It's sort of interesting how the 35/1.4 differs from the 35/2. You can definitely see that they are related but yet different. The 35/2 is sharper and produces images with more clarity to them - definitely a more clinical look. The 35/1.4, especially wide open is softer, warmer and a bit more refined. I like both. And for portraits I also really like the 50 MP.
Too bad that realistically - especially when it comes to social photography - you never really have the time and opportunity to change lenses. Still, if you are forced to go with one lens, you can do a lot worse than the 35/1.4
More like looking at Google Maps to see where the boat was at that point.
I've found the iPad to be sort of a disappointment for photos. Resolution and colors are not all that great. The iphone 4 display on the other hand.. wow. When they make an iPad with that kind of resolution (PPI) then I will be very very happy.
Really nice portraits Luka The 35/1.4 keeps the portraits more intimate.
I am patiently waiting for the ZE 35/1.4. Just hope it is the same rendering and IQ
charles.K wrote:
Really nice portraits Luka The 35/1.4 keeps the portraits more intimate.
I am patiently waiting for the ZE 35/1.4. Just hope it is the same rendering and IQ
Thanks Charles.
Yes, the 35/1.4 has definitely a softer, more subtle rendering style than the 35/2 and I definitely prefer it for portraits.
As for the ZE 35/1.4, I see no reason why they should change a winning concept. The Rollei version was introduced in 1965 and they did not change the basic optical construction over the next 30 years. They change the coating and the number of aperture blades but in essence the Contax and Rollei version are the same lens.
The ZE version will probably not feature the avantgarde three aperture blade design of the Rollei and will certainly have an improved T* coating. I hope the latter won't affect color rendering.
Yours is the older version of the Rollei. The late version looks much like the late Contax version (rubber on the focus and aperture rings). It could be that the newer versions have improved coatings. HFT was supposed to be an exact copy of the T* coatings - according to Rollei and Zeiss. Here's my version (again):
Interesting Paul - I didn't know that HFT was supposed to be the same as T*. Yes, my version is the older with only metal parts.
The thing is, there are different versions of the T* coating as well. The Z* lens T* coating is far better than the Contax era T* coating, especially when it comes to flare resistance.
Since this has recently grown into a frequently asked question we feel it is appropriate to provide an official and unequivocal answer from Carl Zeiss:
HFT, meaning "High Fidelity Transfer", is a multi-layer anti-reflection coating system co-developed by Zeiss and Rollei. This occurred several decades ago at a time when Zeiss T* coating was new on the market and could only be applied at the Zeiss Oberkochen plant to rather small camera lens production batches. Rollei envisaged very large volume production in their then new Singapore plant and therefore encouraged this joint development.
Today the situation is this: HFT has become a well established trademark for Rollei's proprietary multi-layer anti-reflection coating. The optical performance of this Zeiss/Rollei co-development is so close to the performance of the original Zeiss T* that one can hardly detect any difference in all practical picture taking.
The Planar®, Distagon®, Sonnar® lenses that Rollei produces under license from Carl Zeiss are all HFT coated by Rollei. All the lenses that Carl Zeiss produces for Rollei at the Zeiss Oberkochen plant are actually Zeiss T*. coated. However, the designation on these lenses is "HFT" in the interest of remaining fully consistent throughout the Rollei product range. ...Show more →
Since my lens has "Made in West Germany" on it, I'm assuming it was built in Oberkochen sometimes in the late 60's.
There is something distinctly different about the current T* coating and it is shown in the way it handles reflections. It behaves almost as if you had a polarizer on. That wasn't the case with the Contax era T* nor with the HFT of my 35/1.4.
Does your lens have "Made by Rollei" written on it somewhere? Mine does not, but from what I've read (http://www.sl66.com/pg/HFT_coating.shtml) Rollei Zeiss lenses made after 1972 (in either Germany or Singapore) should have it written on the lens.
I still stand by my original hypotheses (that I gathered online) - that the best Zeiss 35/1.4's went to Rollei. Rollei was a German company, Contax was a Japanese company.
Being a minority, I am the last person to be a racist. But, back in the day it might make sense
So mine, (57*****) was produced between 1969 and 1971 while yours (63*****) was produced sometime between 1971 and 1975.
It's kind of remarkable - a 40 year old lens that is still optically and mechanically excellent and that outclasses many more modern 35mm lenses when it comes to image quality.
