p.1 #1 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
So yesterday I managed to find a nice spot to set up a tripod and take some comparison shots with my Contax 35 and new Sigma 35 on a 5D2.
I've already seen a few comparisons but wanted to check what my specific lenses can do. I'm looking to sell the Contax as I don't need two 35s and will inevitably leave one at home, unfortunately the AF and sharpness of the Sigma means it will probably be the favoured lens which will get a lot more use. I've loved the Contax and have some stunning shots from it and this test was really just to see what exactly are the differences between the two lenses.
This is deliberately is not a 'VS' thread, I don't want to particularly shoot down a particular lens, as I have said, they are both great lenses, but the AF is deal maker for me.
Click for full res sample
First set is with default sharpening in LR (25). No other adjustments, no CA removal, same WB etc:
First is the Sigma wide open at 1.4:
And the Contax:
Second set at f/2, CA removal, and some tone adjustments in LR (but same processing for both):
Sigma:
Contax:
Wide open with no adjustments (default sharpening, no CA removal):
Sigma:
Contax:
And another set at f/2, with subtle tone adjustments but no CA removal and default sharpening:
Sigma:
Contax:
And the last set, wide open but with selective sharpening (40, 0.8, 35, 0) on only the leaves to the right - no sharpening to oof areas, a little added vignetting, and tone adjustments:
p.1 #2 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
This comparison surprises me much. I can't see a difference in sharpness, at least with the images in the post, but the bokeh and rendering is nicer for me on the Contax, maybe due to the slightly warmer WB.
p.1 #3 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
Sharpness in the centre is a very close call. But the Contax has more field curvature which makes its corners softer depending on the subject distance. Personally I prefer the Contax rendering. Bokeh in the centre of the contax is much smoother which adds to its 3D ability. The sigma has more even sharpness and slightly less funky bokeh at the edges but feels a tad sterile in comparison to the Contax
The Sigma is also wider so doesn't blur the background quite as much
p.1 #6 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
You can can distinctly see in the out of focus areas that the Sigma has, as expected, a better aberration correction. This of course doesn't imply that the Sigma blurs more nicely...
p.1 #8 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
Thanks for these well produced images, very informative they are.
I take your point about AF being an issue - I now use it all the time on an RX1 to my great surprise. But of these two the Contax is my preference in all images, due purely to its delicacy and presence. It is just a consumate photographic lens, simple as that.
In a non-RX1 world, the Sigma would very likely have been my choice ahead of the Leica Summicron-R - the Contax is very problematic on Sony A mount. But it has been my favourite 35mm since Anden posted the first thread years back.
In summary, I see the Sigma as clinical and cooler, and less fine in transitions within colours, a hallmark of dubious distinction among many modern lenses unfortunately.
The CY shows better shadow (esp colour) detail, richer 'white and cream' tones, glorious green-yellow transitions, effortless unostentatious bokeh that does not draw attention to itself, lower contrast OOF shapes.
The Contax appears to be unrivalled for what it does best..even after all these years. A dreamy walk in the woods rather than a hospital ward. Sigma did very well however and is likely (much) more versatile at smaller apertures.
p.1 #9 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
much closer than i expected. i like the contax better, but that's probably related to color and confirmation bias. i say you should have presented the images unlabeled, but the shape of oof highlights in the corners makes the contax easy to recognize. i'll take the opposite route from you and not even consider the sigma because of autofocus.
p.1 #10 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
Interesting comparison. Thanks!
I bought the sigma yesterday and today I did some comparison shots with my ZE 35 f1.4.
I cant believe how well corrected and sharp the siggy is. Even the bokeh is very good.
The AF isnt is fast as my Canon lenses but still OK on the 5D3.
I think I will still keep the ZE 35 f1.4 as I like the way it draws and would be first choice for some types of imaging where sharpness and contrast isnt the prime goal.
p.1 #11 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
i also have both the Sigma 35 and zeiss 35/1.4 (Rollei version). Definitely impressed by the Sigma by its sharpness and overall IQ. I do prefer the rendering of the Zeiss, with its unique 3aperture blade so I'll still keep it for the time being. I use the Sigma mostly for weddings since AF comes in handy.
p.1 #12 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
I am in no rush to sell the Contax and may actually keep it since it is still my favourite lens for these types of shots. AF doesn't help at all when you're shooting shots like this, live view is the only way to focus on a single leaf 3 metres away at 1.4. But the Sigma will be my preference whenever people shots are likely
p.1 #13 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
R.Young wrote:
But the Sigma will be my preference whenever people shots are likely
out of curiosity, what camera do you use and how do you set AF (e.g. focus recompose, auto point selection, etc)? i've never had a camera that could give me as many AF keepers as i'd get from manual focus for shooting people.
p.1 #14 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
Is it just me, or is the bokeh of the Sigma smoother and less nervous than the bokeh of the Contax? Both are nice, but I prefer the bokeh of the Sigma.
p.1 #15 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
sebboh wrote:
out of curiosity, what camera do you use and how do you set AF (e.g. focus recompose, auto point selection, etc)? i've never had a camera that could give me as many AF keepers as i'd get from manual focus for shooting people.
Speaking for myself:
I get more keepers with my Sigma 35 on an a850 than I do with my MF lenses- at least for shooting people. I like MF when I'm looking for critically sharp focus: landscapes, carefully composed scenes, etc. I prefer a good PDAF system for ad-hoc people shots where I'm just looking for "acceptable" focus. I generally use AF-S/center-point/focus recompose, unless the subject is way off center.
p.1 #16 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
alwang wrote:
Speaking for myself:
I get more keepers with my Sigma 35 on an a850 than I do with my MF lenses- at least for shooting people. I like MF when I'm looking for critically sharp focus: landscapes, carefully composed scenes, etc. I prefer a good PDAF system for ad-hoc people shots where I'm just looking for "acceptable" focus. I generally use AF-S/center-point/focus recompose, unless the subject is way off center.
i've always vastly preferred manual focus for shooting people. af just seems too inaccurate and slow to me. I guess most of my problem comes from sticking my subjects off center. focus recompose just doesn't work if they're moving and is slower anyway than just focusing and not needing to recompose. i'm also really bugged by almost in focus shots. shots with focus on the wrong eye or wrong part of the face usually just get thrown out.
p.1 #17 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
U.C. wrote:
Is it just me, or is the bokeh of the Sigma smoother and less nervous than the bokeh of the Contax? Both are nice, but I prefer the bokeh of the Sigma.
definitely depends on which part of the scene you look in. the contax seems smoother centrally and the sigma smoother in the corners, but there certain shots where thats reversed too.
p.1 #18 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
sebboh wrote:
i've always vastly preferred manual focus for shooting people. af just seems too inaccurate and slow to me. I guess most of my problem comes from sticking my subjects off center. focus recompose just doesn't work if they're moving and is slower anyway than just focusing and not needing to recompose. i'm also really bugged by almost in focus shots. shots with focus on the wrong eye or wrong part of the face usually just get thrown out.
i agree. i like shooting people mostly with manual focus as well. i often use live view wit a viewfinder, makes it easier to focus. although there are times where I shoot with AF for modeling stuff where they change poses often and im moving around and shooting at different angles, AF is much quicker for those type of things.
p.1 #19 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
I shoot with a 5d2 and usually select the focus point I need. For people I never really compose them centrally so that means an outer focus point, and if it struggles for example when I'm shooting into the sun and the AF starts to struggle I will use the centre point and recompose. Never had an issue with that technique throwing things out of focus when recomposing.
With regard to bokeh I think technically the sigma has better bokeh balls but when viewed as a whole and not at 1:1, it doesn't look as nice as the contax which seems to have a distinct character which makes the sigma look dull in comparison
p.1 #20 · Sigma 35mm + Contax 35mm Comparison (with links to full res samples)
Thanks for the review. I have the c/y 35mm and am intrigued by the Sigma and its high ratings at DXO. Does the Sigma manually focus by wire, does it work precisely? This is one of the great attributes of the Zeiss lens line.
