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 3

5 end

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

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

p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

sebboh wrote:
sigma makes cheaper lenses than zeiss so obviously quality control is going to be lower.

I don't think that necessarily follows. Sigma may have made this choice, but another perfectly valid choice is simply to make less ambitious designs, and make them great.

Sep 27, 2013 at 01:39 PM

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

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

carstenw wrote:
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,...Show more →

I have heard a number of reports of zm lenses that needed to be sent in numerous times to fix the wobble. I find a systemic flaw to be much worse than a few lemons incidentally.

finally, my understanding is tha problems with the 35/1.4 are much less common than with the 50/1.4.

Sep 27, 2013 at 01:39 PM

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

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

I didn't call the 35/1.4 ART a lemon. It has an iffy track record, but that is something else. I am sure there are good, stable copies out there.

The only 50/1.4 problems I am aware of are AF related. I own one and it has been fine. It focuses slowly, and my taste has moved towards more micro-contrast, so I don't use it much any more, but there isn't anything wrong with it. This is the earlier model, Nikon version.

Sep 27, 2013 at 01:45 PM

douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

carstenw wrote:
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.

I believe he was being sarcastic about the "nice bokeh.". The RX1 has a pretty interesting bokeh. It is essentially always smooth, almost like tele bokeh, but it isn't as blurred as most 35/2 lenses. Wide open, the RX1's Sonnar kind of looks more like f2.8 or so on most 35mm lenses. The RX1 does get onion ring highlights from time to time, though, so it isn't all rosy all the time.

As for the ZM thing, I've had the wobble in more than one lens, and it is apparently a flaw in the design, because it can reoccur repeatedly after being fixed. That being said, I'm not trying to compare it to Sigma QC or anything. I'm not really in a position to comment on QC from any of these companies.

Sep 27, 2013 at 01:51 PM

Almass
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

dalegaspi wrote:
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.

LoL. Snobbery!

You are happy with your Sigma 35, good for you.
I for one, will not go on a wild goose chase testing lenses or fine tuning ad eternum.

If middle ground sharpness does it for you, then great.
If you like nervous Bokeh and nervous OOF, then great.
If you like the render of the Sigma, then great.

I don't.

I am happy with my ZF2 35/2. It is reliable and meets with my style of shooting.

Monetary value is not a factor in my lenses selection but the lens palette and render quality are the important factors.
I also like and use a low cost lens, namely the Nikkor 35/1.8 Dx. I don't shoot Dx but I like this lens.
I also like and use the Zunow 35 and dislike the Lux 35 and Cron 35.

I look for the render of the lens under certain light conditions and the color palette handling.
I am not overly concerned in Vignetting and MTF and CA and Distortion....etc I am interested as to how the lens translates color transition, color fidelity, color light luminance and shadows transitions.
I also like Bokeh as a sub result.

Optical formulas for manufacturing any lens are made with a compromise of some kind. The Sigma main offering is centre sharpness and trips on every other facet.

It does not fit in my photography style and requirements.

I thank you.

Sep 27, 2013 at 02:30 PM

jamgolf
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Thread Title:: ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Thread title is pretty clear but somehow last couple of pages seem to have divulged into a Sigma vs Zeiss war of words. I really like the civility and decorum on FM but sometimes even here you start reading a thread and some people take into a completely different direction.

Anyways - I've owned ZF.2 35/1.4 and found the lens build quality to be top notch. It was a bit too big to be carrying around most of the time (for me). For that reason alone I believe 35/2 is more attractive. Also, as mentioned by others already, 35/2 pictures seem to have more of a signature Zeiss 3D look compared to the 35/1.4 pictures (at least to my eyes).

I would suggest 35/2 over 35/1.4

Cheers!

Sep 27, 2013 at 04:15 PM

wiseguy010
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Sven Jeppesen wrote:
^^^^^^^
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......

Since when is quoting a previous post forbidden? It is quite clear that the pictures were introduced to play a role in this discussion, so that's what happens.

Sep 27, 2013 at 05:27 PM

wiseguy010
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

carstenw wrote:
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.

I meant to say that I don't like the bokeh. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I assumed my emoticon made it clear.

Furthermore I completely agree with you on this one.

Sep 27, 2013 at 05:28 PM

Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Almass wrote:
LoL. Snobbery!

You are happy with your Sigma 35, good for you.
I for one, will not go on a wild goose chase testing lenses or fine tuning ad eternum.

If middle ground sharpness does it for you, then great.
If you like nervous Bokeh and nervous OOF, then great.
If you like the render of the Sigma, then great.

I don't.

I am happy with my ZF2 35/2. It is reliable and meets with my style of shooting.

Monetary value is not a factor in my lenses selection but the lens palette and render quality are the important factors.
I also like and use a low cost...Show more →

Diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers) Think it offers a lot more than centre sharpness. Here is a quote from his long Review:
"The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM must be considered one of the finest 35mm DSLR lenses available today. The sharpness and contrast, bokeh, and correction of color errors is first rate. The resulting images have a terrific “3D” look to them."
"the street price at B&H is about $899. With the Canon 35/1.4L about 1/3 more, the Nikon 35/1.4G almost double the price, and the Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon more than double the price, the Sigma 35/1.4 DG HSM appeals."

Sep 27, 2013 at 05:39 PM

Lasse Eriksson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Of the two Zeiss lens, I prefer the f/1,4 lens. Much better bokeh and blur.

Sep 27, 2013 at 05:42 PM

magiclight
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

I own all three lenses and all three are very good.

Technically the Sigma is better corrected and of course you get the benefit of AF.

My favourite is the Zeiss f1.4. I prefer the rendering style. I also like the Sigmas "modern" well corrected style for some images.

The Zeiss 35 f2 has the greater in your face 3D but lacks the fine micro contrast of the Zeiss f1.4.

One aspect that I have noticed is that my copy of Zeiss 35mm f1.4 is sharper at infinity than the Sigma especially in the outer zone.

Sep 27, 2013 at 06:14 PM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · 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 →

In my view it is very hard to judge quality control and to do it well I think you need to have a lot of lenses to test. Roger at Lens rentals seems to be able to do this at least in a modest way sometimes, because he has lots of copies of lenses. I don't think he has done these types of tests with the Sigma 35 f/1.4 yet, however, so from my perspective the data just isn't there on quality control. As to the blogger who tried four times and got four bad copies I am not persuaded by this anecdote. Even if 20% of the lenses made by Sigma were defective (which seems like a very high estimate) and you picked four lenses one at at time randomly and tested all four of them sequentially less than 2 times in a thousand would you get four bad lenses. It seems to me that it is much more likely that the problem was with his camera or with something else in his testing methodology. So many bad copies in a row starts to be quite implausible.

Sep 28, 2013 at 12:00 AM

edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Regarding the Zeiss ZM wobble, in my personal experience, none of the 6 lenses that I bought new ever developed any wobble. However the Sonnar 85/2 that I bought used had some wobble that was easily fixed at Oberkochen for just 95€. I believe the ZM wobble was a design weakness in the early production batches that was already fixed. I use the ZM 50/2 and 35/2 extensively and these are notorious for the wobble issue and mine are still as good as new. It is important to mention that many Leica M lenses develop the wobble as well. In fact all manual lenses will develop some wobble over time. It is not a serious issue and does not affect the lens performance, unless the lens falls apart. It is very strange that people still talk about the wobble issue, which shows that the Internet community has an excellent long term memory perhaps exacerbated by reading old forum threads

As for Sigma, I believe the sample variation issue used to be much worse 10 years ago, when 4 out of 5 lenses used to have a major QC issue in my experience. The situation is currently much much better, so I wouldn't base my purchasing decisions on this factor alone.

Sep 28, 2013 at 12:18 AM

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

p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Steve Spencer wrote:
In my view it is very hard to judge quality control and to do it well I think you need to have a lot of lenses to test. Roger at Lens rentals seems to be able to do this at least in a modest way sometimes, because he has lots of copies of lenses. I don't think he has done these types of tests with the Sigma 35 f/1.4 yet, however, so from my perspective the data just isn't there on quality control. As to the blogger who tried four times and got four bad copies I am not...Show more →

You will note that I made no conclusion on how many of these lenses have trouble

Sep 28, 2013 at 06:03 AM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

carstenw wrote:
You will note that I made no conclusion on how many of these lenses have trouble

But clearly, you can be unlucky, and it isn't far-fetched either.

However, Tim is a very experienced photographer, and has gone through a lot of high-end equipment, from MFDBs with technical cameras down to the M8. His testing is very rigorous, he is very picky, but I think, fair. If he says he got 4 bad lenses, I believe him. Someone else might never have noticed.

My point is that from 4 lenses you can't really know anything about quality control. You need a lot bigger sample of lenses. You probably need 100 or at least 30 before you can even begin to talk about quality control. If someone tested 50 lenses and found 9 duds, I would start to take their concerns about quality control seriously. This sort of testing of a large number of lenses is almost never done by anyone, so we are left in the dark with only anecdotes about quality control and these anecdotes can't really address the issue. This is why I take everything that anyone says about quality control with a grain of salt. There simply isn't good evidence one way or the other.

Sep 28, 2013 at 09:38 AM

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

p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Sure, but Tim was just an example, there are others who have documented trouble. I do find it troublesome, however, that Tim replaced and had lenses repaired (he tried both), and still couldn't get a good copy. This suggests that their repair department isn't up to fixing this lens. As I mentioned earlier, perhaps the design is too ambitious for their QA. Anyway, anecdotally, there are several examples of this lens having trouble, statistically we don't know how large the problem is. Everyone has to decide for themselves if they want to try buying one.

Sep 28, 2013 at 09:54 AM

dalegaspi
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #17 · p.4 #17 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

FWIW, carstenw: before the arrival of the 35/1.4 Sigma, i was in the same boat as you are...it's hard to trust the brand given its not-so-stellar history...but i believe they have improved over the last few years...and i don't think it's that hard to get a good copy...i only bought one...lucky? maybe...but one thing's certain to me: Sigma is worth a look.

as for bokeh...it's a subjective thing...and honestly it's far down my list on things to consider when I decide on the a lens to buy...if you want to cringe, well..it was said by many that the Leica 35FLE has not-so-great bokeh...but here see for yourself (yeah i know...really off-topic already

L1011271_v1 by super cinnamon bubuli, on Flickr

DSC_0105_v1 by super cinnamon bubuli, on Flickr

Sep 30, 2013 at 10:35 PM

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

p.4 #18 · p.4 #18 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Boke looks good in these. Sure, the Sigma is impressive when you have a good copy. If I didn't have the possibility of owning the Zeiss or Leica R, I would also buy the Sigma, but then, I don't mind going through a few copies, if necessary. I agree that the 35 FLE could have harsh boke. I had the earlier ASPH lens when I was in that system.

Oct 01, 2013 at 12:39 AM

Jochenb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #19 · p.4 #19 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

dalegaspi wrote:
as for bokeh...it's a subjective thing...and honestly it's far down my list on things to consider when I decide on the a lens to buy...

It sure is a subjective thing. Bokeh is very important to me because it has so much more impact on the look of the image than something like a littlebit better sharpness.

Oct 01, 2013 at 06:16 AM

darbo
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #20 · p.4 #20 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

I own the Sigma and Zeiss 1.4/35mm ZE, so I'll share some of my thoughts.

Image-wise the Sigma's sharpeness and microcontrast at f/1.4 is exceptionally good - best in class in my opinion. The bokeh seems generally good, but the Zeiss 1.4/35mm has an unbeatable bokeh. I agree with Jochenb that when weighing the gains in sharpness with the Sigma compared to the excellent bokeh of the Zeiss 1.4/35mm; I prefer the Zeiss overall.

Quality-wise, I am dissatisfied with my Sigma. I purchased it from a desire for a sharp well-corrected 35mm with the convenience of AF. But, the AF has proven erratic on mine. It won't AF at all anywhere close to the MFD. I had hoped and thought that Sigma had turned a corner with the new Art line - and on the whole maybe they have - but because of their poor reputation and the poor performing AF on mine, the 35mm Art is likely my last Sigma purchase. I have never regretted a Zeiss purchase (Canon-mount), but I do regret the Sigma 35mm Art; I wish I could undo that purchasing error.

The Zeiss 2/35mm is appealing to me because I appreciate images with a distinctive 3d look to them and I like that warm cast it seems to have (compared to the 1.4/35mm). The Sigma actually is actually quite good at 3d, and I would hazard to rank it between the Zeiss 2/35mm and 1.4/35mm in that regard.

Since the thread is really about which Zeiss 35mm is "better" I would love to see more comparison example photos from those that own both (but, with consideration to the original intent of this topic, Sigma photo examples are unnecessary.).

Oct 01, 2013 at 02:58 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.