1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

sigma 50 f/1.4 vs zeiss 50 f/1.4

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by kwanying, Sep 15, 2008.

  1. kwanying


    Sep 15, 2008
  2. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Owned the Zeiss before and own the Sigma now. Both are great lenses, but obviously one is AF and the other MF. The bokeh on the Sigma is superior to the Zeiss, as is wide-open performance.
  3. Consistently the reports and reviews on the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 show it to be no better than some other 50mm lenses out there. Yes, it's got the classic Zeiss build but according to many members (Paul L being one of them), there is no advantage or prestige in owning the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4. The 50mm f/2, on the other hand is a completely different story.
  4. Romeo


    May 31, 2008
    TP, IL

    Former owner of Zeiss 50/1.4
  5. I'll chime in on that. A Nikkor 50 f/1.4 will serve you as well as the Zeiss 50 f/1.4. If you can live with once stop less the the Zeiss 50 f/2 is a fantastic lens and a Macro to boot!
  6. Even if the Zeiss was better I like AF. And I get older the AF on my camera is more accurate than my eyes. :frown:
  7. Well let me clarify my view on the Zeiss 50/1,4.

    Yes i dont see any clear advantage (optical) to own it compared to the makro planar from F/2 and up.

    However the ability to shoot at F/1,4 and lower price and weight is a factor that should play in for anyone considering the two. (slightly diffrent rendering, some would argue that the 50/1,4 is better suited for portraits)

    As for comparing it to the current Nikkor AF 50/1,4, it outperform it in every aspect from F/2 and up.(wide open its about the same as the rest in overall IQ) But most importantly the typical color and rendering that the Zeiss lineup inherit is present, and imo the biggest factor to pick the Zeiss over the Nikkor/Sigma.

    Iv also tested the Sigma 50/1,4 recently and the Zeiss 50/1,4 still is my first choice for a 50/1,4 prime regardless of AF or not. Actually testing the Sigma made me appreciate the ZF 50/1,4 more, and made me realise that very rarely do i benifit from using AF.

    So while it may not be any prestige to own the Zeiss 50/1,4 over the current Nikkor 50/1,4 AF or the Sigma 50/1,4 AF, its certainly is desirable for me, for the reasons mentioned above. Cause none of the mentioned 50/1,4 is superb @ F/1,4 (eventhough im perfectly content with the performance of my ZF50/1,4 wide open)

    Hope that makes it a little clearer :tongue:
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  8. V_kids


    Jul 4, 2006
    i also own ZF 50/1.4 and ZF 50/2 macro,
    I agree with paul, ZF 50/2 is not very suitable for portrait work. The bokeh from ZF 50/2 is very rough compare to the bokeh from ZF 50/1.4 (at @F2)
    I prefer to use zeiss 50/1.4 for daily use + portrait :) 

  9. Hi Andree, i must say that i actually prefer the rendering of the 50/2 as far as bokeh highlights goes. (more circular, and not as defined outlines) not a night and day diffrence but enough to be noticed imo.

    However i do find the rendering of the ZF 50/1,4 very pleasing wide open for portraits.
  10. gorbuchul

    gorbuchul Guest

    I sold my Nikon AF50/1.4 some weeks after I got the ZF50/1.4. I did not sell it for the money, I sold it because I realized, I would not use it anymore after seeing what the Zeiss delivered.

    Both lenses are just mediocre at f1.4 to me - compared to the definition they do from f2 and up and compared to what their 85mm brothers render at f1.4.

    Regarding the pictures shown at dpreview: Either there is something wrong with the example of the ZF50 used there or the pictures were taken freehand. From many night scenes I've seen from a fellow fotographer and the few I did myself, these pictures are not representative for the lens at f2.8. I would expect to see smeared lights in a night scene, when shot at f1.4.

    Kind regards,
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2008
  11. Sigma overexpose almost 2/3 of a stop, just like the Sigma 30/1,4 did (for me)

    Dosent really bother me since i mostly use such a lens in A mode anyway, so ev comp is a easy fix.

    Also the sigma dosent seem to be exactly 50mm, the fov is wider compared to all my other 50's.

    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2008
  12. Kwanying
    aside any tech consideration I can't do, I think that the sample posted on DPReview should have some real issue.
  13. kwanying


    Sep 15, 2008
    Thanks alot for the replies, I have ordered my zeiss f/1.4 should get it by next weeks. ^^
  14. bigshot


    Aug 17, 2008
    Hollywood, USA
    The best reason to own the Zeiss or Nikon over the Sigma is because you already own one. There's no reason to have to explain why you don't want to replace a perfectly good lens you already own for one that is just a little sharper and has a little better bokeh. Stop the Zeiss down to f2 and bump up the ISO a hair and you won't see any difference. The Sigma is the best choice for people who haven't bought a fast 50mm prime yet. It isn't worth eating hundreds of dollars on a lens you already own.

    For me, AF is a necessity, especially in a lens where focus is so critical.

    See ya
  15. That entirely depends on what you/want need in a lens, out of the two copies i tested of the sigma, neither of them was sharper then the Zeiss 50/1,4 @*F/1,4 and there really isnt any question wether or not the zeiss outperform the Sigma or the nikkor once you stop them down.

    Bokeh is indeed less prone to be nervous on the sigma then on either Nikon, Zeiss, Voigtländer. (wide open)
  16. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    strange on the fov...i've hear of this on other sigs as well
  17. Yes well i cant vouch for that my Zeiss 50's or my Nikkor is exactly 50mm, but the fov is pretty much the same on all of them. The sigma however is notcible wider for some reason.
  18. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    ya, no question about it, the sig is no doubt wider...quite a bit it seems:eek: 
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.