Zeiss or Sigma fast 50

Doctor Tunes

I'm looking at a couple of 50mm f1.4 lenses at the moment and am wondering if anyone on here has first hand experience of them or any opinions. I'm looking at the Zeiss Planar T https://photo-shop.zeiss.com/en/Products/1677-817
and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 http://www.keaphoto.com/shop.html?page=shop.product_details&category_id=22&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=407&vmcchk=1

I've heard something about focusing problems with the Sigma. Any info appreciated.

Arciphel

Is this for Nikon or Canon mount? Will you be shooting a lot in available light @f1.4? And isn't the Zeiss 50mm lens manual focus only?

Stephen

Am I right in thinking the Zeiss lens doesn't AF, and won't meter unless you've got a high-end camera? (at least the Nikon-mount variant anyway)

Ricky91t

Just get a canon 50mm f/1.4
If you're canon..

Mycroft H

Stephen wrote: »

Am I right in thinking the Zeiss lens doesn't AF, and won't meter unless you've got a high-end camera? (at least the Nikon-mount variant anyway)

Yes the zeiss is only mf for every mount except sony where they make auto focus ssm varients......


But you can be assured you will be getting the sharpest lens though - they'll be sharper then the canon l lenses imo

Arciphel

I would be amazed if the Zeiss lens is appreciably sharper than an equivalent Nikon/Canon 50mm f1.4 or 1.8 lens. Look here for some real examples rather than hear-say. Manual focus lenses are fine and all, but in the real world they will hold you back and you will miss shots you would get with an autofocus lens.

On the net, I see people saying things like "oooh, the Zeiss feels lovely" OR "IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HUNK OF METAL", people who in the same breath will say that a 50mm f1.8 lens made out of plastic from China can't be any good - who cares?

It's similar to people with Leica's oooh-ing and aaah-ing, they have such an almost religous devotion to the brand, and what they thing it represents, that they will see what they want to see. [:rolleyes: /rant]

DaireQuinlan

Amen to that. In real world terms, regardless of what both are like pixel peeping, there'll be little or no discernable difference between them. Besides which AFAIK all that 'zeiss' stuff is now made by Cosina anyway. Just get the Nikon AF or AFS and get out there and shoot (presuming we're talking nikon here) . Does that zeiss even meter on the lower end Nikon models ?

Mycroft H

You would still have ttl metering though?

Thirdfox

Speaking as someone who has migrated back to film from digital there is a simple joy to be had in manual exposure, manual focus, winding of film even. And while I have my digital slr for work, for specific things... manual cameras allow me to wander around and get more in touch with the photographic side (or even the process of photography). The thought that you can't instantly review every shot, you only have 36 chances... it's fun and interesting for me.

And there is something to be said for the construction of lenses/cameras of ages past. My FE and 50mm F2 does *feel* a lot better than my D40 and 18-55 (though I wouldn't hesitate in choosing the D40 for newspaper shoots).

It all depends on what you're getting the lens for - if you're going to be shooting gigs and sports, autofocus is highly recommended... Shooting landscapes and static objects, well manual will do just as well (especially if you have live-view/shooting on a digital camera).

Also - learning about f stops and reading the light isn't that difficult, and nowadays you have the benefit of the histrogram and instant review. The F/2 lens doesn't meter on my D40 but I can usually get it around to 1/3 of a stop and adjust after a quick review.

Hugh_C

Arciphel wrote: »

Manual focus lenses are fine and all, but in the real world they will hold you back and you will miss shots you would get with an autofocus lens.

Depends what you're shooting Archi, obviously, but I find my nifty fifty is a bit hit'n'miss AF-wise, and often I switch to manual focus. I guess I'm used to it since that's where I came from (film) so that being the case, I'd take the Zeiss any day.


H

Fajitas!

Meh.. My Zeiss 50mm Distagon dosn't impress me that much on 35mm or 120mm. I'd take my 350 quid AF Canon 1.4 over the 2000 quid lens any day. It's served me much more.

Doctor Tunes

I have a canon 5d I. I've had the canon 1.8 for a while and just want to upgrade it. Heard good things about the zeiss but then that was from a Leica geek who's a friend of mine. Find the 1.8 bit of a pain when focusing in low light. I want to use this mainly for gigs. The Zeiss is manual focus but the camera will tell you when it's focused correctly, for the most part.

Doctor Tunes

Fajitas! wrote: »

Meh.. My Zeiss 50mm Distagon dosn't impress me that much on 35mm or 120mm. I'd take my 350 quid AF Canon 1.4 over the 2000 quid lens any day. It's served me much more.

From Zeiss the lens is around €500 shipped, the canon 1.4 is €250 before shipping so I might just go with that one. I'll borrow it from a mate to check it out I think.

Arciphel

Doctor Tunes wrote: »

Heard good things about the zeiss but then that was from a Leica geek who's a friend of mine.

Ker-ching! :pac::pac::pac:

Don't think you will notice much of a difference in viewfinder brightness between the 1.8 and 1.4 though....