November 20, 2017, 07:08:53 AM

Author Topic: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon  (Read 22449 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2014, 02:48:30 AM »
But but what about the people who want a good quality 50mm and are willing to pay appropriate money?

And don't you think lots of people will buy the Sigma?

Canon DOES have the 50/1.2 lens. You can't deny the quality of that lens, despite it's spherical aberration, which as it so happens to be, is a DESIRABLE trait in a portrait lens for many photographers. Not everyone screams for perfect corner to corner sharpness. Sometimes, having soft corners is beneficial to guiding your viewers eyes to the subject...which tends to be near the center of the frame.

I've always admired photos taken with the Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses. They have a specific aesthetic appeal that is just WONDERFUL for portraiture specifically, and for a variety of other types of photography as well (such as street.) I find it ironic how so many people write off the Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses as if they don't even qualify to be included in the lineup for comparison.

So, what about the people who want quality? Canon offers a VERY high quality 50/1.2 lens that offers STUNNING and very aesthetically appealing results. You should give it a try sometime. Oh, and you'll spend about half as much on that as you would on an Otus...you won't get razor sharp corners, but it's HALF as much as an Otus.

So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?

I'm sure a lot of people would. I'm also sure that a lot of the people who currently love the soft-focus traits of the current 50/1.2 would be bummed if Canon copied the Otus design with razor sharp focus corner to corner. It's better to have a DIVERSITY of lenses with different traits, than for all manufacturers to make exactly the same things that behave exactly the same way.

I think the center performance of the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 needs to be improved...in the grand scheme of things, it's a bit soft, and doesn't need to be. I do, however, hope Canon keeps the soft focus traits in place if they release a 50/1.2 II and 85/1.2 II. If I want a lens with perfect sharpness, I can always get the Otus...if Canon copies the Otus, then I'm suddenly left WITHOUT the option of buying a lens that purposely leaves in a certain amount of spherical aberration for artistic flare.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2014, 02:48:30 AM »

Eldar

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3213
    • Flickr
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2014, 02:57:00 AM »
To some extent it is good to see that the $3k extra for the Otus is giving something. But from a sharpness perspective, the Sigma looks good and I am really looking forward to get my hands on it to verify how it performs. But sharpness is only one aspect though.

My 35 Art´s AF is drifting again (a third AFMA with Focal showed a further 4 step adjustment, on top of the 7 steps I got between the one I did when I got it and Christmas), so I must admit I am a bit skeptical to that part of sigma. But since so many are happy with it, I hope my AF problem is a one-off.

I do however agree with jrista regarding the 50L. The 35L and 85L are pretty much in the same boat. Chart porn reviews will rule them out, but looking at the quality images they produce in the right hands makes it very difficult to discard them as inferior lenses. I would hope Canon could update them optically and throw in IS. If they could keep the size and weight on the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L about where it is, they would be very interesting alternatives. The Otus is a big chunk to carry and a manual one on top of that, so you think twice before you throw it in the bag for a trip.
More equipment than skills, but everything is used :)
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/eldarhauge/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/eldarhaugephotography

sanj

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2897
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2014, 03:08:01 AM »
I totally doubt that Canon makes lenses with soft edges on purpose. I think the soft edges are a result of technology limitations and cost saving.

sagittariansrock

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1689
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2014, 03:09:36 AM »
My 35 Art´s AF is drifting again (a third AFMA with Focal showed a further 4 step adjustment, on top of the 7 steps I got between the one I did when I got it and Christmas), so I must admit I am a bit skeptical to that part of sigma. But since so many are happy with it, I hope my AF problem is a one-off.


I have a technical query here:

As far as I understand, the purpose of AFMA is not to 'fix' defective lenses, but calibrate a specified lens to a given camera to account for manufacturing tolerances.
Once the AFMA is done, the camera knows how much to compensate for this lens, and everything is hunky-dory.

But in what condition can AFMA drift as is happening in Eldar's case? Is it because something is moving within the lens and a gap is getting bigger or a cog is becoming more loose?

I am particularly interested since I just acquired a 35A (so far it looks like it is focusing right on target as shown below- spot focused on "6" using a peripheral point and center point respectively), I haven't run it through FoCal yet.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2014, 03:16:34 AM by sagittariansrock »
EOS 5DIII, EOS 6D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 85mm f/1.2L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

Eldar

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3213
    • Flickr
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2014, 03:57:06 AM »
My 35 Art´s AF is drifting again (a third AFMA with Focal showed a further 4 step adjustment, on top of the 7 steps I got between the one I did when I got it and Christmas), so I must admit I am a bit skeptical to that part of sigma. But since so many are happy with it, I hope my AF problem is a one-off.


I have a technical query here:

As far as I understand, the purpose of AFMA is not to 'fix' defective lenses, but calibrate a specified lens to a given camera to account for manufacturing tolerances.
Once the AFMA is done, the camera knows how much to compensate for this lens, and everything is hunky-dory.

But in what condition can AFMA drift as is happening in Eldar's case? Is it because something is moving within the lens and a gap is getting bigger or a cog is becoming more loose?

I am particularly interested since I just acquired a 35A (so far it looks like it is focusing right on target as shown below- spot focused on "6" using a peripheral point and center point respectively), I haven't run it through FoCal yet.
To be fair with Sigma, I will return it to service and see what they come up with. It might be an issue with this specific copy.
More equipment than skills, but everything is used :)
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/eldarhauge/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/eldarhaugephotography

sanj

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2897
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2014, 06:23:03 AM »
But but what about the people who want a good quality 50mm and are willing to pay appropriate money?

And don't you think lots of people will buy the Sigma?

Canon DOES have the 50/1.2 lens. You can't deny the quality of that lens, despite it's spherical aberration, which as it so happens to be, is a DESIRABLE trait in a portrait lens for many photographers. Not everyone screams for perfect corner to corner sharpness. Sometimes, having soft corners is beneficial to guiding your viewers eyes to the subject...which tends to be near the center of the frame.

I've always admired photos taken with the Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses. They have a specific aesthetic appeal that is just WONDERFUL for portraiture specifically, and for a variety of other types of photography as well (such as street.) I find it ironic how so many people write off the Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses as if they don't even qualify to be included in the lineup for comparison.

So, what about the people who want quality? Canon offers a VERY high quality 50/1.2 lens that offers STUNNING and very aesthetically appealing results. You should give it a try sometime. Oh, and you'll spend about half as much on that as you would on an Otus...you won't get razor sharp corners, but it's HALF as much as an Otus.

So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?

I'm sure a lot of people would. I'm also sure that a lot of the people who currently love the soft-focus traits of the current 50/1.2 would be bummed if Canon copied the Otus design with razor sharp focus corner to corner. It's better to have a DIVERSITY of lenses with different traits, than for all manufacturers to make exactly the same things that behave exactly the same way.

I think the center performance of the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 needs to be improved...in the grand scheme of things, it's a bit soft, and doesn't need to be. I do, however, hope Canon keeps the soft focus traits in place if they release a 50/1.2 II and 85/1.2 II. If I want a lens with perfect sharpness, I can always get the Otus...if Canon copies the Otus, then I'm suddenly left WITHOUT the option of buying a lens that purposely leaves in a certain amount of spherical aberration for artistic flare.

I'm pretty sure that you can introduce spherical aberration through plugins or other software components if you really so desire. What you can't do is correct for poor image quality at capture time.

Anyway, in the main the comments above about justifying Canon's current design and product are more about trying to ensure that people who worship Canon find a way to present Canon's offering as good and justified so that they feel good about owning Canon products. That's it. I'm sure someone will argue here that this comment is wrong, but you don't see anyone saying that they wish the 70-200/2.8 II had soft focus like the 50/1.2L and so on.

Absolutely Dilbert. Perfectly said. Every word.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21762
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2014, 07:27:46 AM »
I totally doubt that Canon makes lenses with soft edges on purpose. I think the soft edges are a result of technology limitations and cost saving.

In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon.


I'm pretty sure that you can introduce spherical aberration through plugins or other software components if you really so desire. What you can't do is correct for poor image quality at capture time.

There are polarization effect filters for post-processing, but they cannot properly replicate the effects of having a CPL on your lens at capture.  Similarly, adding spherical aberration in post will not correct for poor bokeh in the captured image. 


Anyway, in the main the comments above about justifying Canon's current design and product are more about trying to ensure that people who worship Canon find a way to present Canon's offering as good and justified so that they feel good about owning Canon products. That's it. I'm sure someone will argue here that this comment is wrong...

Comments like the above are mainly about bashing Canon, made by people who have an inadequate grasp of the concepts behind lens design (and in one case, the inability to distinguish a lens from a camera). 


...but you don't see anyone saying that they wish the 70-200/2.8 II had soft focus like the 50/1.2L and so on.

Not in those words, no.  But plenty of people have said that they prefer the bokeh of the MkI versions of the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 IS, or at least acknowledged the less-that-stellar bokeh of the MkII versions.  When push comes to shove, they may not want to trade sharpness for better bokeh, but I suspect many people aren't even aware of the trade-off. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2014, 07:27:46 AM »

Random Orbits

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1946
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2014, 08:46:16 AM »
Confirmation bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
".. is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses."

Personally I'd love for the Canon 50/1.4 to be better than the Sigma 50/1.4 Art because then I wouldn't need to carry around the Sigma lens, but I simply can't justify that thinking given the results that have been presented. Same with the 50/1.2L.

I can't wait for the Sigma 50/1.4 Art to be tested by DxO and for it to wipe the floor with the 50/1.2L. I can already see the posts from those with Red Ring Fever putting down DxO, etc. What a laugh that will be to see.

Yes, but seeing schadenfreude in action can be just as ugly.

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3446
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2014, 09:05:20 AM »
I'm pretty sure that you can introduce spherical aberration through plugins or other software components if you really so desire. What you can't do is correct for poor image quality at capture time.

There are polarization effect filters for post-processing, but they cannot properly replicate the effects of having a CPL on your lens at capture.  Similarly, adding spherical aberration in post will not correct for poor bokeh in the captured image. 

I'll just point out that I didn't mention polarization or bokeh, so I'll take your dalliance off topic as an indication that I was on the money but you can't admit it :)

Quote
Anyway, in the main the comments above about justifying Canon's current design and product are more about trying to ensure that people who worship Canon find a way to present Canon's offering as good and justified so that they feel good about owning Canon products. That's it. I'm sure someone will argue here that this comment is wrong...

Comments like the above are mainly about bashing Canon, made by people who have an inadequate grasp of the concepts behind lens design (and in one case, the inability to distinguish a lens from a camera). 

No. The problem that we're seeing here is something called "confirmation bias", where people find any reason at all to support the idea that the Canon 50/1.2L is better. The "in one case" comment is simply someone's inability to move on, which is a rather sad reflection of said person.

Confirmation bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
".. is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses."

Personally I'd love for the Canon 50/1.4 to be better than the Sigma 50/1.4 Art because then I wouldn't need to carry around the Sigma lens, but I simply can't justify that thinking given the results that have been presented. Same with the 50/1.2L.

I can't wait for the Sigma 50/1.4 Art to be tested by DxO and for it to wipe the floor with the 50/1.2L. I can already see the posts from those with Red Ring Fever putting down DxO, etc. What a laugh that will be to see.

Hmmm.......hardly fair. The 50 L is a niche lens designed for a very specific purpose. It was never intended to be a GP standard lens. The comments made against it are very much in the 'test chart specialists vs specialist practical users'. However because of the extremes in construction and pricing between the 50L and the 50 f1.4, the former is often misinterpreted as the 'high - end option', and to correct this Canon should introduce a better constructed, higher end 50mm than the 50 f1.4 to fill the gap. ( 50/1.8 IS perhaps).

The new Sigma and Otus should be seen as a different to the 50L.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21762
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2014, 09:21:22 AM »
I'm pretty sure that you can introduce spherical aberration through plugins or other software components if you really so desire. What you can't do is correct for poor image quality at capture time.
There are polarization effect filters for post-processing, but they cannot properly replicate the effects of having a CPL on your lens at capture.  Similarly, adding spherical aberration in post will not correct for poor bokeh in the captured image. 
I'll just point out that I didn't mention polarization or bokeh, so I'll take your dalliance off topic as an indication that I was on the money but you can't admit it
Wrong again (or perhaps that should be, wrong as usual).  Obviously, you don't comprehend the relationship between spherical aberration and bokeh, and the analogy of polarization failed to enlighten you.  You're no more correct in this case then when you thought a lens was a camera, although I must say that was a particularly egregious example of your ability to totally miss the point.  Frankly, you have made dozens of similar, if less colossal, factual mistakes in this forum, and your credibility is basically nil.


No. The problem that we're seeing here is something called "confirmation bias", where people find any reason at all to support the idea that the Canon 50/1.2L is better.
Again you miss the point.  Is anyone saying the 50/1.2L is sharper?  Not that I've seen.  If you want to define "better" as sharpest, that's a judgement by you. 

The problem that we're seeing here is something called "false-consensus effect," where people believe that everyone's definition of 'better' or 'best' is the same as their own, personal definition.

False-consensus effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect
"...a cognitive bias whereby a person tends to overestimate the extent to which their beliefs or opinions are typical of those of others."


I can't wait for the Sigma 50/1.4 Art to be tested by DxO and for it to wipe the floor with the 50/1.2L. I can already see the posts from those with Red Ring Fever putting down DxO, etc. What a laugh that will be to see.
DxO already generates plenty of laughs with their Lens Scores.  Is the EF 100mm f/2 really Canon's best lens?  Is the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II really worse than the MkI version it replaced?
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

sanj

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2897
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2014, 09:46:21 AM »
"In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon."

Neuro could you please guide me where I could read more about this? Find this so difficult to believe. Thx.

sanj

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2897
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2014, 11:12:21 AM »
"In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon."

Neuro could you please guide me where I could read more about this? Find this so difficult to believe. Thx.

In the press release Canon state that their target market is portraits, etc, which accounts for weak corner sharpness.

Hmmmm. Ok.
But they do not provide a sharp lens to people who want to shoot sharp portraits and sharp landscapes and sharp street and sharp journalism photos at wide apertures?

Are there not many uses to a sharp 50mm lens at wide f stop?

This is just not going down well with me. Am not being obstinate but find this logic incomprehensible.


jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2014, 11:28:55 AM »
"In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon."

Neuro could you please guide me where I could read more about this? Find this so difficult to believe. Thx.

In the press release Canon state that their target market is portraits, etc, which accounts for weak corner sharpness.

Hmmmm. Ok.
But they do not provide a sharp lens to people who want to shoot sharp portraits and sharp landscapes and sharp street and sharp journalism photos at wide apertures?

Are there not many uses to a sharp 50mm lens at wide f stop?

This is just not going down well with me. Am not being obstinate but find this logic incomprehensible.

I'm curious why Canon HAS to make such a lens. Do you think Canon could do it cheaper than Zeiss, and that's why you want Canon to make one? There are SIGNIFICANT difficulties in making a lens sharp, corner to corner, at f/1.2. It would be EXTREMELY difficult to do so. It is even difficult to do it at f/1.4, which is clearly evident by the $4000 price tag the Otus has.

Why is it that you can't simply be satisfied with the fact that Zeiss has offered the exact kind of lens you want? Too expensive? If Canon made something similar, it wouldn't be any cheaper. If they made and f/1.2 version of the Otus, it would likely be significantly more expensive.

As for the rest of Canon's 50mm lenses, the 1.8 and 1.4 are VERY old lens designs, and the 50/1.2 is even getting a little dated. They were designed and built in an era where sensor resolution was lower than it is today. Canon surely has updates in the pipeline, and I'm sure when those new lenses hit the street, they will be competitive. Whether Canon chooses to compete with the Otus, or with the Sigmas of the world, is yet to be seen...but I would bet money that Canon ignores the Otus and sticks with what will sell in massive amounts: Something cost effective and affordable.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2014, 11:28:55 AM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2014, 11:38:05 AM »
I'm pretty sure that you can introduce spherical aberration through plugins or other software components if you really so desire. What you can't do is correct for poor image quality at capture time.

Actually, spherical aberration is an effect in three dimensional space. You can simulate some aspects of soft focus in post, however those effects never fully replicate a TRUE soft focus. Neither can you change the nature of boke blur circles in post. Blur circles created by a lens with spherical aberration have a very specific aesthetic (brighter outer ring, with a clear spherical gradient to the center...it's a highly desirable trait for many photographers and cinematographers.)

The aesthetic effect caused by a lens with spherical aberration is not one that can be fully or easily replicated artificially in post. You can approximate some aspects of it, but for someone who likes the effect, those approximations NEVER measure up, and it is always obvious when it is a post-processed effect vs. a real optical effect.

Anyway, in the main the comments above about justifying Canon's current design and product are more about trying to ensure that people who worship Canon find a way to present Canon's offering as good and justified so that they feel good about owning Canon products. That's it. I'm sure someone will argue here that this comment is wrong, but you don't see anyone saying that they wish the 70-200/2.8 II had soft focus like the 50/1.2L and so on.

It has nothing to do with justifying or worshiping Canon. Your assuming something, then using your assumption to put words in peoples mouths as an attempt to win an argument. That's kind of you staple there, Dilbert. :P Why not try to put up a legitimate argument sometime, eh?

It simply has to do with exposing people to opinions other than their own. There is more than one way to design a lens, and there are reasons for designing lenses differently.  I honestly do not think it would be good for every 50mm lens on the market to have exactly the same specs, offer the same exact IQ, produce the same aesthetic. It's better to have a diversity of options, because not everyone photographs the same things in the same ways that you do.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2014, 11:50:25 AM by jrista »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2014, 11:45:19 AM »
My 35 Art´s AF is drifting again (a third AFMA with Focal showed a further 4 step adjustment, on top of the 7 steps I got between the one I did when I got it and Christmas), so I must admit I am a bit skeptical to that part of sigma. But since so many are happy with it, I hope my AF problem is a one-off.


I have a technical query here:

As far as I understand, the purpose of AFMA is not to 'fix' defective lenses, but calibrate a specified lens to a given camera to account for manufacturing tolerances.
Once the AFMA is done, the camera knows how much to compensate for this lens, and everything is hunky-dory.

But in what condition can AFMA drift as is happening in Eldar's case? Is it because something is moving within the lens and a gap is getting bigger or a cog is becoming more loose?

I am particularly interested since I just acquired a 35A (so far it looks like it is focusing right on target as shown below- spot focused on "6" using a peripheral point and center point respectively), I haven't run it through FoCal yet.

AFMA is purely a camera body firmware thing. It only reconfigures the body, it does nothing with the lens. Drift is a pretty odd thing, but I'd like to know more. Spherical aberration can result in the focal plane shifting when you stop down or open up. Since lenses usually focus wide open, then stop down for the shot, spherical aberration can result in your focal plane ending up in an unexpected place.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 and Canon DSLR bodies include firmware that compensates for this. There is a known component of spherical aberration in that lens (by explicit design), so the focus shift caused by it can be mathematically compensated for. When you have your aperture setting tighter than f/1.2, the firmware will focus the lens with a compensation shift to ensure that once stopped down, the focal plane is where you want it to be.

If the Art 35 has some spherical aberration, it is highly unlikely that such a focus shift is compensated for. That would require paired firmware between the lens and body. Assuming that is actually the problem. If the focal plane is shifting at the same aperture, then that is a different problem, and likely due to the lens, rather than the body.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2014, 11:45:19 AM »