Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

  

Which 35mm...ZM 35, CY 35, CV 35 or RX1
  
 
nehemiahphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Which 35mm...ZM 35, CY 35, CV 35 or RX1


I am trying to decide what to do here. I have owned an RX1 and RX1R, a CY 35 1.4 and CV 35 1.7, but I am thinking about getting ZM 35. But maybe I'll stick with my CY 35 1.4 and CV 35 1.7

Strictly in terms of IQ and rendering (and the rendering part is very important to me), how would you compare the ZM 35 1.4 versus the above mentioned lenses?

I loved the RX1 Sonnar, but didn't like I had to use an RX1 (ergonomics, battery, shooting process, MF/AF and stuck with the same sensor). The CY 35 1.4 is glorious, and one of my favorite lenses ever, but I find it's collecting dust simple because it's a large lens even without adapters. Enter the CV 35 1.7. Great sharpness even WO, but longish MFD, loads of vignetting, and field curvature because of the a7 sensor stack. But mostly, it just doesn't have the bite and signature of the Zeiss lenses.

From the reviews I have read and images seen, this is my thoughts on the rendering:

(a) it has fabulously nuanced color and microcontrast, reminding me of the Milvus 85, very modern feel
(b) extremely sharp, at least centrally WO, and sharpens up quite nicely stopped down across the entire frame
(c) doesn't quite have the 3D of the CY 35 1.4, but more than the RX1 sonnar
(d) fringing looks about on par with the CY 35 1.4, a pinch more than the RX1, and definitely less than the CY 35 1.7
(e) build/size wise it looks hefty by leica standards, but quite a bit smaller than the CY 35 1.4
(f) I don't know what to think of the bokeh--seems decent WO, but depends on subject distance, and it gets jittery stopping down a little? I can't tell, but sometimes it looks quite nice, other times harsh. Specular highlights seem not overly bright, I haven't seen an noticeable onion ring bokeh, and the balls don't look overly like the diaphragm stopped down that I can tell.
(g) how is focusing? Seem like the focus throw is on the shorter side? Do think pop into focus on an A7?

Looking for a more nuanced understanding of the lens. I don't doubt it's great, I am just wondering if my assessment is accurate and if it fits my style. I would be using it for portraits (esp. dogs), nature and urban shooting. Sometimes people, but not as often.







Oct 26, 2016 at 03:21 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Which 35mm...ZM 35, CY 35, CV 35 or RX1


nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am trying to decide what to do here. I have owned an RX1 and RX1R, a CY 35 1.4 and CV 35 1.7, but I am thinking about getting ZM 35. But maybe I'll stick with my CY 35 1.4 and CV 35 1.7

Strictly in terms of IQ and rendering (and the rendering part is very important to me), how would you compare the ZM 35 1.4 versus the above mentioned lenses?

I loved the RX1 Sonnar, but didn't like I had to use an RX1 (ergonomics, battery, shooting process, MF/AF and stuck with the same sensor). The CY
...Show more

I have the lens and this is my take:
a) yes, beautiful colors and it does remind me of my miles 85
b)centrally it is sharp, but wide open there is a zone that includes some of the edge and definitely the corners that is not sharp. I crop to 4 X 5 a lot and this crops out pretty much all the problems, but if you want the full 2 X 3 format the edges and corners can be less than pleasant wide open and even at f/2. You have to learn to live with this characteristic.
c) The lens can have very nice 3D, I don't know if it is as good as the CY 35 f/1.4, but it is a bit better than my ZF 35 f/1.4
d) I find the fringing to be a pretty manageable thing. If I select the lens in lightroom and apply CA correction that is usual enough. I don't find it to be hard clean up the CA at all even if lightroom won't handle it.
e) I find it to be a very reasonable size on my A7s or my A7r II. It doesn't seem big at all to me.
f) Centrally the bokeh is usually pretty nice, but it suffers a bit in the corners. Again if you crop to 4 X 5 it gets rid of almost all the problem, but if you shoot for 2 X 3, you can get some funky looking bokeh at the edges and in the corners. Incidentally, if you get a close focus adapter the lens does fantastically at short distances and there the bokeh is phenomenal. I think spectral highlights are quite good and the 10 blade aperture is quite nice both of stopped down bokeh and for sunstars.
g)focusing is very easy, IMO, and not too short. The image does snap into focus and super easy with magnification. I usually use magnification, but I don't think I really need to. When I check focus with magnification it is great at least 90% of the time.

As you may note from my analysis above, when I am shooting wide open to about f/4 I crop to 4 X 5 and this in almost all cases fixes the problem areas. I tend to shoot things at wider aperture with a squarer crop anyways, so I am quite happy with this solution. If you stop down to f/4 or narrower, then I find very good to excellent performance across the frame. So for my purposes the lens works great. If I shot more at a less square crop wide open I am less sure I would be happy with the lens, so depending on your style you may be fine with the lens or its flaws may bother you.



Oct 26, 2016 at 03:46 AM
nehemiahphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Which 35mm...ZM 35, CY 35, CV 35 or RX1


Thanks Steve--very much appreciated.

Others?



Oct 27, 2016 at 12:11 AM







FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password