I've just been looking through my lightroom catalogue trying to establish if I've ever taken a typical landscape shot with the ZE35/2 that I'm happy with and to be honest I'm struggling.
I've got and currently use ZE21, ZF25, ZE35/2 and ZE50P
It could be that i've really never got into the zone shooting the 35/2 for landscape/cityscapes at infinity, but I have used it lots for closer shooting like portraits and car shots and loved it in that case.
I've always been pleased with my other Zeiss lenses for landscape/cityscape shots, so this leaves me with one question -
Does the Z*35/2.0 lack a certain magic when used at close to infinity & stopped down.
Answers on a postcard please.
(No I'm not going to upload a sample because I could look like a fool if and when I realise it's just because i've not given this lens a chance at landscape type shots or just used it in crap lighting so far)
It has some stiff competition in your list. Most things in life are relative. And you are not the first person I've read this from, even in the last week. Even its MTF is underwhelming, it's not a special parfformer, with CA rising with smaller apertures.
The Leica Rs are poor as well. My theory is that the lens producers got together and decided to make so-so, boilerplate 35mm lenses in perpetuity! Grungy Canon/Nikon 35/2s from days of yore, the poor cornered Contax 35/2.8, now this one.
Who will be the first to produce a great 35mm prime for this use, how hard can it be? Apart from the hoo-haa over fast 35s, I see very few, even nature images from any 35mm that I care for, let alone good open landscapes - for which 35mm is ideal, the equivalent was very popular in LF and MF. Maybe one of the old Jena lenses, the f2.4 35mm.
Did you ever look at the 28/2, it has a 'painterly' effect where the 35/2 does not. Its quite pronounced and is exactly the interpretation I see in your complaint. The 35/2 was described by Zeiss as 'reportage', the 28 was the 'artists' lens. They are the closest two in FL but are worlds apart in render. The 28 is always overlooked but it has this effect in buckets. Rodluvan if he finds this thread would likely agree and have examples that make it clear. I dont do scape and have the 35/2 for this exact reason and sold my 28 for this exact reason.
I have tried using the 35/2 as a landscape lens and I am also less than impressed. If you look at the MTF you can see why, especially when compared to the 21/2.8 which is in another league. Denoir has also commented on this.
On the other hand as a reportage lens, I think it is very good. The year before last while I was shooting in the Cinque Terra and Venice. The 35/2 performed brilliantly.
As another option, the 35/1.4 would perform better on distant fine detail, especially in the centre.
magiclight wrote:
I have tried using the 35/2 as a landscape lens and I am also less than impressed. If you look at the MTF you can see why,...
At this moment the Zeiss 35/2 outresolves any existing sensor, certainly when stopped down a little bit, so I don't quite understand where you are talking about.
Jan 21, 2012 at 09:52 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
The ZE 50/1,4 Planar is a nice lens for shooting at infinity & stopped down. If 50mm focal length is ok for you. It also have a bit lower price than the other ZE lenses
philip_pj wrote:
It has some stiff competition in your list. Most things in life are relative. And you are not the first person I've read this from, even in the last week. Even its MTF is underwhelming, it's not a special parfformer, with CA rising with smaller apertures.
I have not noticed rising CA when closing down when actually testing the ZF.2 35. Testing between F2-F8, CA is fairly strong wide open, decreases quite a bit by F4 at which point it's only really noticeable in the corners. Then by F8, the corners clear up nicely with only a tiny trace left. Testing at infinity stopped down to F8, CA is a non issue, at lest on the copy I have.
I get strong CA with the 35 mm f2 Zeiss. Here is a unprocessed (no curves, hue/sat, vibrance, etc.) jpg on a cloudy day at f10. Look at the tree. I could desaturate it in PS, but the benefit of Zeiss lenses of not having to do much/any post processing goes away. ISO 200, 1/45 sec, Nikon D1x (NEF available to be checked) http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr146/IsleofGough/DSC_0500-1.jpg
I've been loving my ZE 35/2 for mid-range to closeup shots so far, and think it is certainly "decent" at infinity (for rather high values of "decent"), but the Contax 35-70/3.4 (@f5.6-8) is still the best 35mm for stopped down infinity shooting.
John, I felt just the same way about my 35 f:2.0 when I had it. Nothing at all wrong with it, and many pictures were impressive SOOC. But when I made a list of my year's favorite shots, or Wow! shots, or whatever, very few came from it, Vs, 21, 50 f:1.4 or 85 f:1.4. But I have the cure, at least as far as I am concerned. It is called 35 f:1.4.
philber wrote:
John, I felt just the same way about my 35 f:2.0 when I had it. Nothing at all wrong with it, and many pictures were impressive SOOC. But when I made a list of my year's favorite shots, or Wow! shots, or whatever, very few came from it, Vs, 21, 50 f:1.4 or 85 f:1.4. But I have the cure, at least as far as I am concerned. It is called 35 f:1.4.
philip_pj wrote:
It has some stiff competition in your list. Most things in life are relative. And you are not the first person I've read this from, even in the last week. Even its MTF is underwhelming, it's not a special parfformer, with CA rising with smaller apertures.
The Leica Rs are poor as well. My theory is that the lens producers got together and decided to make so-so, boilerplate 35mm lenses in perpetuity! Grungy Canon/Nikon 35/2s from days of yore, the poor cornered Contax 35/2.8, now this one.
Who will be the first to produce a great 35mm prime for this use, how hard can it be? Apart from the hoo-haa over fast 35s, I see very few, even nature images from any 35mm that I care for, let alone good open landscapes - for which 35mm is ideal, the equivalent was very popular in LF and MF. Maybe one of the old Jena lenses, the f2.4 35mm.
I must admit I've been very tempted to try the Leica 35mm elmartit-r, but there's very little info here in the alt forum about it.
I do have the Oly 35mm shift lens which is generally very good but quite poor in terms of flare resistance (I've even got the MC One), the shift movements get sloppy too.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
The ZE 50/1,4 Planar is a nice lens for shooting at infinity & stopped down. If 50mm focal length is ok for you. It also have a bit lower price than the other ZE lenses
I agree, I've got the ze50/1.4 and have always had great results stopped down at infinity.
johnahill wrote:
Does the Z*35/2.0 lack a certain magic when used at close to infinity & stopped down.
... I'm not going to upload a sample ...
I own 35/2, 21/2.8 and 100/2.
My ZF.2 35/2 doesn't' lack anything. Zeiss lenses have a very particular look with biting sharpness and contrast. Colors look very natural, and this is rather important in photography, IMO.
In the hi-res file of the picture below you can count each single leaf.
philip_pj wrote:
... its MTF is underwhelming, it's not a special parfformer, with CA rising with smaller apertures.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I have not noticed rising CA when closing down when actually testing the ZF.2 35.
The story of LaCA increasing with aperture is a nonsense.
In some "objective" tests chromatic aberration is reported to increase with an increasing f-number. What happens is that lateral chromatic aberration, which is independent of the aperture, becomes more clearly visible because other aberrations are reduced. As stated clearly here.
