Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
/forum/topic/987333/0

1
       2       3              28       29       end

j.liam
Registered: Dec 13, 2009
Total Posts: 2287
Country: United States

Roger Cicala, proprietor of www.lensrentals.com has this to say in an essay posted on his site and entitled, "Stuff I Would Buy If I Bought Stuff":

"So the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 is first on my list even though itís a couple of weeks away from being released. It is just that good. (Yes, Iíve gotten to shoot with it already. Trust me on this one.)".

I've been an avid follower of his insightful and provocative musings and after testing out equipment for myself, find his analyses spot-on.

Has anyone out there been fortunate enough to have used this promising optic, especially if that includes experience with the Nikkor 35/1.4 G to compare?



Lars Johnsson
Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Total Posts: 33649
Country: Thailand

I have high expectations for this lens. And I will buy it at soon as it's released. And I have not owned a 35mm lens in a long time. I never really liked the Canon 35/1,4 L at large apertures.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15878
Country: Germany

While I won't commit to buying it yet, I am very interested in this lens. I have in the past considered the C/Y 35/1.4, but due to high price for a product without warranty and a potentially difficult repair situation, combined with the fact that it would not work that seamlessly with my D3 (opposite rotation direction, stop-down metering, ...), I have put it off. This lens could change that, if it is anywhere near as good.



ishu
Registered: Feb 03, 2009
Total Posts: 2
Country: United Kingdom

carstenw wrote:
While I won't commit to buying it yet, I am very interested in this lens. I have in the past considered the C/Y 35/1.4, but due to high price for a product without warranty and a potentially difficult repair situation, combined with the fact that it would not work that seamlessly with my D3 (opposite rotation direction, stop-down metering, ...), I have put it off. This lens could change that, if it is anywhere near as good.


+1 on that



alundeb
Registered: Nov 06, 2005
Total Posts: 4422
Country: Norway

Lloyd Chambers expects to get one for testing next week (Press samples have arrived in the US). He is going to spend some time and make a thorough test.



---XR---
Registered: Oct 31, 2008
Total Posts: 1428
Country: United States

I'm considering it, someone has to show me that there would be a serious improvement from the already stellar ZF 35/2 though- for one i can't see shooting 1.4 all that much, second the increase in size (which could be good or bad) - balancing better on pro size bodies is something I would like. side by side pictures of both samples at comparable apertures and physical size is what i need to see.



j.liam
Registered: Dec 13, 2009
Total Posts: 2287
Country: United States

Also own(ed) the ZF 35; one of my top three lenses. Despite that, couldn't resist selling it and putting my name on the wait list after reading Roger's take and Lloyd Chambers' preliminary notes & images. Its size is a bit daunting, nearly equal in every respect to the Nikkor 24-70 but it would appear to be highly corrected and by f/2, without the falloff visible @f/2 on the ZF 35/2 or (hopefully) noticeable color fringing in high-contrast lighting situations. The bokeh looks to be remarkable.



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4160
Country: United States

Lloyd Chambers will be getting his ZE copy next week and will compare it with the Nikon 35/1.4 G and Zeiss ZE 35/2. Supposedly, the ZF.2 version will be released in April after the ZE version.We will see hopefully soon whether the new 35/1.4 has the same bokeh/rendering as the old Contax version or not.



philber
Registered: May 21, 2008
Total Posts: 7528
Country: France

I had 20 mn of shooting time with one, in comparison to a 35mm f:2.0. I posted some pics earlier on the Z* thread. Basically, the two are very close indeed in terms of rendering, closer than any other two Zeiss lenses. The main difference is that the f:1.4 is clearly superior from f:2.8 onwards. Other differences are that the f:1.4 is slightly more detailed and subtle than the f:2.0, which may seem less sharp to some. That is all I could ascertain in 20 mn. I ordered one, which I was supposed to get this week, but was told today that it wasn't going to happen in time for my trip the Lofoten in two weeks...:-(
This delay mirrors the fact that Lloyd Chambers was told earlier to expect his lens at the end of January or early Feb....



magiclight
Registered: Oct 14, 2009
Total Posts: 323
Country: New Zealand

Yes, the big question, whether to move from the f2 to the f1.4.

I find shooting at f2 challenging enough to manually focus. However the rewards of the new f1.4 maybe too much to resist.

I will be waiting on Lloyd Chamber's review with interest.



cyra
Registered: Jan 19, 2011
Total Posts: 822
Country: Austria

I let you guys try it out for a start
anyone who wants to sell off their 35/2,0 in Europe give me a shout

I think the weight would bother me.



j.liam
Registered: Dec 13, 2009
Total Posts: 2287
Country: United States

philber wrote:
The main difference is that the f:1.4 is clearly superior from f:2.8 onwards. Other differences are that the f:1.4 is slightly more detailed and subtle than the f:2.0, which may seem less sharp to some.


What do you precisely mean by this and why would it seem less sharp?



OneAnt
Registered: Aug 21, 2009
Total Posts: 675
Country: Australia

ZE release at B&H has been moved to May ...?
ZF to March ...?

...??

B&H Photo Zeiss 35/1.4



edwardkaraa
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Total Posts: 7582
Country: Thailand

Well, Lloyd Chambers just received his 35/1.2 which is going to be even more exciting than the 35/1.4



lbloom
Registered: Jun 21, 2006
Total Posts: 493
Country: United States

edwardkaraa wrote:
Well, Lloyd Chambers just received his 35/1.2 which is going to be even more exciting than the 35/1.4


Is that a typo in the title in his blog? The picture on the main page and the B&H wishlist that he links to both say f/1.4.



j.liam
Registered: Dec 13, 2009
Total Posts: 2287
Country: United States

...and the monster photo of the thing on Chambers' blog is probably actual size



lbloom
Registered: Jun 21, 2006
Total Posts: 493
Country: United States

It's an f/1.4. He's fixed the typo.



Ariel70
Registered: Sep 23, 2010
Total Posts: 107
Country: United States

I wish that the May arrival date was a typo too



AhamB
Registered: Jul 11, 2008
Total Posts: 5035
Country: United States

j.liam wrote:
philber wrote:
The main difference is that the f:1.4 is clearly superior from f:2.8 onwards. Other differences are that the f:1.4 is slightly more detailed and subtle than the f:2.0, which may seem less sharp to some.


What do you precisely mean by this and why would it seem less sharp?


Slightly less fine details with high acutance/edge may give the impression of higher contrast, I imagine. Analogous would be to sharpen an image with a big radius. The edges jump out at you then, but fine detail is lost (and halos become visible more quickly).



magiclight
Registered: Oct 14, 2009
Total Posts: 323
Country: New Zealand

Diglloyd has part 1 of his review up. I must say so far Im in no hurry to sell my 35mm f2.

Looks like a real "character" lens. Field curvature and uncorrected spherical design. I suppose for the price you cant expect a high tech Leica design.

The next part of his review should show the lens in a better light, when he shoots 3D subject matter rather than planar.



1
       2       3              28       29       end