Sigma 50 1.4 EX HSM vs Zeiss Planar 50 1.4 ZE

perryge wrote in post #7193289
Wtf is that weird flaring or ghosting around light sources with the Zeiss? I like the Zeiss image better than the sigma apart from that flaring.

You got me...It was in the wide-open shots on the other link I posted too, but I assumed it was caused by the placement of the sun in the other link. This one is just a high-contrast-area-glow, AFAICT.

perryge wrote in post #7192586
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?

nureality wrote in post #7193246
Carl Zeiss optics have a very dependable and unmatched sharpness and contrast that makes for just the most amazing "pop" of any lens maker out there. The color rendition (due to its excellent contrast - made possible by perfect element design and T* coatins) is something not found in Canon lenses, even the L's come in 2nd to the Zeiss in color rendition.

I think he sums it up. Zeiss have a look IMO that you will love or just plain wonder WTF. I love it. Sharp is natural rather than forced. I've owned the Canon 1.4, Sigma 1.4 (still own the Pentax 1.4 which is best of the bunch) but the two 50mm Zeiss I have easily beat them all.

The 50mm 2.0 Makro-Planar ZF is in a league of its own. The 1.4 is way smaller and lighter and a great walkies on a FF, but it doesn't quite match the best of the best from the 2.0 ... mainly you won't notice that tho'.

All in I searched for the perfect 50mm and found the 2.0 ... and then went to Nikon to use it on the mount it was designed for, but it's fine with an adaptor on the Canon bodies. So if you have the dosh then pony up for the 2.0. If not then go the 1.4 route because that is 96% of the 2.0 and so a decent jump over the standard Canon and Sigma stuff.

With the MF stuff I can't tell what shots I took with what lens as it doesn't record and my memory sucks, but I might be able to dig some out from one or the other. Worth checking out the Voitlander's too ... They aren't 50mm but one is a tad under and one a bit over. They look very nice and are cheaper, but with most of the build quality of the Zeiss. They make L's look like something you win at a fairground in that regard!

condyk, I know a lot of sweet MF lenses make L glass look like garbage, but what I really want is at least auto aperture with this one, for the work where I basically need that level of automation (and as mentioned, autofocus is nice but not essential). Getting a nice auto 50mm won't stop me from trying a sweet voigtlander or the 50 /2 makro planar if the chance arises .

perryge wrote in post #7193215
A Canon 50 1.4 USM, with real USM and quality optics wide open for less than the Sigma would be an instant buy from me.

A 50 1.4L USM with weathersealing, a floating element, and L optics would be an instant buy too, even if it cost $1200. That of course, won't happen given the 50L...

*Sigh* maybe I'll just keep using my 24-105 and 55 1.8 SMC Tak for now...until someone releases something that really blows me away. Or I'll get a D700 and give the AF-S G 50 1.4 a spin (I kid. Or DO I?)

I'm currently waiting..my 17-55 f/2.8 IS told me one big glaring thing, I used it at 55mm 90% of the time and at that focal length, 2.8 just didnt give me the isolation effect i desired, so I sold it to get a 50 prime [or maybe a 100-400, we'll see] So right now I am waiting for PMA to come and go to see if Canon gives me a good Canon 50 prime to put on there...

I have nothing but praise for any of the Sigmas I've owned its just when it comes to primes i feel weird taking the Sigma over a Canon...I just do...

Kenji I kinda feel the same way, I did really like my Sigma 10-20. And if I'm gonna be using Sigma primes I might as well buy a D700 and just go with Nikon (seriously), plus I don't like the Sigma finish at all.

perryge wrote in post #7193463
Kenji I kinda feel the same way, I did really like my Sigma 10-20. And if I'm gonna be using Sigma primes I might as well buy a D700 and just go with Nikon (seriously), plus I don't like the Sigma finish at all.

See I like the finish personally -shrug- Better than the cheapo Canons at least

Personally I think Sigma is a void filler, lenses you buy because Canon doesnt really make them, and they should be used Sparingly, granted, they make superb optics, I too have the 10-20 and I cant see the Canon being worth the extra cash [I'm told I have an EXCEPTIONAL copy]

Once you start talking Sigma lenses in most of your system, or Tamrons, why buy a Canon over Nikon or Sony? There really isnt a reason to...

Personally, I like the D300 for what it is, I'm rather attracted to the 1.5 crop for a lot of what I shoot, and Canon honestly doesn't have a competitor to the D300, the D300 is a full-fledged bell and whistles professional camera with no excuses, with a VERY good 51-point AF system, build quality and 100% field of view to match!

I did seriously come close to buying back into Nikon, and I sometimes have the temptation [I like the VR 70-200 more than the Canon, I have held and shot it, and its just..better...for some reason..maybe because its Darth Vader black..]

I must be losing my mind, because I think that the Siggy is pretty damn sharp wide open. The crop from my visit to B&H impressed me for a demo lens.

KenjiS wrote in post #7193942
See I like the finish personally -shrug- Better than the cheapo Canons at least

Personally I think Sigma is a void filler, lenses you buy because Canon doesnt really make them, and they should be used Sparingly, granted, they make superb optics, I too have the 10-20 and I cant see the Canon being worth the extra cash [I'm told I have an EXCEPTIONAL copy]

Once you start talking Sigma lenses in most of your system, or Tamrons, why buy a Canon over Nikon or Sony? There really isnt a reason to...

Personally, I like the D300 for what it is, I'm rather attracted to the 1.5 crop for a lot of what I shoot, and Canon honestly doesn't have a competitor to the D300, the D300 is a full-fledged bell and whistles professional camera with no excuses, with a VERY good 51-point AF system, build quality and 100% field of view to match!

I did seriously come close to buying back into Nikon, and I sometimes have the temptation [I like the VR 70-200 more than the Canon, I have held and shot it, and its just..better...for some reason..maybe because its Darth Vader black..]

the gear signature talks .... and all that hi-dollar BS you be spoutin' walks .

ed rader

Hi Perry,

IMO, when it comes to fast AF lenses, only the 50L beats the Sigma 50 F/1.4 (and any other 50 for that matter). I tested two copies of the Sigma as well, and both were clearly sharper than the EF 50 F/1.4. However, both Sigma specimens did suffer from some focus shift close to MFD, worst at F/2. So, it does look like you need to be rather patient to find a good one, similar as is the case with the 50L.

All other 50 F/1.4s I have tried so far, are all rather soft up to F/2.8, with the exception maybe of the Olympus Zuiko. That is fine around F/2, but it is MF, with adapter of course, and maybe not as sharp as the Sigma at F/2. All 50 F/1.4s except the Sigma, and the 50L, and the Zuiko to a lesser degree, suffer from old lens designs, which may well be a result of the Double Gaussian standard BTW, and that is that they all only begin to shine from F/2.8. This is why I recommend the slightly slower brethren to most people, the F/1.7s to F/2s, which tend to be good to very usable wide open. IOW, the ZUiko, although F/1.4, probably falls into this category (need to do more comparisons to be 100 % sure).

The older Zeiss 50 F/1.4 I have, and this was supposedly a very highly regarded copy, is extremely soft at F/1.4, to a degree that I actually find upsetting. I am afraid that the new ZFs and ZEs are really the same lens design, just in a different jacket and maybe with a slightly better coating. This may result in a slightly better behaviour, but I wouldn't expect miracles. Say F/2.5 instead of F/2.8. Halation at maximum aperture is absolutely awful.

Similar things are true for the new Nikon F/1.4. It behaves, in the tests I have seen, the same as the older ones, be it maybe slightly better again, probably because of improved coatings.

All in all, I did find that the search for an excellent fast 50 was very, very frustrating, just like your search seems to be. And I think there is only one solution for the dilemma this creates. I'd suggest you get a good 50 F/1.8, Mk II, or better a Mk I, and start looking for a good 50L in the mean time. It honestly is the best 50 out there I have seen so far, it has AF, L-build, sharpness, great colour and drool-inducing bokeh, but you just need to be very patient when looking for a good one without the focus problem close to MFD when using large apertures.

However, when you do find one, you won't look back.

Kind regards, Wim

Thanks Wim, I LOVED the 50L when I tried it, but the focus shift was so bad and so apparent in that copy. Maybe you're right that it's worth hunting around for a good one...

perryge wrote in post #7194264
Thanks Wim, I LOVED the 50L when I tried it, but the focus shift was so bad and so apparent in that copy. Maybe you're right that it's worth hunting around for a good one...

I think it is ....

I still have a few other MF 50s for testing currently, but those are all relatively slow. I am still on the look-out for a few more fast 50s, but to be very honest, I don't expect them to be better, not even the Leitz, based on the test I have seen so far, and it now only is an academic issue to me anyway, because of the 50L .

I think if you want to use a 50 at F/2.8 and slower, you have a very big choice including the MFs around, but faster than that, and especially faster than F/2, I think there is only one....

Kind regards, Wim

perryge wrote in post #7192800
Nah s'ok, I want auto aperture on this one. Plus I've already got a 55 1.8 SMC Tak.

just to shake things up i dont know your range the 50L??

Simon Turkin wrote in post #7194623
just to shake things up i dont know your range the 50L??

sorry i was lazy and didnt finish reading

KenjiS wrote in post #7193942
[I like the VR 70-200 more than the Canon, I have held and shot it, and its just..better...for some reason..maybe because its Darth Vader black..]

From the tests that I have seen, the Nikon 70-200 VR is actually better than Canon's on a crop camera like the D300. On full frame however, the canon wins (optically speaking)

40Driggs wrote in post #7194721
From the tests that I have seen, the Nikon 70-200 VR is actually better than Canon's on a crop camera like the D300. On full frame however, the canon wins (optically speaking)

Yeh I read that, I read a lot of reviews on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS that actually made me not want to buy one They seem to be very negative on its optical quality..

Primarily I do shoot crop, and even though I'd LIKE a full frame camera, I like the crop factor..but then again, I do see myself going full frame for my next camera, So its a moot point I suppose

And I'm not being anything other than critical towards a few decisions in the Canon lineup, I want to know why in the Sub-EOS-1D range that Canon cant give us more than 9 point AF...when Nikon gives you 11 or 51 and Sony gives you 11 :X I still love my 30D and I want a 5D, I just want to know why Canon seems to almost FORCE you to get a 1D for a few minor features...