How does this lens compare in image quality/performance to the Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0 Digital ED SWD (other than price and focal length)?
385634
I don't know, but the 14-40 is designated PRO and is sharp wide open. A F2 lens is often soft wide open. At 14mm my lens has little distortion if any and is sharp and contrasty at all focal lengths. Good luck on your decision!
385635
I don't have a Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0 to compare with the Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 (pro). However, I have compared the Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 to my Canon L-series 24-105mm f/4.0L (Canon 6D full-frame). I think the Zuiko 12-40 f/2.8 is every bit as sharp as the Canon 24-105mm f/4.0L considering the difference of the Olympus 4/3 to the Canon full-frame. The Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 is an amazing, tack-sharp lens. If you are thinking about buying it, do it, you won't regret your purchase.
385636
I can't answer that Question since I do not own the 14-35mm but to me the 12-40mm is a excellent lens.
1974652
I haven't used the 35mm but i can assure you the image quality is better than the 50 f1.8 or the kit lens. This sigma will serve you well as a starter lens and actually shouldn't be something you immediately feel like upgrading. Primes are well and good if you are ready for them but zooms are better for starting out. if you test out different focal lengths you can find out what prime lenses will work best for you. you don't want to buy a 35mm just to find out you'd rather have a 24, etc.
794541
The 24mm because of the ED elements. The 35mm Nikkor skipped the ED elements and the result is occasional chromatic abberation which is quite annoying in a lens of that price. The 35mm Sigma Art series is nice but without the weather seal I would take a pass. Your other choice is the 24-70 f2.8 if you do not absolutely need the 1.4 large aperture. That gives you range and is pin sharp at 24mm and 35mm.
2097654
There are a number of lenses available for this camera. The one I chose was the 12-50 mm Zuiko Digital f/3.5-6.3. It's ideal for every day shooting plus the added bonus of a fine video lens. The price range is around $500. If your budget is a little tight you may also consider the 12-42 mm Zuiko Digital f/3.5-5.6. The price range is around $300. Either one of these lenses can be ordered at the time of purchase of the camera. I hope that this is helped you in your selection, you will enjoy either one of these products.
1773175
I think this is the best option without going nuts on budget, not cheap not so expensive. Distortion for Architectural is acceptable, obviously the more closer you are you will notice some, its not the 24mm or the zoom but believe me is sharp as hell, even more at f2.5 and f8 ... careful with a lil shift focus at night mostly at f4, other than that im super happy with this lens and i take it to travel a lot
1011661
Hi thomyi, you may try checking on the link below for the direct comparison between the two lenses. -Elyhttp://store.sony.com/gsi/webstore/WFS/SNYNA-SNYUS-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewProductCompareService-Show?CategoryID=on0KmUBxnZQAAAFEYhlScEcW
633824
I own this lens and have found it to perform beautifully. The quality is quite good. You will love the ability to handhold macro shots, because this lens has vibration stabilization. The focal length allows one to get back from the subject so that lighting is better and you won't scare the bugs as badly. I believe that this lens ranks above all other manufactures version of this same lens. A bonus is that this lens also has full frame capability.
935597
It's very close in quality to its 1.4 counterpart. The L version has a very slight edge in contrast and sharpness. I opted for the 35mm f2 IS because the difference wasn't large enough for me to justify spending twice as much for the 1.4.Hope this helps!
766699
The speed and focus depends on the camera you mount it on but this is a high quality lens. The image quality is fantastic. To get 1 stop better in speed isn't worth the extra money in my humble opinion. If you have a body with high ISO ability you will be quite pleased with this lens. It is designed for full frame FX cameras.
1892824
It's a good lens: sharp (check DXOMark). I own both this lens and the Canon 14mm 2.8L. Both are great. The only thing missing with the Samyang is the AF, though often that's not a problem for wide angle anyway....
339555
It's incredibly compact, incredibly sharp, great in all types of light. It's good for people who want the best quality in the smallest size. It's not for people who need a zoom lens or lightning fast autofocus. I bought it brand new years ago and it's still worth it. You have to account for how wonderful the Zeiss lens is. It would be at least $1000 on its own, and it's attached to the smallest full frame camera in the world. But certainly it isn't for everyone. If you think you'll hate it, you're probably right. But if you want a great travel camera or street camera, it's gorgeous.
464449
For me its the lens I hd to have and I'm very happy with it. 35mm equivalent is one of my two favorite focal lengths 85mm (new XF 56) is the other. I also like the clutch based manual focus. The 23 is the lens I use the most. Only take out the 18-55 when I need to travel lighter.
173418
Hi, I was faced with the same dilemma last year. I chose 14-45. It is a sharp lens with good auto focus and stabilization. I use it mainly as a travel lens and photograph historical monuments.Prakash
558459
This lens is second to none. It has great contrast and clarity even at f/2.8. It has low distortion, focuses quickly, accepts filters, and works on full-frame cameras as well as "cropped sensor" DX ones. And if you hit someone with it, they'll probably go down. If you have a DX camera, you can save money by compromising on some of those features. Tokina's 16-50 f/2.8 DX lens is well-regarded and perhaps the closest to the Nikon 17-35. It's supposedly sharp and has good contrast both wide open and stopped down. It's solidly built. Landscape shooters like it. $600 Nikon's 12-24 f/4G DX lens is also very good. It might be too wide for you. $1000 Nikon's 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 DX is good, though not in the same class. $675 Note that I have experience only with the 17-35 (bought used). The rest is based on conversations with people who own those lenses.
39229
If your are deciding between a 35mm and this lens.. I would ask.. What do you plan to shoot? If you need a wide lens for landscapes I suggest the 18 - 50... If you are looking for a portrait or low fstop fixed lense for close ups I say go with the 1.8 35mm. If your asking Nikon versus sigma.. I would say you get what you pay for. As far as the sigma performance... I use the lense quite often. I shoot in low light bars and venues and the lens is covered in beer..The lens is great for low light shooting at 18mm. I usually switch to a 50mm if I need a closer shot.
155654
I'm 50/50 on it. There are a lot of plusses for the 35 (1.3 stops faster, shallower DOF, phase detect autofocus points on the entire frame, image stabilization), but one big negative (twice the price). It's also less sharp, but it's not soft by a long shot. If you shoot in very low light, fast subjects, or video, the 35 is the better choice. Otherwise, the 30 is an excellent deal.
209417
The zs30 has a great lens that will give you a the best quality image. Equal to a good dslr. The primary drawback is that it is very fragile.