Sigma 50mm f/1.4 A and Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 comparison shots are up
- Thread starter Ksanti
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
Go to flickr or any other big photo host and look at 50mm landscapes, there are hundreds of examples there that show how well it can be used. You're only limited by your own creativity. Once the Sigma is released you will see many examples of it being used for landscapes or portraits or just about anything and doing it very well.
Again, that doesn't mean anything. No one has said that you can never use a 50mm lens for landscape or that it never gives good results (I've got plenty of my own examples), merely that longer or shorter focal lengths can be easier to use to give pleasing compositions a lot of the time when shooting landscapes.
I don't understand why you are trying to argue this point when it is simply a well known fact. On average, most landscape photographers would prefer to use a 14-24mm (or 16-35mm) + 70-200mm combo over a 50mm prime on a typical day for most types of landscape scenes. That isn't anything profound. That isn't a rule. That is not absolute. It is just an observation of fact.
And many portrait or street togs like 35mm (slightly pronounced perspective) and/or 85mm (slightly compressed perspective). Again, that is just an observation, 50mm is fine, it has its uses, it can take great photos but many people prefer slightly wider or slightly longer. These same people also tend to like fast accurate auto-focus. Yes, there are exceptions with people likely o MF but most togs like to have AF for moving subjects
Getting back to my original point, I don't really get who the market is for a $4000 manual focus 55mm lens. As I said, most landscape togs would love blisteringly sharp corners and don't mind MF, but most would prefer something wider (or longer) given the choice. Most others would prefer autofocus. Therfore the sigma 35 and 50mm ART lenses are more desirable than the $4000 Otus for many photographers (but not all).
Last edited:
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 ?
Landscape? What?
I'm also very confused what Above&Beyond is talking about TBH.
Of course you can take great photos with a 50mm lens, no one has said otherwise.
And yet your first comment in this thread...
I'm guessing you were misremembering the other 50mm thread and I guess someone was talking about landscapes in there? Because certainly nobody else has brought up landscapes. The discussion came up because you said 50mm was boring and then gradually transitioned to "I'm only talking about landscapes" when nobody else had been talking about landscapes...
The thing is I mentioned both landscape, and portrait/street photography and mention different reasons why the Otus is not ideal, including the fact it doesn't have auto focus which many people would prefer when shooting people.
Above&Beyond seems to be harping on about anecdotal counter examples to something which I said was not absolute.
landscape was given as an example where longer or shorter focal lengths are often desirable and portrait work as an example where autofocus is desirable. So where is the main market for a $4000 manual focus 55mm lens?
EDIT: there might be some crosstalk between thread but Above&Beyond seems to be quoting something without context. My original post is merely questions what the market for the Otus is. A&B has selectively quoted ignoring all context to the statement.
Last edited:
Perhaps, but from an outsiders perspective it basically seemed like he was just saying 50's were perfectly valid but you were saying because they're not interesting for landscapes in your opinion they weren't interesting full stop (which is why it looked odd when you dismissed say HCB as irrelevant to the discussion because he didn't shoot landscapes, when you'd been the only one talking about landscapes).
Anyway. Back on topic.
Anyway. Back on topic.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2012
- Posts
- 657
You said it wasn't an interesting focal length for most people which is quite clearly wrong. It's an almost perfectly corrected standard lens that can do portraits, fashion, low light photography and landscape. It's marketed to those who have high resolution DSLRs and want uncompromised quality and the medium format look to images. It's a fantastic lens like the other Zeiss lenses, that's why they are sought after despite the fact Nikon and Canon won't let them interface with their AF.
Some more reviews are in (dxo, lens tips) and it looks like we might have been too hasty in declaring the Otus as the better corrected lens.
Lens tips is probably the single most accurate review site for lens optics and the sigma definitely pulls ahead (better sharpness on the frame edge, lower lateral chromatic aberration, less distortion and less vignetting). The Otus has marginally sharper center wide open. Also looks like the sigma is sharper in the f/1.6-f/2.0 range.
Dxo gives the sigma equal sharpness, lower distortion, less vignetting and equal chromatic abbé rations. The Otus has slightly better transmission properties which is bumping the overal score, but transmission values don't affect image quality (unless you are pushing the limits of high ISO on you body and the extra 0.2stops helps)
Would like to see lots of Bokeh comparisons. Sigma lenses have often been plagued by nervous Bokeh and Zeiss has a good reputation although I have rarely been convinced by much of the Zeiss look (also looks nervous in many cases).
Lens tips is probably the single most accurate review site for lens optics and the sigma definitely pulls ahead (better sharpness on the frame edge, lower lateral chromatic aberration, less distortion and less vignetting). The Otus has marginally sharper center wide open. Also looks like the sigma is sharper in the f/1.6-f/2.0 range.
Dxo gives the sigma equal sharpness, lower distortion, less vignetting and equal chromatic abbé rations. The Otus has slightly better transmission properties which is bumping the overal score, but transmission values don't affect image quality (unless you are pushing the limits of high ISO on you body and the extra 0.2stops helps)
Would like to see lots of Bokeh comparisons. Sigma lenses have often been plagued by nervous Bokeh and Zeiss has a good reputation although I have rarely been convinced by much of the Zeiss look (also looks nervous in many cases).
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,083
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
DP why did you turn this thread into a landscape thread LOL 
DP why did you turn this thread into a landscape thread LOL
I didn't try to. The real question was why did Above&beyond selectively quote what I said and then try to argue something out of context derailing the thread. What I originally said was perfectly valid, landscapers would like a wider version of the Otus and portrait people would like autofocus.
I'm sorry I fell for the troll bait.
For the first time since selling the old 50mm 1.4 Sigma last night I realised a 50mm would have been useful photographing a band in a small studio. The 85 was fine for members at the far end but the 35mm was just a bit too wide. A 50 would have been about right 
Still, £750 for use once or twice a year is not sensible use of cash.
Still, £750 for use once or twice a year is not sensible use of cash.
That's misleading. They're both outresolving the 5d3 and that's all that is. We'd need to see D800e or crop tests (or preferably both) to make any sort of claims to that
For the first time since selling the old 50mm 1.4 Sigma last night I realised a 50mm would have been useful photographing a band in a small studio. The 85 was fine for members at the far end but the 35mm was just a bit too wide. A 50 would have been about right
Still, £750 for use once or twice a year is not sensible use of cash.
This is why I want it
I use a 35mm for gigs that are tiny or when I'm standing next to the stage, and 85mm when I'm about 20ft away. The 50mm would allow more photos of say, the drummer when I'm at the stage or in a gig I've got coming up in June which is a mid sized affair. I'm honestly starting to wonder whether I should buy a second body 
Very true but the dxo figure still stands. On a 5dmk3 you couldn't tell the difference in sharpness.
With the other optical issues like distortion and vignetting these are independent of sensor resolution. The sigma does look better corrected than the Otus.
DXO used to have a few D800E results but they were removed. I can't remember the reasoning why but I think the D800E naturally gave a much higher resolution result than the non-E and they thought it would be confusing. Also I believe DXO apply some standard sharpening (e.g. LR default) to the RAW files to get a measurement of resolution that a typical user would experience. This sharpening boosts the resolution figures and for most lens-camera combos makes sense (e.g. the extremely sharp Otus hits the maximum theoretical resolution of the 5dmk3). However, when used on the D800E the resolution would come back higher than 36MP for the best lenses which would definitely confuse some people.
DPreview lens reviews are actually somewhat similar, they apply sharpening so the best lenses in the center have a resolution higher than the theoretical max Nyquist frequency. They have a little blurb to explain that this is meaningless and due to XYZ. The dpreview results are not so prominent , e.g. a lens gets 2300 line pairs when the max theoretical is 2100 doesn't make such a big confusement to the public as saying the D800E gets 42MP resolution with the Otus when it is a 36MP body.
The removal of the AA filter does have pretty profound effects when shooting optimal conditions, at least a 15% linear gain so it has been suggested than a D800 with AA filter would need to be at least 48MP to match the resolution of the D800E.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,885
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
For the first time since selling the old 50mm 1.4 Sigma last night I realised a 50mm would have been useful photographing a band in a small studio. The 85 was fine for members at the far end but the 35mm was just a bit too wide. A 50 would have been about right
Still, £750 for use once or twice a year is not sensible use of cash.
I did say many times there are situations where the 50mm would be more suitable...
Just buy it already !
