sigma 50 vs zeiss 50 1.4

i have no problem with MF nor sigma but am not interested in the canon 50 1.4, just not a fan and dont like the negative feedback on the micro-USM

just curious what others think. is the zeiss worth the extra few hundred? im a big zeiss fan but have never used it on a dslr.

i assume the zeiss would work on my 7D as far as focus confirmation is concerned and it would be a pretty snappy red blink in my viewfinder which means its focus is only as slow as a twist the ring lol

both lenses have their drawback. although they both seem to have the same amount of problems not taking into account AF

I have gone through 3 copies of the sigma 50mm f/1.4, all of them have focusing issue. AF is very inconsistent and focusing shift. Keep in mind, front or back focusing can be calibrated by sigma or using MA, but focusing shift is not something that you can solve by calibration. I am not bashing sigma as a whole, but seems like this particular 50mm f/1.4 has some issue out of the box.

I went with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 instead, I am more than happy with the lens. AF is spot on and very consistent, the lens is nice and sharp. Some users are having issue with its AF mechanism, putting a lens hood to protect the lens seems to be a solution.

Haven't use the Zeiss myself, according to digitalrev review, it is a pretty good MF lens. But the lens is soft wide open with purple color fringing.

im not worried about it being soft wide open. lenses that are tack sharp wide open are way out of my price range considering this is the cheapest lens zeiss makes and the only one that is under $1000 lol

as long as its the wide open shots are worthless im ok with it being soft since im not trying to make money as a professional but i do enjoy good quality

Brian_R wrote in post #13123282
im not worried about it being soft wide open. lenses that are tack sharp wide open are way out of my price range considering this is the cheapest lens zeiss makes and the only one that is under $1000 lol

as long as its the wide open shots are worthless im ok with it being soft since im not trying to make money as a professional but i do enjoy good quality

Then maybe the Canon 50mm f/1.4 will be the one. Think about it, the Zeiss costs twice as much. Add a little more money on top of the zeiss, you can get the 50mm f/1.2 L

the 50L is $1500 on B&H

the zeiss 50 1.4 is $725 on B&H

im ok with the difference in price going up from the sigma to zeiss but im just wonder what other peoples opinions are on them and maybe there might be someone out there that has owned both and can give some feedback on the differences noticed between the two

On a crop you should consider the Zeiss 35 or 28 f/2 Distagons. They are a few bucks more than the Sigma or Zeiss 50s but are both much better (both in terms of optical performance but also in terms of being a good walk around on a crop).

The Zeiss 50 1.4 is generally not to highly rated. It's slower Makro Planar brother the Zeiss 50 2.0 is a stellar performer.

Also, don't be afraid of f2.0 vs 1.4... The difference is negligible... My Sigma 50 is not nearly as sharp at 2.0 than my Distagon is... Unless absolutely necessary I don't shoot my Sigma under 2.0 anyway!

yea the difference between the zeiss 50 1.4 and 2 isnt the fstops but the price. i like the 50mm length on my crop and im very happy with my sigma 30 that i recently bought and dont plan on replacing that focal length anytime soon.

yea im noticing that the zeiss 50 1.4 isnt super highly rated but im wonder if the extra money makes it worth it over the sigma.

i wish i could do the zeiss 50 f2 that would be a no brainer but its very very hard for me to justify that much money on a single lens when im not making money with my photography other than doing sports photos for my school which pays in scholarship rather than cash

thanks on the suggestion for the 30mm and 28mm but those are too expensive for me. my interest in zeiss other than using it on film cameras is the fact that there is actually glass that i can afford from them but unfortunately it does seem to not live up to the rest of the zeiss line performance wise

Then I would say go for the Sigma. Used they show up on this forum for $400 from time to time... It is a great lens. If you run into focus issues just send it in... Or start ten threads on POTN letting everyone know how much Sigma sucks... : )


This is a 100% crop comparison tool... Not contest IMHO...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

yea i really like my sigma. i honestly cant stand people that complain their sigma is soft when shooting wide open handheld...

thanks for the link

i guess the zeiss is a little softer wide open than the sigma although they both look pretty good at 1.4 but the sigma shines after 1.4 whereas the zeiss seems to need to be stopped down more before getting really sharp. at about f2.8 they are both on point and pretty much identical at f4

one person mentioned that the zeiss 50 1.4 isnt accurate when using AF confirm but they have a different camera than me so it might be their camera since not every body is the same

Very few 1.4 or 1.2 lenses are very sharp at their max aperture. If they are, it is likely they are crazy expensive.

i agree on that one. thats why im not too picky about sharpness. i guess my main concern is quality of the images produces for the price as well as just general side by side comparison of the lens itself, their images, and quality of the overall investment. since for me being a poor college student that really enjoys photography and does sports for scholarship money everything i buy for my camera and my camera are investments

so im just seeking advice from users of both lenses to help me decide on my purchase in know the sigma is great and i know the zeiss is less than par for the zeiss name but im interested in both and having trouble choosing what i want to buy

I don't know how people can say Sigma is that bad in Q.C. All of the Sigma lenses that I've bought or used have been fantastic in terms of A.F.

Maybe I'm just lucky? I wouldn't assume so..maybe some people just like to complain about it since it's not an L's lens or has the price tag of one..

Of all of the sigma lenses I've tried in stores, all worked to me...

Also, for the money, the 50/1.8 is a killer deal, it is great on film, great on a 1D, great on canon crop, and great on 35mm digital.

My next lens is going to be the 50L. The zeiss are not worth it to me. You bought a 7D. A camera with KILLER af. Use it!!!

Please note I do use a manual focus 50/1.2 on my 1Ds(with a split prism). I had to buy the 50/1.2, it was at a price that practically called me up, and asked for my address.

well if i ever hear back from this person on craigslist that is selling a zeiss 50 1.4 so i can find out what mount it is and its condition i might try to get it fora reasonable price but if they want $500 then ill just go sigma instead.

i guess im really at a point where its deciding by the aesthetics of the lens and how the image looks from each one since both are pretty solid for the price although i think the zeiss could stand a small price drop

i've tested the zeiss 50 1.4 ZE and i own the sigma 50 1.4 and older zeiss 50 1.4 contax mount. i'd go for the sigma for sure. mine was perfect out of the box and i'm very happy with it. the 50 ZE is nice but it's not as good as the other ZE lenses