Hi people, I've been looking on ebay for these lenses, and obviously the price of the 2.4 is a fair bit higher, but cant find any real info that distinguishes the difference in quality. Does anyone have any first hand experience with both of these?
Can't help much, i only have the f2.4, but i can say it's an absolutely fantastic lens. The close focusing aspect makes it additionally versatile.
Some of my favorite shots have been taken with this thing. It's always in my bag. A really spectacular sleeper 'under the radar' lens (well.. maybe not so much around here, but in general!)
Being a Flek man, I have 2.4MC, 2.8Zebra and 2.8Silver.
Silver and Zebra being single coated are prone to flare but in terms of optical quality there is very little difference between 3.
The 2.4 is slightly more contrasty and richer in color but all are fantastic lenses.
You cannot use 2.8s on Canon FF or 1D cameras, though.
I just got a Flektogon 2.4/35 and it's tak sharp at f2.4. Works great with the 5DMKII. The close focus possibility is amazing. It's one of the sharpest 35mm lenses
I do not have a CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4 (yet.) I do have a C/Y 35-70/3.4 Zeiss lens. Will I really notice a big difference if I get the Flek? For speed, I have a converted (to EF mount) Minolta Rokkor 35/1.8.
For the Canon users, can you offer some comparison to the CANON 35mm f/1.4L? At present I dont want to spend up on the Canon L (and want better than the 2.0 version) so thinking the Flek would be a good alternative, at a moderate price.
THe 35 1.4 L is a really bulky lens.
It is apple to oranges comparison. Aside from that, you get to have 1.4 vs 2.4 at max aperture.
AF and auto-aperture control might be more important to some which allows you to take action shots.
Aside from that, 35/2.4 flektogon is one of the best budget lens in that range. I love it for close up and landscape work. The Leica 35/2.8 version 2 is very decent as well. It has even less barrel distortion than the Flektogon.
gasrocks wrote:
I do not have a CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4 (yet.) I do have a C/Y 35-70/3.4 Zeiss lens. Will I really notice a big difference if I get the Flek? For speed, I have a converted (to EF mount) Minolta Rokkor 35/1.8.
I tested these two lenses against one another a while back and found these differences:
C/Y exhibited severe vignetting into the corners on FF until F8, not the case with the Flek.
C/Y exhibited pretty noticeable distortion compared to the Flek., so you would not want to use the C/Y for architecture.
Other than that, the C/Y zoom at 35mm is amazingly sharp (slightly sharper than my Flek) and exhibits more of what we think of as Zeiss image qualities such as uber contrast and 3D color (whatever that means!).
The east german Flek exhibits a much softer/subtle color palette and contrast response yet is still very sharp. I ended up keeping the Flek and selling the C/Y zoom myself. One of the major issues I had with the C/Y zoom was difficulty focusing since its so slow of a lens. The Flek at about a stop faster is much easier to focus manually. The severe vignetting issue with the C/Y sort of nullifies its sharpness advantage, particularly towards the corners.
I have the f2.4 flek and the CZ 35-70mm f3.4 and concur with Tariq's breakdown.
They draw rather differently.
The CZ is punchy and sharp and amazing for a zoom - and with macro! - such an ultimate lens. You can't beat the versatility and performance of the CZ 35-70, it's just such a must-have lens.
The Flek is a lot cheaper. It has this slightly softer, 'gentler' quality to the rendering. Still sharp, but a bit more creamy. I prefer the bokeh too. It's better for portraits and landscapes, IMHO.
To make a ridiculous car comparison, the CZ is like a Ferrari - a fast, accurate, punchy racer. The Flek is the Rolls Royce - smoother, more refined, gentler.
Different horses for different courses. Who wouldn't want both of those cars at their disposal ?
