File :-(, x, )
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 HSM Anonymous
zOMG the first reviews are rolling in
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
oh lawd, is that some Zeiss

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSIGMACamera ModelSIGMA SD14Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)85 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2640Image Height1760Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:06:13 20:17:19Exposure Time1/2000 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2640Image Height1760RenderingCustomExposure ModeAuto BracketWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardUnique Image ID30313030343137358EAF52489FAE6606
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
links please?
>> Anonymous
http://210.238.185.197/~maro/lens_test.html#50mmF1.4
>> Anonymous
http://www.flickr.com/photos/86658347@N00/
>> Anonymous
already has the EF 50/1.4 beat

think of it as a cheap 50/1.2 that's slower
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
Oh shit, and my EF 50 1.4 is supposed to arrive on Monday ;____;
>> Anonymous
The first EPIC lens from Sigma?
>> Anonymous
>>205884

Now you have a reason to be depressed again. Good job, Sigma.
>> Anonymous
From looking at Maro's test shots it's easy to see that this lens was designed to be useable wide open as opposed to all the other 50s on the market. Maro compares it wiith the Pentax 50 f1.4 and the Zeiss 50 f1.4. At all f stops the Sigma beats the Pentax but only beats the Zeiss wide open, but the Zeiss is better in the center once it's stopped down to f2.8 and all-around by f5.6. Despite that the Sigma is still a remarkably corrected lens wide open.
>> Anonymous
>>205884
ill give that a genuine (>_<')

ive got the canon, but once that sigma makes it way over here that bitch is goneskies!
>> Anonymous
Everyone wondered what Sigma could do to make yet another 50 interesting or worth buying. Now we know.
>> Anonymous
>>205864
Zeiss is still better. Sigma just has that sort of auto-punchiness they give to a lot of their lenses, but the Zeiss looks cleaner.

Subjectively. I don't know how they test on MTFs and don't really care.

By the same token, the EF 50/1.4, even if outtested, will be extremely hard to top on a subjective basis.

Also, most lenses that "hurr durr aren't good wide open" really are fine, they're just not as good as they are stopped down. From the times I've used it, the EF 50/1.4 is just that way. It's better wide open than most lenses, just not perfect like it is stopped down a little.
>> Anonymous
>>205915
Cleaner? There's an obvious streaking and glow further away. Not clean AT ALL.
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
so do you guys reckon that the price will shoot up soon? Great reviews and all that.
>> Anonymous
>>205916
Was meant as a subjective, poetic description of the overall look of the lens.

Not a stupid description of stupid close-up details people only notice in tests.

Get some headshots from both of them, I guarantee you the Zeiss will look better.
>> Anonymous
>>205919
you are insane. the ziess is soft, low contrast, streaky and all-round shabby compared to the sigma at the sides. sigma wins in that test hands down. anyone saying otherwise is a fanboy or an irrational hater of sigma.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>205919
>>205915

FACT: lolzeiss doesn't automatically mean better lens. Give the Sigma a shot before you shoot it down because you (presumably) don't like Sigma as much as Zeiss
>> Anonymous
there's going to be a lot of butthurt smc/nikkor/canon/zeiss 1.4 owners going bawwwwww
>> TheGeneral !m7n7x2Yyfo
>>205926
QFT. to think the Sigma (the butt of almost every lens-related joke) is showing up the supposed "godly" canon-nikkor-zeiss lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>205919
Evidence culled from Flickr:

http://flickr.com/photos/61966933@N00/2181967977/
http://flickr.com/photos/mustha/2044698944/
http://flickr.com/photos/rookie/503162851/

I'd take the Zeiss over any other fast current production SLR fifty except the 50/1.2 Nikkor (surprisingly, they still make it) and the 50/1.4 Pentax.

I'd like to see some headshots- which really show off a lens better than anything: wide aperture, close focus, familiar subject (a human face) will really bring out the characteristics of any lens- from the Sigma, but from that shot it doesn't look like it beats the Zeiss.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>205931
So, basically what you're saying is;
"This is a new lens that I've never had any experience with, but based on the fact that the Zeiss has taken good pictures before and the fact that in a test shot between the new Sigma, which I have never used before, and the Zeiss that I want to fuck where the Sigma showed a superior image I can safely say that ZEISS FTMFW!"

Right?
>> Anonymous
>>205924
Well then, it's soft and low-contrast in a way I like. Again, I'm saying subjectively. Look at real world pictures taken with a lens, not "lol here's lots of apartments and shit and MTFs" and form a subjective opinion.

You're free to like the Sigma better. I like the Zeiss better.

>>205925
I don't have anything against Sigma, actually. I really like the pictures I've seen from the 30/1.4 and their other primes (the wide angle f/1.8 macros) aren't too shabby, either.

I don't think the Sigma 50 is a bad lens (from this one shot I've seen, like I said, I'd like to see real-world shots with it), but I do think the Zeiss looks better.
>> Anonymous
>>205931

evidence of butthurt zeiss fag
>> Anonymous
>>205938
Evidence of someone excited that a new good, probably cheap lens came out, who in his exuberance decides anyone who thinks any 50mm lens is better must be a fag and "butthurt?"

(Protip: Read the thread. Am I a Nikkorfag and a Pentaxfag for liking the Nikkor 50/1.2 and Pentax 50/1.4 better than the Zeiss, which I like better than the Sigma, based on the test shot and the samples the guy linked to on Flickr? But wait, am I a Canonfag because I like Canon's 50/1.8 over the Nikkor 50/1.8? I'm confused right now.)
>> Anonymous
ZEISS IS DEAD! LONG LIVE SIGMA!
>> Anonymous
ZEISS - YOU GOT OWNED!!!!
>> Anonymous
oh lawd...

yes its up to you as to what lens/style you prefer, but honestly dont you see a problem with the fact that the zeiss looks like its had vaseline smeared over the front element? it just glows and lack border contrast on the finer details...

the only time i could see this being preferred for the portraiture you mentioned is for people with shitty skin who want it to look photoshopped smooth out of the camera...
>> Anonymous
>>205953

You can also apply the blur filter in Photoshop. I'd rather take as good image form the camera as it gets, and screw it up later, if needed...
>> Anonymous
ziess has been raped hard like a prison bitch by sigma's big dick
>> Anonymous
I for one welcome our new overlords. I hope they keep pumping out lenses as good as this and better.
>> Anonymous
And this is DG. This means it's full frame, is that correct?
>> Anonymous
>>206189
yes
>> Anonymous
>>205940

>> yes its up to you as to what lens/style you prefer, but honestly dont you see a problem with the fact that the zeiss looks like its had vaseline smeared over the front element? it just glows and lack border contrast on the finer details...

QFT
>> Anonymous
>>205936
Uhm, that IS a real world picture. I'm not sure what you call real world.
>> des
Just to play devil's advocate- I'd wager the zeiss looks that way because of internal reflections(ccd ccd lol). It can't possibly be that bad on film. I'd hope not for what it costs anyway.
I had a similar problem (and shmeary/flarey look) with my 28mm on digital. Was great on film.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>205864
Why does the sigma have a wider FOV?
>> Anonymous
>>206213

because no one else uses film lenses on digital lolololol
>> Anonymous
>>206221

because classic 50s are sometimes 50-55mm
>> des
>>206222
some lenses are fine and others are shit. internal reflections lololool
>> Anonymous
>>205915
>>Subjectively. I don't know how they test on MTFs

Simple, they lure them in with a free sex change and force them to take photos all day long with prototype lenses
>> Anonymous
What's the new sigma 50 gonna cost?
>> Anonymous
$120 MSRP
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>205953
No, the Zeiss doesn't look like that at all to me.

Lots of Sigma lenses tend to have this sort of straight punchiness, the thing I've seen it on the most is actually the sample image for the 20-40 on their website.

The Zeiss doesn't look to have as strong color transmission or global contrast, but it definitely looks like it has higher raw resolution. I usually prefer other approaches to sharpness, but lots of Sigma lenses just seem to have a too-bright look to them. (Not all, by any means.)

On color film, I'd bet the Sigma would give results with more pop, but on more flexible mediums (digital, which is what I and most people today shoot, and black and white negative film) the Zeiss could simply be bumped in Photoshop or printed in the darkroom with higher contrast.

I'm not on a calibrated monitor at the moment, so this still could end up looking off, but here's a quick adjustment on the Zeiss, with a crop for comparison of their resolution. I just moved the black slider in Levels more towards the center and bumped the saturation +6 on the Zeiss image. The Sigma is exactly as he put it up.

The crops are from the unedited versions. If you look closely, the fine edge detail of the metal bars and railroad tracks is rendered better on the Zeiss.
>> Anonymous
>>206406
Oh, and both of the images were seperately resized to 800 pixels wide, bicubic with no sharpening, before being put into this little display file. The Zeiss was processed before resizing.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>206406
>>206409
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
guys, the zeiss is optically inferior but i still like it better lol

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSIGMACamera ModelSIGMA SD14Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)85 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width2640Image Height1760Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:06:13 23:44:00Exposure Time1/4 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2640Image Height1760RenderingCustomExposure ModeAuto BracketWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardUnique Image ID30313030343137353FE252489EDEA245
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>206406
Congratulations, you've proven that it takes editting a crop from the Zeiss to compare it to the Sigma.

Also; Sigma still looks better lol. I don't see how a crop of the railroad tracks was supposed to prove your point, because the Sigma still looks superior.
I mean, jeez, if the Zeiss still looks better to you even with all of the comparison stuff proving otherwise, then you really don't have much of an eye for anything except big names.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
oh lawd, Sigma what have you done?

are you trying to pass off a 50mm f/1.2 as a 1.4?

77mm filter thread?

the Canon 50/1.2 is 590grams

the Sigma 50/1.4 is 520grams

and the Canon 50/1.4 is 290grams

lol
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>206437
The only problem with the Zeiss was a lack of contrast, something easily fixed in routine processing that every digital image should have.

Look at the different way they draw the picture, render fine details- that's what I'm talking about.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>206460
>>Look at the different way they draw the picture, render fine details- that's what I'm talking about.

Jesus, you're so pretentious. The Sigma "draws" a crisper image straight from the camera, the Zeiss achieves a less crisp image after processing. Render fine details? The Sigma wins again...

The Zeiss failed the test. Get over it.
>> Anonymous
>>206460Look at the different way they draw the picture, render fine details- that's what I'm talking about.

...

why don't you just say: I prefer the Zeiss even though it's optically inferior to the Sigma and that's my personal preference

say it, faggot
>> Anonymous
No matter what I think even the Zeiss supporter would agree that Sigma has done well here. It's actually worth considering in comparison to other similar lenses. Good job Sigma.
>> Anonymous
>>206430
holy shit. look at how clean the sigma is. zeiss is fucking shit.
>> Anonymous
>>206474
I prefer the Zeiss regardless of any technical advantage the Sigma may have at f/1.4; I havent seen any MTF charts or anything, but someone earlier in the thread reported that the Sigma wins at f/1.4 but the Zeiss is better stopped down.

I've made it clear from>>205915that I was talking preference:

>Subjectively. I don't know how they test on MTFs and don't really care.

And then I got jumped on by some people (duly) excited about a new lens who think liking one thing better means someone is trashing another thing.

Other things I've said:

>You're free to like the Sigma better. I like the Zeiss better.
>I don't think the Sigma 50 is a bad lens... but I do think the Zeiss looks better.

I'm discussing the lens on an aesthetic basis, not a technical one, which I really couldn't care less about. Hence why I cited some real-use pictures taken with the Zeiss of Flickr and not some test charts or test pictures.
>> Anonymous
>>206486
Yes, they have, assuming flare is well-controlled, bokeh is fine, etc. I even called it earlier in the thread "a good... lens." Just not to my taste. Which is what I have been saying all along.

I think, also, the lens isn't designed to be used so much as an all-purpose fifty like the lenses it's being compared to, but instead as a go-to low light lens for people who prefer zoom lenses, which max out at two stops slower. Hence why it's optimized for being wide open, like the Noctilux or the Noct-Nikkor. And for an affordable way to get a significant extra two stops for those people, if they like the lens, it's perfect.
>> Anonymous
>>206502
did you look at the night shots?
>> Anonymous
>>206506I even called it earlier in the thread "a good... lens." Just not to my taste.

so you prefer optically inferior lenses

gotcha
>> Anonymous
>>206529
0/10.

>>206512
Yeah, I did, and I don't know what's going on there. The Zeiss really does look like shit in that one. On the other hand, it looks awesome in every other shot I've seen by it. Lots of other shots outweigh one.
>> Anonymous
>> I prefer the Zeiss regardless of any technical advantage the Sigma may have at f/1.4
>> I prefer the Zeiss regardless of any technical advantage the Sigma may have at f/1.4
>> I prefer the Zeiss regardless of any technical advantage the Sigma may have at f/1.4
>> I prefer the Zeiss regardless of any technical advantage the Sigma may have at f/1.4
>> I prefer the Zeiss regardless of any technical advantage the Sigma may have at f/1.4
>> I prefer the Zeiss regardless of any technical advantage the Sigma may have at f/1.4
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I think it looks fan-fucking-tastic. Some guy posted sample shots and 100% crops if you're into those.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=28301575

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DPhotographerChristopher BrowneFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.0Owner NameChristopher BrowneSerial Number0510305335Image-Specific Properties:Image Width3504Image Height2336Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:06:16 10:34:16Exposure Time1/3200 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0.6 EVLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeCenter-WeightedSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeAI ServoDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation5Sensor ISO Speed192Image Number443-4308Color Matrix0
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
f/1.4

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DPhotographerChristopher BrowneFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.0Owner NameChristopher BrowneSerial Number0510305335Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2336Image Height3504Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:06:16 13:51:40Exposure Time1/1600 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0.6 EVLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModePartialSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeAI ServoDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation5Sensor ISO Speed224Image Number444-4431Color Matrix0
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
crop of the above
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
f/1.6

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DPhotographerChristopher BrowneFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.0Owner NameChristopher BrowneSerial Number0510305335Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2336Image Height3504Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:06:16 13:53:56Exposure Time1/320 secF-Numberf/1.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0.6 EVLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModePartialSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeAI ServoDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation5Sensor ISO Speed224Image Number444-4443Color Matrix0
>> Anonymous
zeiss = sigma's bitch
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>207145

crop of the above
>> Anonymous
>>207146
>>207146
>>207146
>>207146
lolwut?
>> Anonymous
>>207145
>>207147
>>207145
>>207144
>>207143
>>207142

To be honest these do seem a little bit oversharpened. But the top sample does support the notion that it's better than the Zeiss.

I wonder how well this lens renders bokeh.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSIGMACamera ModelSIGMA SD14Camera SoftwareSD14 1.07Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)87 mmSerial Number01004175Focal Length Range0Firmware VersionSD14 1.07.1.000 Mb131I MC1.1.8.8.0 Bb0.8.9.3064 BF0.8.9.3132 FP1.11.26.0 CAM0.3.00.0134Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:06:13 22:22:44Exposure Time1/4 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating50Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2640Image Height1760RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardUnique Image ID303130303431373534F3524805E36103Drive ModeUPResolutionHIAutofocus ModeMFFocus SettingMWhite BalanceAutoExposure ModeMMetering Mode8Exposure0Contrast0Shadow0Highlight0Saturation0Sharpness0Fill Light0Color Adjustment0Adjustment ModeAuto Setting ModeQualityFINEAuto Bracket0 of 0
>> Anonymous
>>207212I wonder how well this lens renders borkeh.

fix'd
>> Anonymous
>>207221
I'm going to start calling them out-of-focus point lights just because of you tasteless fuckers.
>> Anonymous
I wish this was as cheap as Canon's f/1.4. You don't get too much image improvement for the extra cost.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
oh hai guys, what's going on lol
>> Anonymous
>>207241
an ol' fashioned zeiss lynchin'
>> Anonymous
theres a definite difference between the zeiss and the sigma, and i have to agree that it comes down to ghosting etc.

that example 800px shot you posted does show similar levels of detail to the sigma, but its ruined by whites that look like theyre bleeding into the colours around them.
also the lack of saturation is rather annoying for me.

the night shot is a definite fuck up with the zeiss and it clearly shows the ghosting and internal reflections on being used with a digital sensor...
>> Anonymous
>>207241
Come and join the fun, buddy!
>> Anonymous
The "Zeissfag" (lol, no) here.

Looking at these samples, the Sigma is very, very nice, especially the bokeh. I still prefer the Zeiss, but this is definitely a very good lens.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>207263
>>I PREFER THE MORE PRESTIGIOUS BRAND NAMES SIMPLY FOR THEIR LABEL. I FEEL THE INFERIOR OPTICS ARE INHERENTLY SUPERIOR.

Whatever, though. You can like what you want.
>> Anonymous
>>207268
Goddammit, Sage, no, this isn't about brands. I don't know how to prove it to you, unless you want me to uselessly list off disreputable lenses I like and reputable ones I don't like, or you want to set up some blind test or whatnot.

Instead of assuming someone else is a retarded brandwhore, why won't you just allow for personal taste? What you're doing is similar to that guy in the flash thread saying you don't know anything about flashes just because you like available light.

Technical quality past a certain point just plain doesn't matter to pictures. Why do you think people still shoot Plus-X and Tri-X when Kodak has come out with T-Max, with lower grain and (IIRC) higher resolution? It's because T-Max has shitty tonality and Plus-X and Tri-X have good tonality. (Again, subjective opinion. I don't need to be getting into another fight with people who wub T-Max.)
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>207268
Jesus fuck Sage, you (and a few others) are making it impossible to be a decent tripfag around here.

Like>>207274said, "image quality" really doesn't matter anymore when it comes to lenses. It hasn't mattered for maybe fifty years now. The fact is, at the sizes most of /p/ is working at (not printing above 8x10, I'd guess), every modern SLR lens is going to give acceptable detail, so then you might as well choose lenses based on look. And>>207274prefers the "look" of the Zeiss over the Sigma in this case, even though the results may come out next month with the Sigma raping the Zeiss in MTF.

Resolution doesn't fucking matter. There is pretty much no such thing as "inferior optics" at this level.
>> Anonymous
>>207353
i dunno, i can clearly see differences between my photos shot with different lenses...
the 17-85, 18-55mkI, and 75-300MKIII were just fucking horrible which is obviously expected, however i expected better results from the sigma 24-70 2.8 i got :(
needless to say its primes all the way, and i still think it matters with newer optics VS old as i frequently find myself cropping, pano'ing etc which can be fairly hard on resolution...

on the other hand, as weve found in this thread, while the optics may not improve much, there has been a CLEAR advance in lens coatings in relation to use on digital.
i suspect this will be a huge advantage the sigma has over the aforementioned Zeiss, canon and nikon considering its well known they're old, OLD lenses and obviously coatings have changed.
this is clearly seen in this thread r.e Zeiss vs Sigma, and no doubt in the coming weeks with sig vs canikon etc...
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>207359
Well yeah shit can suck at 100% on your screen, but if you printed it out at < 8x10 or put it on Facebook (the most common uses of all the expensive camera gear /p/ is buying) I'm sure most people wouldn't mind.

I guess it's a matter of priorities. Do you want omfg best image quality, or do you want to save some cash while producing images that are acceptable for their intended use 99% of the time?
>> Anonymous
>>207364
well no, when i say i can see differences, i mean i can see differences at normal print sizes, ive got some a3's behind my computer that wouldnt look anywhere near as good from the aformentioned lenses ive had.
though honestly, i wouldnt be happy with any of those zeiss shots, its not even close to the canon which is no 5 star winner by any measure.

the other thing with new lenses is the other advancements. most notably between zeiss and sigma is the AF, or lack thereof on one of them lol
and of course the differences btw the sig and canon come down to a better build Q and better "real" HSM/USM as well, so its sorta a win win for me.

ITT : "LOLWUT A SENSIBLE DISCUSSION IN /P/!!!11!!1!"
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>207353
Thank you. Gawd it's annoying to deal with LOL OMGZ <Canon/Nikon/K-MSony/Pentax/Leica/Zeiss/Sigma/Tamron/Tokina> LENS ARE BETTAR THEN <Canon/Nikon/K-MSony/Pentax/Leica/Zeiss/Sigma/Tamron/Tokina!!1!!

Do consider, though, that while every modern lens on the planet looks nearly the fucking same at f/8, things like flare resistance, IQ wide open, and micro vs. macrocontrast do vary somewhat between lenses (specifically) and brands (generally).

I expect Leica/Zeiss/Canon L/high-end Nikkor glass to perform decently wide open, while I don't expect the same of consumer lenses of any stripe, or most third-party lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>207353Resolution doesn't fucking matter. There is pretty much no such thing as "inferior optics" at this level.

Why would you want optics from the 80s? I mean shit, it's nearly 2010, the distance we've come in terms of optical performance is astounding...

How the fuck can you disagree with that when it's quantifiably verifiable fact? The quality of the glass not to mention the construction of the lenses of now absolutely eats anything that came out of the 80s by a long way, and you'd be a fool for not accepting it. That's like saying Kevin Bacon wasn't in Footloose.

Psssh, fucking Johnny-come-latelys 'round these parts.
>> Anonymous
>>207378I expect Leica/Zeiss/Canon L/high-end Nikkor glass to perform decently wide open, while I don't expect the same of consumer lenses of any stripe, or most third-party lenses.

this third party lens is better than the zeiss
>> Anonymous
>>207507
>the distance we've come in terms of optical performance is astounding...
Not really. Almost all lens designs today are still based on 60 year-old formulae.
>> Anonymous
>>207507
You do realize that the longevity of an optical formula is generally taken as a sign of its quality? They haven't been updated because THEY DON'T NEED TO, they're technically fine and people like them aesthetically.