35 mm - the ultimate fight

Cesium wrote in post #15258770
There is no reason to sell 35ls for the sigma.

Totally agree

IMHO, Sigma lens is good but L series is better

I don't think the IQ of the sigma will be any better then the rokinon or Zeiss people are going be buying this lens just for the auto focus....

omegaone wrote in post #15254584
Got 35L and waiting for Sigma 35 review but I don't think it will perform better than 35L

Why do you say that. The previous lens 50 and 85 both are outstanding. I am thinking the 35 will follow suite.

Cesium wrote in post #15258770
There is no reason to sell 35ls for the sigma.

You've tried out the Sigma of course before making this statement right?

I can't wait to buy the sigma and send it in to get calibrated, couldn't help myself.

Hogloff wrote in post #15259593
Why do you say that. The previous lens 50 and 85 both are outstanding. I am thinking the 35 will follow suite.

I have no experience with 50.. but I had compared 85L vs Sigma 85, the result is 85L has much better bokeh than sigma

Well, don't get me wrong. I don't think Sigma is bad. In fact, it's good, really good.. it just L series is better

a bit old but I want to bump and ask between the 3 35mm 1.4, L, Zeiss and Sigma, which is solid in terms of IQ, sharpness, and color. Im shopping for a 35mm so I can get a wider prime going and I was going to go for the zeiss 35/2 but seeing all these talk about the sigma 1.4 is making me interested. Anyone have a comparison or can chime in their pros and cons aside from the zeiss being MF only and price?

In terms of IQ, the Sigma takes the crown.

I've never tried the Sigma. I owned both the Zeiss ZE 2/35 and 35L at the same time. Shot both. Ended up doing some A/B comparisons where I shot the same images with both lenses to see if I could see a difference. I could and preferred the IQ from the Zeiss. It was slightly more contrasty and had slightly better colors. It also was a bit more likely to produce a 3D look.

I sold the 35L and kept the Zeiss.

n1as wrote in post #15537976
I've never tried the Sigma. I owned both the Zeiss ZE 2/35 and 35L at the same time. Shot both. Ended up doing some A/B comparisons where I shot the same images with both lenses to see if I could see a difference. I could and preferred the IQ from the Zeiss. It was slightly more contrasty and had slightly better colors. It also was a bit more likely to produce a 3D look.

I sold the 35L and kept the Zeiss.

I had both at the same time as well, and went the opposite way. I loved everything about the Zeiss, but used 35mm for mostly street, and just couldn't MF fast enough (even with MF screen). I keep thinking about going back to the 35/2 ZE, but my copy of the 35L is really sharp, but it's a beat-up mess on the outside.. If I sold it, I'd barely get enough for it to cover the 35/2, so I'm just sticking with it for now.

I am strongly considering swapping out the ol' 24LII for a 25 ZE/2 though.

So I guess my point is, even though I loved what came out of the Zeiss, MF (for my purposes) was just too much to deal with. If you can handle MF (and be sure you can) for your needs, I would go Zeiss.

"The Sigma has the best results of all 1.4/35 lenses, tested by us so far in the categories of resolution, distortion, chromatic aberration and coma correction."

http://www.lenstip.com …f_1.4_DG_HSM_Su​mmary.html

If the Zeiss you talk about is the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon T* ZE, you can see the comparison with the Sigma here:

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

The difference is quite dramatic.

I only have the 35L. I like is sharpness, color and fast focusing. I never try sigma, but think shouldbe good too.

BrandonSi wrote in post #15538427
I had both at the same time as well, and went the opposite way. I loved everything about the Zeiss, but used 35mm for mostly street, and just couldn't MF fast enough (even with MF screen). I keep thinking about going back to the 35/2 ZE, but my copy of the 35L is really sharp, but it's a beat-up mess on the outside.. If I sold it, I'd barely get enough for it to cover the 35/2, so I'm just sticking with it for now.

I am strongly considering swapping out the ol' 24LII for a 25 ZE/2 though.

So I guess my point is, even though I loved what came out of the Zeiss, MF (for my purposes) was just too much to deal with. If you can handle MF (and be sure you can) for your needs, I would go Zeiss.

Originally I had the Zeiss 35/2 and sold it to get the 35L. I didn't see any optical difference and wanted the AF. After having the 35L for a year I bought another Zeiss. This time I did see an optical difference.

It took a year and a lot of image viewing but I began to be able to see the 3D effect. My wife could see it in about 10 minutes

And I agree that the 35L is a more general purpose lens. AF and the wider f/1.4 aperture are features the Zeiss just can't match. Fortunately for me, I don't need those features so I can have the lens with the slightly better IQ for less $$ invested.