Home · Register · 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 | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2017 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?

  
 
rek101
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


I like the nice contrast of the canon 35L 1.4 and the 24 to 70 2.8 II zoom, but I don't like the weight. I tried the Canon f/2 primes (original and IS version) and thought they looked kind of flat without much contrast. Is there a contrasty lightweight 35mm lens for Canon with some pop?

Is zeiss the only option? How is the Tamron? Anything new coming out on the horizon worth waiting for?

If it matters, I thought the old Nikon 35mm f/2 D was very good and better than the Canon equivalent...it was contrasty, small, light and had decent sharpness at f/2 and was very sharp at f/2.8. I wish Canon would clone that lens, throw in some UD glass and charge 700 for it. I think nobody would buy it but me, but that's my dream lens.








Jun 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM
garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


It doesn't seem to be a favorite around here, but you might look into the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC. I found it to have more pop and micro contrast than my Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS, and nicer rendering of OOF areas at wide apertures (the Canon is too nervous IMO). Sharpness was very good.

It is not too heavy, but it is rather more bulky than the Canon.

Whether it has the "pop" of a Zeiss it is hard to say. Though I have found that when shooting RAW, and light touch on the Clarity and Vibrance sliders in ACR can bring a convincingly similar sparkle to lesser lenses (I once did exactly this comparison between the ZE 35mm f/2 and the OG EF f/2 and found that, once processed in post, it was hard to spot the differences).


Edited on Jun 21, 2017 at 02:51 PM · View previous versions



Jun 21, 2017 at 11:28 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


Aside from Canon lenses, I use mostly Zeiss, Pentax, Mamiya 645, and Leica-R Alt lenses. My pop at 35mm is usually provided by a Zeiss 35/2 ZE. I didn't think the more reasonably-priced Contax 35/2.8 CY was a keeper. At 35mm, you might want to try a Leitax-R Summicron 35/2 E55. It's not what you'd call inexpensive (~ $1000), but it does provide excellent separation, pop, contrast, and micro-contrast (whatever that is), plus it comes with the Leica highly-saturated colour. I owned one for many years, but generally prefer the Zeiss look (slightly less saturated, but more so than Pentax and Mamiya). I still get an occasional Leica fix with the Summicron 50/2 E55 and Elmarit 90/2.8. I use them in situations that I would have previously used Velvia film (whatever that is), in the olden days.


Jun 21, 2017 at 11:33 AM
mb126
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


The 35L II is probably the best option in Canon mount but really the RX1 is the camera/lens you are looking for.

The 35 f/2 ZE is a good lens but I would hardly call it "small". It's surprisingly close in size to the 35L II, or at least it feels that way.



Jun 21, 2017 at 11:34 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


mb126 wrote:
The 35 f/2 ZE is a good lens but I would hardly call it "small". It's surprisingly close in size to the 35L II, or at least it feels that way.


The 35/2 ZE is only a bit more than half the volume of the EF 35/1.4L II. It's slightly smaller than the original 35/1.4L (about 0.75x), and about the same weight.




© jcolwell 2017




Jun 21, 2017 at 11:45 AM
mb126
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


jcolwell wrote:
The 35/2 ZE is only a bit more than half the volume of the EF 35/1.4L II. It's slightly smaller than the original 35/1.4L (about 0.75x), and about the same weight.


I've owned both lenses and the ZE is much larger than I would have expected, hence why I sold it and kept the 35L. It's a great lens, just don't buy one thinking it's a tiny little prime like the ZE 50 Planar. It's not.




Jun 21, 2017 at 01:58 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


mb126 wrote:
I've owned both lenses and the ZE is much larger than I would have expected, hence why I sold it and kept the 35L. It's a great lens, just don't buy one thinking it's a tiny little prime like the ZE 50 Planar. It's not.


I know. I just wanted to point out that it's nowhere near the size of the 35/1.4L II. The Contax 35/2.8 CY is a small lens, but its IQ doesn't match up with the Canon zooms, let alone the 35/2 ZE.



Jun 21, 2017 at 03:37 PM
rek101
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


Thanks for all the input. I had no idea that the Zeiss was the same weight almost as the original 35L.

I suppose I should be looking into the Rx1 or maybe giving the Tamron a try. When I used Nikon, I didn't like the colors and I thought ISO 3200 was hit or miss on the D750, but what I loved was that gem of a 35mm f/2 lens. Thanks again.




Jun 21, 2017 at 05:57 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


Yes, you can only get that nebulous stuff from Zeiss or Leica.
Years ago I had many such lenses, then realized the errors of my ways...

EBH



Jun 21, 2017 at 06:14 PM
rek101
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


garyvot wrote:
It doesn't seem to be a favorite around here, but you might look into the Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC. I found it to have more pop and micro contrast than my Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS, and nicer rendering of OOF areas at wide apertures (the Canon is too nervous IMO). Sharpness was very good.

It is not too heavy, but it is rather more bulky than the Canon.

Whether it has the "pop" of a Zeiss it is hard to say. Though I have found that when shooting RAW, and light touch on the Clarity and Vibrance sliders in ACR
...Show more

Thank you very much. I love the specs on the Tarmron and wondered why it isn't more popular. I'll try that trick in post. Do you also find that you need to mess with the blacks a bit? I find that the F/2 lenses are pretty washed out if I don't mess with the blacks.




Jun 21, 2017 at 06:15 PM
garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


rek101 wrote:
Do you also find that you need to mess with the blacks a bit? I find that the F/2 lenses are pretty washed out if I don't mess with the blacks.


Sometimes yes, but I tend to mess with everything in post. My normal PP routine starts with a custom profile for each body (usually a tweaked version of Adobe's Camera Standard profile), then Adobe's "auto" adjust, for quickly setting max white and black points. It usually looks like crap immediately after, but quick adjustments to exposure, highlights, shadows and sometimes WB, and I'm usually finished with all but local adjustments (if needed) to the image. For a given image or for lenses that need it, I might bump up clarity or adjust vibrance or black levels, or add a bit of vignetting, etc.

Given this RAW workflow, the original "signature" of the lens is lost somewhat. When shooting JPEG or film, I think lens characteristics like saturation, color balance, and contrast matter a lot more. That said, even in RAW the best lenses need less tweaking and fussing to create amazing results, and so are easier to handle in post. And of course, sharpness is absolute.



Jun 21, 2017 at 11:08 PM
splathrop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


Compared to the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0, the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 is notably better. Notably bigger and heavier too, but delivering more of the special Zeiss goodness. Which I think of—for want of accuracy in any more-abstract analysis—as the ability to make clouds float in the sky, instead of being plastered against it. The best Zeiss lenses do that, and all the other subtle stuff that implies. Has to be seen. (And not everyone sees it. But it's real. Not something which can be put in during post-processing.)

I currently own 3 35mm f/1.4 lenses—too many, but I like the focal length. The original Canon 35mm f/1.4 is a great lens, and the version II is a better one, besting the Zeiss f/1.4 on sharpness at the widest apertures (though not on bokeh), and close to the Zeiss otherwise. I will shortly sell the original Canon 35mm f/1.4, and keep the other two, using the Canon for hand-held autofocus work, and the Zeiss for more deliberate work off the tripod.



Jun 22, 2017 at 02:44 AM
sold5
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?



garyvot wrote:
My normal PP routine starts with a custom profile for each body (usually a tweaked version of Adobe's Camera Standard profile), then Adobe's "auto" adjust, for quickly setting max white and black points.


Hi garyvot, this is very interesting to hear - have you modified the Canon Standard profile much? I would be really interested in what way you edited it as to me Canon Standard looks so much better than Adobe Standard so is the first thing I do in my editing workflow.



Jun 22, 2017 at 06:47 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


If you aren't look for a fast lens (nor AF), the C/Y 35-70/3.4 is something to consider. Not a hard and fast rule, but when looking at lenses that have that "pop" sometimes the faster glass had to trade off some contrast to get the larger aperture. Larger aperture glass, can be "too large" for designing great contrast. That "pop" thing can also be effected by how rapidly the lens transitions between zones (kinda like wearing progressive lenses). Zeiss tends to build in some more rapid transition (Tamron seems to follow that somewhat at times). Others tend to have smoother transitions. Those decisions can have impact on both that "pop" and the bokeh.

Classic case in point, Galen Rowell shot with the slower variant of the Nikon 20mm. I forget whether it was the 3.5 or the 4.0, but the point being it wasn't the 2.8. Nikon and Voigtlander seem to run similar drawing styles at time, so you might check out what they have on tap in that FL if you aren't interested in the Zeiss (who does tend to build in ... some/not all ... more rapid transitions than others do, imo).




Jun 22, 2017 at 07:09 AM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


rek101 wrote:
I love the specs on the Tarmron and wondered why it isn't more popular.


The Tamron is expensive for its speed, slow focusing, reported inaccurate focusing, with a ton of hard to correct longitudinal CA.

Of course, it's a better sell on F-mount than EF as Canon has the 35/2 IS, and if you need weather resistance at 35mm, it's cheaper than an L/gold ring.

Also, Tamron SP lenses seem to play well with Canon's DPAF for video focus.




Jun 23, 2017 at 12:39 AM
frezeiss
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


Just do your self a favor and get the 35 2 Distagon. It has good wide open performance with micro contrast and strong colors! I love 35 mm lenses and have zeiss offerings also in FE and M mount.

What you want is better served with Zeiss, and to a lesser degree Leica. Getting Sigma or Tamron perhaps will yield simillar level of sharpness but not in 3D rendering.

If you use leica with zeiss 25 Biogon, 35 Biogon and 50 Planar, thats the best!




Jun 24, 2017 at 10:01 AM
rek101
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


frezeiss wrote:
Just do your self a favor and get the 35 2 Distagon. It has good wide open performance with micro contrast and strong colors! I love 35 mm lenses and have zeiss offerings also in FE and M mount.

What you want is better served with Zeiss, and to a lesser degree Leica. Getting Sigma or Tamron perhaps will yield simillar level of sharpness but not in 3D rendering.

If you use leica with zeiss 25 Biogon, 35 Biogon and 50 Planar, thats the best!



Thanks for the advice. I really like the images I've seen taken with this lens. I was hoping that I would see similar quality with the Sony zeiss 35mm f/2.8 offered for the A7, but I'm starting to think there is a big difference between the zeiss offerings for Sony and the zeiss offerings they sell directly. It's a shame...if someone would produce a compact 35 for the A7 series with really nice pop and contrast, I think a lot of people would use it as a walkaround camera. I hope I can deal with Manual focus.



Jul 03, 2017 at 08:22 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


rek101 wrote:

I hope I can deal with Manual focus.


Folks used manual focus long before AF ever came along. It's just a learning curve thing. Heck, I had to "learn" how to use AF (who'da thunk it).

In time you may find that the precision of manual focus ... coupled with interactivity it engages you to your subject has benefits you'd never realize using AF alone. Both have their place ... it's kinda like driving a performance car with an automatic transmission vs. manual transmission. There's something about that tactile engagement that renders the experience differently.





Jul 04, 2017 at 09:34 AM
TheRoosta
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


I shoot Nikon, but I can say that I have slowly converted to Tamron. The newest series lenses are spectacular, beating well-establish ODM lenses in DXOMark and other independent benchmark test. I am very impressed at their sharpness, color rendering, lack of distortion and general flexibility I have the newest SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD G2, which has built-in stabilization, and I am astounded by the results. I went to a local dealer, selling Tamron lenses, and they let me try before buying. I would recommend considering the Tamron SP 35mm F/1.8 Di VC USD too. I've owned Zeiss, which I sold because they were large, heavy, MF and no stabilization. Since I made the switch my photos have become more consistent.


Jul 04, 2017 at 11:07 AM
George Orwell
Offline
• •
[X]
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 35mm lenses with 3-D pop suggestions? Is Zeiss the only option?


RustyBug wrote:
Folks used manual focus long before AF ever came along. It's just a learning curve thing. Heck, I had to "learn" how to use AF (who'da thunk it).

In time you may find that the precision of manual focus ... coupled with interactivity it engages you to your subject has benefits you'd never realize using AF alone. Both have their place ... it's kinda like driving a performance car with an automatic transmission vs. manual transmission. There's something about that tactile engagement that renders the experience differently.



Manual focus lenses were used with manual focus cameras, which had massively better focusing screens with ground glass focusing aides. Todays' DSLR's have nothing even close to that. It is a far more miserable focusing experience. That's why Sony's A7 series cameras are so popular with legacy glass users; live view.




Jul 04, 2017 at 02:16 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.