I'm thinking a 28/1.4 would be pretty unmanageable on a Leica M - a lot of viewfinder blockage. Nevermind the fact that I wouldn't be able to afford it
But yeah, a 28/1.4 would be sweet on Canon. Since I already have a Canon. Haha.
I don't have the money to shoot lenses that block that much of the finder. Really though, 21 and 24 are a bit wide for me. 28 is where it's at. For me.
Anyhow, I fail to see how the reviewer could have mentioned this unreleased/unannounced lens by mistake. It's probably part of the usual organized "leaks" that precede the announcement of all new products these days.
Cinstance wrote:
I have been wondering since they released the ZF 35/2, why not f1.4?
Yes, I also was surprised that the ZF 35mm wasn't f1.4. But I have to say that the ZF 35/2, even though it is only f2.0, is a phenomenal lens. If Zeiss does do a ZF 35/1.4, I hope they are able to preserve in it all of the excellent qualities of the 35/2.
D**M!, Just when I thought I was getting a handle on my lens addiction. Zeiss is becoming the "Pusher" fueling this disorder with the new ZEs. Now I f I can just find where the heck to buy the ZE 21 and when to expect to get the ZE 35/1.4.
Well looks like my kid's inheritance just got a tad lighter.......
The C/Y mount version weighed 600 grams, so I would guess this version will be close to that size and maybe just a little bigger given the previous ZF/ZE/ZK/ZS lenses. Here is a link to the data sheet from Zeiss for the C/Y mount lens:
It has both a aspherical element and a floating element (9 elements in 8 groups). This looks like a great lens and I expect that it's price will be similar to the 21mm f/2.8 or about $1,600 US or Euros (why they continue to screw Europeans on cost is a mystery to me).
Lotusm50 wrote:
Yes, I also was surprised that the ZF 35mm wasn't f1.4. But I have to say that the ZF 35/2, even though it is only f2.0, is a phenomenal lens. If Zeiss does do a ZF 35/1.4, I hope they are able to preserve in it all of the excellent qualities of the 35/2.
I'd expect a somewhat different lens that the 35/2. Most likely reduced corner performance at wide apertures and more distortion.
With the 35/2 already owning the landscape/architecture side of things, the 35/1.4 is more likely to be similar to the 28/2 in rendering, with the addition of the extra stop.
If its any better optically than the lovely C/Y 35/1.4, which the optical formula sounds like being, then I'm going to be hard pressed not to sell my body on the street to gross some cash for one
Maybe I should just deal crack for a few weeks instead
Having the 35/2, I wonder whether there will be compromises in the jump to 1.4. The 35/2 is just superb at all apertures, matching (even beating) the 35L. If the ZF 1.4 beats the 35/2 yet again, then I'm going to fork out again! (argh!) But if there are IQ compromises (size/weight are expected) then I'll have to give it a bit more thinking...
I'm thinking exactly the same thing as you fluffybug. I'm not willing to compromise small aperture performance, and having a larger maximum aperture would be great. We'll have to wait and see what happens, if this lens rumour is even true.
I'd probably have the Contax 35mm f/1.4 if I could use it on my Nikon.
There are always compromises. You compromised when you payed more for a much larger 35/2 without autofocus or CPU contacts when there are several perfectly decent 35/2's available. The 35/1.4 will be even more expensive, larger and as Mawz pointed out sure to have more distortion.
