p.1 #3 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
The price range is more comparable to the Zeiss 35/2 (used). If the sigma is as good as the Zeiss @f2 and above, then I would probably get it. f1.4 would a bonus for me.
I love my Zeiss 35/f2. I thought I would never part with it but the truth is manual focus is difficult with kids and even stealth street photography. I love the 3D pop, colors. The Sigma lens would have to match it
p.1 #4 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
The spec is more comparable to the 35/1.4, and anyway, I am sure that ZF.2 35/1.4 owners are very keen to know what the differences are!
It sounds like the Sigma is a great piece of kit, and I doubt that many who buy it will regret it. However, there are many good lenses out there, even very many, of various specs, yet people still gravitate towards brands like Leica and Zeiss, so I am skeptical as to whether the Sigma will be compelling for Zeiss owners. I also own the Leica 35/1.4R, so I have more than one lens on the line. I will sell one of mine anyway, but the Sigma is a wild card for sure.
p.1 #5 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
lol ...you guys crack me up.
maybe the landscapers would like it but it sure as hell is no Zeiss for street and because everyone is so Sigma QC spooked they are returning them for any and all and imaginary faults.
p.1 #6 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
I have both but did not get around to compare then, as I got the Sigma only two days ago. The Sigma is incredible from what I have seen so far in a few dozen shots. But so is the ZF 35/2 which I had for years. I also tried out the Nikon and Zeiss 35/1.4 lenses at some point but didn't really get on with either one and kept the ZF 35/2. I can already say that I like the Sigma better than those other 35/1.4 models, but I won't be able to directly compare those since I don't own them anymore.
p.1 #7 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
I did compare Sigma 35/1.4 with my 35/2ZF 3 weeks ago.
Apart from lacking of the Zeiss look (colours,microcontrast) Sigma is better in any other respect.On the 5D2 it is sharp across the frame and has hardly any LCA/LoCA wide open.Zeiss at f2 fringes in blue and it's corner sharpness lags behind.Stop Sigma down to f5.6 and you'll get super sharp image across the frame,whereas Zeiss sharpness is decreasing towards corners.I found Sigma significantly better than Canon EF 35/1.4 and Samyang 35/1.4 that I tried before.Excellent lens.
p.1 #9 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
when it comes, it comes. this is the magic lens that defeat almost any 35mm on market. Technically.
it make $1699 Nikon asking price like a joke.
Pair this with 5DIII, or D800 I think you are done with 35mm for another 10 years.
I make this judgement by viewing samples and review so far, though I have no plan to add it at near future. It is not on my priority list. But if I am in the market for 35 AGAIN, this will be the first one for sure.
p.1 #10 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
The sigma looks great. Nice sharpness, CA control,... but when you're used to the bokeh of the 35/1.4 ZE/ZF it's difficult to love that of the Sigma. It's not on the same level IMHO.
p.1 #11 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
The reason I buy Zeiss ZF lenses is not for their overall optical performance. Each and every one of the lenses I own (21, 28, 35/1.4, 50, 50MP, 85, 100MP) has its own fairly serious optical shortcoming. The reason I buy them is for the look, that special look, which I rarely see from lenses other than Leica, Zeiss and Schneider-Kreuznach. Olympus has a few really good lenses though, especially the 12/2, which, while good, isn't perfect, yet I keep coming back to it, and it is my most used MFT lens by far.
The special property of the Zeiss lenses is that sense of being there, a special clarity and transparency, combined with interesting boke. Leica lenses don't have that, but they have gorgeous, painterly rendering, without sacrificing sharpness. Schneider lenses are somewhere in between.
I own the Sigma 50/1.4, and it is a really nice lens, but it doesn't get so sharp stopped down, and the look wide open, while beautiful, is also somewhat lacking in character and colour. I don't think I will sell it, but I don't hold it in the same high esteem. I imagine that the 35/1.4 will be better, but that my emotions would remain those of detachment. Still, it sounds very good and I am keeping a careful eye on it.
p.1 #12 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
I still find the old Contax/Rollei Zeiss 35/1.4's to have the best look that Carsten talks about. The Zeiss ZE is sharper corner to corner, but the bokeh and spatial look seems to suffers some, especially wide open, from the older version. The Sigma is sharper yet, but lacks even more of the other desirable qualities.
Jan 14, 2013 at 05:37 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
I bought the Sigma about one week ago. I also own the Zeiss ZE 35/1,4 and Zeiss ZE 35/2 lenses. I have not really tested them against each other. But my first impression is that the Sigma is incredible sharp wide open. Better than the Zeiss. It also have great colours and contrast. It's a fantastic lens for it's price. But the Zeiss 35/1,4 have nicer bokeh even if the Sigma also have nice bokeh
p.1 #15 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
I can't post side by side.
but since I own 35lux R and Zeiss before. here is my take:
center sharpness WO, I feel leica has the lead. but its sharpness decay faster away from center than Zeiss. So, for off center portrait, be careful. Zeiss will be better.
Bokeh wise, Zeiss is definitely smoother. Leica is a lot more unpredictable (at least for now with limited use) having different rendering with different lighting and distance. But still, I like it and it never really make me think it has bad bokeh. Cat eye effect is stronger with Zeiss. Leica will keep bokeh highlight more or less rounded.
Landscape: I feel Zeis might has the edge, but Leica 35lux is pretty good. I don't shoot many landscape with DSLR, plus D700 is 12M camera. So, it is irrelevant. And I buy this 35lux is definite with no intention to shoot Landscape at f8. Leica can do it but there are better lens way cheaper can do that.
Leica has smaller size with 'correct' focus ring direction, which is big fact to keep me prefer it over Zeiss.
p.1 #17 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
It certainly has the usual lens measurers' approval.
We all look for different things in a lens and to be honest none of the technical metrics really disqualify any lens if its overall strengths make it fit for purpose, for one's own purpose that is, and if it turns out great results.
None of the usual suspects have seen fit to include any infinity or even middle distance images that I can find. Many people would like to see how image depth is defined and rendered, perhaps some kind soul can provide a set of images they have shot or a link, to something other than the usual 'near focus far bokeh' fast 35 photo? That might help characterise the lens well for general use?
p.1 #18 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
The timing of this thread is good for me, because I'm starting to think down the road about pairing a D800 with a Zeiss 35/2. I'm more inclined to use a manual focus lens for my purposes, rather than something with autofocus, but I'm a bit fascinated to see how Sigma has leaped forward in the four-plus years I've been taking pictures.
The Sigma 35/1.4 has been getting stellar reviews, both formal and informal, and that bodes well for Sigma in general.
p.1 #20 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
I 've been thinking to replace my 35 1.8dx by the sigma but the pictures I've seen don't look special at all. It just has good rates but seems ordinary, far from any zeiss look.
