magiclight wrote:
I have tried using the 35/2 as a landscape lens and I am also less than impressed. If you look at the MTF you can see why, especially when compared to the 21/2.8 which is in another league.
The data by photozone, which consider the resolution of the lens-sensor combination, tell another story. In fact, according to PZ data, the MTF performance of 35/2 and 21/2.8 on D3x (the FF camera with the highest resolution to date) are equivalent:
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I have not noticed rising CA when closing down when actually testing the ZF.2 35. Testing between F2-F8, CA is fairly strong wide open, decreases quite a bit by F4 at which point it's only really noticeable in the corners. Then by F8, the corners clear up nicely with only a tiny trace left. Testing at infinity stopped down to F8, CA is a non issue, at lest on the copy I have.
For me the same. My copy (and I can be lucky with it) hardly shows CA. It only shows CA at F2 and F2.8 with clipping highlights (particularly in church-windows). In landscape pictures I didn't manage to get any CA. Besides that it is very easy to remove in PP.
Same experience here.
The 35/2 is an awesome lens, but I didn't really like it either for for example landscapes. Hardly used it for that. Much prefered my 21-50MP combo. I guess it has to do with the very fine detail.
Now that I have the 35/1.4 ZE I can say that I like this one better for this task, despite the field curvature.
My unscientific feeling towards 2/35 on landscape has been that it is very hard to achieve that amazing zeiss look I get from short - mid distance subject, say, statues or tree trunks ().
One thing I realized is that achieving critical focusing even in long distance is important. With 21, this is much less an issue with its huge DOF, but 35 has been less forgiving. Other issue is looking through LV (D-700), for distance object, 2/35 is hard to determine if the critical focus is achieved. I have gotten good result with f5.6, but images can get muddy around f8 , so trying to keep foreground and distance both in focus usually does not work too well with me.
Deep DOF, foreground + infinity is tricky to me with 35 - f7.1, feels a bit muddy. I like the shot, but I feel did not utilize the lens strength properly. It would have been better with f5.6 and ignore the foreground. http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/1070/U1070I1318419249.SEQ.3.jpg
This was prorbably the first shot from 35 I felt that I could achieve the result ( perfromance wise ) with this lens. I was not thinking anything, but luckly it was f 5.6 and I seemed to have gotten the focus right, with light, and subject.
So, within my experience with this lens, I know sometimes I can make landscapey shot ( long distance high detail shot ) work with this lens. But I need to really work, and also need a little bit of luck with the subject and shooting conditions. Like I said, this is no scientific, just my personal feeling towards 2/35.
mpmendenhall wrote:
I've been loving my ZE 35/2 for mid-range to closeup shots so far, and think it is certainly "decent" at infinity (for rather high values of "decent"), but the Contax 35-70/3.4 (@f5.6-8) is still the best 35mm for stopped down infinity shooting.
I'm not so sure about that after owning both. The MTF's sort of back that up as well. Here they are, side by side, with the ZF 35/2 on the left and the CY 35-70 on the right. They are not so different EXCEPT that the ZF 35/2 is at F4 while the CY 35-70 is at F8! It is therefore reasonable that the ZF 35/2 MTF, if we could see one at F8, would easily overtake that of the CY 35-70. My shooting with both lenses bares this out since the extreme corners on the CY 35-70 loose fine detail by F8 whereas the ZF 35/2 will hold it.
I have posted this before. ZF 35/2 at F8 infinity showing near center and very extreme corner. This is with the A900/24MP. http://www.gibranstudio.com/zf35f.jpg
Neither sharpness/detail nor CA are issues with this lens for infinity landscape subject matter. It is said that the Z*35/1.4 suffers from some field curvature so at the corners that will likely be an issue for such subject matter (distant landscape).
akul wrote:
One thing I realized is that achieving critical focusing even in long distance is important. With 21, this is much less an issue with its huge DOF, but 35 has been less forgiving. Other issue is looking through LV (D-700), for distance object, 2/35 is hard to determine if the critical focus is achieved.
This is a very critical point which I have noticed as well. If you don't nail focus, the image will fall apart quickly and the Z*35/2 at infinity must be right on . I'm using mine with a Leitax Sony adapter and it amazingly is exactly perfect right where the lens stops at infinity- fortunate since I don't have LV. I have read that some Z* lenses go past the infinity stop and this very well could explain poor results at infinity.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
This is a very critical point which I have noticed as well. If you don't nail focus, the image will fall apart quickly and the Z*35/2 at infinity must be right on . I'm using mine with a Leitax Sony adapter and it amazingly is exactly perfect right where the lens stops at infinity- fortunate since I don't have LV. I have read that some Z* lenses go past the infinity stop and this very well could explain poor results at infinity.
Sort of the reason I like my ZF28/2 better than my ZF 35/2 - I get greater depth of field with the 28. Even for landscapes. With the 28mm, trees at say 200 meters from my position are in focus at f8 if I am focusing at say 60 meters ( and white-trunked trees "pop" even though they are very small). With the 35mm, those trees will be slightly blurred. And with the 28mm, foreground will be in crisp focus as well.
The 28 renders slightly differently from the 35, more open shadows, I think. But the 35 in focus is a 3D animal. Both are sharp across the frame at f5.6 - f11. I don't have much need for bokeh.
I've rented the ZF 25/2, so it will be interesting to see how it compares in landscape photography to the ZF 25/2.8 & ZF 28/2. (shooting Velvia 50)
John,
I think you must be talking about the bokeh/rendering of far distant objects in a normal near to far large DOF type landscape shot. The ZE 21 with its inherent large DOF renders most or all of a scene in focus and its bokeh rendering will not be as apparent as the narrower DOF 35.
As far as bokeh rendering the 35/2 is similar to 21, 50MP, 100MP. For more painterly, bokeh style you have 28, CY 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85, and C/Y 100P.
35/2 is a fine landscape lens, just has a super brother at 21 and has some CA in harsh lighting.
Maybe Zeiss will release a new improved version with the CA corrected Luke their latest lenses, 35/1.4 and 25/2.
I agree with what you and others have said, the 35 is maybe not used to its best abilities when shot closed down at infinity. I am sometimes missing the detail of the 50 MP or 21. If focused to much toward the front for DOF the infinity can get rather grainy/muddy.
OneAnt wrote:
Did you ever look at the 28/2, it has a 'painterly' effect where the 35/2 does not. Its quite pronounced and is exactly the interpretation I see in your complaint. The 35/2 was described by Zeiss as 'reportage', the 28 was the 'artists' lens. They are the closest two in FL but are worlds apart in render. The 28 is always overlooked but it has this effect in buckets. Rodluvan if he finds this thread would likely agree and have examples that make it clear. I dont do scape and have the 35/2 for this exact reason and sold my 28 for this exact reason. ...Show more →
I seldom use the 35 for 'landscape' photography (I seldom do landscape at all). I believe it has more to do with the fov than the IQ.
Here's a few with the 2/35. I find them rather typical of the lens regardless of focus distance.
The lens has plenty of magic at infinity, particularly during the magic hour. If you don't care for the 35mm fov for such use, that's an entirely different story.
Different view, different lighting, different time of day. I don't know how you can say these differences are down to the lenses with all these variables in each shot. The shot of the 25 has much more dramatic lighting/ longer shadows so of course it's more stunning whereas the one with the 35 looks like it was perhaps taken closer to the middle of the day. That's not to say color, contrast and rendering differences may not exist between these two lenses, only that this example certainly does not prove it. We would need the exact same scene, same lighting, same position, etc. - exposures taken back to back - to see such differences.
mpmendenhall wrote:
I've been loving my ZE 35/2 for mid-range to closeup shots so far, and think it is certainly "decent" at infinity (for rather high values of "decent"), but the Contax 35-70/3.4 (@f5.6-8) is still the best 35mm for stopped down infinity shooting.
same lighting, same time of day, 5 min apart. look at the exifs
I can say that because it is consistant when looking at 10 shots of the 35 and 10 of the 25 in the same setting albeit different view.
The 25/2.8 is a very contrasty lens. I can see that in every shot.
That's not to say color, contrast and rendering differences may not exist between these two lenses, only that this example certainly does not prove it. We would need the exact same scene, same lighting, same position, etc. - exposures taken back to back - to see such differences.
sure. just read it as a statement of opinion rather then a proven fact by a series of test images
). 
