I guess this is another one of this or that thread (inspired by the 50f1.2 vs 50f1.4 ze)

I've been playing around with an xsi and a 50f1.7 (contax). The lens has an hoda (sp) adapter with chip but I feel it is rather poor quality; and the auto focus indicator seems erratic. The camera does not have a modified screen so manual focus is questionable (also I'm a bit concern that the viewfinder is not calibrated correctly so i'm not sure a better focus screen will help). I might order a happyhk adapter in a bit as I have quite a few contax lenses from my contax c/y days (25,28,35-70,50f1.4, 85f1.4, 100f3.5..)

However, I'm not that happy with stop down metering for walk around photography (open up;focus; stop down) in addition to the questionable ability to manual focus.

Anyways I'm thinking of the sigma 50f1.4 (or the 50f1.4 ze to alleviate stop down metering). The sigma will give me autofocus but from the web it sounds like it is not that accurate and suffers from focus shift (lensrental also has some interesting comments). Also I'm not sure if it will give me the zeiss pop (micro contrast et all) for when I use it for sunset/sunrise/landscape type pictures (that's why i'm asking the question!).

The 50ze I presume will provide me the zeiss pop but will leave me with manual focus (i might upgrade to a 5dmk ii in 6months or a year; but not sure - kind of unhappy with the quality of canon lenses (I think the 70-200f4 l is is fine for me; but the 17-55 is crippled by poor build; so I'm not sure I want to stick with canon - just playing around with the xsi for a couple of months to see what I can do with it; as there doesn't seem to be anything else out there right now).

Anyways any comments comparing the sigma to the zeiss 50ze ?

I think the Sigma, when properly focused [some copies have autofocus issues],
will outperform the Zeiss at f/2 or f/1.4, especially on close-up shooting.
The Zeiss will win in most ways for landscape work. Stopped down, it will be excellent.

The Canon 50/1.4 is no slouch, though. Check my Sigma-Canon comparison here:
www.pbase.com/tswen/sig50af/

Tim

I have the Sigma and love it for what it does. I did have to test 3-4 copies out in the store before I found one that I felt was good wide open. So there appears to be a bit of a sample variation with the Sigma. AF seems to help and I have not had the AF issues posted on the web.

I also tried out the ZF 50mm f1.4 (presuming it is the same with ZE) and was not impressed with sharpness or bookeh. The Sigma will not give you the Zeiss pop, but it is good regardless. The closest comparison of the Sigma look is to the Nikon 45mm f2.8 P Pancake - there is pop for sure, but I doubt if many lenses can keep up with Zeiss resolution or "look" when stopped down.

I use mine on the D700 and it is hard choosing between the Sigma 50mm or the Nikon 50mm f1.2 when it comes to the creamy wonderful bookeh or sharpness and superb contrast. The Nikon 50mm f1.2 seems to be on the camera most of the time

ok thanks.

I have the sigma.. and I just love it.. to pieces!

Bokeh wise, the Sigma is significantly better.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Sigma 50. Yeah the AF doesn't hit all the time and yeah it has some CA, but wow it's smooth.

pascal03 wrote:
I have the Sigma and love it for what it does. I did have to test 3-4 copies out in the store before I found one that I felt was good wide open. So there appears to be a bit of a sample variation with the Sigma. AF seems to help and I have not had the AF issues posted on the web.

I also tried out the ZF 50mm f1.4 (presuming it is the same with ZE) and was not impressed with sharpness or bookeh. The Sigma will not give you the Zeiss pop, but it is good regardless. The closest comparison of the Sigma look is to the Nikon 45mm f2.8 P Pancake - there is pop for sure, but I doubt if many lenses can keep up with Zeiss resolution or "look" when stopped down.

I use mine on the D700 and it is hard choosing between the Sigma 50mm or the Nikon 50mm f1.2 when it comes to the creamy wonderful bookeh or sharpness and superb contrast. The Nikon 50mm f1.2 seems to be on the camera most of the time

can we see some pictures of nikon 50 1.2 vs sig 50 1.4? i am debating on these and need something to help decide

17-55IS is crippled by poor build? How is that so? Give it a crinkled surface, a red ring and an L rubber grip pattern that's how 24-105L look and feel like.

I have both, and use the for different purposes. They really complement each other. I use the Sigma for close ups, and creamy bokeh, and I use the Zeiss for landscape work plus for close ups with busy background. 2 different looks, and with different properties. Flare for example: extremely well controlled with the Zeiss, while not so good with the Sigma. I love both lenses, and they do a better job together than 50L, while costing less. (actually I got the sigma, ze and rokkor 58 for less than a 50L)

--trajan

trajan wrote:
I have both, and use the for different purposes. They really complement each other.
--trajan

+1

My thoughts exactly. If you want to do many portraits, and love the isolation that wide open aperture gives you, and creamy bokeh, then the sigma is the obvious choice.
For landscape, cityscape, for colours and 3D, the Zeiss rules.
Conversely, the Sigma is weakest in quality control (there are just too many reports of bad copies, though that seems to have died down somewhat recently), in AF accuracy (not unimportant when shooting wide open), and a slight colour cast.
The ZE on the other hand is definitely soft wide open, and not supremely happy at minimum focusing distance, so you can imagine if you combine both.
But a good Sigma pic and a good ZE pic, both within their zone of excellence will leave the Canon EF 50mm f:1.4 into the dust.
Hope this helps.

philber wrote:
trajan wrote:
I have both, and use the for different purposes. They really complement each other.
--trajan

+1

My thoughts exactly. If you want to do many portraits, and love the isolation that wide open aperture gives you, and creamy bokeh, then the sigma is the obvious choice.
For landscape, cityscape, for colours and 3D, the Zeiss rules.
Conversely, the Sigma is weakest in quality control (there are just too many reports of bad copies, though that seems to have died down somewhat recently), in AF accuracy (not unimportant when shooting wide open), and a slight colour cast.
The ZE on the other hand is definitely soft wide open, and not supremely happy at minimum focusing distance, so you can imagine if you combine both.
But a good Sigma pic and a good ZE pic, both within their zone of excellence will leave the Canon EF 50mm f:1.4 into the dust.
Hope this helps.

I've got a similar set-up too but with a 50/2 summicron instead of the Zeiss.

With the Sigma AF, I've recently started using it on a 50D and found that for the close distance where the Sigma is best, I've programmed the Micro Lens adjustment. This really helps nail the shot when close-up using thin DOF.

Unfortunately my FF kit is 5D1 so it doesn't have the adjust feature

trajan wrote:
actually I got the sigma, ze and rokkor 58 for less than a 50L

WOW! You really like this FL don't you?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

There has been higher than normal failure rate of this lens over time reported. I can't give exact numbers as I don't own it but collectively this lens seems to fail (sort of like the eos 50f1.4). Is suspect the actual precentage is moderately low but for a lens at this price point I would expect better. The common failures I've heard of seem to be in the is and focus modules (a couple of places I've seen complaints about failure are lensrentals.com and photo.net). Note that the 'suck dust' issue doesnt' really bother me; it is not a sealed lens; so i filter that out.

However at the end of day my comment is hersey. I don't own the lens; don't work at canon and do not have access to raw satistics to support my comment.

Navyblue wrote:
17-55IS is crippled by poor build? How is that so? Give it a crinkled surface, a red ring and an L rubber grip pattern that's how 24-105L look and feel like.

you2 wrote:
There has been higher than normal failure rate of this lens over time reported. I can't give exact numbers as I don't own it but collectively this lens seems to fail (sort of like the eos 50f1.4). Is suspect the actual precentage is moderately low but for a lens at this price point I would expect better. The common failures I've heard of seem to be in the is and focus modules (a couple of places I've seen complaints about failure are lensrentals.com and photo.net). Note that the 'suck dust' issue doesnt' really bother me; it is not a sealed lens; so i filter that out.

However at the end of day my comment is hersey. I don't own the lens; don't work at canon and do not have access to raw satistics to support my comment.


If you put that much weight in hearsay, why are you even considering a Sigma?

You have no idea how much bull is floating around. Let's take the 17-55IS dust issue for the sake of discussion. It seems to be a pretty well known "problem". For a while the 17-55IS is my most used lens. I rarely touch my 50/1.4, and it doesn't even zoom. My 50/1.4 has more dust than the 17-55IS. Why isn't there talks about the 50/1.4 dust issue? Oh wait I might just have started another rumour.

Another option is the Conurus converted Contax N 50 1.4 lens which has both AF and a decent MF ring. I enjoy it along with my Rokkor 58. The contax N 50 is good for those times when I need AF or if I want OOF areas to have more definition.
Can't go wrong with the Sigmalux either, just a matter of preference.

Dust isn't THAT much of an issue, I have three brand-new, never used Mamiya RB67 lenses and all of them have a several specks on the glass internally. Can't say I ever saw that on new Canon lenses, but then I never looked through them with a flashlight on the other side when they were new.

(If you can help it, don't try the flashlight thing - it'll ramp up a person's OCD, lol.)

the Sigma is a fine lens, heavy and large though. The Zeiss is sharper at smaller apertures. I use the Sigma and the tiny EF 1.8 most of the time now