Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1 2

4 5 end

Archive 2013 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

hijazist
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Really great shots in the last page guys... twoeye summed it up nicely with these very nice two images.

Sep 20, 2013 at 05:36 AM

hauxon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

I have the Sigma right now and have had the Canon 35L and Zeiss 35/2 before it. The Sigma is my only non Zeiss lens and I need it for auto-focus. A 35mm lens is a good all rounder and the Sigma is a good all round performer and makes me not want a 24-70 lens. But for slower pace shooting I prefer the Zeiss lenses mostly because of the longer focus throw and more solid feeling while manual focusing. You just need to decide if AF is what you want or not.

Sep 20, 2013 at 11:27 AM

wuxiekeji
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Would be interested to know if anyone has done a comparison between the 35/2 ZE/ZF and the 35/2.8 in Contax-Yashica mount.

Sep 26, 2013 at 12:44 PM

dalegaspi
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Almass wrote:
As for Sigma, frankly i cannot be bothered by trying few lenses to find the good one or getting the new sigma calibration thingy and wasting my time fine tuning.

oh...the snobbery...and Zeiss lenses never produced lemons, right? i mean, those claims that ZM lenses are prone to develop play over time must be some kind of conspiracy, no?

i've owned (and still do) Zeiss lenses and i think they're fantastic (well...most of them anyway) but you shouldn't knock Sigmas that are pretty much praised by many, like the 35/1.4...especially if you haven't tried one.

DSC_0087_v1 by super cinnamon bubuli, on Flickr

DSC_0059_v1 by super cinnamon bubuli, on Flickr

Sep 26, 2013 at 10:50 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

dalegaspi wrote:
oh...the snobbery...and Zeiss lenses never produced lemons, right?

Zeiss may have produced a lemon, sure, but I have not heard of one yet. Sigma has produced a whole string of them, and are still working hard to shake off that reputation.

And about the snobbery, no, not in this case. The Sigma 35/1.4 is documented by several well-known bloggers as having quality issues. Tim Ashley tried four times to get a good copy and just gave up, IIRC. So yes, fantastic lens if you can get a good copy, but that is a big if.

So while I agree in general that Zeiss lenses are not perfect and Sigma lenses are worth a look, I don't think there is any snobbery here, just a realistic opinion, which you don't share.

Sep 27, 2013 at 05:00 AM

lostinjapan
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

I currently have the ZE 1.4 and before that I had the F2 ZE. Both of them are wonderful lenses and I would tend to agree the F2 tends to scream ZEISS in more ways than the 1.4. The advantages of the f2 are it is much smaller and lighter. Carrying the 1.4 all day, especially when hiking it does get heavy quickly, but it does have better microcontrast over the F2 as well as resolves more as well. I have a couple of test shots around here I took when I had both lenses. If I can find them I will post the comparison. I also own all Zeiss class with the exception of a 17mm TSE. Great stuff.

Ryan

Sep 27, 2013 at 06:16 AM

hijazist
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

carstenw wrote:
Zeiss may have produced a lemon, sure, but I have not heard of one yet. Sigma has produced a whole string of them, and are still working hard to shake off that reputation.

And about the snobbery, no, not in this case. The Sigma 35/1.4 is documented by several well-known bloggers as having quality issues. Tim Ashley tried four times to get a good copy and just gave up, IIRC. So yes, fantastic lens if you can get a good copy, but that is a big if.

So while I agree in general that Zeiss lenses are not perfect and Sigma lenses...Show more →

Zeiss might have better QC, in fact that's a given and also reflected in the presentation and build quality. However, let's not forget there's a $1000 difference in this case. Additionally, the issues with the 35 1.4 are all easily resolved with AF tuning or the USB dock. Add to that the Sigma wins on many regards. I am willing to spend 30 mints on AF tuning and buy a used 100 f/2 Makro ZF for the difference, and maintain autofocus

Seriously though, both are fantastic lenses and I can't choose between them...

Sep 27, 2013 at 06:32 AM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Yes, choice is great, but the AF is not the only problem, decentering and other optical problems were the culprits in Tim Ashley's lenses, for example. If you want to buy this lens, you need to be ready and willing to swap one or more times to get a good copy. You might not need to, but you might.

Sep 27, 2013 at 07:13 AM

dalegaspi
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

carstenw wrote:
Zeiss may have produced a lemon, sure, but I have not heard of one yet. .

Here, let me help you with that; i made this crazy assumption that everyone's browser have search capabilities.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97703
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2845801#forum-post-35961324
http://lavidaleica.com/content/zeiss-zm-lenses#issues

carstenw wrote:
So while I agree in general that Zeiss lenses are not perfect and Sigma lenses are worth a look, I don't think there is any snobbery here, just a realistic opinion, which you don't share.

ok that's even worse. now you're just being condescending.

Sep 27, 2013 at 07:23 AM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Give me a break, buddy, you are on a crusade here. Sigma has a well-earned reputation for producing duds (did you see the very recent Sigma 70-200 thread, where the lens fell off the mount because the screws ripped their way out of the plastic they were screwed into?), which they are now working very hard to revert (successfully, for the most part), whereas Zeiss has a century-long history of excellence, with a few possible duds.

The ZM lens wobble issue has nothing to do with lemons, and Zeiss will fix it, if the lens hasn't been abused. The 16-80 is a Sony lens with a Zeiss badge, and thus unless the optical design is bad (which it isn't), has nothing to do with Zeiss.

You are really stretching here, and expecting that people treat Sigma as if they have always been making lens as good as Zeisses is just delusional. Get a grip.

Anyway, while the Sigma 35/1.4 is amazingly sharp and aberration-free, it also quite often has quite disturbing boke, which is why I personally don't like it much. Look at your Cobra snap for a perfect example. The background is horrendously nervous and double-lined.

*click*

Sep 27, 2013 at 07:39 AM

Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

I own both the Zeiss ZE 35/1,4 and Zeiss ZE 35/2. And also the Sigma 35/1,4. Of the two Zeiss lenses I prefer the faster f/1,4 lens. The bokeh is the best and most beautiful of any 35mm lens that I have used. It's also better at f/2 than the f/2 lens.
But overall the Sigma is a better lens than both my Zeiss lenses. Especially considering it's much lower price.

Sep 27, 2013 at 08:46 AM

uscmatt99
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Regarding Zeiss service, I haven't had a problem with either my 100/2 or 35/1.4, but did get a tight focusing ring on my ZM35/2.8. Service (in the U.S.) was great. I emailed and spoke directly with the same rep a few times, sent my lens in, and on the day of arrival they determined it was not worth fixing and sent me a new lens. This was near the end of the warranty period. I cringe to think of how Nikon would have dealt with that. I've heard Sigma service is pretty good as well, to be fair.

Regarding the Sigma vs. Zeiss 35/1.4 lenses, it depends on what matters to you. In the focal plane/depth, I like the Sigma better. As to the out of focus rendering, I greatly prefer the Zeiss, with the exception of the bokeh color fringing which can be excessive in some circumstances. I wish I could rationalize owning both. But after going through Sigma roulette in the past, I am a bit gun-shy.

Sep 27, 2013 at 10:32 AM

alwang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

carstenw wrote:
Give me a break, buddy, you are on a crusade here. Sigma has a well-earned reputation for producing duds (did you see the very recent Sigma 70-200 thread, where the lens fell off the mount because the screws ripped their way out of the plastic they were screwed into?), which they are now working very hard to revert (successfully, for the most part), whereas Zeiss has a century-long history of excellence, with a few possible duds.

The ZM lens wobble issue has nothing to do with lemons, and Zeiss will fix it, if the lens hasn't been abused. The 16-80 is...Show more →

To be fair, all current Zeiss lenses are either Sony lenses or Cosina lenses with a Zeiss badge.

I agree that the Zeiss 35/1.4 is built better than the Sigma, but as I mentioned earlier, it's not really fair comparing build quality between an MF and an AF lens. Firstly, because the MF lens can be built with heavier, sturdier, materials. Secondly, because the MF lens is inherently a simpler manufacturing design, and there's going to be less that needs to be stuffed into that lens housing. Thirdly, because the MF lenses obviously don't autofocus, so all the calibration issues and motor drive issues are moot. All I can say is that I find the Sigma 35 build to be very comparable to the best built autofocus lenses from Canon, Nikon, or Sony.

I definitely agree that the Zeiss 35/1.4 has a magical smoothness to the bokeh wide open that is not duplicated by the Sigma (or any other 35mm lens, for that matter)

Sep 27, 2013 at 11:12 AM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

carstenw wrote:
The ZM lens wobble issue has nothing to do with lemons, and Zeiss will fix it, if the lens hasn't been abused.

the zm wobble is a design flaw due to cost saving, what is your argument here? sigma makes cheaper lenses than zeiss so obviously quality control is going to be lower. by all accounts i've read quality control with the sigma 35/1.4 doesn't seem to be any worse than canikony. i would certainly not advise people that they need to be prepared to trade in a few copies to get a good one if they buy the sigma. if one considers AF to be a positive thing i wouldn't hesitate to recommend the sigma.

Sep 27, 2013 at 11:28 AM

wiseguy010
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Of course there are examples of Zeiss lenses that are not OK, but not many. Most important for me is what service you then get. I once had a ZF 100/2 that didn't focus to infinity. I sent it to Zeiss and 2 days later I got a brand new copy. Most other brands let you wait for weeks/months and try to repair your lens with certainly not a 100% success rate. I know what I prefer.

Sep 27, 2013 at 11:40 AM

wiseguy010
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

dalegaspi wrote:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8417/8707643493_cf217a931c_b.jpg
DSC_0087_v1 by super cinnamon bubuli, on Flickr

Nice bokeh again from the Sigma.

Sep 27, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

^^^^^^^
You know that you are not allowed to post other photographers photos here. In every thread that Sigma lens is talked about you do the same thing. Try to find a lot of pics with bokeh you don't like from this lens. And then you post them and whine about it. Last time when you where told not to do it: you wrote that you didn't know about it. I suppose you didn't know about it this time either......

Sep 27, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

sebboh wrote:
the zm wobble is a design flaw due to cost saving, what is your argument here? sigma makes cheaper lenses than zeiss so obviously quality control is going to be lower. by all accounts i've read quality control with the sigma 35/1.4 doesn't seem to be any worse than canikony. i would certainly not advise people that they need to be prepared to trade in a few copies to get a good one if they buy the sigma. if one considers AF to be a positive thing i wouldn't hesitate to recommend the sigma.

+1 agree, if you like an AF lens the Sigma is great

Sep 27, 2013 at 12:03 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

sebboh wrote:
the zm wobble is a design flaw due to cost saving, what is your argument here?

Cost savings do not a lemon make. Otherwise all cheap lenses would be lemons. A lemon is an object which is always breaking and never seems to be possible to keep in working condition. A problem well handled by the manufacturer is not a lemon, unless it continually and repeatedly breaks.

The old Sigma lens lineup had some lenses like this. Even today there are some Sigma lenses which are just built so cheaply and are so expensive to repair that you can just replace them cheaper than repairing them.

I own a couple of Sigmas, and I am happy with them, and I am even considering more. However, my original point was that the 35/1.4 ART lens has a track record which is problematic. I know of several photographers who have bought them and sent them back, even tried repeatedly to get them replaced, without success. It is a great lens if you have a good copy, but the design is flawed, or poorly matched with the manufacturing tolerances. Hence it is not snobbery if someone doesn't want to deal with all that.

Sep 27, 2013 at 01:33 PM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

wiseguy010 wrote:
Nice bokeh again from the Sigma.

In the mid-range I agree, but the foliage and bright spots in the background look horrendous. Take a look at the RX1 for a nice contrast.

Sep 27, 2013 at 01:37 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.