Upload & Sell: On
I shoot Canon 5d2, and currently have the Canon 35L. I'm accustomed to live view focusing from a tripod, and use that with my Canon TS-E 90 mm, among others. I am extremely happy with that lens, and prefer the image quality I get with it to that from the 35 L, which, good as it is, seems borderline for my landscape work. I'm looking for a landscape solution, with a shooting style that keeps everything sharp. I make and sell prints pushed to the max for size, up to 30 inches wide, sometimes larger. I'm very demanding, and display my work in galleries that also show work from 8x10 view cameras, so I'm under the gun on image quality in my prints. I have to get the maximum possible out of my light and my lens or my images won't stand up to the competition.
I need a 50 mm to replace my broken Canon f/1.4, and have decided to buy the 50 MP, hoping it will match the Canon 90 for image quality. The Canon 50 f/1.4 is not in the same class, even when it works. It's very sharp in middling f/stops, but color and contrast are drab compared to the Canon 90. I'm looking for more of the latter, but in different focal lengths.
I have reviewed images on these threads and come away with the impression that the colors and contrast of the 35 f/2 are similar to those of the 50 MP. I also think it may be true that the Zeiss 35 1.4 delivers softer (but superb) colors and contrast compared to the Zeiss 35f/2. If so, I see that as a potential advantage for the f/1.4, given that the 50 MP would be there for the other effect, and the focal lengths are not too far apart to be an either/or in some cases.
So here are the questions:
Am I correct in my characterization of the color and contrast differences of these two Zeiss 35 mm lenses if shot at f/5.6 - f/14?
Am I correct in thinking the 50 MP and the Zeiss 35 f/2 produce similar style images, and the Zeiss 35 f/1.4 is notably different—all when shot around f/5.6 or smaller? I suspect I might be wrong about that at the smaller apertures I'm accustomed to using, even if it is true closer to wide open.
Am I foolish to think that using a Zeiss 35 will notably improve the results a picky person observes in a large print, compared to the good copy of the 35L which I already have?
I would welcome hearing from anyone who has first-hand experience that seems relevant to the comparisons I'm asking about, but it's specifically comparative information I'm looking for, however subjective. No need to tell me that Zeiss lenses deliver great color and contrast, or that they are well built.
Thanks for any help you can offer.