Upload & Sell: On
OK, guys, I have tried the much awaited 35mm f:1.4, in ZE mount. Good news is that I ad a 35:: f:2.0 to duplicate the shots. Bad news is that the light was absolutely horrible, and I had less than 25mn all in.
Basic finding is that the differences are really small. Smaller than I expected. Much smaller than the differences between any two other Zeiss lenses. If you know what a 35 f:2.0 shot looks like, you also know what a 35 f:1.4 shot looks like. My guess is that no difference is large enough that it can be visible at Internet resolution.
What difference is there? There are two IMHO. The f:1.4 is more detailed than the f:2.0, which in a perverse way, makes the f:2.0 look sharper and more 3D, just because transitions are more brutal. The f:1.4 is as detailed as the 21 again IMHO. The second difference is that the colours are just a bit more saturated with the f:1.4. Not different, as they are between a 50 f:1.4 and a 50 MP, only a bit more saturated, and a shade more contrasty. Furthermore, it seemed to me that the f:1.4 is at its best around f:2.8, still very sharp at f:1.4 (unlike its 50 and 85 f:14 brethren). Around f:2.0 to f:2.8, maybe until f:3.4, it is clearly superior to the f:2.0. Bokeh is in the Zeiss tradition, maybe just a bit creamier, whereas the f:2.0 can be considered a bit rougher than average Zeiss.
Lastly, the f:1.4 suffers from quite a bit of magenta LOCA when wide open. At f:4.0, it has a bit less than the f:2.0 and a bit more than the 21.
I am sure that this bried report is a lot less than most of you expected. Sorry, this is the best I could do under the circumstances. Oh, and this lens is less of a beast than I feared. Very heavy, yes. Burdensome, yes. But still just inside the envelope of what I consider tolerable. I have yet to make up my mind, but I lean towards getting one.