Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Image Upload

2 end

Maximilian
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

It's official:

http://www.zeiss.com/C1256A770030BCE0/WebViewTopNewsAllE/35C8D7B3AFA52B1AC1257662002B7514?OpenDocument

Nov 02, 2009 at 11:16 AM

slungu
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

That leaves us out of a possible ZE 35/1.4 that many would have wanted from Zeiss. I am starting to wonder how Zeiss prepared the whole ZE lineup.

Nov 02, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Maximilian
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

slungu wrote:
That leaves us out of a possible ZE 35/1.4

why that? Let time pass...

Nov 02, 2009 at 12:26 PM

DanPBrown
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

Does anyone know for certain whether this lens has a floating focusing group?
Dan
www.danbrownphotography.com

Nov 02, 2009 at 12:45 PM

thrice
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #5 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

The picture at the bottom of that press release is all kinds of bad photoshop cut & paste. The front of the lens is pasted onto the front of the barrel without doing any kind of transformation for perspective. The concealing of the model number was done well but that's rudimentary. Taken with an HD-39 hasselblad

Nov 02, 2009 at 12:45 PM

DanPBrown
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

thrice wrote:
The picture at the bottom of that press release is all kinds of bad photoshop cut & paste. The front of the lens is pasted onto the front of the barrel without doing any kind of transformation for perspective. The concealing of the model number was done well but that's rudimentary. Taken with an HD-39 hasselblad

Let's hope they still have a ZE/ZF/ZK 35/1.4 some time soon!

Dan - They make a point of mentioning sharp images throughout the focusing range... I would assume it does, or it doesn't matter if it doesn't? Is there a special reason you want a floating element? Perhaps shoot an e-mail to Zeiss they're pretty good with that sort of info.
Curios more than anything. Zeiss will usually say in their technical sheet if a lens has a floating design, but there is no mention withe 35mm. A few people on this board believe it does have the floating design though.
Dan

Nov 02, 2009 at 01:07 PM

philber
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #7 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

AFAIK, the release of ZE lenses is just the replication in ZE mount (Canon) of all lenses already in existence in ZF (Nikon ) mount. This is not what Zeiss have in mind when they talk about developping new products. I personally think that the 35 f:1.4 is just around the corner, as per the "leak" from Erwin Puts. Just think how many Canon shooters say that the only item keeping them from jumping to Nikon is the existence of the holy trinity of Canon primes. Nikon have a fast (1.4) 85mm, but no great 35. So releasing one would offer Zeiss a real opportunity in the Nikon world. And of course we would/will get the ZE version for those who prefer Zeiss glass.

Nov 02, 2009 at 01:20 PM

Maximilian
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

DanPBrown wrote:
Does anyone know for certain whether this lens has a floating focusing group?

Yes, I know for certain that the Distagon 2,0/35mm has floating elements.

Nov 02, 2009 at 03:31 PM

snowboarder
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

For a Canon 35L owner who is happy with his lens, not sure if I can talk myself
into buying the Zeiss 35 ZE. Not only a question of money, but if I own both,
which lens would I take with me on a trip? The same applies to the Zeiss 50
and Canon 50 f1.2L I like (which is kind of a manual lens anyway

)

Nov 02, 2009 at 03:56 PM

philber
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #10 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

In my case, I had the Zeiss 50 and the 35L, and the latter got less and less use until I sold it. I have a ZE 35 on order, in the hopes that it is more 21 than 28...

Nov 02, 2009 at 05:26 PM

Sam N
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #11 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

It's going to be hard to compete with the 35L. Any ZE 35/1.4 would be at LEAST as expensive as the 35L and not have AF. If they use the old design, it also won't be quite as sharp as the 35L.

Nov 02, 2009 at 07:29 PM

Jeffrey
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #12 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

So, how many photographers here actually shoot their lenses wide open often? I know the difference between a 1.4 and a 2.0 is one stop of speed. For reference, I am primarily a landscape, architecture and nature shooter. I never work near the wide open end. If, like many folks I know, I generally shoot above f5.6, why would I care if my lens is f1.4 of f2.0? BTW, when I do shoot wildlife, I am often wide open, so I understand the need there, bit I don't consider this lens a wildlife lens.

Edited on Nov 02, 2009 at 07:38 PM · View previous versions

Nov 02, 2009 at 07:30 PM

Lotusm50
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

DanPBrown wrote:
Curios more than anything. Zeiss will usually say in their technical sheet if a lens has a floating design, but there is no mention withe 35mm. A few people on this board believe it does have the floating design though.

In an earlier thread, it was posted that an official at Zeiss specifically confirmed to the poster that the ZF 35/2.0 did indeed have a floating element(s). Personally, I can coinfirm that it is sharp both near and far. Quite an amazing lens, actually.

Nov 02, 2009 at 07:35 PM

bluetsunami
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #14 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

philber wrote:
In my case, I had the Zeiss 50 and the 35L, and the latter got less and less use until I sold it. I have a ZE 35 on order, in the hopes that it is more 21 than 28...

The Photozone review shows that it has pretty harsh chromatic aberration throughout the aperture range. So I wouldn't expect that aspect to be as corrected as the 21mm.

Link: http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/258-zeiss-distagon-zf-t-35mm-f2-review--test-report?start=1

Nov 02, 2009 at 07:55 PM

Tariq Gibran
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

Jeffrey wrote:
So, how many photographers here actually shoot their lenses wide open often? I know the difference between a 1.4 and a 2.0 is one stop of speed. For reference, I am primarily a landscape, architecture and nature shooter. I never work near the wide open end. If, like many folks I know, I generally shoot above f5.6, why would I care if my lens is f1.4 of f2.0? BTW, when I do shoot wildlife, I am often wide open, so I understand the need there, bit I don't consider this lens a wildlife lens.

Quite often, I'm shooting wide open when doing documentary work with wide angle lenses.

Nov 02, 2009 at 07:59 PM

Lotusm50
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #16 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

bluetsunami wrote:
The Photozone review shows that it has pretty harsh chromatic aberration throughout the aperture range. So I wouldn't expect that aspect to be as corrected as the 21mm.

The ZF 35/2? Really? I don't see significant CA in my ZF 35/2 at all. Not sure i would trust that "review".

Here are a couple examples. First is a file with some typical backlit tree branches followed by a 100% crop. Looks pretty clean. The second example (100% crop) is the most I've ever seen in a ZF 35/2 file. I believe these were at f4.0. Very well controlled. Also notice the lack of flare in the first.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Nov 02, 2009 at 08:22 PM

bluetsunami
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #17 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

Nov 02, 2009 at 08:28 PM

fourfa
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #18 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

second pic, is that Taos?

Nov 02, 2009 at 08:37 PM

Tariq Gibran
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

Lotusm50 wrote:
bluetsunami wrote:
The Photozone review shows that it has pretty harsh chromatic aberration throughout the aperture range. So I wouldn't expect that aspect to be as corrected as the 21mm.

The ZF 35/2? Really? I don't see significant CA in my ZF 35/2 at all. Not sure i would trust that "review".

Here are a couple examples. First is a file with some typical backlit tree branches followed by a 100% crop. Looks pretty clean. The second example (100% crop) is the most I've ever seen in a ZF 35/2 file. I believe these were at f4.0. Very well controlled. Also notice the lack of flare in the first.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

That's really phenomenal performance. If CA was an issue, it would certainly show up in abundance for the first example as that is pretty much a torture test scenario.

Nov 02, 2009 at 09:15 PM

philber
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #20 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

It definitely looks like my kind of lens. I should get mine later this month, I hope...

Nov 02, 2009 at 11:13 PM

thrice
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #21 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

lotus, I assume you're shooting on a Canon body and not one of the recent Nikon bodies with in-built CA reduction algorithms?

Nov 03, 2009 at 01:10 AM

Lotusm50
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #22 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

thrice wrote:
lotus, I assume you're shooting on a Canon body and not one of the recent Nikon bodies with in-built CA reduction algorithms?

Yes, on a Canon body. No CA reduction algorithms anywhere.

Nov 03, 2009 at 01:18 AM

Sam N
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #23 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

Would those algorithms even work for non-Nikon lenses?

Nov 03, 2009 at 02:14 AM

jianghai_ho
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #24 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

Jeffrey wrote:
So, how many photographers here actually shoot their lenses wide open often? I know the difference between a 1.4 and a 2.0 is one stop of speed. For reference, I am primarily a landscape, architecture and nature shooter. I never work near the wide open end. If, like many folks I know, I generally shoot above f5.6, why would I care if my lens is f1.4 of f2.0? BTW, when I do shoot wildlife, I am often wide open, so I understand the need there, bit I don't consider this lens a wildlife lens.

I do. I almost exclusively shoot my 35L in the 1.4-2.2 range. If you're looking for a f5.6 or f8 lens go with the cheaper ones - most lenses look more or less the same at f8.

Plus, shooting at 2.0 on a 1.4 lens is one stop down, which presumably gets you better resolution than might a 2.0 lens shot wide open.

Nov 03, 2009 at 07:02 AM

philber
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #25 · Zeiss ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm announced

jianghai_ho wrote:

most lenses look more or less the same at f8.

I respectfully disagree. This applies to some of the criteria that differentiate lenses, such as wide-open softness, but defintely not all, including drawing style, rendition of colour and contrast, resistance to flare, CA, distortion...

Nov 03, 2009 at 07:48 AM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end