Archive 2013 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #1 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
asabet wrote:
Most of what I'm doing with the Sigma is close up stuff, and there the AF has been very solid, and the image quality is the best I've ever seen from a 35mm lens. I previously had the ZF 35/2 (on a Nikon D700), and I don't think the Sigma gives up anything to that lens except maybe slight preference for the Zeiss out-of-focus rendering (hard to be sure about that without side by side comparisons).
Relative to the TDP test, my close up stuff doesn't tend to be flat though. I'm not shooting maps for reproduction. I'm mostly taking photos of people, and the Sigma excels there....Show more →
I agree with most things you write here. And I would not say it gives up anything in the OOF rendering to the Zeiss 35/2. But it does to the Z 35/1,4.
It's a better lens than the Canon 35/1,4 which i had before. Both the Zeiss lenses and the Sigma do I own today. But I will probably sell my Zeiss 35/2
p.6 #6 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
I've been toying around with both this weekend.
I must admit, the extra stop on the Sigma is nice, but if there is a sharpness difference @ f/2, I couldn't tell. But overall, I think I preferred the Zeiss' colour rendition.
Also my Sigma seems to miss focus even with adjustments...
Feb 03, 2013 at 03:01 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #7 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
For subscribers diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers) have a new comparison/test with the Sigma lens today. Testing on the Nikon D 800E body for best resolution and highest sharpness. It's the Sigma 35/1,4--Nikon 35/1.4G--Zeiss ZF 35/1,4.
He did a test against the Canon 35L before (Sigma was a lot better) Here it beats both the Nikon and Zeiss lenses. Especially wide open. The test shows pics from all 3 lenses at all apertures also
p.6 #8 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
Well, that's more like it, Lars, none of this Canon/Nikon stuff here on Alt, harumph.
'Bests' of course seems like a paltry and limited description though, leaving out a lot about the character and imaging qualities of the fine CZ lens?
It's so reductionist in these days of good/better/best, imagine grading cars that way. I always feel Zeiss gets short changed when someone get a 'better' 'sharper' lens out there ;-) Not a knock on Lloyd, they all seem to do it.
Feb 07, 2013 at 01:46 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #9 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
philip_pj wrote:
Well, that's more like it, Lars, none of this Canon/Nikon stuff here on Alt, harumph.
'Bests' of course seems like a paltry and limited description though, leaving out a lot about the character and imaging qualities of the fine CZ lens?
It's so reductionist in these days of good/better/best, imagine grading cars that way. I always feel Zeiss gets short changed when someone get a 'better' 'sharper' lens out there ;-) Not a knock on Lloyd, they all seem to do it.
Yes I agree to what you are saying about "better, sharper" I also own the Zeiss 35/1,4 which I love. But the sigma is fantastic for being a rather "low" priced lens from a brand that is not really famous for it's IQ compared to Zeiss or similar brands. And it's probably the best you can buy among 35mm AF lenses for Canon-Nikon
For subscribers diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers) have a new comparison/test with the Sigma lens today. Testing on the Nikon D 800E body for best resolution and highest sharpness. It's the Sigma 35/1,4--Nikon 35/1.4G--Zeiss ZF 35/1,4.
He did a test against the Canon 35L before (Sigma was a lot better) Here it beats both the Nikon and Zeiss lenses. Especially wide open. The test shows pics from all 3 lenses at all apertures also
The Sigma is certainly sharper by quite some margin up to 5.6, where all 3 lenses catch up more or less. For me the Nikon was the biggest disappointment. In earlier identical tests the Zeiss 1.4 was also less sharp than the Zeiss 2. Lloyd explained that with the assumption that the Zeiss 1.4 obviously was designed to get a fast defocus effect which can be very appealing in some situations.
p.6 #11 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
I get your drift, Lars, and know you know...do you think the QC is an issue? They are still quite expensive, much the same $$ as a 35/2 ZE. How much might a buyer lose in say 3-4 years time?
It's a thing of mine, this happens when you use old and/or well made lenses I think. AF also, more to deteriorate, like those 1980/90s zooms that no one will buy now...
I sincerely hope they (Sigma) get it right, more fine lenses is good for all; just raising this as something for people to consider.
p.6 #12 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
Good point Lars.
I also own four ZE lenses including the 35mm f1.4. Sigma are definitely onto a winner. The lens seems to have very little weakness after viewing several diglloyd comparisons. The 35mm ZE f1.4 seemed rather poor in the comparison.
p.6 #13 · Anyone Compared the Zeiss 35/f2 to Sigma 35/f1.4?
magiclight wrote:
Good point Lars.
I also own four ZE lenses including the 35mm f1.4. Sigma are definitely onto a winner. The lens seems to have very little weakness after viewing several diglloyd comparisons. The 35mm ZE f1.4 seemed rather poor in the comparison.
I have seen his new tests too. It puzzles me how he could write about the Zeiss 1.4 as a very good color corrected lens in the past. What went wrong there? The Sigma is clearly much better in that respect and the Zeiss and Nikon are really terrible. In this test you can also see very clearly the differences in bokeh . The Zeiss is much smoother than the Sigma (as was to be expected from my earlier observations).
. The Zeiss is much smoother than the Sigma (as was to be expected from my earlier observations).