p.1 #1 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Hello, first post here
I've been reading the forums and browsing flickriver for days trying to make a decision between these two lenses, and like others here I'm coming to the conclusion that the lenses are just, different and one can't be considered better than the other.
However, I can only justify the funds to get one of them, as is usually the case, and it doesn't help that my main interests for this focal length seem to require both :P I plan to use the lens for environmental portraits (for which the f/1.4 with its creamy drawing is fantastic) and street photography (for which the f/2 with its "3d" look and lower weight would be a best match).
So I had this idea of asking for photos from each of the lenses doing what the other one is known to be good at, i.e. photos with that "3d" effect (hate that term but whatever...) from the f/1.4 and wide open portraits taken with the f/2.
Does anyone have any photos to share? Any other considerations regarding the f/1.4 vs the f/2 would be very much welcome, especially since a few forum members seem to have experience with both.
p.1 #5 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Thank you! Your photos are great. It's amazing how the 1.4's drawing is smooth, film-like. The colors are fantastic too.
Rodluvan wrote:
Actually nowadays, I find it much more common for the 1.4 to produce that special something called 3D.
It seems from looking at images on the web that the effect is present in some f/1.4 shots but is more pervasive on the f/2. I remember a photo of a red Ferrari here on the forum taken with the f/2 that showed the effect even with the lens stopped down. Do you think achieving it is harder and/or a matter of better/different technique on the f/1.4?
p.1 #7 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Hm, we'll I haven't done stringent tests so take it with a grain of salt, but the 1.4/50 for instance is smashing at about 2.8-4. The 1.4/35 is great at 1.4. I really haven't found that it's better at 2.0 i this regard.
About technique, it's the obvious, you really must nail focus @1.4 to achieve it. I've come to believe 3D is simply a matter of excellent optical performance, no veiling flare, pin sharpness and smooth oof transition (and adequately shallow dof). the 1.4/35 has all this, the 1.4/50 has it at 2.8 and smaller etc. The 2/35 doesn't have the resolution that the 1.4/35 has and as such it probably needs to be stopped down some to peak. however it is plenty sharp at 2.0 especially if you are lucky with composition and such.
p.1 #8 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
andrenth wrote:
Can you expand on that?
i don't know how to explain, everybody seems to like 35/1.4 more than 35/2 but to my eye 35/2 samples are more pleasing, i feel 3D more on 35/2 for example.
p.1 #11 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
You might want to read some of the old threads in this forum which discussed the differences between these two lenses.
The ZE35/1.4 with its under-corrected spherical aberration design (wide open to f2) has a slower transition from in-focus to out-of-focus and background OOF objects retain their shape better than the 35/2. If you like/want soft beauty style bokeh for your portraits, then the ZE35/1.4 is your choice as the under-corrected SA behaves that of a Softar lens filter.
IMHO, if you want maximum 3-d, then you should get the old C/Y 35/1.4 which IMHO renders the most 3-d with its very fast transition from in-focus to OOF. The 35/2 would be my 2nd choice for 3-d and the ZE 35/1.4 3rd choice for 3-d. All three of these 35's are excellent, and it depends on your personal preference which one is best for you.
p.1 #12 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
It's mostly a matter of taste. They are very different.
I owned the 35/2 for about 1.5 years. I also bought the 1.4 when it came out and it made me decide to sell the f2.
The f2 is also really great (and much smaller), but there were often times I was hoping for a little smoother rendering. The 1.4 gave me plenty of that.
It's less in-your-face than the f2 rendering, more gentle with the most amazing bokeh I've ever seen in a 35mm lens. I also prefer the color rendition and fine detail (when stopped down) of the 1.4. It also has smaller DOF at the same apertures. I really like that "wide-angle, small DOF" look.
It's even more versatile than the f2 for me, because I never really liked doing portraits with the f2.
You can't really go wrong with any of them (or both ), but if you prefer a more agressive, punchy look most of the time... go for the f2.
p.1 #13 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
andrenth wrote:
Any tips regarding that? Are you using the stock d700 focus screen? Live view?
Nah, just look through the viewfinder. Focus bracketing can be of help if you don't trust your eyes or you can't afford to miss.
To be clear, I'm not saying either one is better, I kept the 2/35 when I got the 1.4/35 as they are different lenses. This can't be stressed enough (which does not mean they can't overlap).
p.1 #14 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
crazeazn wrote:
the f/2 is no slouch either.
I know, that's what makes this decision hard
wayne seltzer wrote:
You might want to read some of the old threads in this forum which discussed the differences between these two lenses.
Wayne, I did, including searching for 35mm photos in those 500-page threads :P
It seems that when the f/1.4 was announced and initially reviewed, people weren't very impressed with it, but it seems to have grown to be preferred by most now.
philber wrote:
It is not perfect, suffering from slightly lower contrast wide open than stopped down
Is this lower contrast wide-open what people often refer to as a "veiling haze"? Most photos I found from the f/1.4 were shot at f/1.4 but maybe a comparison with the f/2 at f/2 would be interesting to see.
Jochenb, thanks for the images. They're not making the choice easier
p.1 #15 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Hi Andre,
Like some others here, I owned 35/2 then sold it to fund the 1.4 not because the 2.0 is not good as 1.4 but I like its bokeh. I shot 5n and feel the 1.4 is a bit heavier/unbalance than the 2.0. But still I choose 1.4 for it close up performance, wider aperture . Some shot of it on nex 5n. Hope you will have come with final decision .
p.1 #18 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
philber wrote:
Andre, I owned a ZE 35 f:2.0 and now have a 35 f:1.4. If you can stomach the weight and the cost, the 35 f:1.4 has my clear preference. It is not perfect, suffering from slightly lower contrast wide open than stopped down
Well duh, what kind of a comment is that? What lens is perfect? If the only fault you see with it is a slightly lower contrast wide open (@1.4 which is very wide) then it is at least in practice, perfect.
The thing with all T* lenses is their ability to maintain striking contrast even wide open and one of the many things I'm totally blow away by.
p.1 #19 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
philber wrote:
Andre, I owned a ZE 35 f:2.0 and now have a 35 f:1.4. If you can stomach the weight and the cost, the 35 f:1.4 has my clear preference. ... But overall, it is a better lens, with much more fine detail, better colours and contrast.
I am still waiting for evidence to prove your statements. Up to now I have not seen it. The only thing I have seen here is that the 35/1.4 has massive CA in high contrast situations.
Where I live I see quite a lot of people selling their 35/1.4 on the second hand market. Apparently the 35/1.4 didn't meet the expectations. The 35/2 is hardly for sale.
My 2 cents for the OP: Save yourself a lot of money and get the 35/2.
p.1 #20 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
wiseguy010 wrote:
I am still waiting for evidence to prove your statements. Up to now I have not seen it. The only thing I have seen here is that the 35/1.4 has massive CA in high contrast situations.
Where I live I see quite a lot of people selling their 35/1.4 on the second hand market. Apparently the 35/1.4 didn't meet the expectations. The 35/2 is hardly for sale.
My 2 cents for the OP: Save yourself a lot of money and get the 35/2.
I believe the 35/1.4 has more CA than the 35/2 at wider aperatures but stopped down it has much less than the 35/2 which actually has high CA stopped down. Therefore the 35/1.4 does a better job for stopped down work. As far as wide open the 35/2 can't do 1.4 and no other 35mm produces the smooth bokeh the 35/1.4 draws which is the main signature of the lens. No lense is perfect but there's no doubt that the 35/1.4 is a superb lens. I've owned both and I prefer the 35/1.4. It's the best 35mm for for shallow DOF shots as well as portraits with off camera lighting and landscapes where I'm usually at f/5.6 - f/8
), but if you prefer a more agressive, punchy look most of the time... go for the f2. 
