Well I'm hopefully going to CES (Vegas) next Jan where the prices seem to equate to about £560 vs £800 here, probably worth a try, it can't be that horrendous for the price!
R.Young wrote:
Aha! Saw this thread and thought my mac was playing up, showing a really old version of the thread!
Anyway, I still have my Contax 35 1.4, and am now looking at getting the Sigma 35 1.4 if the reviews show it as being as good as it seems to be by Lensrentals.com for when I need AF.
Great shot of the GT6 (a car my dad incidentally owns, in almost the same colour!)
Heh. I wont sell my CY 35/1.4. At least as long as MF is better for me. But a well-calibrated 35L with something with the AF of 5D3 would be something to think about for me later on. I have had a few Sigmas, as you probably know they are notorious for bad AF (at least with Canon). I have only bad experience so be sure to test the copy that you may buy.
I've seen your car shots with the CY in the Zeiss 35 thread, many superb! Havent commented but there's a lot of magic going on there. I have probably posted this in the regular Zeiss thread, but here's another ride taken with CY. A viable alternative would definetly have been a GT6, it's faster, lots of character but this one is way better built :-)
Helenas Flickr is pretty amazing. I would say this 3D has more to do with her skill, PP and fact shes using old 5D, than 35L. But obviously it couldnt be done without it. I wonder what shes using for RAW converting and PP..
Yeah it is. But for the rest I've seen far too many superb 35L images to agree. Of course there's skill here; composition, "choice" of light and so on. It is also a very good example. But it IS a good lens with a lot of magic. And I am saying this as someone being very happy about my CY 35/1.4.
I do also agree that the 5DC may be part because of the limited resolution, softening the OOF parts even more than the lens even at this size. But when it comes to PP, the Helena I know is more of a natural than someone exploiting the PP potential.
carstenw wrote:
And even their 85/1.4!
I was thinking too much about 80lux in my mind I forget to bid a 80lux on Ebay Sunday as My son was sick. worst part is it is in mint condition with OBM and sold for $1775.
I don't think Zeiss can make a loser to be a keeper and 35L can make a keeper a loser. 90% of image is made by composition, light and concept than Lens performance. (I can even change it to 100%) Modern lens are really good like Samyang, Sigma, Tamron etc...
Lens talk: a lots time remind me of people talk about Cable performance in Audio. Shooting the same scene with 35lux, Contax Zeiss, 35L, 35G, I bet difference will be so small make out side of this forum or real photographer laugh to death.
Clarify: I am a victim myself and enjoy gear talk. but part of my brain is still sane.
carstenw wrote:
You have to find a way to kill this little part
On the other hand, My other sane part also telling me by buying Contax, Leica, I might lose less money than buying SamyangSigma... They keep their value better
That is very true. I have broken even or made money on almost all Leica stuff I have ever bought, except my Leica M8. I did keep everything for a while before selling, which helped. If I were to sell my 180/2R today, I would make 1000 Euro at least. On my 35/1.4R I would probably break even.
zhangyue wrote:
On the other hand, My other sane part also telling me by buying Contax, Leica, I might lose less money than buying SamyangSigma... They keep their value better
+1
the only gear i've ever lost money selling are camera bodies and AF lenses. all my manual focus lenses have made money or at least broken even.
I also envy Helenas apparent lifestyle, which allows here to take great photos almost daily of such beautiful and interesting scenery. London doesn't quite offer the same...
Someone notified me of this thread. Thank you Wilhelm, R.Young and Mescalamba! I took that car shot before starting with RAW. Now I use Lightroom and really like it.
I currently have both 35L and ZE 35/1.4. For my use, and on this old 5D, the main difference is the bokeh in the corners and edges. There the Zeiss is clearly better. Close-ups and portraits also look better with the Zeiss - sharper and with more sense of depth.
For general shooting I have found that (like zhangyue and others have already said) light is much more important than any subtle differences between the lenses. I work from home, so I can go out when the light is good. I am fortunate to have a good mix of scenery (small scale industry, farm landscapes, and views of some mountains) within walking distance. That helps a lot. That doesn't mean that I'm not sometimes envious of R. Young and others with big city views.
Wilhelm, your Volvo is beautiful! The photo is great too.
The new Sigma 35 looks like a no-brainer for anyone who's in a market for a very fast 35. And the price isn't stratospheric to boot - what's not to like?
R.Young wrote:
I would go with the Volvo too, much more style.
I also envy Helenas apparent lifestyle, which allows here to take great photos almost daily of such beautiful and interesting scenery. London doesn't quite offer the same...
zhangyue wrote:
On the other hand, My other sane part also telling me by buying Contax, Leica, I might lose less money than buying SamyangSigma... They keep their value better
I think in long term, Samyang lens might be decent investment. Especially with rise of mirrorless. But thats just my opinon.
