Zeiss Vario Sonnar against Sigma UC Zoom

[Guest]

Hi all,
I've just flicked through the photodo.com MTF measurement results for my brand-new Vario-Sonnar 1:3,5-4,5 28-70 and my older Sigma UC Zoom (same nominal characteristics). To be honest, I am a little bit surprised that the DM 250,- Sigma lens beats a DM 1500,- Zeiss lens in terms of overall MTF performance. I experienced that the Sigma produces pretty bad vignetting at 28mm wide open, which is the main reason why I bought the Zeiss. I usually take slides, and I think that the Zeiss Zoom produces nicer colours and better contrast.
And, of course, the Zeiss has a much better and sturdy feel to it. But anyway, can anybody think of a reason for the Sigma's better MTF values as published at photodo.com?

 

[Guest]

Thomas

Have you taken any pictures with your new Zeiss lens yet? Only then will you know about the quaity of the Zeiss lens. There is more to life than MTF charts, but many people seem to get hung up on them.

Can I think of a reason why the Sigma has better MTF values? I can think of two:

1. Photodo got it wrong
2. The Sigma is a better lens

Go out with your lens Thomas, take lots of pictures and enjoy them. Life is too short to worry about MTF charts.

Simon

 

[Guest]

Hi Thomas,

The Sigma UC 28-70/3.5-4.5 from 1990 and 1997 is a Leitz/Sigma Cooperation. The lens design was from Sigma for both years. The only difference to the Leitz lens was the material for Leitz with more metal and for Sigma with more "plastic".

There was a test in the German "Fotomagazin" 1989 or 1990 about the two lenses, which was at that time quite a skandal for the Leica fans, because the Leitz zoom was even more expensive then now the gap to the mentioned Zeiss zoom. Optically, assuming you got a good model, the Sigma has the identical MTF-curves as the Leica/Leitz zoom. Just the quality control in the production can not be as good as Leica for that price. The Sigma is not available anymore, obviously Leica learnt and made different contracts afterwards.

But back to your question. The Zeiss zoom is a totally different design from the Sigma zoom. Obviously, like with the Leica zoom, it is also different build quality. It is just the luck for Sigma that they could calculate the design cost of that lens on the P/L of Leica, otherwise just the design costs would have made the Sigma lens also more expensive.

Since the Zeiss zoom has to make profit and Zeiss can not share this reserch cost with other brandnames, it has to be more expensive - even if it would not be that solid builded. Additionally you have the cost factor for quality control in the mass production and the so called "Zeiss effect"

dirk

 

[Guest]

Thomas,

another thing I forgot to mention. You should be careful with the photodo MTF numbers. The weighting and calculation is quite different to other MTF measurements. Look for this in their explanations how they get these final numbers together. Although I like the photodo site and I also have a link to it, it seems to be dead. Last update was in June 2000.

dirk

 

[Guest]

Hi everybody,
thanks for all the comments! I certainly know that there is more to life than MTF charts ;-). I really like the Zeiss Zoom better for reasons I've already mentioned and I am quite happy with it. I was just curious...

Thanks again,
Thomas

 

[Guest]

Something I forgot: I have taken a lot of pictures with the Vario-Sonnar, also in direct comparison to the Sigma. In my opinion the image quality of the Zeiss is far above the Sigma. One more reason why I was so puzzled...
Alright, I got the message.I'll simply use my new lens and enjoy it!
Cheers,
Thomas

 

[Guest]

Hi Thomas!

I can really agree with all this statements upon MTF-charts. I had the 28-70 Vario-Sonnar, and I sold it. The MTF charts made be beleive that it has a similar performance to the 35-70/3,4 but I failed. The 35-70 is much better in the bookeh (Hope this is the right terminus for the way how a lens "draws" a picture), and in contrast at full aperture. But I had to sell this either due to server problems I posted here a few days ago.

Nevertheless as a real Contaxarian I would never put a Sigma lens on my "holy" Contax.

Regards
Wolfgang

 

[Guest]

Thomas

Sounds like you are enjoying the lens already. I have to admit, being a die-hard Leica M and Hasselblad user with all prime lenses, that I am constantly amazed by the quality of the images that come out of the N zoom lenses. Of course I could take all the credit, but I am sure the optics have something to do with it ;-)

Zeiss certainly know how to make zooms as well as primes.

Simon

 

[Guest]

Hi Everybody,
I am a M6 user, have used previously The R3 and R4 and had electronis problems, I felt the need of a reflex to be able to use the ultra wide angle lenses, so I bought a 2nd hand Contax 159. I am new to this system, can some one tell me how are the Yashika lenses on it, what is their optical quality compared to Tamron or other lenses apart from CZ and Leica.

 

[Guest]

Hi Mohan,

In general I would strongly encourage you to buy Zeiss lenses for your 159MM. It just makes no sense to buy a 159MM and then put a Tamron on it. You can have this cheaper by buying an old nikon etc.

If you look at the second hand prices for Zeiss lenses you will realize that they are very cheap compared to used Leitz lenses. Since you are looking especially for ultra wide angle, this is slightly different. These lenses are not that often seen on the 2nd hand market. The 21mm is not just outstanding in quality, but also expensive (but it is worth it). I have not had experience with ultra wides of other brandnames, so I can just give you this advice from my experience with lenses of 35mm upwards.