Sigma 30mm vs Zeiss 24mm

I suppose this has been asked to the death here, but still... I have the Sigma 30mm for a few days now and really can't say I miss a zoom at all. Just love having a low light capable lens on my NEX with great picture quality.

Currently I have the funds (by selling my Canon 70-200/F2.8 IS Mark II and after buying a Macro + flash for my 7D) to buy the Zeiss too for my NEX. I just wonder if there is really a noticeable difference in image quality compared to the Sigma.

Anyone who had both and can compare? I've put the Zeiss on my NEX6 in the shop and was amazed by how light it felt. But hadn't had a chance to really test it though.

This has been discussed quite a bit here. I suggest looking at images from both lenses and deciding whether you see the difference you need to see. I owned both lenses at the same time and strongly favored the Zeiss, but I suspect there are people here who were more than happy to select the Sigma 30 instead.

Here is the Sony Zeiss 24 group on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/groups/sony-nex-sonnar24mm/pool/

Here is the Sigma 30 group on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma30mm28/pool/

--
60 of my favorite shots from 2012

I love my Sigma 30mm but I take a lot of pictures indoors, and when using my 50mm/F1.8 I notice that I'm always getting lower ISO or higher shutter speeds (logical). So that makes me considering the Zeiss, since 24mm with f1.8 seems very nice for indoor (kids) shots.

The fact that Mr. Lancaster, a die-hard Zeiss 24 enthusiast, goes to such lengths to differentiate between the CZ 24 and Sigma 30 shows how good the Sigma 30 is. The difference in aperture is real (obviously). The Zeiss will be better indoors in low light. But the Sigma is no slouch indoors, either, and I do not see the "punch", "vibrancy", etc. that would make me buy the Zeiss 24 over the Sigma 30, particularly if the Zeiss will be more than 5X the cost of the Sigma. BTW, I can afford the Zeiss. But I would rather get the SEL35f18 if I am buying another lens.

I was looking at lens samples with Zeiss 24 f1.8

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Zeiss_24mm_f1-8_SEL24F18Z/http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Zeiss_24mm_f1-8_SEL24F18Z/

Those convinced me this is a lens worth getting!

Yeah, for indoor kid shots then the Zeiss is going to produce much better than the Sigma 30. What you describe is similar to many of the shots I take and why I preferred the Zeiss 24.

--
60 of my favorite shots from 2012

For "indoor kid shots," I would posit that the SEL50F18 is actually better than the Zeiss Unless you want to take wide shots indoors, with full focus on the corners.

Which brings me to a point: outdoors, in good light, is the Zeiss really better than the Sigma 30?

I am not going to great lengths in that post; rather, I am suggesting the OP look at images taken using both lenses and decide for himself. I then go on to note that I love the Zeiss, but that I think other people probably love the Sigma. I was trying to be fair.

Here is the thread I started when I owned both lenses and was working through the one I was going to keep. About 1/2 way down that first page, you'll note that at that time I am looking for an excuse to sell my Zeiss 24 and keep the Sigma 30. That doesn't end up happening, but that was my hope that the Sigma 30 would perform well enough in comparison.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3207630

And, that was just a sampling of the images I took for comparison. When I shoot my son's science fair in his school auditorium, the noise required with the Sigma 30 at f/2.8 was considerably noticeable versus the lower ISO with the Zeiss 24 at f/1.8, for example. Sure, noise can be reduced, but it doesn't always happen without losing some detail, too. Page 2 actually demonstrates some of the noise that comes with the higher ISO of the Sigma and also some of the more pleasant bokeh of the Zeiss 24.

In the end, the Sigma just didn't live up to my expectations. So, instead of replacing the Zeiss 24 and saving some money, I ended up keeping it and learning much more about photography by shooting with the Zeiss 24 almost exclusively for weeks on end. I can look at my photography from 6 months ago and see noticeable improvements. Perhaps I would have improved the same with the Sigma 30, too.

--
60 of my favorite shots from 2012

I think there's no doubt that a) the Sigma 30mm is phenomenal value for money, and that b) the Zeiss 24mm is the better lens. Whether the quality differential is worth it is a seperate discussion and an individual decision.

Aside for the f1.8 aperture, it comes down to color/contrast and quality of bokeh. So to answer your question, even outdoors in bright light at f8 I think you'd see a noticeable difference in those attributes.

The 50f18 is also a great lens, but it can be a bit narrow for indoor use, and I do find the color/contrast lacking relative to the Zeiss 24.

Have a look at the images I posted below.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Zeiss_24mm_f1-8_SEL24F18Z/

The 50mm is amazing, but it is definitely not wide enough for indoor shots. Taking a picture of my two daughters at a table with the 50mm is just not possible without leaving the table, which takes away the atmosphere. I love taking pics of my kids when they just are busy, ignoring me.

For tele-work, I use my Canon 7D with 100mm. But even then they almost always notice the camera (it is big). Not that much when I use my NEX (which is almost always by my side).

I think that's fair Sean. I am not doubting that the Zeiss 24 is a great lens. It clearly is. But what I am uncomfortable with is that so many people seem to be blinded by the placebo effect of an expensive and name-brand lens. Take for instance this exchange in a recent post (my comments followed by a respons in bold-underlined text):

____________________________________________________________

rogatsby wrote:

I neglected to mention the one substantive benefit of the Zeiss, which is the wide aperture (1.8), and which is one of the greatest benefits of that lens. But even taking this into account, I can't see it outweighing the benefit of being able to get 2 lenses with f2.8 and a nice zoom (55-210) for less than the price of the Zeiss. Especially if you can also get fast manual focus lenses for dirt cheap with just as wide aperture such as the Horusbennu 50mm f1.7, Canon FD 50mm 1.8, etc.

"I'm the other way around, i rather have the Zeiss rather than all those lenses as its better to keep things simple".

_____________________________________________________________
I don't care how great the Zeiss is. If you are sitting in an auditorium for your child's concert, and you have a Zeiss 24 on your camera, you are useless unless you want to take photos of tiny subjects on a stage. If the hypothetical person here had the 55-210, which along with the Sigma 30 and 19 would have cost less than the Zeiss, he or she would have possibly gotten good shots.
My point here is that the Zeiss is a great lens, but people should not get it (and sell other useful lenses) based solely on the reputation and placebo effect of the Zeiss.
And I still believe that the Sigma 30 is just as good as the Zeiss in good light, and the SEL50F18 is a better portrait lens indoors

It's not that easy. I have both lenses and I love the SEL50, but it's not a kid lens indoors unless you're wanting close ups. For example, it excels in this kind of shot:

But I had no room to back up on this shot the other day with the Zeiss 24 and the SEL 50 would have probably had to settle for losing the pirate bandana and settled on just the face (very close) - and perhaps the kid was too close for the SEL 50 to focus at all:

--

60 of my favorite shots from 2012

Those are very nice, but far from proving that they are better than portraits from the SEL5018.

I don't disagree with you (though, the 55-210 failed for me when trying to shoot indoors at my son and daughter's concert and school play because it's too slow, but that's for another thread). I think when I initially bought the Zeiss 24, I was ignorant and was just intrigued by an expensive AF glass. I didn't know how to play to the Zeiss 24's strengths in my shooting style and I had a lot of very pedestrian shots initially with the Zeiss 24. That's why I thought I could easily replace it. I suspect there are a lot of people who are looking at it and who don't really need it or won't be able to maximize its potential. So sure, it's probably a bit healthy for people like you to raise a red flag and try and help some of these folks not make an investment into something that won't pan out like they thought. On the other hand, my growth with the Zeiss 24 has me now thinking that perhaps a step up to the RX1 would be warranted for me. Perhaps.

I didn't say that they are better than portraits from the SEL 50. In fact, the first one is from the SEL 50. The second one couldn't have been taken with the SEL 50. I was merely trying to show the difference in focal length has real implications when shooting in real life. 24 and 50 are very, very different lenses. For me, there is no way I could replace one with the other.

I just bought the sigma on sale from Amazon for 149.00  !!

Ted

I only emphasized the differenced between the SEL50 and Zeiss 24 because this is what the discussion was about: the merits of the Zeiss 24. Sure, the difference in focal length is real, which is by I have the SEL 50, the Sigma 30 AND the Sigma 19. But I just wanted to challenge your opinions, which seemed to imply that the Zeiss 24 was incontrovertibly superior to any comparable e-mount lens. I know you didn't phrase it like that, but you have also chimed in on every thread that I have seen comparing the Zeiss and the Sigma.

In the end, I fully acknowledge and agree that the Zeiss 24 is a great lens. But I want to paint a more realistic picture (or should I say "photo") of the realities:

• In good light, it is not noticeably better than the Sigma 30.
• The upcoming 35mm F1.8 lens may be as good in low light, and will have OSS and will be less than half the price of the Zeiss. The focal length is different, but one step back will give you the same.
• The SEL50F18 produces portraits on par with the Zeiss 24. 
• Many people sell off their other E-Mount lenses to buy the Zeiss, and in many cases this is a mistake, especially if they had quite useful zoom lenses like the 55-210.

In my opinion, lenses like the Zeiss are luxury purchases, where people can just afford to buy them without selling other items they own. My motivation in this series of posts was to give other people this viewpoint. Cheers.

Guess I'll wait a bit for the 35mm reviews then. Is there a large differente between 24mm and 35mm?