Sigma 50mm f/1.4 A and Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 comparison shots are up

Ksanti

Ksanti

Ksanti

Soldato
Joined
10 Feb 2010
Posts
3,248
A bit of a shame that they're on the 1DS3 rather than D800E's but nevertheless it's a nice comparison.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

My takeaway is that the Sigma is not quite as sharp as the Otus (though slightly less distortion and stopped down corner sharpness go in Sigma's favour, they're really minor points) and at first I was about to be disappointed... Until I swapped the Otus out for the Nikon 58, Canon 50L and the standard 1.4's in the comparison tool and it completely blows them out of the water.

TL;DR: Sigma weren't kidding when they said they were gunning for the Otus. No, it's not /quite/ there but the pair of them are so far above standard lenses in the range I'm not even sure it matters. (Though the differences comparison may be limited by the 1DS3 as the Zeiss is definitely outresolving the 1DS3 almost from the get go, and the Sigma not long after)
 
Not quite as sharp? I'd say that's miles away and quite a lot softer all round than the much more expensive lens but damn when you stick the 50L in there you see how much it is better :D

When you put the L in you realise the sigma isn't as far away as you first think.
 
Yeah that's what I meant. It's noticeably softer than the Otus (though these are very very tight crops) but when you compare that to the gap between the pair and then the rest of the market it's next to nothing.
 
The Otus looks better and it should be for the price and materials used. The Nikon 58 wasn't really built to shoot these test charts, it's a lens that has a lovely draw to it. You only have to look at some of the sample images to see how pleasingly it renders. Be interesting to see the Sigma vs the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 on the A7r.
 
Slrgear has good analysis of the 2. Yep the Otus is marginally sharper in the corners wide open but not beyond that. This may be down the inclusion of the AF elements. Either way it wouldn't be noticible for most work. As said, just compare to the other 1.4 primes.

^^^ yep, the Nikon wasn't designed for ultimate sharpness but rendering characteristics and minimal aberrations such as astigmatism.
Slrgear also reviewed the Zeiss 55mm alpha and it is a little softer than the sigma iirc.
 
£750, autofocus. It's where my money would go.

You have to really want a Zeiss to buy the Zeiss but that's always the case with their lenses anyway.
 
Raymond Lin said:
£750, autofocus. It's where my money would go.

You have to really want a Zeiss to buy the Zeiss but that's always the case with their lenses anyway.
Click to expand...

Totally agree for most usage your never going to notice the small difference in outright sharpness but you will notice the large stack of money in you pocket and the massive convenience factor of af!

The otus clearly has a market but the sigma has a much broader base of appeal I've never listed after a zeiss MF lens but the sigma 35 and 50mm lenses are all over my want list!
 
Raymond Lin said:
£750, autofocus. It's where my money would go.

You have to really want a Zeiss to buy the Zeiss but that's always the case with their lenses anyway.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
I'm really not sure what the Otus market is at that price though, beyond pro video.

It is not an interesting focal length for most people. If it was. 20mm prime that sharp then it would be golden for landscape work and the absolute sharpness a dream and MF would be no issue, but 50-55mm is the single worst range for landscape work for a vast majority of landscape togs. 35mm or 85mm would suit the portrait togs a little more at that price point, but AF would be very important.
 
Above&Beyond said:
So what are the interesting focal lengths then?
Click to expand...

As I said, an interesting focal length is a focal length that facilitates pleasing compositions for the intended subject matter.
~50mm rarely achieves that for most people for many landscape scenes. In general for landscape work more interesting compositions can be achieved by either extending or compressing perspective, by increasing depth or increasing isolation.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
As I said, an interesting focal length is a focal length that facilitates pleasing compositions for the intended subject matter.
~50mm rarely achieves that for most people for many landscape scenes. In general for landscape work more interesting compositions can be achieved by either extending or compressing perspective, by increasing depth or increasing isolation.
Click to expand...

Any focal length can be made interesting or rendered boring, that's down to the skill and creativity of the photographer. Cartier-Bresson worked extensively with a 50mm and his work is interesting and well respected. To me there is no such thing as a focal length that isn't interesting. I would rather stitch a landscape with my 50mm than my 21mm any day.
 
i am glad i got to try out the 50L today.

Build quality is good, it is the same barrel is the 85L i think or very close to it. I like the weight of it and prefer it over the size of the tiny Canon 50/1.4.

The down side is that i can't really notice any image quality difference between them. So i would basically be paying £800 to upgrade the build quality and half a stop with no change really in the end product.

Now will find out in a few weeks what the Sigma is like. Reviews can only go so far but it's how it feels in the hand and the images that comes out of it that matters.

rr7XByp.jpg

IgDaLeh.png
 
Above&Beyond said:
Any focal length can be made interesting or rendered boring, that's down to the skill and creativity of the photographer. Cartier-Bresson worked extensively with a 50mm and his work is interesting and well respected. To me there is no such thing as a focal length that isn't interesting. I would rather stitch a landscape with my 50mm than my 21mm any day.
Click to expand...

No one said you couldn't make any focal length interesting. All that has been mentioned is some focal lens make it easier to make more interesting compositions for some types of photography for some scenes.

Cartier-Bressonis irrelevant:
1) He didn't primarily shoot landscape
2) 50mm lenses work well for Street work
3) This does not render anything I said wrong - manipulating perspective is a powerful technique to get interesting compositions that has been used in art for hundreds of years
4) I could no doubt list dozens of professional landscape photographers who avoid the middle ground of focal lengths (e.g. the late Gallen Rowel used Nikon 20mm, 24mm and 80-200mm on 35mm film). But see point 3, citing anecdotes is irrelevant because it is a proven technique.


Then you conclude by just proving my point - you would want to stitch photographs from a 50mm to increase the effective angle of view and in effect create a lens with a shorter focal length while producing a higher resolution image.
 
DP You're the only one who has made this about landscapes... I get that it's a big part of your work but nobody else made this about landscapes so it was a little odd of you to say "It's not an interesting focal length" and then later say that you're only talking about landscapes.
 
D.P. said:
A focal length that facilitates pleasing compositions for the intended subject matter.
Click to expand...

Well if the subject matter is pleasing with the 50mm then it is perfect for it.

Broadly speaking the 50mm is never about landscape so i am rather confused what that was ever brought up in the first place.

Why not use that argument to take that every lens above 35mm ? :confused:

Landscape? What? :confused::confused::confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom