Are Sigma primes flat?

Hi all!

I've owned a couple of Zeiss lenses and at the same time had some Sigmas. Here, I'm talking primes such as the Zeiss 50 f/2 MP, Zeiss 50 f/1.4, Sigma 50 f/1.4 and Zeiss 35 f/2.

I've noticed that the Sigma 50 f/1.4 produces images that seem to lack some contrast & pop compared to the Zeiss. When I compare the Zeiss to my Sigma 17-50 zoom or Canon 70-200 Zoom or even the Sigma 85 f/1.4 prime, I don't see as much difference, but that Sigma 50 f/1.4 just seems ... flat.

Is the 30 f/1.4 the same?

Example pics attached as proof, BTW. Check out the contrast between the chair and the green mold, as well as the chair vs. deck & grass. I equalized WB between the shots and adjusted exposure to make the whites the same. The 50 f/1.4 shot even has some added vignetting to more closely match the look of the Zeiss.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

simple answer would be that the sigma 50 is not going to have as good of contrast as the zeiss. some shots you benefit from bumping the contrast in post some to get a little more out of your images

Do you consider this flat?

Try taking photos of a more interesting subject in better lighting.

Also, you seem to be comparing the sigma 50 to the zeiss 35.

H00ligan wrote in post #13231237
Do you consider this flat?

Nice shot!

I think it's flat because OP shot a 'flat' subject to begin with :P

I have no experience with zeiss. I read Zeiss does have good colour/contrast. But why comparing an expensive MF lens with a bang for buck AF lens in the first place?

I did notice that my colors and saturation on my Sigma 30 were not exactly amazing.

How come you took the shots at different apertures? The first is f1.4 and the second f2 so the added depth is going to make the photo look a little more contrasty in the background areas because of the added throw of the depth of field; in addition to which contrast tends to improve a little as you move away from wide open.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #13231262
I did notice that my colors and saturation on my Sigma 30 were not exactly amazing.

Fair comment. What are you comparing it with? 35L or another zeiss

I agree lighting is the number one thing for me when I get flat images. One more thing is..add a touch of vibrancy to the image in lightroom, almost every image benefits from at least a touch (assuming one isn't going for desaturated or another specific look) I think I added +10 on this one.

Thanks for the compliment. One of my first thoughts with the sigma 50 was that it had great pop...

lighting lighting lighting

n1as wrote in post #13230909
Example pics attached as proof, BTW.

I don't think anything is proved here since the pictures are not not comparable. The pictures have different perspectives, different f-stops and possibly a different white balance. Try not moving the camera from its tripod, using the same exposure (manual mode), and a fixed white balance preset. Also make sure that you haven't used any automatic image corrections like auto lighting optimizer, peripheral illumination correction, or highlight tone priority since these might not be identical from image to image.

I have tried Sigma 85mm, the same issue on the contrast and saturation.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #13231262
I did notice that my colors and saturation on my Sigma 30 were not exactly amazing.

I had always thought that from looking through the Sigma 30 thread. I realize that there could be a lot of other factors contributing to that. But overall I was left with that feeling as well.

I thought the 30 was decent too, but there is nothing wrong with the 50. It had better contrast and colors than the canon 1.4 IMO.

kin2son wrote in post #13231268
Fair comment. What are you comparing it with? 35L or another zeiss

I used a 50mm f/1.8 II from Canon for about 1 year before buying a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, and just found results lacking "punch" so to speak. Renting a 85L and using it side by side with the Sigma didnt exactly help things.