Sigma 50 1.4 EX HSM vs Zeiss Planar 50 1.4 ZE

I'm still in the quest for the perfect 50mm prime, and having been disappointed by all of Canon's offerings in some way or another, I've boiled it down to these two.

Now I haven't tried the Zeiss, but I've tried two copies of the Sigma. It was really nice, but I don't like the Sigma finish and neither was that sharp wide open, or even stopped down to f/2 (f/2.8 was very nice). Bokeh was good, but colours just looked OK. I was impressed, but not blown away.

My local stores don't carry the Zeiss though, so if I decide to order it, I pretty much have to buy it. Manual focus is OK, not great but I'm comfortable with it, the auto aperture is a big selling point. I've heard amazing things about the Zeiss, but never tried one.

The zeiss is about 50% more expensive than the Sigma.

What would you guys do? Any advice? Not have a great 50mm prime sucks so much. Anyone used both enough to comment on IQ wide open? Is the Zeiss worth 50% more than the Siggie?

I wish Canon would release a 50 1.4 like the new Nikon .

perryge wrote in post #7192586
I wish Canon would release a 50 1.4 like the new Nikon .

not helping much in your case, but from what i've heard the sigma one is still better than the latest nikon one.

Yah but the Noink is cheaper.

perryge wrote in post #7192586
I'm still in the quest for the perfect 50mm prime, and having been disappointed by all of Canon's offerings in some way or another, I've boiled it down to these two.

Now I haven't tried the Zeiss, but I've tried two copies of the Sigma. It was really nice, but I don't like the Sigma finish and neither was that sharp wide open, or even stopped down to f/2 (f/2.8 was very nice). Bokeh was good, but colours just looked OK. I was impressed, but not blown away.

My local stores don't carry the Zeiss though, so if I decide to order it, I pretty much have to buy it. Manual focus is OK, not great but I'm comfortable with it, the auto aperture is a big selling point. I've heard amazing things about the Zeiss, but never tried one.

The zeiss is about 50% more expensive than the Sigma.

What would you guys do? Any advice? Not have a great 50mm prime sucks so much. Anyone used both enough to comment on IQ wide open? Is the Zeiss worth 50% more than the Siggie?

I wish Canon would release a 50 1.4 like the new Nikon .

Hrmmm, maybe you got two duds in a row. My Sigma is sharper wide-open than my old canon 50/1.4 by a long shot, not to mention my old C/Y-CZ 50/1.4 as well. Maybe your siggies were just a tad off in the AF-department and resulted in slightly soft/OOF f/1.4 shots.

I tried manually focusing too, they were not awful wide open, but certainly not sharp. Mind you the Canon 50 1.4 is quite soft wide open too.

Here's a quick-n-dirty comparo between the nikkor and zeiss at f/1.8:

http://photo.net/nikon​-camera-forum/00S5Fe

They look pretty much identical. I can't imagine the Sigma being noticeably different.

How does the Sigma compared to the 50 1.4 SMC tak? That'll actually give me a good reference point . Obviously the bokeh is nicer on the Sigma, so we'll leave that aside.

I'll sell you my 8-bladed SMC takumar if you want to match the ZF 50/1.4 (which is optically the same as the ZE 50/1.4).

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/67472​2

Nah s'ok, I want auto aperture on this one. Plus I've already got a 55 1.8 SMC Tak.

perryge wrote in post #7192775
How does the Sigma compared to the 50 1.4 SMC tak? That'll actually give me a good reference point . Obviously the bokeh is nicer on the Sigma, so we'll leave that aside.

My tak is pretty sharp, but as you mention, the bokeh is an "acquired taste".

I havn't tested one against the other directly, but I'd say they are not that far apart. I can't plug my tak onto my D700 for anything but short range shots, and even then I'd have to rig an adapter or order an optic-less macro adapter to compare them. The tak probably would lose in the contrast area wide-open, but I'd bet they are pretty similar at f/2 and on. Actually, the Siggy's tuned more for WO performance and I'd bet the takumar would beat it by a hair above f/4!

So you'd recommend the Sig, Tom? I honestly was not blown away by it, and it's so expensive here in Canada.

Here's a 100% crop wide-open with the Sigma (a crop of an image I already posted to the image thread), as reference to any postings someone *might* make to compare.

ISO200, f/1.4...

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

perryge wrote in post #7192869
So you'd recommend the Sig, Tom? I honestly was not blown away by it...

I was reluctant to purchase the Sigma, at first due to the AF rants, but I am very happy with the images it produces and really have fallen in love with the bokeh! Some people will say that the bokeh is not any nicer around f/4 than some of the competition, but I can't remember the last time I shot any of my fast 50s at f/4 for anything other than test purposes.

perryge wrote in post #7192869
...and it's so expensive here in Canada.

That obviously is a big factor, but here, the Sigma is less than $500, while the Zeiss is over $600 at places like B&H, so its an easy decision for me. If Cosina did as good a job mechanically on the 50/1.4 as they did on the Voigtlander series, though, I am sure it is a pleasurable lens to shoot with.

The Sigma is CAD$650 here, and the Zeiss is close to $990 .