35mm Prime Shoot Out - Canon, Sigma, Zeiss

Ok, so there has been lots of talk and debate over this 35mm is sharper, that one is better wide open the list goes on, I have just bought a 35L some say the Sigma is better in every department...maybe but I'm happy.

In this thread I would like to see images from all the great 35mm's next to each other and your reason for owning that lens and what makes it great.

it'll be hard to find one person who has shot the same scene with all 3 lenses... I was a 35L owner for several years, and after a week with the Siggy 35, I sold the 35L.... For what you're looking for, all you have to do is look on google for reviews of the siggy 35. It's been compared ad naseum to the 35L and the Zeiss

va_rider wrote in post #15953541
it'll be hard to find one person who has shot the same scene with all 3 lenses... I was a 35L owner for several years, and after a week with the Siggy 35, I sold the 35L.... For what you're looking for, all you have to do is look on google for reviews of the siggy 35. It's been compared ad naseum to the 35L and the Zeiss

Not looking for all 35mm lenses to be compared using the same image or to see if the Sigma is better than my 35L....would just like to see images from the main 35mm primes in one thread...simple

well... there are sample threads for each lens.

va_rider wrote in post #15953576
well... there are sample threads for each lens.

That's just it, you can only see the effects of that one lens in one thread, be nice to see all the big hitters in one thread...this is getting like hard work!!

Fine, I'll play. I used to have 35L. Never held or used Sigma 35.

Zeiss has unmatched micro contrast. Better than 35L in every way, except it is heavier, pricier, and it lacks AF.

Zeiss @ 1.8 -

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: data

I just decided tonight after reading alot of reviews and looking at the sample image pages here that I am getting (drumroll), the Sigma!! Buying tomorrow. Canon L is 14 years old!! Can't go wrong with newer tech that is ahead of the Canon in every department.

I bought the Canon 35 f/2 because it was what I could afford. I use it on a 20D and regularly shoot it at f/2 or 2.2 and ISO 1600 or 3200 and have been totally satisfied with it. I do wish it was wider at times, but I don't wish it was faster. Before the Sigma and new Canon IS USM were announced, I was planning on eventually getting the 35L. Now I think I will end up with the IS lens though because I am going to get a 60D soon and start trying some video stuff.

20D & EF 35 f/2 @ 2.2, ISO 3200, 1/80

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/64115208@N05/8​189345945/

here's one at ISO 100 and f/2.2

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/64115208@N05/5​840613642/

Zeiss 35mm 1.4 ze

I suggest opening a window for the sample image threads of lenses you want to compare and shift back and forth (or, if you have a decent size window then side by side). Even that is not great.

The best way to review the lenses is to shoot the same shots with the same camera and those reviews are available online. Otherwise, you're getting someone's post processing abilities versus that guy's compositional and artistic eye and her very old DLSR versus a new 6D or whatever and on and on. This turns into a very unscientific comparison that doesn't help anyone make a truly informed decision.

Not sure on the Zeiss, but the Sigma is many times better than the 35L in every single comparison I've ever seen done by anyone. Not even close.

I may share some images later, but here are my thoughts:

Presently I have both Sigma and Zeiss. Both are fantastic! Sigma beats the Zeiss in sharpness and microcontrast @ f/1.4 (the Zeiss stumbles just a bit from a veiling haze that robs some detail). The sharpness advantage and the Zeiss veiling haze disappears at narrower apertures. My feeling is the Zeiss beats Sigma in the gorgeous bokeh department - and the Sigma has a very very pleasing bokeh!

We can insert a joke about the Sigma focusing faster than the Zeiss, but I had an interesting experience recently: I was doing a tripod-based landscape shot and wanted to manual-focus the Sigma. With AF switched off I used Live View to pin my focus and for some reason the Sigma seemed jumpy when manual-focusing - I get the focus almost just where I wanted it, and then the focus plane would seem to jump over/past the precise point I was aiming for. I realize most everyone is going to AF the Sigma nearly all the time, but the thing is, the Sigma makes an excellent landscape and architecture lens and I prefer to manual-focus with those scenarios. I never thought I'd complain about a lens not manual-focusing well (I have no such problems manual-focusing my Canon lenses), but my Sigma doesn't seem so great at that. Don't misread me here, this is a very minor nit, but I found it an interesting learning-about-my-new-lens experience nonetheless.

After getting the Sigma last month I was so impressed with it that I had planned to sell my Zeiss, but I can't bring myself to follow through with those plans because the Zeiss is so dog-gone special. So for now I'm just a happy moron with redundant 35mm f/1.4 lenses that are both incredibly good.

I recently sold my Zeiss 35 1.4. Great lens, but was heavy, and MF was quite a bit restrictive.

I haven't decided yet if I am going to replace it with another 35 1.4.

Zeiss 1.4/35mm @ f/2:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/camp_arbo/89548​79102/

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR