Zeiss Classic Distagon 35mm f2 ZF.2 vs Sigma Art 35mm f1.4

Was wondering if anyone has compared the Zeiss Classic Distagon 35mm f2 ZF.2 and the Sigma Art 35mm f1.4?

I am aware that the Zeiss is manual focus only. That does not bother me at all. All of my lenses are manual focus with the exception of my Nikon 200 f2 VRII and my Sigma Art 50.

I'd be using it mostly for landscapes, environmental portraits, and occasional indoor shooting.

Please share your experiences with me....whether they are good or bad.

Thanks much!

Way back when I got my Sigma 35 art, just before that lens was announced, I was in a search for a better 35mm lens for my then-new D800E, because the 35/1.4G just wasn't cutting it in the resolution-for-landscape end of things. The Zeiss 35/2 ZF.2 (now 'classic') was a likely contender and I got a chance to evaluate it, and was close to purchasing it after the evaluation, but when the Sigma was announced and I was convinced to try it (at the time I would not shoot Sigma glass), things changed after evaluating the art, and I picked up the Sigma instead, mostly because it was a bit better at distance, which is where I needed the resolution.

Still, the 35/2 Zeiss is a nice lens and worth your consideration. I think the newer lenses are better corrected in the color domain and offer a bit more resolution at distance, but the older classics still have the Zeiss color and most of the 'look' that the newer Zeiss have, so it's worth renting perhaps to see for yourself.

However, I'm pretty sure if I were going for another 35mm lens these days, it would clearly be the newest from Zeiss, their excellent 35/1.4 Milvus, which many feel is one of the best, if not the best, 35mm lenses you could mount these days. Lot more money of course, but quality wise, kind of exists in a different league.

-m

As a former Sigma 35mm owner, I would like to know if the Zeiss Milvus focus ring turns in the same direction as Nikkors or Sigma? With the current $300 Zeiss rebate, this lens is $200 more than the Sigma 40mm Art; both are IF, weather sealed, and weight/size of the two are close - just 5mm difference in focal length.

I own the ART, and have rented the classic Zeiss several times. I wanted to like the Zeiss, but it is pretty underwhelming compared to the Sigma in terms of overall sharpness. I use the Zeiss 100 macro, and love it, and have other older lenses that also work well for me, so it is not a matter of the vintage, it is just not a stellar lens. I would also consider the Tamron 35mm as an option.

Zeiss focusing rings have always used the same direction as their mount. Ie. Nikon F-mount Zeiss focus the same way as Nikon native glass, and the opposite for their Canon mount lenses.

Thank you, I could not find that information.

I will also vouch for the tamron 35mm. It has beautiful optics, weather sealing, VC and beautifully sharp. I really love it's overall rendering for a 35mm and use it for events a lot and landscape. I have the sigma 1.4 art as well and I use them both all the time.

Sometimes I grab the tamron more for events but if I want SHARP pictures I go for the sigma....but I would not take the sigma out in challenging conditions as it's not weather sealed. You really should test out the tamron 35 1.8. My friend had it on his nikon d800 and i totally loved it when I put it on my d810. Know what I love about it the most? Just how close you can focus with it. It's insane....with the 1.8 aperture you can really get some shallow DOF.