FlyPenFly wrote:
Its really easy to remove that PF though, I was just lazy.
That example would be easy - and I never saw it anywhere close to the degree I experienced on my first version. It was a nightmare to deal with with that lens! The use of fill light will tend to make CA show up worse, particularly if the image is underexposed to start with.
The 35-70 (like so many zooms) is MUCH better just off the short end, and I add that the 40lpmm lines are not taking any Leica-style sharp turns even at 35mm and f8.
The lens is also wonderfully consistent past the frame edge (!) once off 35mm, this at f8. Interestingly its 10lpmm (macro-contrast) is about the same as the 2/35 ZM - around 90%, low by top-end telephoto standards and not in the same ballpark as the better Contax Distagons: 21/2.8, 28/2.8 or 35/1.4, all are around 95%. And I've never seen any CA in mine that could be objected to...
The D28/2.8 exhibits very strong image shaping curvature in the actual image, which is why I use that term rather the CoF, and this adds to its high impact, while probably also being responsible for the apparently poor 40lpmm off centre data.
The front corners seem to fall away, as can scenery to the sides - you can see the corners effect in the 'CA image' above and frame 3 of Fly's on this page - so you can use this to good effect in compositions with a lot of foreground. I'll swap 'idealised' MTF for this feature, but it's personal preference of course. Fly, my 28mm also presently struggles to jump in the bag whereas the 21mm is always there, and I feel guilty about it.
Few users dislike it in 28mm 'intimate landscape' compositions. Mine has just a touch of CA in the corners, consistent with the 40lpmm separation out there, maybe 10% as much as the shot Tariq posted above, which is visible even in the full jpeg. I do feel f8 is best if corners count, even f11. Diffraction notwithstanding. Dunno about bokeh.
The 2/35 ZM shows a planar-style hump when the MTF frame is reshaped as denoir has kindly done on p3 - not ideal for cross-frame consistency where flat lines rule - but that is MTF for you; inconclusive, but an often good guide.
'can anyone tell me how their R 28/2.8 holds up?'
The king of SLR 28mm lenses...the performance stays ultra high right into the very corners, providing a very consistent image rendition cross the frame with attractive Leica colour. Leica wides and normal lenses seem to be of two kinds: most have 'rollercoaster ride' MTF and are fabulous for high impact portraits, and the teles and a couple mentioned here are positively Zeiss-like (flat) in MTF: this 28mm and the 60mm macro. For landscapes at 35-50mm, I'd look elsewhere.
Wayne Seltzer posted a few fine intimate landscapes shot on a CY 35/1.4 which were very good, surprisingly good - what a lens, that is a true dual purpose one also. At the present price level I don't even want to mention it any more, Anden was definitely right about that one.
Hi. I'm new. I'm deciding between these two lenses. I've Sony Alpha 850 FF.
(Actually I also thought the Minolta AF 35 f2). My use should be especially for landscape use at medium aperture.
Is Samy better in any field?
I found Zeiss f2 Mint+ for 500 euros, Samy new for 400 euros, Minolta Rs f2 Mint for 410 euros.
Well, I have now owned all three: the Rokinon (Samyang) 35 1.4, the Zeiss ZF.2 35 2 as well as the Minolta AF 35 2. Ironically, FlyPenFly now owns my Rokinon - and I believe he also owned the ZF 35 2 - so it might be interesting to hear his opinion on these two lenses as well.
My take is that at bright apertures - 2.8, 4 and maybe even 5.6 - the Rokinon is pretty much unbeatable for across the frame sharpness, corner to corner. Around 5.6 and definitely by F8, the Zeiss ZF 35 F2 catches up in the corners. The Minolta AF 35 F2 is behind both on FF. So, if you want 1.4 or might want really amazing across the frame performance at brighter F-stops, hands down the Rokinon. The downside is that it's a quite large and long lens. Really not that heavy, just BIG. The Zeiss ZF is shorter and, of course, has jewel-like build quality and mechanics. For stopped down landscape use, either woud perform similarly. One additional advantage of the Rokinion is it's relative lack of CA, something which is noticeable with the Zeiss until stopped down (F5.6 or F8). I tested all on a Sony A900. I currently have the Zeiss ZF.2 35 F2 as my use is stopped down landscape mostly and I like the size/ build quality.
Well...so Minolta f2 is out.
Why did you decided to sell Rokinon and take Zeiss? Because do you use it mostly stopped down? Is easy for you manual focus on the A900 without LV?
Haven't tried the landscapes yet but I like the F1.4 performance of the 35mm Roki. Its really quite something for a wide angle fast lens.
The 35/F2 Zeiss is an incredible lens but kinda boring especially because it wasn't anything special at F2. With the acquisition of my ZA 24-70 F2.8, it kind of became redundant.
Gianluke wrote:
Well...so Minolta f2 is out.
Why did you decided to sell Rokinon and take Zeiss? Because do you use it mostly stopped down? Is easy for you manual focus on the A900 without LV?
I wait FlyPenFly comment too...
The Minolta I tested was actually sharper than the Rokinon at F2 in the center of the frame. Over about 2/3rds of the frame, it is a great lens, and it's also small and compact. The corners and borders though never sharpen up to the degree of the Rokinon and Zeiss.
I bought the Zeiss mostly out of curiosity to see just how good it is. After handling it for a bit, I have to admit it's smaller size, build quality and overall feel sort of won me over. I decided my main use for the lens would be stopped down for landscape type stuff and, when stopped down, there is really not much between the Zeiss and Rokinon. I would have to look back at my comparisons, but the Zeiss is also very sharp in the center from wide open - perhaps even sharper than the Rokinon at F2. This is also, unfortunately, where the Zeiss suffers it's worst CA in tricky lighting situations.
The 35 Zeiss was fairly easy for me to focus on the A900, perhaps even easier than the Rokinon (I think the Rokinion may be easier to focus if it's not focused wide open at 1.4). I have since sold my A900 and will likely move to a Nikon D800 which, of course, will be compatible with the Zeiss ZF.2 35 I have.
Gianluke wrote:
As colours, 3D look, contrast, bokeh between Rokinon and Zeiss?
They are remarkably close. The Zeiss does have a very slight contrast advanatage but it's really close. Here was one of my comparisons between the two lenses at F8. Full shot followed by 50% crops from both. Can you tell which crop is from which lens?
If you look at the very top thinnest of the thin branches, it seems to me that resolution is the same but as I said earlier, contrast is better on the Zeiss.
Yes, top crop has more contrast and is sharper.
In the sample shots I saw around, I saw Zeiss bokeh clearly better.
The thing I really like don't like in the Zeiss is CA, as my ZA 24/2.
Are you sure Minolta is out of game?
Do you have any sample shot for comparison of the three lenses?
I kept the Samyang 35/1.4, and sold the Zeiss ZE 35/2.
The construction on the Zeiss was a thing of beauty. But at wide apetures the Zeiss has a lot of vignetting, edges softness, and CA. From f/5.6 and beyond it is great.
The Samyang is better corrected, and as Tariq says, the clear winner from f/1.4 to around f/5.6. After that, they are close enough alike in IQ, that it was one lens too many, and the ZE went up for sale. It is big and clunky, especially with the lens hood!
I still think about getting a faster 35mm with AF, f/2.0 or better. But I don't use the primes that much, so the Samyang is fine for now. I've got 35mm covered in three AF zooms, two at f/2.8, so it's not an emergency for me.
the zeiss has clearly much CA and vignetting at low apertures. It is visible. But when I see sample shots of Photozone.de I find zeiss shots sharper and with more contrast. I could think from f 5.6 the zeiss wins overall. Is it true?
Gianluke wrote:
the zeiss has clearly much CA and vignetting at low apertures. It is visible. But when I see sample shots of Photozone.de I find zeiss shots sharper and with more contrast. I could think from f 5.6 the zeiss wins overall. Is it true?
For stopped down, dedicated landscape use, I think so. Here, the contrast difference can matter with regard to perceived sharpness. For a lens which offers 1.4 and can also do pretty damn good with just about any subject matter at any F-stop - so more of a general purpose lens - the Rokinon is hard to beat (impossible for the price actually).
