Upload & Sell: Off
Luka (denoir) seemed to feel the ZM 35/2 was one of the best landscape 35mm lenses available for the M mount, stopped down to around f/4-5.6. The impression seems to be it's infinity optimized, but I'm not sure if that's based on actual statements from Zeiss, or simply from forum discussions.
Michael - great set! Amazing colours in the last one.
On another tangent, over on LUF someone posted a couple comparison DNGs from the M9 vs. the M. I found the results interesting for a couple reasons... First of all, the differences in the look of each file/camera are not that big, especially after equalizing overall WB and tint. This will upset some who want the M to be substantially 'better' than the M9 and will be another argument against needing to upgrade. But looking closer, there are some slight differences in how fine details are shown, which seems to boil down to the additional resolution of the M's sensor. In the crops below, you can see that the M9 creates a lot of false details, especially in the roof tiles crop. In the very small crop, you can see the difference in the vertical bank of windows, that I assume is correctly rendered in the M version. Also a lot more false colour and colour moire in the crop with the tree branches and shutters. Also, the crops were from the files viewed at 200% to make the differences more obvious. Likely once in print, the differences shouldn't be as dramatic.
For the comparison crops I resized the M file down to the M9's dimensions. Other than WB and tint adjustments to get them close, all other LR settings were the same, which implies to me it should be relatively easy to match up the two cameras in post for a unified look. But we'll need more samples to see how the two compare for skin tones, where I think there might be more differences.
M on the left side: