trusty wrote:
Denoir. I'm waiting for your ZE f/1.4 comparison ! With all your current arsenal, it's going to be very easy to judge.

Heh, get me one and I'll compare it

I'm unlikely to buy one, not because I don't think it is any good but because I already have the old version which is currently seriously under-used. The reason is simple - 35mm for me is a universal 'walkaround' focal length - one that I prefer when shooting handheld. For this purpose I prefer my M9 to a DSLR and I'm very happy with my Leica 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH. If Zeiss comes out with a 35/1.4 ZM then I'm likely to buy it.

I would however love to see a comparison between the old and new Zeiss 35/1.4.


ulrikft2 wrote:
I thought that lack of haze was one of the selling points of the zeiss-look WO? Or am I mistaken here?

The 50/1.4 Planar has a similar SA "glow" at f/1.4. Great for portraits but perhaps not so great for many other things.

@ sebboh, denoir

As I said, I don't have any problems with good reviews being charged. I am sure it can be worth the money. My only problem is that one of the first (I am not saying he is the only one) review samples of a production lens, was sent to someone who hides results from the public. I question the decision made by Zeiss, because it does not make sense. I asked Zeiss about it, but it seems it was decision of Zeiss USA so I will have to direct question to them as well. Denoir, I understand the business relation in this case, however I am entitled to an opinion that such business decision was wrong and if it doesn't benefit the customers, I have the right to complain about it and point it out. In the end the company can do whatever they want of course.

I remember well. You didn't intend to buy one. Except it becomes a top performer in the field, I for now understand you won't change your mind and prefer your M9 or even the compactness of your C/Y. The bokey of this one is nice but I like some of your ZE 35/2 picture like the car parked in the street. I would'nt be sure to choose the C/Y vs the ZE 35/2. But I haven't such experience with any.

I would also love a M9. But depreciation of such kind of body definitely keeps me away from this things. I would like a Zeiss Ikon camera without any RF and just one EVF/Liveview not too expensive.

philber wrote:
Relooking at my pictures, there is no doubt that the f:1.4 is superior to the f:2.0 when shooting close to or wide open. If this is the look you ...


Philber, is that a 100% crop of a 5DMkII image taken with the new Zeiss 35/1.4 wide open? Yes, I can read the EXIF but I want to be sure.

To my eyes it looks good. It will be very interesting to see a comparison between this one, the old C/Y version, a rumoured new Canon, the Nikkor 35/1.4 and the soon to come Samyang 35/1.4. We'll all have to wait of course but I can see it coming...

Anyone has an possible explanation Zeiss could have introduced one ASPH lens to correct any other thing that spherical aberation ?

trusty wrote:
Anyone has an possible explanation Zeiss could have introduced one ASPH lens to correct any other thing that spherical aberation ?

my guess is they just didn't want to fully correct for it in order to produce a certain look (e.g. nicer bokeh).

luka - if you're not using your rollei 35/1.4 enough, i'd be happy to take it off your hands.

Just read the latest installment of Lloyd Chambers' review and it doesn't look any better. The spherical aberrations and resulting 'veiling flare' at f/2 and wider are really startling (i.e., disappointing & unappealing) Apparently, field curvature really becomes apparent at f/4, something not an issue with the the slower 35. For planar subjects, the 35/2 seems the clear winner. Even at f/2, the slower version wins hands down. It's performance reminds me most of the Nikkor 35/1.4 AIS; haze and reduced sharpness faster than 2.8.

Did they create a 1 kg monster whose sharpness and contrast (micro & macro) are clearly lagging wider than f/2.8 just for an 'outstanding bokeh' alone at the expense of every other metric by which optics are measured?

Unless, of course, all they had in mind was a lens with 'atmospherics' that appeals primarily to videographers. From the limited stuff I've now seen, I question my preemptive sale of a ZF 35/2 for this.

You can probably buy it back at the same price, if you are quick.

I have to see more photos before making up my mind. I wanted to buy the 35/2 but it made no sense to jump the gun, and so I waited until the 35/1.4 came out. I also want to buy the 50/2 MP, so in that light, the 35/1.4 could still make sense. It looks like Zeiss didn't want to lose the magic of the old 35/1.4 Distagon. Good for them.

carstenw wrote:
You can probably buy it back at the same price, if you are quick.

I have to see more photos before making up my mind. I wanted to buy the 35/2 but it made no sense to jump the gun, and so I waited until the 35/1.4 came out. I also want to buy the 50/2 MP, so in that light, the 35/1.4 could still make sense. It looks like Zeiss didn't want to lose the magic of the old 35/1.4 Distagon. Good for them.

It's long gone, unfortunately.

Having never used the CY 35/1.4 I can only comment on what I know and that's the Nikkor 35/1.4 AIS, a tricky lens to master that becomes amazingly sharp from 5.6 to 8 but at the widest apertures, haze really reduces the contrast.

Please define the 'magic' you're referring to.

sebboh wrote:
luka - if you're not using your rollei 35/1.4 enough, i'd be happy to take it off your hands.

Ha! Fat chance!

It's in many ways my favorite lens, even if for practical reasons don't use it as much as I'd like.


j.liam wrote:
Please define the 'magic' you're referring to.



Look at the Zeiss 35/1.4 picture thread in this forum and you'll have your answer.

j.liam wrote:
Please define the 'magic' you're referring to.


take a peak at the official thread for the old zeiss 35/1.4 to get a feel for what people think the magic of that lens is: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/839374

whether that looks like it's up your alley is up to you.

This is I think the shot Carsten is referring to:

I think that is the one, although I had recalled it as being from slightly farther away, showing more of the tree. Do you have another similar shot?

Nope.

denoir wrote:
This is I think the shot Carsten is referring to:

Ah, that one. I had forgotten about it. I don't particularly like it

The light is quite blue, but it does demonstrate the look!

Thanks for the education! Now I am beginning to understand the devotion. Those of you who have read th early reviews from Lloyd Chambers, seen the Flikr site and own the CY version, does it seem that this new iteration renders along the same lines? The amount of haze @ f/1.4 was severe but is not evident on real life images posted above.

Well, without wanting to knock anyone, there are also lots of ho-hum shots in the Zeiss 35/1.4 thread, and many of those show the "haze". I think you need three things to get shots like the above:

- Zeiss 35/1.4
- Good photographer
- Good processing

The transition from focus to blur is quite striking, I will admit. I don't think I have seen a 3-D rendering quite like it from a Zeiss lens before. Tuth be told, the CY35/1.4 was not a lens I paid much heed to primarily because as a Nikon shooter, it can't be converted with a Leitax mount.

Do you all simply avoid shooting planar subjects except at f-stops smaller than 5.6 or so? Have you been stymied by the apparent lack of sharpness at even f/2 or does the manipulation of contrast PP easily offset it?