The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread
/forum/topic/839374/113

1       2       3              113      
114
       115              122       123       end

sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 12605
Country: United States

Anden wrote:
I started this thread with the first version Rollei. I now have the Contax AEG.
I haven't used the MMG or MMJ.

From my tests the rollei and the contax was equal. The bokeh is the difference.

sebboh wrote:
wfrank wrote:
Mescalamba wrote:
Jochenb wrote:
I have a question about the C/Y. Are there any differences between the MMJ and AE version?

...
Also MMs are adaptable to any mount, while AE are Canon EF only.


No. Are you referring to Leitax-kits or something? Main difference historically was that MM (multi mode) lenses supported shutter prio/program mode as they could change aperture through a lever. A piece of metal told the camera that a MM lens was mounted hence enabling those modes in some cameras.

Same number of elements/groups and key figures such as MFD suggests gradual improvements if any between the AE and MM - but perhaps the ninja aperture thing. My personal experience is that it is easier to find minty MM lenses than AE, but there are unfortunately plenty of bad condition MMs out there too. Fine copies are getting rarer.

Anyone that knows about the claim that Zeiss still supporting MM lenses? I've read it many times (here) but never really heard anyone doing it. Would you send it to Germany - or how would that come about? I would like to see if they could do something about one of the Contax lenses I have (luckily not the 35/1.4 though :-).



zeiss told me they would replace my rear element if it was an MM version. they also me that the rear element from an MM was not compatible with my AE, the way they worded it though gave me the impression that was either BS or the difference was just in the coatings.

Anden used to have a pre contax rollei and a contax version (think it was MM) and reported no obvious optical differences somewhere in this thread if i recall correctly (right before he sold the rollei to luka).





you mean the triangles or is there a difference wide open?




sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 12605
Country: United States

also a baby:








Anden
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Total Posts: 6605
Country: Sweden

The triangles. Mind you that my tests were based on real life shooting. No controlled tests.

sebboh wrote:
Anden wrote:
I started this thread with the first version Rollei. I now have the Contax AEG.
I haven't used the MMG or MMJ.

From my tests the rollei and the contax was equal. The bokeh is the difference.

sebboh wrote:
wfrank wrote:
Mescalamba wrote:
Jochenb wrote:
I have a question about the C/Y. Are there any differences between the MMJ and AE version?

...
Also MMs are adaptable to any mount, while AE are Canon EF only.


No. Are you referring to Leitax-kits or something? Main difference historically was that MM (multi mode) lenses supported shutter prio/program mode as they could change aperture through a lever. A piece of metal told the camera that a MM lens was mounted hence enabling those modes in some cameras.

Same number of elements/groups and key figures such as MFD suggests gradual improvements if any between the AE and MM - but perhaps the ninja aperture thing. My personal experience is that it is easier to find minty MM lenses than AE, but there are unfortunately plenty of bad condition MMs out there too. Fine copies are getting rarer.

Anyone that knows about the claim that Zeiss still supporting MM lenses? I've read it many times (here) but never really heard anyone doing it. Would you send it to Germany - or how would that come about? I would like to see if they could do something about one of the Contax lenses I have (luckily not the 35/1.4 though :-).



zeiss told me they would replace my rear element if it was an MM version. they also me that the rear element from an MM was not compatible with my AE, the way they worded it though gave me the impression that was either BS or the difference was just in the coatings.

Anden used to have a pre contax rollei and a contax version (think it was MM) and reported no obvious optical differences somewhere in this thread if i recall correctly (right before he sold the rollei to luka).





you mean the triangles or is there a difference wide open?






aly324
Registered: May 06, 2013
Total Posts: 397
Country: United States

Steve Spencer wrote:
The Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 is still in the running, however, but as odd as it may seem I think the like the bokeh from the lux pre-asph better than the Voigtlander. As the pre-asph stops down it seems to have very nice bokeh and I am not overly offended by the funky bokeh wide open. The Voigt on the other hand has nice bokeh at times, but exactly the kind of bokeh I don't like at others, so I am torn. I got a long time to decide, however. I probably won't pick up a 35 for the A7 until I am sure I want to keep it, and for me that means about a year after I get it.

Steve Spencer wrote:
it doesn't look like the loxia 35 f/2 will be a solution for me either. At this point I think I am most likely to get a 35 lux pre-asph for something small and keep the ZE when I want to shoot wide open with good bokeh. The Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 is still in the running, however, but as odd as it may seem I think the like the bokeh from the lux pre-asph better than the Voigtlander.


Hi there, sorry to jump in mid-conversation. I've been on a mini personal quest to determine whether my dislike of the Voigtlander 35/1.2 is justified (and finding very little agreement from others). I have the CY D35, Leica R Lux 35, and an ASPH pre-FLE 35. All these have much more pleasing and gentle rendition than the CV.

I used 3 copies of the CV on my A7R. While the resolution and ergonomics were quite good (not too light like Leica M's, no need to focus with my knuckle/finger tip), I simply couldn't get along with the image. It seemed to lack microcontrast, have too much macrocontrast, and often yield bizarre brassy chemical colors. The somewhat stronger vignetting (than the Contax and Lux R) also adds an unnecessary sense of drama. The signature is unmistakably contemporary, which I dislike.

Here's a photo to illustrate what I mean by bizarre colors. The CV seems liable to grab on to certain parts of the color spectrum and exaggerate them (does this make sense optically?) I have also seen it respond bizarrely to evening sky, turning a pale blue ultra-blue. Perhaps the A7R sensor and processor are partly at fault here.

This photo was shot RAW, AWB, and processed in Lightroom using the Medium Contrast Profile and nothing more. No amount of adjustment would fix it. Granted the vintage 35's also can get tripped up by challenging light, but this wasn't particularly challenging, and the result is one of the worst I've ever seen from any lens.

If I decrease saturation, the image simply looks hollow and untrue, and as is it is exaggerated and untrue. So for me the CV very often (in my case, almost always) manages to come up with images that are paradoxically both hyperbolic and lacking.



aly324
Registered: May 06, 2013
Total Posts: 397
Country: United States

Mescalamba wrote:
Jochenb wrote:
I have a question about the C/Y. Are there any differences between the MMJ and AE version?


MMs are servicable by Zeiss (I hope that is still valid) and they dont have so-called ninja bokeh (different aperture blades). Also MMs are adaptable to any mount, while AE are Canon EF only. Sometimes there are some design updates, sometimes not.. unsure about 35/1.4.


Ninja aperture openings happen as you move past wide open and stops when you reach 2 stops from wide open. This has been true in my experience of 8 or so AE type lenses.

I also read somewhere that early copies of the Contax AE 35/1.4 used a ground aspherical elemenet, which results in a slight swirly pattern in the bokeh, whereas late AE copies (and certainly MM copies) used a pressed asphere. I am not sure if there's any truth in this. And it's possible that I misremember and the division is more between AE and MM.

But my current early D35 does have the swirls.



Steve Spencer
Registered: Nov 08, 2006
Total Posts: 9857
Country: United States

aly324 wrote:
Mescalamba wrote:
Jochenb wrote:
I have a question about the C/Y. Are there any differences between the MMJ and AE version?


MMs are servicable by Zeiss (I hope that is still valid) and they dont have so-called ninja bokeh (different aperture blades). Also MMs are adaptable to any mount, while AE are Canon EF only. Sometimes there are some design updates, sometimes not.. unsure about 35/1.4.


Ninja aperture openings happen as you move past wide open and stops when you reach 2 stops from wide open. This has been true in my experience of 8 or so AE type lenses.

I also read somewhere that early copies of the Contax AE 35/1.4 used a ground aspherical elemenet, which results in a slight swirly pattern in the bokeh, whereas late AE copies (and certainly MM copies) used a pressed asphere. I am not sure if there's any truth in this. And it's possible that I misremember and the division is more between AE and MM.

But my current early D35 does have the swirls.


If you are talking about onion ring patterns in the OOF highlights both ground asphericals and pressed asphericals tend to have them. Hand ground asphericals tend to show them a bit less depending on the quality of the grinding job and the tools used. Pressed asphericals always show them (with the notably exception of the new Panny/Leica 42.5 f/1.2 for m4/3rds) because of the moulds used in the pressing process. Swirly patterns in the bokeh are caused by lens aberrations and can be seen in quite a few lenses including many without aspherical elements, but I have never noticed them much with the Distagon 35 f/1.4.



aly324
Registered: May 06, 2013
Total Posts: 397
Country: United States

Thanks Steve for the correct info. I was talking about onion ring patterns. In my early D35 I see them in OOF highlights. Am I right to assume that onion rings from hand-ground aspheres should generally be less "perfect" than those from pressed ones? I used the word swirly wrongly. The onion rings I see are still concentric, not swirly, but they irregular and indefinite, varying in brightness and thickness, etc. I'm assuming the onions from pressed aspheres should be more uniform.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 12605
Country: United States

random crap, all wide open with the c/y AEG version:























Mescalamba
Registered: Jul 06, 2011
Total Posts: 3731
Country: Czech Republic

MF and 3D look.. Damn, those are good.



aly324
Registered: May 06, 2013
Total Posts: 397
Country: United States

some from beijing past winter, contax aeg d35 on a7r



Anden
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Total Posts: 6605
Country: Sweden

My brother and his soon to be wife.



tjack
Registered: Feb 24, 2012
Total Posts: 344
Country: United States

Not sure if this has been posted.

New Zeiss Distagon ZM 35mm 1.4 to be announced at Photokina[



genji
Registered: Jan 06, 2008
Total Posts: 650
Country: Australia

Flowers and leaves (Contax Distagon MMJ)





















aly324
Registered: May 06, 2013
Total Posts: 397
Country: United States

D35 AEG

A couple of film shots from the Bay Area using the Contax AX (I think?). I miss both camera and place.

Plus one of the Old Faithful on a 6D.



aly324
Registered: May 06, 2013
Total Posts: 397
Country: United States

Also check out the music of this Mongolian throat-singer-rocker Tulegur Gangzi:



D35AEG A7R


carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 16163
Country: Germany

Great photo, fantastic song! I was shocked at the end when 10 people clapped, the acoustics made it sound like a huge hall.



sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 12605
Country: United States

hmm, should we let the new zm 35/1.4 in this thread?

a few from today, all wide open (probably):


















sebboh
Registered: Nov 02, 2009
Total Posts: 12605
Country: United States

bump:













Anden
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Total Posts: 6605
Country: Sweden

Nice Sebboh!



wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3215
Country: Sweden

Cant have this thread falling behind all the time. CY here.



1       2       3              113      
114
       115              122       123       end