# Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 vs. Sigma 50/1.4 Art



## Eldar (Apr 29, 2014)

This thread shall be fully focused around comparing all aspects around these two lenses.

Rules:
1: All posted images must have a shot from each lens
2: All shots must be equally framed, e.g. tripod required
(The 50mm - 55mm difference must be accepted)
3: All image pairs must be given the same post processing, preferably as little as possible, to make
sure we don't mask out or increase artifacts
4: All comments and posts must be referring to the images, observed phenomena within the images
and theortical and practical arguments to explain these
5: All images must be accompanied with body, lens, shutter speed, f-stop and ISO information

Both lense have their individual threads, so please keep this thread dedicated to posting and discussing the images and the specific similarities and differences between these two lenses. The other stuff belong elsewhere.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 30, 2014)

Eldar this is great and I'd love to see the comparison, but I think you're one of a very small group that is fortunate enough to own the OTUS, and probably the only person on the board that owns both of these lenses. But I'd love to see your comparison shots and hear your opinion!


----------



## Eldar (May 1, 2014)

I know of at least one more who will have both lenses, so I hope we will see posts from more than just me.

So far I have not had the time to do any comparisons. In fact I have not been able to shoot anything of interest with the Sigma yet. But I have had some time to play around with it, shoot nonsense images of door nobs, my cat and other interior details and compare the mechanics, the handling, weight, size, balance etc. 

Comparing the build quality of the two is fairly easy, because they are very different. The Otus is heavier, though not much, it is slightly bigger, but both are big 50mm lenses. Not big enough for me to leave them at home for size or weight though. I know I have a different threshold than many others, so I understand some, used to pancake 40ties etc, would have reservations. The difference between the two would not be enough to make me choose one over the other.

Looking at the two lenses side by side, it is very easy to understand that the Otus is a more expensive lens. Its build quality is probably the best I have seen from a DSLR lens. All metal, very smooth finish, beautiful design, classy black anodized topping. No glass and no plastic. But the Sigma is also a very well build lens and if you put it next to a Canon L-series, it has nothing to be ashamed of. The Otus could probably shave off a couple of hundred grams, if it had been using the same materials as the Sigma.

None of them are weather sealed. To me that is a problem. I am used to dragging my L-series lenses everywhere, in any climatic condition. With these two I would feel less comfortable doing that and I´ll probably leave them in the bag on rainy days. The Otus has on several occations been out with me in -20C and brought directly into a warm cabin though. Lots of external condensation of course, but it has dried up nicely and it has not been a problem. I may well be more concerned than I have to.

For natural reasons I cannot compare autofocus. Big advantage for Sigma here. I have bought the dock for the Sigma, so I will go through the AF calibration procedure with it. What I have seen from the AF so far is quite promising.

From a manual focus perspective, unsurprisingly, the Otus is a clear winner. The focus is extremely smooth and accurate. The focus ring moves +200 degrees and this makes very accurate focusing easy. The Sigma is not built for manual focus, so clearly this has not been their priority. But the focus ring moves only about 90 degrees and that makes manual focus more difficult. I suspect that this may also be an issue for AF accuracy, since the movement is so short. 

The Otus has a complete DOF scale, whereas the Sigma only show f16. But because the ring movement is so short on the Sigma, it does not make sense to include more (it is about 5mm distance on the focus ring at f16. f4 would be practically nothing). 

Both lenses are in my view very well balanced on both the 1DX and 5DIII bodies. There are certain thing you pick up and you feel a kind of solemnity or awe. You feel you have something very special in your hands. The Otus gives you that feeling. The Sigma gives you more of a high quality workhorse feeling. The focus ring on the Sigma is wide, with a nice profiled grip, which is easy to hold and operate. the Otus has a special level, but sticky rubber which I like a lot. The Sigma focus ring is a bit more towards the front of the lens, which I actually prefer to the Otus. But after having used the Otus for 6 months, I have gotten very used to and very fond of how it handles.

So next will be to comparing images. All I can say is that if Sigma proves to have a trustworthy autofocus and image quality close to the Otus, it may be the best news we, the buyers and users, have had since autofocus came.


----------



## expatinasia (May 1, 2014)

I think there may be more than just one other that has both, possibly two even. 

Anyway, are you going to start the ball rolling and post some comparison shots?

Just the name Zeiss would win me over, as it in itself implies quality. Just the way Rolex (watch), Porsche (car), Rolls-Royce (car) brand names do.

Am looking forward to following this thread.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 1, 2014)

Sorry, off-topic post.
Eldar, did you shoot this image with the 85 II? 
Would you mind sharing the EXIF?
Thanks!


----------



## Eldar (May 1, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Sorry, off-topic post.
> Eldar, did you shoot this image with the 85 II?
> Would you mind sharing the EXIF?
> Thanks!


I used the 24-70 f2.8L II, at 53mm, 1/125s, f4.0, ISO1250


----------



## Eldar (May 1, 2014)

Here are the first two. I´m afraid it won´t sell very well or win me any awards ( :), but it gives you something to scrutinize. 

I had the camera on Av and expected to get the same shutter speed on both lenses, but it turned out Zeiss gave a faster speed every time. So the only adjustment I have made is -0,2 exposure on the Sigma image and +0,2 exposure on the Zeiss, to get them fairly equal. I also moved a little closer with the Sigma, so they cover exactly the same area.

Live view focusing is a lot easier with the Otus.

First image is Sigma, the second is Zeiss. I have posted them with as much resolution as size restrictions allow.
5DIII, 1/8s, f1.4, ISO100 (Exposure -0,2)


----------



## Eldar (May 1, 2014)

Zeiss Otus
5DIII, 1/13s, f1.4, ISO100 (exposure +0,2)


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

All images are from a tripod mounted 5DIII in manual mode. No post processing.

The Otus has 5mm longer focal length and i have not tried to compensate for that.

I know some of you are missing this motive, so I thought I´d start with that 

Otus 1/320s, f1.4 ISO50


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Sigma 1/320s, f1.4, ISO50


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Otus 1/2000s, f1.4 ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Sigma 1/2000s, f1.4, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Otus 1/1250s, f2.0, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Sigma 1/1250, f2.0, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Otus 1/6400s, f1.4, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Sigma 1/6400s, f1.4, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Otus 1/3200, f2.8, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Sigma 1/3200, f2.8, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Otus 1/1000s, f4.0, ISO50

Comment: I have posted the wrong image here, so if you think this looks like the next one, you're right. I'll update as soon as I get home.

Comment 2: The right image is now posted.


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Sigma 1/1000s, f4.0, ISO50


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Otus 1/2500s, f4.0, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Sigma 1/2500s, f4.0, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Otus 1/500s, f4.0, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Sigma 1/500s, f4.0, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Otus, 1/4000s, f1.4, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

Sigma 1/4000s, f1.4, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

I have a few more, but for some reason I´m not able to post them.


----------



## zlatko (May 4, 2014)

Thanks for this interesting comparison. It looks like the Otus provides a little more sharpness in the sharp areas, and a little more blur in the blurry areas.


----------



## candc (May 4, 2014)

Thanks for taking the time to do the comparison shots, it looks like the ones from the sigma are a bit brighter at the same settings?


----------



## cpsico (May 4, 2014)

Elgar what is your personal preference in terms of walk around/ versatility? Both are excellent but which one would be the one you counted on for the go to lense?


----------



## Eldar (May 4, 2014)

cpsico said:


> Elgar what is your personal preference in terms of walk around/ versatility? Both are excellent but which one would be the one you counted on for the go to lense?


I have had the Otus for 6 months and it is a phenomenal lens. But it is manual focus. I am still using the standard focusing screen and it is not very well suited for wide open shots. I was planning to install one of the better suited focusing screens, but I was hoping I could do that in a higher resolution body. Best results with tripod and live view.

The Sigma has so far proven to be a very capable lens. But I need some more time to really trust the auto focus. Sigma legacy is not very good in my view and I do have problems with my 35 Art.

I don´t think I can give you a straight answer. If it´s for slow shooting, where I could use a tripod, live view and spend time with each image, I would choose the Otus. If it involved people, dim light, movement etc. the Sigma would win (provided AF really turns out to be good over time).


----------



## eml58 (May 5, 2014)

Hi Eldar, Great stuff, my 50 Art is in Singapore so I should have it in the next week or so, will try to contribute then.

But from your Posted Images I'm seeing about what I expected, the Sigma (like the 35 Art), does the job very well, albeit it has a slightly harsher rendition of the Image, especially the background.

Still, not a real issue when you consider the price difference, I can see canon will need to lift the game on their next 50, once I get the 50 Art I'll be keen to test it more against the 50f/1.2 L than the Otus, I see the Otus similar to yourself, more a specialised beast.

I can see though in future walking around Tokyo I may well not have a Canon or Zeiss in the bag, just the 35 & 50 Art, that AF does count for me.

Surprised at the size of the 50 Art though, I expected it to be smaller.


----------



## Eldar (May 5, 2014)

candc said:


> Thanks for taking the time to do the comparison shots, it looks like the ones from the sigma are a bit brighter at the same settings?


The lighting did change a bit, during the time it took to change lenses etc., so that contributed to some of them. But in automatic modes, I have seen a rather consitent metering difference between the two. I have no idea what causes this, but I'm sure there are people qualified to enlighten the rest of us.


----------



## Eldar (May 5, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Hi Eldar, Great stuff, my 50 Art is in Singapore so I should have it in the next week or so, will try to contribute then.
> 
> But from your Posted Images I'm seeing about what I expected, the Sigma (like the 35 Art), does the job very well, albeit it has a slightly harsher rendition of the Image, especially the background.
> 
> ...


Yes, it is a good chunck of a lens. But it has more lens elements than the Otus, so from that perspective it is rather natural that it is that big.

I am actually amazed of the quality from the Sigma. I never thought it would be so close to the Otus. And I wonder what Canon intend to do about it. 

We are probably in the same boat when it comes to declining vision. I read somewhere that by 50 you have lost 30% of your light sinsitivity and my vision dynamics has become very reduced. So AF matters.

If AF on the Sigma proves to be consistent, this will be a much used lens. The Otus is, as you say, a more specialized lens.


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

For some reason I am unable to post certain images and the Otus version of the glasses is one of them. I have quite a few comparison images ready, but every time I try to post, I get a blank page in return. It happens on the same threads on various computers. I have restarted my browser, restarted my computer etc. but nothing helps.

Anyone with a hint on how to fix this?


----------



## distant.star (May 14, 2014)

Eldar said:


> For some reason I am unable to post certain images and the Otus version of the glasses is one of them. I have quite a few comparison images ready, but every time I try to post, I get a blank page in return. It happens on the same threads on various computers. I have restarted my browser, restarted my computer etc. but nothing helps.
> 
> Anyone with a hint on how to fix this?



Sorry, I can't help with the posting; I just link mine from my Smugmug galleries.

I hope it can be fixed. Your images generally are always a visual treat -- those glasses are gorgeous. And I'm interested in the Sigma 50 so any images are welcome.


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

Thanks distant.star. 

I´m posting this way, to allow as high resolution as possible for the viewer. I have the size limiter set to max 4000k in LR. That way people can open the image and get a better basis for evaluating them. With these two lenses the differences are so subtle that it takes a real scrutiny to find the differences. 

Optically Sigma has done an excellent job, but the AF is too unreliable. And due to the shorter focus movement (app. 90 degrees), it is a sufficiently more difficult to focus than the Otus (app. 220 degrees) to lose out.

I am really puzzled with this posting issue tough. The images are shot with the same camera body, have the same size, exported in the same way, they are even of the same motives ...


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

Sigma 
1/800s, f4.0, ISO100, 5DIII


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

This is just weird. Again I can post an image from the Sigma, but the Otus image fails ...


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

Ha ha, I fooled it. I just opened a post to modify it. Added the image and saved it. 8)


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

So let´s try again.

Here are the Otus shot of the glasses. I have moved the camera a bit, to cover the same area.
1/800s, f1.4, ISO100, 5DIII


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

Here are my new Aquavit glasses, made by a local artist.

Sigma 1/800s, f1.4, ISO100, 5DIII


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 14, 2014)

Aquavit- oh yes, some are so wonderful, some downright repulsive. A very interesting drink...


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

I have posted the f1.4 versions of this shot earlier.
Sigma
5DIII, 1/1250s, f2.0, ISO100


----------



## Eldar (May 14, 2014)

Otus
5DIII, 1/1250, f2.0, ISO100


----------



## traingineer (May 14, 2014)

Doing some real pixel peeping ;D I noticed the Otus hardly had any CA, looked sharper, slightly more blurred background and it wasn't as dark or as bright in some areas where the sigma was. Also, I do like the 5mm difference the Otus gives.


----------



## Eldar (May 15, 2014)

Thanks for taking the time traingineer. If you had access to the full RAW-files, you would find that the differences are a bit more visible, but not much. And it is also true that you need to produce very large and high quality prints to tell the difference. So for all practical purposes, I believe we all could live happily with the IQ from the Sigma. I even thought of posting images without telling which was from which camera, but thought it would be better to be explicit. 

Main issue with the Sigma is the unreliable AF. If that remains unresolved, I´d rather have a 50 1.2L. I´d rather have slightly softer, but in focus images (with a beautiful bokeh), than the occasional crisp and sharp. Hopefully a firmware version with improvements are underway.

I am looking forward to the nest high-MP body though. It might be that the IQ differences will be more visible then.


----------



## traingineer (May 15, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Thanks for taking the time traingineer. If you had access to the full RAW-files, you would find that the differences are a bit more visible, but not much. And it is also true that you need to produce very large and high quality prints to tell the difference. So for all practical purposes, I believe we all could live happily with the IQ from the Sigma. I even thought of posting images without telling which was from which camera, but thought it would be better to be explicit.
> 
> Main issue with the Sigma is the unreliable AF. If that remains unresolved, I´d rather have a 50 1.2L. I´d rather have slightly softer, but in focus images (with a beautiful bokeh), than the occasional crisp and sharp. Hopefully a firmware version with improvements are underway.
> 
> I am looking forward to the nest high-MP body though. It might be that the IQ differences will be more visible then.



Well Canon might be releasing a prosumer body a few months after the new UWA lens, but this is Canon *Rumours* after all.


----------

