1.4 has good landscape sharpness, but my experience with that lens is that
it's bokeh is quite annoying in many situations. It also has not the best sharpness at minimum
focus distance, though I don't think the Sigma excels there either. Neither are macro lenses.
The Sigma really starts to sing at portrait distances.


Thanks for the extra info Tim. The C/Y's bokeh isn't super smooth, but I find in many cases it's pretty decent and even with oof highlights it's not too bad. The rings have a bright thin rim, but not overly harsh.

Maybe if I could see a comparison of the ZE vs Sigma at all apertures I could decide if the Sigma is the way to go.

I should say I will be getting a 5D II soon.