I don't have much compared to what you've all posted, but here are a few while I was grabbing some coffee.

NEX-6 and ZM35/2.8

Rokkor 58/1.2 @ 2.

Plasticmotif, you have magnolias blooming already....nice
Jim

Jim, love all three but #2 is just brilliant, really nice image.
sebboh, the perspective in your last image is spectacular, big fan of your style.
uscmatt99, I think the ZM35/2.8 will be my next purchase, how are you finding it?
plasticmotif, creamy oof well done.

We celebrated St. Patrick's Day with my wife's family at a sort-of-Irish pub. I had my NEX-7 in my coat pocket, and tried to capture some of the character(s) at the event.

Lost Bloom by Mawz, on Flickr
NEX-7, Nikkor 300/4.5 AI'd

Scott, LOVE The pub shots. Number two is perfect!

Plasticmotif, love the colors in that second shot.

VaughnA wrote:
Scott, LOVE The pub shots. Number two is perfect!


Thanks VaughnA! Number two is my favorite also. Lots of characters in that shot. And one behind the camera, for that matter.

joevain wrote:
Jim, love all three but #2 is just brilliant, really nice image.
sebboh, the perspective in your last image is spectacular, big fan of your style.
uscmatt99, I think the ZM35/2.8 will be my next purchase, how are you finding it?
plasticmotif, creamy oof well done.



I like the C-Biogon, and have the CV 35/1.2 II that I also use with the NEX and Ricoh GXR. The ZM gets a little bit smeared at the edges and corners even stopped down at infinity, and I think that overall the CV is a better performer on the NEX-6 at the periphery stopped down. On the GXR the ZM is great out to the corners, so it seems to be at least in part a sensor issue. In the center the ZM is slightly technically better resolving throughout the range at the same apertures. The ZM retains more global contrast, and is much less susceptible to CA. The CV has a lot of bokeh green/magenta fringing that needs correction in Lightroom.

Ergonomically it's a pretty nice lens, very compact. I actually put 43-->46 and 46-->52 step up rings on it so I could use my CP filter and a Nikon pinch cap, and the rings function as a tiny rotective hood for the front element. Focus on my current copy is well damped. I had an issue develop after just over a year with the first copy of the lens, and Zeiss kindly replaced it with a new copy.

Ron Scheffler did a great comparison of 35mm lenses on an M9 to the Sony RX-1, you should check it out.

uscmatt99 wrote:

I like the C-Biogon, and have the CV 35/1.2 II that I also use with the NEX and Ricoh GXR. The ZM gets a little bit smeared at the edges and corners even stopped down at infinity, and I think that overall the CV is a better performer on the NEX-6 at the periphery stopped down. On the GXR the ZM is great out to the corners, so it seems to be at least in part a sensor issue. In the center the ZM is slightly technically better resolving throughout the range at the same apertures. The ZM retains more global contrast, and is much less susceptible to CA. The CV has a lot of bokeh green/magenta fringing that needs correction in Lightroom.

Ergonomically it's a pretty nice lens, very compact. I actually put 43-->46 and 46-->52 step up rings on it so I could use my CP filter and a Nikon pinch cap, and the rings function as a tiny rotective hood for the front element. Focus on my current copy is well damped. I had an issue develop after just over a year with the first copy of the lens, and Zeiss kindly replaced it with a new copy.

Ron Scheffler did a great comparison of 35mm lenses on an M9 to the Sony RX-1, you should check it out.


Cheers for that mate, i'll take a look. I was looking at the CV35 1.2 but it looks long and heavy. I'm going to be backpacking later this year so I think the CV15 and the ZM35/2.8 might be the perfect combo?

+1 for the ZM 35. A very good lens indeed for its size, and not overly expensive by Zeiss standards. Very detailed, clean, and with nice colours, but you may have to boost contrast just a bit in post, which is easy and gives a first class result.

philber wrote:
+1 for the ZM 35. A very good lens indeed for its size, and not overly expensive by Zeiss standards. Very detailed, clean, and with nice colours, but you may have to boost contrast just a bit in post, which is easy and gives a first class result.

cheers Phil

The Biogon T* 35mm f/2 ZM seems to be in the same price range as the 2.8

Some decent looking reviews for it here, interesting choice the 2 or the 2.8

http://www.subtleimages.net/leica-m-35mm-lens-sharpness-comparison-in-studio/
http://bjorn-utpott.squarespace.com/2011/11/23/through-the-fog-again.html

joevain wrote:

The Biogon T* 35mm f/2 ZM seems to be in the same price range as the 2.8

Some decent looking reviews for it here, interesting choice the 2 or the 2.8

http://www.subtleimages.net/leica-m-35mm-lens-sharpness-comparison-in-studio/
http://bjorn-utpott.squarespace.com/2011/11/23/through-the-fog-again.html

Joe, to the best of my knowledge, the f:2.0 is about 35% more expensive than the f:2.8, as based ont he Zeiss webshop. I've had both. The f:2.0 is larger and heavier, it is not as easygoing as the f:2.8. OTOH, it is faster, and, when used properly, can yield higher IQ.

The Turret by Mawz, on Flickr
NEX-7, ZA E 24/1.8

Wow, too much great stuff to mention over the past week.

Just back from a weekend in Barcelona, too busy for sight-seeing but managed a quick look at the Maritime Museum. NEX-F3 + SEL1628:


Maritime Museum of Barcelona by specularist, on Flickr

Sensational view, Alan!

plasticmotif wrote:
...

Tokina 90.

Very nice.

sebboh wrote:
....

a few from the 35 lux pre-asph on my way to the supermarket yesterday:
...


Love the tones and colors here.