p.4 #1 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Okay, forget about the word dislike, which is starting to confuse even me!
Beyond the obvious differences in maximum aperture and out-of-focus rendering, which are potentially very useful in themselves, I think many of us are still uncertain about the differences between the 2/35 and the 1.4/35. Toothwalker suggested the newer lens has less lateral chromatic aberration, which would be very welcome. Otherwise, since the 2/35 is so good, I'm struggling to imagine how it could be greatly improved.
p.4 #2 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
I have 35/2 and C/Y 35/1.4 and have shot with the new 35/1.4 and they are all different and have their strengths and purposes. I still want to get the new 35/1.4 someday in the future. When I do, I will still keep my other two Zeiss 35's. This is just like at 50mm having the 50P and 50MP. Some prefere one over the other based on personal preference which is fine and others like to use both depending on what/how they are shooting.
p.4 #3 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
I'm not surprised that there's no consensus among all posters. I've been debating the same question with myself for over a year now and looked for every single 35 1.4 image I can find (I have the ZE 35 2.0 as well as Canons 35L) and tried to convince myself to get the f1.4, but I haven't done the move yet, because, like wiseguy, I am not convinced enough that the f1.4 is worth the additional money (and bulk) for me.
I've taken thousands of shots with both the 35/2 and 35L and a hundred test shots with the f1.4 (but sadly not directly against the 2.0; I'm still looking for more direct comparisons to see, these are very very rare) and my conclusions so far are:
Global contrast: overall, the f2.0 has more contrast and renders more in a 3D fashion, what I often like and what I consider special
Sharpness: the f1.4 is not critical but OK sharp wide open, on par (or a little bit worse) than the 35L. Compared to the f2.0 at identical aperture stops the fine detail rendering is nicer in the f1.4 if viewed at 100%. This is nice to have and stopped down for landscapes the f1.4 is probably nicer, although I doubt that this is visible in most shots.
longitudinal CAs: here I don't like the wide open performance of the 35/1.4. In high contrast situations it has a lot of lCAs and more than I would like and more than I'm used to from the 35L. Stopped down to f2.0 they are much better controlled and I'm not sure how they compare to the 35/2. At f5.6 for example the CA-control of the 35/1.4 is very good (only traces in the edges) and in the edges better than the 35/2. That said, I can live with the general CA performance of the 35/2.
Flare: is really excellent controlled in the 35/1.4, very impressive IMO. Flare in the 35/2 may not be quite so good controlled but still really good. The flare control is the main reason why I much prefer the 35/2 over the 35L for landscapes.
Vignetting: At similar apertures, the 35/1.4 vignettes less than the 35/2. This is most evident at f2.0 where the 35/2 vignettes a lot. That said, the vignetting at f2.0 of the 35/2 is more a feature than a problem for me as I like the effect from this lens.
Bokeh: much smoother in the 35/1.4 wide open compared to the 35L. Compared to the 35 2.0 it seems to be often smoother and the contrast in the bokeh is not as harsh as in the 35/2. Stopped down to f4.0 and more the 35/1.4 can render the background in a very beautiful way (I'm missing some words here to describe it better) which I haven't seen from both the 35L and the 35/2. That said, I'm also a fan of the 35/2 bokeh which I like in most cases. I also wonder weather the quality of the 35/1.4 bokeh differs in respect to the focus distance. Samuli mentioned this in his first impressions.
Close-up performance: I haven't tested this with the 35/1.4, but there seems to be the consensus (e.g. Philippe and Lars pictures) that the 35/1.4 does very well in this regard. I've done a lot of close-ups with the 35/2 and it is one of my favorite lenses for close-ups.
Field curvature: the 35/1.4 seems to suffer more from FC, but I have not first hand experience with this
To summaries, the 35/1.4 seems indeed to be better in some respects and in other respects it's more a matter of personal preferences. For my personal preferences the main pros of the 35/1.4 are the smoother bokeh (at least for some focus distances) and the finer details it can render stopped down (although FC has to be taken into account). What bothers me most are the CAs wide open, but only compared to 35L as the 35/2 obviously has no f1.4. The pros for the ZE/2 for my purposes are weight, price and unique global contrast rendering.
I will post a few examples for some of my statements.
p.4 #8 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Ulff wrote:
I have not much luck in easy CA removal with Lightroom, but the newest version is said to be much improved. I haven't tried it although.
The CA you had your CA example is not in the focusing plane, the green edges around contrast edges are behind the focusing plane. As far I'm aware no software is able to remove the bokeh CA - the algorithms I'm aware of are based on scaling different color channels differently to align different colors to same point, so naturally it won't work all over image, just on one depth plane.
p.4 #10 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Wow, quite a heated debate.
Huge difference between 1.4 and 2 is that f2 can not achieve the look of 'pseudo telephoto' effect due to its thicker DOF. 1.4 has very thin focus zone, and some of the shots are simply impossible without this lens. I think Samuli mentioned it too.
Weight actually was less problem than I imagined. It is technically the same weight as Nikon 24-70, however, the weight distribution is much tighter, less cantilever, so it balances very well. I do take it on trail all the time, lighter 2/35, I end up shooting more 'city shots'. In other words, in a situation weight should matter more, I still take 1.4. So there.
So, in the end, one should choose the gear depending on what they intend to use. No need to dismiss one or the other.
p.4 #12 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
AlexDROP wrote:
Once upon a time...
Luka made a quick unscientific comparison of these two lenses - check his post here.
To me the first two comparison shots between the 1.4 and f/2 @ f/2, illustrate the big difference between these two lens. If the rendering(which I cannot deny is stunning) of the 1.4 is worth the premium to you, then get it. The f2 holds its own quite well when too especially stopped down. They're both great lenses. Personally I have the f/2.
p.4 #13 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
j.liam wrote:
Which was why I opted for the Leica 100 APO instead of the Z* 100. The OOF color was quite troubling.
I considered the Leica, too, but eventually I'm glad I opted for the Zeiss because of the f2.0 aperture I use a lot. The bokeh CA are a compromise I have to live with. My "solution" is sometimes to take additional shots at f4.0 where the CAs are gone and decide later which shot I prefer.
May 17, 2012 at 07:16 PM
Guest
Guest
p.4 #14 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Has somebody tried this out? Seems to work with raw files only and is supposed to help with the issue even in bokeh areas.
May 7, 2012
Camera Raw 7.1 Release Candidate Now Available
Camera Raw 7.1 and DNG Convertor 7.1 Release Candidates are now available on Adobe Labs. This release includes bug fixes, new camera support, and new lens profiles. Camera Raw 7.1 Release Candidate includes new Defringe controls to help address chromatic aberration.
May 18, 2012 at 03:01 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #15 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
AlexDROP wrote:
Has somebody tried this out? Seems to work with raw files only and is supposed to help with the issue even in bokeh areas.
I was very disappointed that it didn't have any support for the Zeiss 35/1,4 lens. Even the new 15/2,8 already have a lens profile and support.
May 18, 2012 at 03:36 AM
Guest
Guest
p.4 #16 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Anyway there is a cure for 100MP at least. No doubt they will reveal a profile for 35/1.4 some time later.
p.4 #19 · Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4 and f/2 at each other's best
Hi you all from Spain
After having a tough time about making my mind up on one of the lenses discussed here, I finally went for the 1.4/35mm ZE. My primary purpose was -and still is- to recreate that pop effect you get with tele lenses, but still retaining the angle of view of a 35mm lens.
It seemed that the Rollei 1.4 would attain that "3-D look" more easily than any other 35mm lens, but -when all is said and done- the Rollei is a second-hand lens with no garantee, running at the same price than its ZE counterpart. Brand new lemons are easily returned, but second hand ones could mean having to drink lemonade for a time. All these thoughts finally put me off.
This is what I can say about the ZE 1.4:
1. My fears on the reported CAs when wide open are now gone. I can't see any of that on in-focus areas
2. It's plenty sharp at 1.4 No problem here at all aside nailing focus
3. At 1.4 there are dark corners- which helps to isolate the subject- but corners are surprisingly sharp
Focusing distance plays a very important role in the creation of that 3D look. The greatest challenge, for me, is to master which subjects work at a given focusing distance. If you step back in excess, all the magic is gone.
Still wondering if the Rollei would have made my life easier
Lots of people disagree, as you have found out, and they own the lens, and you not 