Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Thanks luka
Really like your set from Zeiss 35 f2
One question: do you think it's worth an update from zeiss 35 f2 to 1.4?
So is it worth the huge price difference .. you have both right?
That is a tough question to answer. I still have both, and am having a hard time to let go f2. I have been thinking about selling f2 and get 25 f2.8 to cover more FL, but that has not happened. It may never happen, I don't know.35 f2 is a lovely lens with strong contrast. 1.4 is a superb lens, and it probably has more detail rendition but heavy. If it was not as heavy as it is, I'd have let go 35 f2 long ago. Going hiking with 1.4 means I may only take one other lens, or none. With f2, I can go with a few. So, it is from the practical reason I am keeping the f2. However, I am not ignoring the fact that when I used f2 a few weeks ago after a long interval, I was more pleased than I imagined.
I guess, if one already has f2 and happy with it, unless 35 is the FL choice for that person (Like some people have many 50mm lenses, even I have 3 ), f2 would do just good. Then, there is the lovely bokeh of 1.4 .. ha ha you can't win.
regarding 35mm's
In a pinch I'd sell the 1.4/35 as I'm working predominately stopped down. However not being in a pinch I like having both for the portrait like situations where I need 1.4.
I don't consider the 1.4 as an upgrade, it's another lens.
Interesting to hear these views on the 35/1.4. I thought I was alone but many times I really miss the 35/2. I love the 35/1.4 as well but thought the rendering of the 35/2 was outstanding. It is a different lens for sure and one that I miss. I wonder if I were to sell my 35/1.4 and pick up the 35/2 if I would feel the same way.
There is another consideration as well, the 1.4 is not 'only' one stop faster, the difference is imo way larger than that due to the 2/35 heavy vignetting at 2-2.8 which the 1.4 doesn't have to the same extent. effectively you'll gain almost 2 stops in shutter-speed. Beyond that the weight and thus inertia of the 1.4 makes it less prone to shake, at least if you take advantage of that with some success
rji2goleez wrote:
I actually like the vignetting of the f/2 lens . . . part of it's character that I miss in the 1.4.
well there's always the option to add vignetting, never to losslessly remove it. And at 1.4 it has about as much as the 2/35 does @2 so it's not that it's totally absent, it's just that it's another distribution and fades quicker down the apertures
Rodluvan wrote:
well there's always the option to add vignetting, never to losslessly remove it. And at 1.4 it has about as much as the 2/35 does @2 so it's not that it's totally absent, it's just that it's another distribution and fades quicker down the apertures
But don't you find the rendering of the 35/2 somewhat different and pleasing versus the 1.4? I do. I'm not sure how to explain it but IMO felt that that the 35/2 had more classic Zeiss character than the 1.4.
Rodluvan wrote:
Well, yes (not necessarily more pleasing though), I said as much earlier, but I don't attribute that to the vignetting although maybe [in part] it is.
Oh I agree . . . it is much more than the vignetting!
I got rid of the ZE 35/2 in large part because of the excessive vignetting. As Rodluvan says, you can always add vignetting later, but you can't losslessly remove it. The vignetting goes hand-in-hand with other aberrations that I prefer to live without. I did like the lens near f/5.6 and beyond, but I like the cheaper Samyang at those smaller apertures too (and the Canon with AF). I do miss the lens, but not so much that I will repurchase. I don't need three 35mm primes (plus six zooms that include this focal length!).
Blackout, I went to B&H but forgot to buy the 500D I'll try to remember next time going to New York or some other place where prices are reasonable.
Rodluvan, really intensive colors with polariser, but sky looks weird with this wide lens.
Dave, the wooden well lifting mechanish is rather nice at larger size (in Flickr)
Fverburg, where in USA those were shoot? Quite similar sceneries as we have here in Finland. Liked the best "tree corridor" with 85P.
darbo, liked the beetle shoot with 2/100, great scene - almost all colors browns, yellows and greens.
akul, 3rd photo on page 851 has great light, so smooth but still having clear shadows.
Taylor, great "cloud scape" with ZM 2/50
I have been trying to learn new lens during this week. It seems great choice to use Sonnar design in 2/135, no matter how I have tortured the lens there is no way of getting bad bokeh from it - also bokeh has very subtle colours and contrast. Also I haven't yet been able to lure out any other ugly stuff e.g. CA in bokeh (or focus plane). All apertures between f/2 and f/11 seems to easily beat the old sensor of 5DmkII - actually with 5DmkII there doesn't seem to be any other quality defects @ f/2 than vignetting compared to f/4-5.6. Time will tell is this "only good" lens or will it have any character as well.
Unlike my usual style I have been enjoying (maybe too much) shooting wide open, many photos would be better when having more DOF, but I think I'll calm down at some point and start using my brains again
Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2, 1/30s, 5DmkII@ISO 100
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Rodluvan, really intensive colors with polariser, but sky looks weird with this wide lens.
Samuli
Just a quick q, how does a wide make the sky look weird? do you mean how the clouds stretches towards the edges? I thought 21mm was considered pretty moderate for a landscape lens (I don't do many of those).
I'll try to remember next time going to New York or some other place where prices are reasonable.
