Robb Mann wrote:
Zeiss is planning a new range of high-resilution lenses designed specifically forbfull-frame cameras of 30mp+.

http://photorumors.com/2013/08/06/the-h … -the-year/

Sigma has been on a tear lately with their new 'art' and 'sport' lenses, which are drasticaly outperforming OEM glass by Canon, Nikon and Sony. 

So, have Sigma and Zeiss rendered OEM glass irrelevant? Can OEMs compete?

Strange days.

Sigma outperforms OEM like Canon and Nikon? First time I heard it.

Zeiss, may be? But I really doubt Sigma has.

Robb Mann wrote:
Zeiss is planning a new range of high-resilution lenses designed specifically forbfull-frame cameras of 30mp+.

http://photorumors.com/2013/08/06/the-h … -the-year/

Sigma has been on a tear lately with their new 'art' and 'sport' lenses, which are drasticaly outperforming OEM glass by Canon, Nikon and Sony. 

So, have Sigma and Zeiss rendered OEM glass irrelevant? Can OEMs compete?

Strange days.

The way I see it, it is a win win for us consumers.  If Zeiss makes extremely sharp lenses, then OEM would have to step up.  If Sigma make extremely sharp lenes, OEM would have to step up.. If Zeiss and Sigma both perform almost the same and Sigma is 1/3 or even 1/5 the price?  Zeiss would have to do something about it even more..

   Let those guys compete, it is win/win for us all....

Chuckarelei wrote:
Sigma outperforms OEM like Canon and Nikon? First time I heard it.

Zeiss, may be? But I really doubt Sigma has.

Then you would be wrong.  Sigma targeted the OEMs much neglected prime lens (specific ones) and created a much better product.  Now that isn't saying they will beat the latest 24-70L lens but their 35 and 50 are better than what Canon had.

As far as competitors, sure they always have been.  Every product faces that, it doesn't matter if there is a quality difference or price difference.  Even more so now during this depression; they are all fighting for camera buyers dollars.  Some may be unwilling to spend as much as they used to or not at all unless you really entice them.

Sure "logo buyers" will always be around to buy high end products, but that is a small part of any market.

Chuckarelei wrote:
Sigma outperforms OEM like Canon and Nikon? First time I heard it.

Zeiss, may be? But I really doubt Sigma has.

Sigma 35mm 1.4 "Art" series is awesome.. It is even better than Nikkor's 35mm f1.4.  Canon's 35mm f1.4L is worse.. And yet the sigma is cheapest..


Not to mention the new Sigma's USB docking.

ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote:
Sigma 35mm 1.4 "Art" series is awesome.. It is even better than Nikkor's 35mm f1.4.

I didn't think so after I watched this:

http://www.thatnikonguy.com/gear-talk/i … y-all-that

de0rbit wrote:

I didn't think so after I watched this:

http://www.thatnikonguy.com/gear-talk/i … y-all-that

It is the first negative review Ive seen of it. Im suspicious of his testing methods, particularly the final series of images in which the Sig was obviously OOF. Im guessing he went negative with his review because he was late to review the lens and had to do something to stand out from the crowd. It was also pretty weak to compare a fast prime to a standard zoom, the Sig is best at 35 f1.4, comparing it to a 24-70 really makes little sense.

Chuckarelei wrote:
Sigma outperforms OEM like Canon and Nikon? First time I heard it.

Zeiss, may be? But I really doubt Sigma has.

Sigma 50/1.4 is very significantly better than the Canon 50/1.4.

First time I've bought a non-Canon lens for about 20 years.
I shouldn't have needed to.

Photos by Lorrin wrote:
Zeiss's only problem for me beside price is that they do not auto focus.

And thing thing that killed the Contax line of cameras (is that the Zeiss lenses on them didn't focus at all. The lens was stationery, and the film plane moved in and out. Hard to do with a chip though.

Photos by Lorrin wrote:
Zeiss's only problem for me beside price is that they do not auto focus.

I have no trouble using manual focus.

Robb Mann wrote:
Zeiss is planning a new range of high-resolution lenses designed specifically for full-frame cameras of 30mp+. ....

Something bothers me about that Zeiss statement.  So what were they producing before high-resolution?  Low-resolution lenses being made and sold as "Good enough?"

I really never got behind Zeiss lenses as I used to work on microscopes made by them for a couple of decades.  Their mechanics were fine, probably the best out there, but if you were to look through a Nikon microscope and a Zeiss, the Nikon always won for sharpness and contrast on slides.  I don't know if Zeiss sat around on their name and Nikon took off on optics or what.

Same for Schneider back when they were being billed as the "Best enlarging lenses out there" (i.e. Componon).  I never owned a sharp one even though Ansel Adams like them, but he was printing large format and not enlarging much from 35mm so it wasn't a big magnification push for his lenses.  Mine were always a bit soft, imho.

Robb Mann wrote:
Zeiss is planning a new range of high-resilution lenses designed specifically forbfull-frame cameras of 30mp+.

Sigma has been on a tear lately with their new 'art' and 'sport' lenses, which are drasticaly outperforming OEM glass by Canon, Nikon and Sony. 

So, have Sigma and Zeiss rendered OEM glass irrelevant? Can OEMs compete?

I've never heard that Sigma outperforms Canon or Nikon lenses.

As for Zeiss lenses, they are in a different league of their own, having used Canon, Sigma, Tokina Pro, and Zeiss lenses on my cameras.  But who knows, it could happen some day, but who would buy a Sigma lens for their own Hassleblad or Rollieflex?

Robb Mann wrote:
Zeiss is planning a new range of high-resilution lenses designed specifically forbfull-frame cameras of 30mp+.

http://photorumors.com/2013/08/06/the-h … -the-year/

Sigma has been on a tear lately with their new 'art' and 'sport' lenses, which are drasticaly outperforming OEM glass by Canon, Nikon and Sony. 

So, have Sigma and Zeiss rendered OEM glass irrelevant? Can OEMs compete?

Strange days.

Wait, Sigma outperform Zeiss?  Riiiiiiiiigggghhhhtttt and if you believe that one, I have some beachfront property in Arizona that I'm dying to sell you.

de0rbit wrote:
I didn't think so after I watched this:

http://www.thatnikonguy.com/gear-talk/i … y-all-that

Wasn't that harsh he just feels it's over-hyped. I would have liked to see it tested against a 35mm Nikon or Canon lens not the 24-70 zoom and by someone who actually wants and knows what a 35mm 1.4 would be used for. Shooting landscape wide open is not one of them. I know my copy has better center sharpness than any other lens I own. The hype is based on quality/price and within that context the hype is well deserved..

TheStarvingArtist wrote:
How can you even compare a sigma to a Zeiss?

I think they have their own unique sellings points and the camera manufacturers are likely feeling pressure from both fronts. I don't think the original post was meant to be a direct comparison.

The Sigma 35m Art is no slouch and my need to have autofocus and quality at a good price point made it a no brainer. First Sigma that I have liked.

Ruben Sanchez wrote:
But who knows, it could happen some day, but who would buy a Sigma lens for their own Hassleblad or Rollieflex?

Those that buy Cosina lenses for their Leica M's, maybe.

Cool Hand Mike wrote:
Very happy that Sigma and Zeiss are putting pressure on the OEMs.

Sigma's 35mm 1.4 is on my wish list (full frame is next large purchase though).

Zeiss' aren't a reality for me based on the manual focus and the price ( if I switch to Sony where they Auto Focus I'd probably be on their staples : 24-70 2.8, 85 1.4, etc.).

I'm a Sony shooter and other than the CZ 135 f/1.8 few of the Zeiss lenses for Sony *seem* to justify the price, at least based on the reviews I've read.  The 85mm f1/4 gets great reviews but it doesn't seem to justify being 4-5 times more than the cheaper Sony made 85 f/2.8. 

Maybe I'm reading the wrong reviews but as a Sony owner and someone who's itching to get his feet wet with some of these high dollar, specialty lenses, I'm looking at Sigma and not Zeiss.  I like the CZ 135, though, but not the near $2,000 price tag.

I want to buy the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8  and I could afford that one, I just haven't figured out what I would do with it.

Robb Mann wrote:

It is the first negative review Ive seen of it. Im suspicious of his testing methods, particularly the final series of images in which the Sig was obviously OOF. Im guessing he went negative with his review because he was late to review the lens and had to do something to stand out from the crowd. It was also pretty weak to compare a fast prime to a standard zoom, the Sig is best at 35 f1.4, comparing it to a 24-70 really makes little sense.

I found his report to be pretty good and to assume the image is OOF as opposed to aberration  is a big assumption and that at F8 he suddenly discovered how to focus it. He says the lens is well made and a good value, just overhyped. Comparing it to a zoom is IMO not weak as if the lens is half as good as it is hyped to be it should blow the zoom out of the water as all the "internet experts" "KNOW" that primes are better than zooms.

Years ago I was a guest of Leica for a special edition of their Leica Schule (School) for dealers. Everyone attending was either a camera store owner, GM or in the case of the big NYC stores a senior sales person. One day was spent in the Optics lab where we watched how they tested lenses. On that day they were testing a Sigma 28mm and we were all shocked that they would test a Sigma as, well they did not have a good reputation. The reason was that Germany's biggest photo magazine rated it better than Leica's at one fifth the price. Now this test involved projecting a test pattern thru the lens to 8x 12 FEET and measuring for sharpness and contrast in both static and by rotating on its optical axis. In the static test the contrast and sharpness fall off was obvious to the naked eye. When rotated the pattern had an elliptical arc. They then shifted to their lens, which they admitted was one of there poorer designs and they were working to make it better. The contrast and sharpness, to the human eye, appeared the same from center to corners and they skipped the static test and there was no movement at all in the image as the lens rotated. The explanation was that the Sigma lens was not a good design and it was not well made (the reason for the shift during rotation was a loose element). Was it a good lens for the money? Yes. but BETTER than Nikon or Canon. I doubt that, maybe almost as good as and a better value for most.

Sigma's problem in the past was quality control, they din not have any, and now it seems that they are making it a priority and with 34 and 36MP cameras (and presumably higher coming someday) they need good QC to stay in business

Most lens tests, even when done by people who know what they are doing, are somewhat subjective and on the internet that is highly influenced by price. Even when reviews are from experience photographers they are subjective and in the end few of us photography test charts.

Would I buy this lens? Possibly as I normally have no use for a 35 no less a fast one and I am sure I could not justify the Nikon/ Canon price difference of $1000.

TheStarvingArtist wrote:
How can you even compare a sigma to a Zeiss?

The OP didn't. He said that certain lenses from BOTH companies may be outperforming OEM glass.

Hugh Alison wrote:

Sigma 50/1.4 is very significantly better than the Canon 50/1.4.

First time I've bought a non-Canon lens for about 20 years.
I shouldn't have needed to.

Let's not forget the Sigma 15-30 !!!!!! BAM! Now there's a lens that IMHO compares to L glass! Yeah, it's a lil slow, but I'll sacrifice that speed, or lack thereof, for the quality that lens puts out for me .. time after time .. after time!

Chuckarelei wrote:

Sigma outperforms OEM like Canon and Nikon? First time I heard it.

Zeiss, may be? But I really doubt Sigma has.

First time?  WHere have you been?  Guess you didn't keep an eye on the Sigma 35 thread here.  The new Sigma's (35 and 85) are amazing and beat out Canon on quality and cost in comparison.

Untitled Photographer wrote:
I'm a Sony shooter and other than the CZ 135 f/1.8 few of the Zeiss lenses for Sony *seem* to justify the price, at least based on the reviews I've read.  The 85mm f1/4 gets great reviews but it doesn't seem to justify being 4-5 times more than the cheaper Sony made 85 f/2.8. 

Maybe I'm reading the wrong reviews but as a Sony owner and someone who's itching to get his feet wet with some of these high dollar, specialty lenses, I'm looking at Sigma and not Zeiss.  I like the CZ 135, though, but not the near $2,000 price tag.

Start renting some of those high dollar lenses so you get more a feel for them instead of just reading about them

Honestly I'd probably go Sony or 3rd party 28-75 2.8 I think I saw for ~$400-600. I'd test out the CZ 85/1.4 and compare that against the older Minolta 85/1.4 and 100/2.
CZ 135/1.8 is good and I'd have to rent the 135 STF Bokeh lens just because its a specialty. Sigma 35/1.4 fits nicely in the group as well.

Digitoxin wrote:

The OP didn't. He said that certain lenses from BOTH companies may be outperforming OEM glass.

Yep. The Zeiss glass in question is still under development, and hasnt been reviewed by anyone yet, but according to their PR hype it is all that.

Robb Mann wrote:
And more reasons to love Sigma? I bought my 35 f1.4 on July 4th, 2013. On Aug 1st 2013 Sigma announced that all their lenses bought after July 1st 2013 were covered by a new 4-year warranty, superceeding the 1-year warranty it had when I bought it. Nice.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma … ra-systems

Nice. I bought mine in May....

R.EYE.R wrote:

Nice. I bought mine in May....

Id call 'em and ask for an extension.

Robb Mann wrote:
And more reasons to love Sigma? I bought my 35 f1.4 on July 4th, 2013. On Aug 1st 2013 Sigma announced that all their lenses bought after July 1st 2013 were covered by a new 4-year warranty, superceeding the 1-year warranty it had when I bought it. Nice.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma … ra-systems

Whew!  I got mine July 10th

Digitoxin wrote:
I have read a number of reviews that feel that the sigma 35 1.4 art lens is a superior lens that is at, or above, the canon 35 L.

I am thrilled that sigma and Zeiss seem to be ratcheting up the pressure on the big boys.  It is good for us consumers.

Having owned the Canon 35 and now the Sigma 35- yes it does outperform the Canon.