Archive 2012 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Toothwalker wrote:
To me, that is three times the same statement.
Is that a fourth time, or does this mean something else?
What is a "better" focus throw?
In Zeiss data sheets I found statements along the line:
"The lens has a short focus throw for fast focusing."
"The lens has a long focus throw for precise focusing."
Concerning chromatic aberration, the 35/2 has more of the lateral variety and the 35/1.4 more of the longitudinal variety.
You also made the same question/statement a couple of times
As I wrote in the post if you did read it? It was Lloyd Chamber quotes. So you really have to ask him to get the 100 % right answer.
But I know what he mean by better focus throw because he also wrote that. It has a wider rotation angle. So that's better according to his review.
And the lens doesn't have to be better at landscape or stopped down because it's better corrected for lateral chromatic aberration. You did of course cut away a part of the sentence when you quoted it. I suppose you liked that better
p.3 #2 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Like carstenw said, each of us have our own judgement. We don't need to prove you which one is better than the other. We gave him (the topic owner) what we do have ( images), you can help him either by showing him what you have, he will have to make decision himself. That's it.
p.3 #3 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Lars Johnsson wrote:
You also made the same question/statement a couple of times
As I wrote in the post if you did read it? It was Lloyd Chamber quotes. So you really have to ask him to get the 100 % right answer.
But I know what he mean by better focus throw because he also wrote that. It has a wider rotation angle. So that's better according to his review.
And the lens doesn't have to be better at landscape or stopped down because it's better corrected for lateral chromatic aberration. You did of course cut away a part of the sentence when you quoted it. I suppose you liked that better ...Show more →
I know they are Lloyd Chambers quotes, but in this forum I reply to the person citing him. I just wondered why someone would present a list of advantages with so much overlap between statements.
If I omitted part of a sentence it was because it was an unclear part of an unclear sentence, and not required to illustrate the overlap.
p.3 #4 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Rent 1.4 and shoot them yourself - no smiley, I'm serious, if you really want prove your point you have no other choice... It takes quite lot of time&effort and at least I have zero interest to do it since it's quite obvious without any comparisons that I'll never have any use for 2/35 anymore, at least for any reason relevant to optical performance.
Samuli
I fully agree Samuli.
Wiseguy, I don't need to prove anything. What's your problem with people preferring the f1.4? Many of us have/had both (me included). I don't need reviews to form my own opinion. I actually use the lens before I start nagging.
After using the f2 a lot for 1.5 years, I noticed right away that the 1.4 is different. Even from looking at photos that others made it was quite obvious.
p.3 #5 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
I have the 2/35, which in my opinion is very well corrected for a fast SLR lens with an angle of view over 60 degrees. It has excellent flare resistance, quite neutral bokeh, low field curvature/astigmatism, and high-contrast imaging across the frame even at large apertures and/or high magnification. The fly in the ointment is lateral chromatic aberration, which is corrected not much better than in many older lenses – despite the use of anomalous partial dispersion glass. In all these regards, this lens is very "modern."
Although the 2/35 is fairly chunky for an f/2 lens, the 1.4/35 is extraordinarily large and heavy: I think it's actually the largest and heaviest 35 mm f/1.4 lens available. It's also very expensive. The large volume and the aspherical element must do something useful, so I'm sure it's a good lens. But you'd have to know exactly what you dislike about the 2/35, and the 1.4/35 would have to fix that, for the larger lens to make sense.
May 17, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
S Dilworth wrote:
I have the 2/35, which in my opinion is very well corrected for a fast SLR lens with an angle of view over 60 degrees. It has excellent flare resistance, quite neutral bokeh, low field curvature/astigmatism, and high-contrast imaging across the frame even at large apertures and/or high magnification. The fly in the ointment is lateral chromatic aberration, which is corrected not much better than in many older lenses – despite the use of anomalous partial dispersion glass. In all these regards, this lens is very "modern."
Although the 2/35 is fairly chunky for an f/2 lens, the 1.4/35 is extraordinarily large and heavy: I think it's actually the largest and heaviest 35 mm f/1.4 lens available. It's also very expensive. The large volume and the aspherical element must do something useful, so I'm sure it's a good lens. But you'd have to know exactly what you dislike about the 2/35, and the 1.4/35 would have to fix that, for the larger lens to make sense....Show more →
I don't at all agree that you must dislike something with the 35/2 to buy the 35/1,4. Maybe you just need a fast lens because shooting in dark places. Or like to being able to blur the background. Or liking the bokeh.
Those lenses are rather different.
p.3 #7 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
I own the 35/2 and rented the 35/1.4. Shot them side by side on Velvia 50 & Astia 100. While shooting a couple of rolls I didn't note which lens I was shooting, so throughout those 2 rolls, the 2 lenses were alternated and unidentified. After getting the 2 rolls back from development and inspecting them, I could not tell pick out which was the 35/2 and which was the 35/1.4. For my purposes, basically landscape at f4-f11, I can't tell the difference between the 2 lenses.
I'd like to own the 35/1.4, but not enough to sell the 35/2.
p.3 #8 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Jochenb wrote:
I fully agree Samuli.
Wiseguy, I don't need to prove anything. What's your problem with people preferring the f1.4?
For the discussion (and answer to the OP) it would be nice to give some examples. But if you don't want to do that, it is OK with me. A hand full of real world comparisons would be nice though. But that is apparently too difficult or too much trouble.
I don't have a problem with people preferring the 1.4. Why do you think I have a problem with that? I only give my opinion about the two lenses.
p.3 #9 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
wiseguy010 wrote:
Here we have much better alternatives for Ebay:
marktplaats.nl
fotoappartuur.nl
[off-topic]
Wow, someone who dares to call marktplaats.nl better than ebay... The only business I'd do through that site is to do the transaction in person (inconvenient) so it doesn't even compare to ebay. And even then, with a private sale you most like can't return the bought goods (hard to check on the spot if the lens isn't a bad copy) so you're much safer buying from an ebay shop.
p.3 #10 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
ltruong8 wrote:
Like carstenw said, each of us have our own judgement. We don't need to prove you which one is better than the other. We gave him (the topic owner) what we do have ( images), you can help him either by showing him what you have, he will have to make decision himself. That's it.
Is it possible to repost the pictures you posted here?
p.3 #11 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
AhamB wrote:
[off-topic]
Wow, someone who dares to call marktplaats.nl better than ebay... The only business I'd do through that site is to do the transaction in person (inconvenient) so it doesn't even compare to ebay. And even then, with a private sale you most like can't return the bought goods (hard to check on the spot if the lens isn't a bad copy) so you're much safer buying from an ebay shop.
I always go to the seller and test the gear myself. No problem at all and better for me because I can see and feel what I am buying. But of course this is only possible in a small country.
May 17, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
wiseguy010 wrote:
For the discussion (and answer to the OP) it would be nice to give some examples. But if you don't want to do that, it is OK with me. A hand full of real world comparisons would be nice though. But that is apparently too difficult or too much trouble.
I don't have a problem with people preferring the 1.4. Why do you think I have a problem with that? I only give my opinion about the two lenses.
But why don't you you post some comparison? Or some sample pics from those lenses?
Why would you like all the others to do it, but not you?
p.3 #13 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Lars Johnsson wrote:
But why don't you you post some comparison? Or some sample pics from those lenses?
Why would you like all the others to do it, but not you?
Why should I. I am not interested in buying the 35/1.4 and I don't have one. Buying or renting one only for some tests here, is quite silly. I have seen more than enough pictures of the 35/2 and 35/1.4 to state that there are hardly any differences in real world photography between the two.
I am not the one stating that the 1.4 is much better than the 2 without any prove.
But this discussion is leading nowhere. I made my point and hope that it has some value for the OP.
By the way, I posted quite some 35/2 pictures on this forum.
p.3 #14 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
wiseguy010 wrote:
I always go to the seller and test the gear myself. No problem at all and better for me because I can see and feel what I am buying. But of course this is only possible in a small country.
How do you check for things like decentering then? You take a laptop to view test shots you take on the spot?
p.3 #17 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Lars Johnsson wrote:
I don't at all agree that you must dislike something with the 35/2 to buy the 35/1,4. Maybe you just need a fast lens because shooting in dark places. Or like to being able to blur the background. Or liking the bokeh.
Well, if you want a faster lens or "better" bokeh then you dislike – so to speak – the 2/35.
With today's clean ISO 1000+ it's possible to shoot in very dark conditions with an f/2 lens, but I don't deny there remain good uses for a faster lens. One of these might simply be to shoot at f/2 with less off-axis light fall-off.
May 17, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
S Dilworth wrote:
Well, if you want a faster lens or "better" bokeh then you dislike – so to speak – the 2/35.
With today's clean ISO 1000+ it's possible to shoot in very dark conditions with an f/2 lens, but I don't deny there remain good uses for a faster lens. One of these might simply be to shoot at f/2 with less off-axis light fall-off.
Clean high ISO doesn't help you to blur the background. And the IQ will of course be much better if you use a lower ISO setting also.
And I don't dislike the 35/2. I own and like the lens. But for many kinds of photography the f/1,4 lens is a much better lens.
May 17, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Guest
Guest
p.3 #19 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Once upon a time...
Luka made a quick unscientific comparison of these two lenses - check his post here.
p.3 #20 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
S Dilworth wrote:
Well, if you want a faster lens or "better" bokeh then you dislike – so to speak – the 2/35.
So in order to prefer another we have to hate another? That is just BS. I'm pretty absolute and polarized person, but even I can't do that. Of the 10+ 35mm lenses I have shoot with 1,4/35 is clearly preferred based on optical matters, and if 1,4/35 would not exist then I would prefer 2/35 over any of the other 35mm based on optical matters. 2/35 is not bad lens, I haven't seen anybody saying that.
I have shoot since 2008 with 2/35 first ZF adapted and once ZE was available swapped to it, so I know pretty well from 8000+ (don't know exact number since ZF adapter reported 50/2 and I had same EXIF chip on many lenses) photos I have shoot with 2/35 how it behaves. Even just the few hundred initial shots with 1,4 made it clear I prefer optical features of 1,4. In addition to optical things, people preferences are affected by other things e.g. economical (price) and ergonomics (weight and size - weight no issue at least for me, but 1,4 is HUGE). So I'm not surprised that people have different preferences, but I fail so see this disliking you are talking about.
Only bad talk of either lens here has been one guy blaming 1,4 version useless due to CA and whatever reasons based on articles (which some other people have read just the opposite) and web samples...
