Carl zeiss f1.4 50mm vs nikon 50mm f1.4

A lot of it would depend on whether you wanted it to AF or not. The Carl Zeiss lenses are manual focus.
 
I'd get the Sigma (OTUS!) Art 50 1.4
 
Choice here really is autofocus vs build quality. I think the difference in IQ is negligible. I tried both and went for the Nikon.
 
another vote for the Sigma - I'll be replacing my Nikon with one later in the year
 
I had the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 on the D800, I wouldn't rate it as one of the best Zeiss lenses. The Zeiss 50mm f/2 is the 50mm you want if you are buying a Zeiss at 50mm. The Nikon or Sigma are both worth considering if you need autofocus.
 
remember the new sigma is enormous, and the old sigma is pretty big too
the nikon is pocked sized and weighs nothing
 
Depends what you're after I guess. The current vogue is sharpness above all.

I'm not so convinced.
 
I've got the 55 Otus and it is sharp and highly corrected with very smooth bokeh. The Nikon 58mm f/1.4G is isn't as sharp as the Otus or the new Sigma, but the rendering is lovely. I agree there is a lot more to a lens than sharpness. The character of the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 means it does render nice, but manual focus on a DSLR can be a real pain.
 
I had the original 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor which was very nice for portraits with unusual rendering compared to modern glass. Really the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art looks like the lens to get in 2014.
 
Radiohead said:
The Otus is a Zeiss. It's also a 55mm and £4k.
Click to expand...

I know that but reviews show the Zeiss has a 'tiny' edge in the corners at f1.4. I'd take af over that any day of the week:)

Basically I was saying the Sigma is as good as the Zeiss. Of course 'I' don't know that, just echoing the reviews so far!
 
I have just read an article about how Sigma has to reverse engineer it's AF software, and it struggles to match the brand camera lenses in this respect. Sharp is good, but focus is better! I would be more tempted by staying Nikon myself, given that I enjoy portraits the most.
 
The Nikon is better value than the Zeiss and should satisfy all your needs (bokeh, sharpness) apart from the Zeiss's sheer tactility in the hand. Sigmas have traditionally been poor in manufacturing quality control and I don't know if they've managed to shift out of that variability. The modern addiction to autofocus is only relevant to moving subjects and is otherwise superfluous.
 
MIKEROPHONICS said:
I have just read an article about how Sigma has to reverse engineer it's AF software, and it struggles to match the brand camera lenses in this respect. Sharp is good, but focus is better! I would be more tempted by staying Nikon myself, given that I enjoy portraits the most.
Click to expand...

I was nikon all the way until I did a side by side test with the 35/1.4 - the only sigma lenses that have my interest are the 'art' ones and from experience I'd take them over the nikon equivalents - sigma seem to have a point to prove with the art lenses and so far they seem to be proving that point rather well
 
Well I was doing a small shoot in a very small pub of a small band. And I discovered my Tamron 24 to 70mm was struggling in the low light to get that pub feel shot. Yes I had the flash and yes I got clean ish shots but it really wasn't what I wanted. I used the 50mm f1.4 on my friends nex 7 and that was alot better. So I've decided to get a few of primes. Im starting with the 50mm and yes I'd love the otus but at present this is just an expensive hobby. With a few jobs here and there. Im not too fust about autofocus as I like using manual alot. I use it so much i think i can focus faster than the af especially on moving subjects and when filming. My biggest concern is image clarity how sharp how clean. I know carl zeiss has a reputation and wasn't sure if this would be a good lens to test out that reputation with.
 
I've got 12 Zeiss lenses (albeit for Canon) so that clearly shows my opinion. I will say that the whole experience falls apart if you don't fit a decent focussing screen when using the faster and longer lenses (>f/2.8 and >35mm). Can this be achieved on a D600 and, if so, how much does it add to your costs.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Just a small spanner in the works, having always gone for the widest possible lens, Zeiss preferably, when I switched to FF Nikon I did the due diligence and opted for the 50/1.8G and I'm very pleased I did. Saved money and not missed the half stop of light or dof control. There's probably a tad more CA at 1.8 than the Zeiss but Lightroom makes it go away with one click. There's something extra satisfying when you get results from a £140 lens.
 
zeiss will allways have that certain look...quality made . lenses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top