Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Ellis Vener on April 06, 2014, 04:28:52 pm
-
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30
"Put simply: it trounces any similar model available for less than $4,000. If it comes in significantly cheaper than the best of Canon and Nikon, Sigma will have made a friend of every full-frame shooter in the land." That is a pretty bold statement and it apparently gives the OTUS a serious challenger.
-
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1677/cat/30
"Put simply: it trounces any similar model available for less than $4,000. If it comes in significantly cheaper than the best of Canon and Nikon, Sigma will have made a friend of every full-frame shooter in the land." That is a pretty bold statement and it apparently gives the OTUS a serious challenger.
The thing about the Otus is that it combines outstanding technical qualities with an extremely pleasant look.
I personally find the Sigma 35mm f1.4 to be pretty good lookwise (it is of course excellent technically), but this view is not shared widely in Japan where the Sigma 35mm f1.4 is often considered as offering ugly bokeh compared to the Canon and Nikon equivalents.
Let's see how they assess the new 50mm f1.4.
Beyond that, AF accuracy will be the deciding factor. I am able to manually focus my Otus reliably up to 90-95% accuracy, but perfect focus is impossible without live view. If the AF of the Sigma 50mm f1.4 + D800 enables me to get higher success ratio, then it may replace the Otus for non tripod applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The thing about the Otus is that it combines outstanding technical qualities with an extremely pleasant look.
you mean that extremely scratch prone finish ?
-
you mean that extremely scratch prone finish ?
Who cares about scratches? ;)
I buy lenses to use them, not to look at them or sell them back. But, for what it's worth, mine is still scratch free after having used it quite a lot and not paying more attention than I do with other lenses.
I was refering to the look of the images, in particuler the bokeh and the near complete lack of color aberations resulting in very clean looking images. Together with an AA filter equiped sensor like that of the D800 or the 5DIII, I feel that it pretty much delivers the cleanest looking images to be found. They somehow feel real and photographic at the same time.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3769/13510267985_94f9988133_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wimpy
-
The review has been updated with test images
-
The comparrisons to Otus is interesting. I wonder if the Otus would be relatively better on a D800?
Maybe the Canons 21mp sensor is the limiting factor?
-
The comparrisons to Otus is interesting.
they (SLRgear) tested Otus yesterday (posted) btw... minor note - Otus was provided by R.Cicala from Lens Rentals, so I bet that copy of Otus was the best one (in terms of decentering) from many, while Sigma was just a stock one.
-
they (SLRgear) tested Otus yesterday (posted) btw... minor note - Otus was provided by R.Cicala from Lens Rentals, so I bet that copy of Otus was the best one (in terms of decentering) from many, while Sigma was just a stock one.
Hum... considering that the Sigma is not for sales yet, I would think that the sample was cherry picked by Sigma.
I would be surprised if Lens Rentals had tens of copies of the Otus, so it is most probably just an average lens. But I am not sure this is even relevant since one of the key reasons why it costs what it costs is because manufacturing tolerances and quality control are done according to very high standards. I am yet to hear complains about decentring with the Otus.
In other words, I think that you probably have it backwards... ;)
Don't get me wrong, I think the Sigma is an outstanding offering that is clearly putting Nikon and Canon to shame. Those guys need to do a very deep introspection... not only are they losing significant market share to mirror less entrants... but they get their ass kicked big time right in the middle of their own garden by a company much smaller than they are.
Now, at least Nikon has made it very clear that their top priority these days is lens rendering... even though pretty much nobody understands this outside of Japan... good for Sigma and the Fukushima economy!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hum... considering that the Sigma is not for sales yet, I would think that the sample was cherry picked by Sigma.
I don't think distributors can compare w/ Cicala, specifically Sigma ones... you can see that Sigma was decentered, Otus was not
I would be surprised if Lens Rentals had tens of copies of the Otus, so it is most probably just an average lens.
they test and send bad copies back, so even if they have 10 those are not 10 you will find in a store...
-
Hi,
Yes, sensor could be a limiting factor, but the 7D is actually more demanding than the D800, although over a smaller field.
Test charts can be much more demanding than real world subjects, as real world subjects are seldom flat. Both lenses are excellent performers, for sure.
Best regards
Erik
The comparrisons to Otus is interesting. I wonder if the Otus would be relatively better on a D800?
Maybe the Canons 21mp sensor is the limiting factor?
-
I don't think distributors can compare w/ Cicala, specifically Sigma ones... you can see that Sigma was decentered, Otus was not
It may simply mean that the best Sigma 50mm f1.4 sent from Japan was not as good as an average Otus.
I am not sure why it seems unreasonable to assume that the 3,000 US$ price difference doesn't just go in Zeiss pocket without any benefit in terms of product quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It may simply mean that the best Sigma 50mm f1.4 sent from Japan was not as good as an average Otus.
I am not sure why it seems unreasonable to assume that the 3,000 US$ price difference doesn't just go in Zeiss pocket without any benefit in terms of product quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
My thoughts as well. Will the Sigma still be doing it after 6 months of use or 5 years banging around in a camera bag? You get nothing for nothing, great as the Sigma is, if there was both on the table and I could have either, I know I would pick the Zeiss.
-
Bernard!
Is the Otus usable at all on people and other off tripod work with this small appertures and just MF?
Henrik
-
Bernard!
Is the Otus usable at all on people and other off tripod work with this small appertures and just MF?
Henrik
I have a surprisingly high success rate MFing the Otus at f2, but it is of course significantly lower than what I get with my 85mm f1.4 with AF on the D800 (not perfect either). Some of my favourite model: ;)
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2884/13510444613_fd9f0ceef2_o.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5518/11775273513_2c840245be_o.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7448/11750873834_7aef194326_o.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5497/11946458843_ab13a65770_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My thoughts as well. Will the Sigma still be doing it after 6 months of use or 5 years banging around in a camera bag? You get nothing for nothing, great as the Sigma is, if there was both on the table and I could have either, I know I would pick the Zeiss.
Yeh...but at the price difference you could pick up at least 4 Sigmas and have 3 as spares to be used 5 years from now.
Like with anything else, the extra $3,000 for the Zeiss gets you very marginal ( that's even debatable ) more quality in the images. I question if you would see any difference at all in prints...highly doubt it.
-
Yeh...but at the price difference you could pick up at least 4 Sigmas and have 3 as spares to be used 5 years from now.
Like with anything else, the extra $3,000 for the Zeiss gets you very marginal ( that's even debatable ) more quality in the images. I question if you would see any difference at all in prints...highly doubt it.
There is little doubt that the Sigma is a much better deal.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Zeis Otus 55 is here:
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1664/cat/98 (http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1664/cat/98)
The Sigma has slightly worse CA but better (less) distortion, etc.
-
interesting to see that if you compare their fullframe samples at D8 of the Zeiss Otus, the Nikon 58mm and the Sigma 50mm Art, the Nikon comes out best...
Why? I think because of the different body; D800e vs Canon 1ds III
So in this case we are comparing bodies instead of lenses...
I am sure they had no Nikon copies of the Otus and Sigma, but if your job is to compare lenses you should do it better than this.
(Of course to be first with any comparison will make more money...)
-
interesting to see that if you compare their fullframe samples at D8 of the Zeiss Otus, the Nikon 58mm and the Sigma 50mm Art, the Nikon comes out best...
Why? I think because of the different body; D800e vs Canon 1ds III
How do you know this?
-
Bernard, we have about 30 of the Otus, but the one we loaned to SLR gear never got tested - it arrived the day before and we sent it straight to them.
I will say, though, that all of the ones we had tested were pretty similar. For that price point I'd hope that they would be.
Roger
-
I now have a Canon mount version of the Sigma in hand and am starting to do real world testing of it. I don't have the test gear, hardware and software, or charts that lensrentals.com has of course, but having shot extensively with the D800 and D800e as well as my Canon 1Ds mark III , 5D mark III, and 1D X bodies, I can assure you that there is a lot of difference between the 18-22Mp resolution of the Canon cluster and the 36mp D800. I don't have a Sony A7r and the necessary Metabones EF lens to Sony mount adapter but that may be the best current way to test Canon EF mount lenses on a 36mp sensor.
-
Bernard, we have about 30 of the Otus, but the one we loaned to SLR gear never got tested - it arrived the day before and we sent it straight to them.
I will say, though, that all of the ones we had tested were pretty similar. For that price point I'd hope that they would be.
Thanks Roger,
It seems that this pretty much confirms what I had guessed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
at f/8 most decent lenses would be diffraction limited. So in that case sensor plays a more important role than lens.
Best regards
Erik
interesting to see that if you compare their fullframe samples at D8 of the Zeiss Otus, the Nikon 58mm and the Sigma 50mm Art, the Nikon comes out best...
Why? I think because of the different body; D800e vs Canon 1ds III
So in this case we are comparing bodies instead of lenses...
I am sure they had no Nikon copies of the Otus and Sigma, but if your job is to compare lenses you should do it better than this.
(Of course to be first with any comparison will make more money...)
-
How do you know this?
The d8 full frame is the only example were the Nikon lens is best... In the other examples at 1,4 and both the DX samples the 58mm Nikkor is clearly less good than the other two.
The most striking difference in the comparison of the full frame d8 pictures is the body. The colours of the d800e are better and downsampled at the resolution of the Canon d1sIII you have less to do with the Bayer matrix - it shows...
I have tested the 58mm Nikkor for a week; it is a difficult lens ... the coating is very very good. But the sharpness is not great and unpredictable... maybe after half a year of use it becomes more predictable. (?)
But today the news is that the Sigma sells at a 'modest' 879€
It will probably be my next 50mm lens. And I will also buy the usb dock because I want the autofocus spot on at 1,4
-
I case you have missed the news, Sigma announced the price and availability schedule of the 50mm f/1.4 ART lens early this morning:
"The 50mm F1.4 DG HSM Art, will be available late April for the street price of $949."
So you can buy 4 of them and get almost exactly the same level of optical performance for the price of a single Zeiss OTUS and still have $200.00 left over. Looking forward to Roger Ciccala's assessment of multiple iterations to see if they are lens to lens to lens as consistent as the OTUS.
-
Ellis, I am looking forward to your impressions of the 50mm Art. It sounds as if it will outclass the Canon sensors, eg, my 6D. I would love to try it at f/2.8 in wide-field astrophotography - the latest review set with photos shows disappearance of coma at f/2.8, and relatively modest coma at f/2.0 and f/1.4, considering the bat wing coma one usually sees with fast Planar designs (my best old Planar still has stubby wings (square stars) at f/4.0.
-
"The 50mm F1.4 DG HSM Art, will be available late April for the street price of $949."
So you can buy 4 of them and get almost exactly the same level of optical performance for the price of a single Zeiss OTUS and still have $200.00 left over.
Great news, I'll most probably get that Sigma.
The Sigma (at least a good sample) is close in performance to the Otus except in terms of what may be the most remarkable quality of the Otus which is the near total lack of chromatic aberations.
Still, the Sigma is a no brainer.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A quick natural light still life with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 A on a tripod mounted Canon EOS-1D X. .cr2 >DNG and processed (minimally: sharpen Landscape). exposure 1/125 @ f/1.4, ISO 640. Full frame reduced to 1296 pixels wide , and a 1:1 crop of the same frame to 1296 pixels wide
-
The comparrisons to Otus is interesting. I wonder if the Otus would be relatively better on a D800?
Maybe the Canons 21mp sensor is the limiting factor?
I was wondering the exact same question. An example is this (from DXO)
Using the D3 the e Otus render 12mpixels against 10mpxiels of the 50mm f1.4G (20% better)
With the D800 is 29mpixels against 16mpixels (81%) and it's not clear that the Otus has reach its limit.
In fact the Otus render 21mpixels on the D7100!!! against 13mpixels of the 50mm f1.4G lens.
That means that the Otus could render far more than 29mpixels in the next generation sensors.
By the way the 135mm f2.0 Zeiss is almost as good as the Otus it has a fraction of the price and a very good angle for portraits.
And yes it does not have auto focus (grrrr)
So lets wait and see. In any case It seem clear that it will totally kill the 58mm noct as a general use lens. For astro photography the noct should be better.
Best regards,
J.Duncan
-
When will Zeiss start to add AF to their fantastic lenses?
"2014" AF is what most people want. They could most likely sell a lot more and their lenses
would be much easier to use for everybody.
-
Autofocus, to be modern and fast, requires lightweight moving parts. Zeiss seems to think that making a long lasting optically and mechanically superior product rules out AF.
-
Hi,
Just to say, I have AF lenses from 1985, just working fine today. Zeiss also makes AF-lenses, in the Tuit series. Even MF lenses sometimes need electronics and electrical motors to move aperture.
Best regards
Erik
Autofocus, to be modern and fast, requires lightweight moving parts. Zeiss seems to think that making a long lasting optically and mechanically superior product rules out AF.
-
Hi,
at f/8 most decent lenses would be diffraction limited. So in that case sensor plays a more important role than lens.
Best regards
Erik
These new premium lenses should be diffraction limited at f4. F8 may be more useful for most real world shots.
-
When will Zeiss start to add AF to their fantastic lenses?
"2014" AF is what most people want. They could most likely sell a lot more and their lenses
would be much easier to use for everybody.
Neither Nikon nor Canon have given Zeiss the know how for their AF. Thus Zeiss has the Nikon and Canon lenses as MF and Sony as AF.
-
Neither Nikon nor Canon have given Zeiss the know how for their AF. Thus Zeiss has the Nikon and Canon lenses as MF and Sony as AF.
Isn't that strange when Tamron/Sigma etc are making these af-lenses?
-
Isn't that strange when Tamron/Sigma etc are making these af-lenses?
Tamron and Sigma have reverse engineered the AF, that is why their AF gives problems sometimes, especially with a new body. Zeiss had commented that they would incorporate AF only if the Camera manufacturer agrees to their doing so and provides them the technical inputs (it is some where in Zeiss site).
-
Tamron and Sigma have reverse engineered the AF, that is why their AF gives problems sometimes, especially with a new body. Zeiss had commented that they would incorporate AF only if the Camera manufacturer agrees to their doing so and provides them the technical inputs (it is some where in Zeiss site).
Ok, and that will never happen i suppose..
And I understand why they don't want Zeiss af lenses to compete with.
-
All the quibbling on which camera body and how it effects the outcome.
Put the lnes on a Nikon F6 or Canon F1n or EOS3. Use TMax 100 film. Shoot part of a roll of film in one body and then put it in the other if you think film bodies will have some effect.
Develop the film and go from there.
Some of us still shoot film and better lenses are always welcome.
-
Sounds like a great lens, and i think the Sigma 35mm is a great lens too. But an an aesthetic question here.
i never liked the 50mm format. Not on film (on my FM2) and not on my full frame Nikons (d700 &800). I have always preferred a 35mm as my "normal lens", or I like to go higher. Even on my 24-70 nikkor, i cannot think of the last time i ever shot using it at the 50mm mark.
Many moons ago, i used to run into a lot of people who felt the same way, back in the days of film. Have things changed that much? Bear in mind i am not questioning the quality of this lens, just the possible artistic demand for the 50mm size to begin with, regardless of who makes it or how much it costs.
-
All the quibbling on which camera body and how it effects the outcome.
Put the lnes on a Nikon F6 or Canon F1n or EOS3. Use TMax 100 film. Shoot part of a roll of film in one body and then put it in the other if you think film bodies will have some effect.
Develop the film and go from there.
Some of us still shoot film and better lenses are always welcome.
Well it is a sure thing that not the lenses but the film(grain) was often the weakest link. Maybe you can try Technical Pan to limit that.
Nowadays the sensor ( 36MP on 135 format) shows to some extend the weak spots of the lenses. ( usually the corners)
-
Hi Roger,
Welcome to these forums and thanks for sharing your experience!
Best regards
Erik
Bernard, we have about 30 of the Otus, but the one we loaned to SLR gear never got tested - it arrived the day before and we sent it straight to them.
I will say, though, that all of the ones we had tested were pretty similar. For that price point I'd hope that they would be.
Roger
-
Well it is a sure thing that not the lenses but the film(grain) was often the weakest link. Maybe you can try Technical Pan to limit that.
Nowadays the sensor ( 36MP on 135 format) shows to some extend the weak spots of the lenses. ( usually the corners)
I used to shot a lot of Tech Pan (still have some in the freezer), Kodachrome 25 and Ektar 25 print film, and in my own opinion, I find my D800 shows the weakness of a lens faster or greater than those films did.
I say that because I still have my old lenses, and some of them I thought were either good or great, ones I used on those slow films, on the D800, you look and you go ...hmmm.... what was I thinking?
Not wanting to start a range war or anything, but IMO, the D800 outclasses pretty much all 35mm films, but I still think my 4x5 and 8x10 outclass the D800. If Nikon gets kinda crazy on us in the future and provides an affordable 4x5 CMOS sensor in a camera, it will be kinda cool to see which of my lenses works best on that.
:)
-
... but I still think my 4x5 and 8x10 outclass the D800. If Nikon gets kinda crazy on us in the future and provides an affordable 4x5 CMOS sensor in a camera, it will be kinda cool to see which of my lenses works best on that....
:)
i have a nice 4x5 print on my wall ( provia100 and made with a stellar 58mm schneider) and i think it has about twice the detail of the d800e :) Never used 8x10- i bought a cheap camera and some cassettes, but never came to buy a lens...
the digital age had started; my darkroom now is a inkjet printer...
-
It seems that The Digital Picture has completed the tests for the Sigma 1.4 art, a review has not been posted yet but that great website allows you to compare it with Canon, Nikon and Zeiss models. I have to say I'm very Impressed, the Otus wins, but the Sigma is scary close. Don't even bother to compare it with what Canon and Nikon have to offer, it just became really hard to justify purchasing a Canon 50 1.2L, unless you need the weather sealing. Now we must hope for a decent autofocus.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=917&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Holy Cow. Really puts the Canon 50 f/1.4 to shame. Interestingly, the Canon 40 STM is not as far off the Sigma at the same apertures.
-
Holy Cow. Really puts the Canon 50 f/1.4 to shame. Interestingly, the Canon 40 STM is not as far off the Sigma at the same apertures.
The Canon 40 STM is a gem, especially considering the price. When I bought my Sigma 35mm ART, I compared it to the 40mm, expecting it to be much better. It wasn't. I then did the comparison you saw and realized they were very similar with the 40 perhaps being better. All of Canon's 50s are rubbish, but the 40 is great. The only reason I got the Sigma 35 is because I needed more speed. I can't wait to get my hands on the new 50.
-
One of my test shots with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG Art lens was to see how it handled a strongly back lit subject to look for flare and chromatic fringing issues in a real world situation and also look at how it handled out of focus areas in both the foreground and background. Given some of the comments I've read here and elsewhere, I was pleasantly surprised.
-
One of my test shots with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG Art lens was to see how it handled a strongly back lit subject to look for flare and chromatic fringing issues in a real world situation and also look at how it handled out of focus areas in both the foreground and background. Given some of the comments I've read here and elsewhere, I was pleasantly surprised.
Impressive
-
The Canon 40 STM is a gem, especially considering the price. When I bought my Sigma 35mm ART, I compared it to the 40mm, expecting it to be much better. It wasn't. I then did the comparison you saw and realized they were very similar with the 40 perhaps being better. All of Canon's 50s are rubbish, but the 40 is great. The only reason I got the Sigma 35 is because I needed more speed. I can't wait to get my hands on the new 50.
A few months back, I got a copy of that FoCal micro focus adjustment s/w. Using that, my 40 tested very, very strongly. Outstanding resolution for the money. The only real negative I have with it (aside from general slowness, which does not concern me for landscape work) is that manual focus is more difficult than I would prefer.
-
It seems that The Digital Picture has completed the tests for the Sigma 1.4 art, a review has not been posted yet but that great website allows you to compare it with Canon, Nikon and Zeiss models. I have to say I'm very Impressed, the Otus wins, but the Sigma is scary close. Don't even bother to compare it with what Canon and Nikon have to offer, it just became really hard to justify purchasing a Canon 50 1.2L, unless you need the weather sealing. Now we must hope for a decent autofocus.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=917&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Yes the Sigma looks nice (centre especially), but the Otus looks incredible, amazing contrast and acuity. What is the haziness called (in the sigma corner image) in photographic terms?
-
No question, we all would like Oti, but many of us will be happy to "settle" for Sigmas. :D
-
No question, we all would like Oti, but many of us will be happy to "settle" for Sigmas. :D
With unlimited funds, maybe, if not for anything else than peace of mind, but for real use Sigma is more useful for me: AutoFocus…. (press photography).
I have had he Sigma on pre-order since last year.
-
I allways wanted a better ta 50mm better than the nikkors avalable; Now i have it!
Just got the 50mm art lens for my Nikon d800e today;
first impressions-
really heavy - built like a tank.
a bit too short focus throw for my liking.
Fast autofocus: faster than the 1,8 50mm Nikon ( and then the 1,8 is faster than either the Nikkors 58mm and 50 mm1,4)
very near focussing.
As tested on a 20m distance brick wall:
flat field of sharpness
Open gives a very clear and sharp image. ( unlike the 50mm Nikkors) and improves to 2,8 with microcontrast. The image circle from the center to the top is really good at 1,4
Extreme cornes are very good at d5,6.
The lens is at 1,4 as good as my nikkor was at 2,8 with more microcontrast!
I like it! but will keep the small 1,8 nikkor for its lightweight and size.