Where are you getting this that the 50 MP has FC?
Is this from personal experience or LC' s comparison with 50/1.4?

In the far corners of my 50 MP, I often see that the background is sharper than the plane of focus in the middle. It sure looks like field curvature to me. It is only in the extreme corners though, so it doesn't bother me for my style of photography.

The 35/2 is probably the easiest intro into the Zeiss line. I sold it in anticipation of the Z*35/1.4, a decision I now somewhat regret.

The 35/2 is probably the easiest intro into the Zeiss line. I sold it in anticipation of the Z*35/1.4, a decision I now somewhat regret. My singular complaint about the 35/2 was its unforgiving nature with skin and the slightest imperfections. Great when you were photographing cowboys and babies, less so with everyone else. The 35/1.4 will likely be more kind at the wider aperture in this regard.

wayne seltzer wrote:
Where are you getting this that the 50 MP has FC?
Is this from personal experience or LC' s comparison with 50/1.4?


I have seen it in several shots in the Z* thread and Samuli also has shown it in a comparison with the ZE 50/1.4 and C/Y 50/1.7. Bobu/Boris also ran into the issue when he compared the MP50 with his C/Y 35-70/3.4, IIRC.
Example (look at the left border): http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134/242#9264928

The Boris comparison with the zoom showed the very extreme corners are soft till f4/5.6.
I confirmed that back then with my copy.But that is only the last tiny bit in the extreme corners, only noticeable if you pixel peep at 100% into the last 50 pixels in the extreme corner.
Zeiss lenses with FC are 28/2, 25/2.8, and the new 35/1.4.

When the focus is at a few metres and infinity goes into focus at the borders (not corners) in RubenFreitas' shot, I'd call that field curvature. Yes, it's subtle compared to what the WA's show at close focus distance, but it is the same phenomenon imo.
I see the same thing with my cheap CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 at wide apertures and it was also seen in Samuli's shots with the MP50 in the forest (focal plane bending back at the borders). IMO it does have an impact in some situations in which other lenses (like the 50/1.4) can give nicer results, so I wouldn't say that MP50 is devoid of FC.
In Boris' shots of the forest creek I noticed that the Distagon 21 shows the same characteristic at wide apertures and focus at 1-2m or so.

As Wayne Seltzer mentions above, FC is truly significant for the 28/2, 35/1.4 and 25/2.8. I've shot with the 28 & 25 and with these, the phenomenon must be accounted for as part of routine shooting. Some of the craziest I've seen have been with the 25 for objects close to its MFD.

The thread here is "Which first Zeiss?" so aside form pixel peepers and for practical purposes, the 35/2 and 50MP are essentially flat-field lenses.

From the ones I have used: 18, 25, 50/1.4, 35 and 100 I was most impressed with 35 and 18(on cropped sensor body). Never analyzed them much, just liked the results I got.

j.liam wrote:
The thread here is "Which first Zeiss?" so aside form pixel peepers and for practical purposes, the 35/2 and 50MP are essentially flat-field lenses.

I already said it's not a reason to skip over the MP50, but I have seen it in web size pics, not 100% crops. Almost any lens (up to ~50mm I guess) probably has a weak spot where FC shows up (at wide apertures) though.

Well I've been sniffing the Kool-Aid and I'm moving into Zeiss territory soon, poor enough to only afford one lens and for me, at least, it'll be the 35/2.

I've subscibed to http://diglloyd.com/, I don't work for him, and I'll suggest if you're interested in Zeiss comparisons (and other aspects of photography), it's already well-worth the price I paid (I got a triple bundle pack). It's chock full of information.

Not to steal from Lloyd's work, but from what I've read and the ton of photos and examples and comparisons he does, I think the 35/2 is for me.

1) I'm not a fan of the FC of the 35 f/1.4 because I plan to use 35 for landscapes.

2) I'm not a fan of the weight / size, which is a consideration for me (which is why I just sold my 1d3, 28-70 and 100-400...my camera bag was way too heavy).

3) I can actually afford the 35/2



No doubt if your style of photography matches what the 35/1.4 puts out, it might be a better choice. Things like close-focus portraits, "3d" objects, etc. etc. The usual stuff. CA control is very nice on the 35/1.4

For me, though, I do some of that and some landscape stuff, and the 35/2 seemed to fare better overall in those aspects.


Again, this is from zero experience but comparing the two rather thoroughly.

AhamB wrote:
j.liam wrote:
The thread here is "Which first Zeiss?" so aside form pixel peepers and for practical purposes, the 35/2 and 50MP are essentially flat-field lenses.

I already said it's not a reason to skip over the MP50, but I have seen it in web size pics, not 100% crops. Almost any lens (up to ~50mm I guess) probably has a weak spot where FC shows up (at wide apertures) though.

...and I agreed with you.

j.liam wrote:
The thread here is "Which first Zeiss?" so aside form pixel peepers and for practical purposes, the 35/2 and 50MP are essentially flat-field lenses.

Well, no. I can see the soft corners wide open on the 50 MP even at web resolutions. They aren't nasty and smudged, but they are clearly less sharp than anywhere else in the image. I am not saying that this is a sensible reason for most people not to buy one, but it is there, and this lens cannot be considered a flat field lens, unless stopped down significantly or shooting at infinity.

Ok guys, based on all the great info and suggestions here, I just purchased a 35/2 ZF.2 from a nice member on FM. I can't wait to try this lens out. Will post my findings once I put the lens through its paces thanks folks !

Great, we will wait for your impressions now, it should be interesting since you have experience with good Nikon lenses already!

Congratulations on your purchase, melbmanu! May this be the first of many...

melbmanu wrote:
Ok guys, based on all the great info and suggestions here, I just purchased a 35/2 ZF.2 from a nice member on FM. I can't wait to try this lens out. Will post my findings once I put the lens through its paces thanks folks !

Awesome

I had to resort buying it retail about 1 hour agol (ZE version). I figured by the time I bought a high-quality F-EOS adapter, I might as well just buy the darn ZE version and save myself from doing any stop-down shennanigans (I was probably looking at the same ZF you just bought)

I look forward to comparing images!

I'll post some pics once I get the hang of manual focus. This is my first manual focus lens. Also, there are some stunning images in the zeiss thread. Truly breathtaking so it sets the bar very very high to post anything

@cputeq, nope i didnt get the one on the FS board I think you're referring to. The one I got is the ZF.2 and it wasnt listed

Cant wait to receive it !

So guys i've had the 2/35 for about a week now. I wanted to let the initial honeymoon excitement die down a bit before I posted this. After a week with this lens, I absolutely LOVE it. The hype is true. I find it to be very sharp wide open, the colors & micro-contrast are great and I am starting to understand the 3D people are talking about.

Here's a test shot:

^ nice one! Got any more?