I don't have a 35 yet but am back and forth between zeiss and canon for my pending purchase. (I have ziess 25/2 and canon 85/1.2 though which is helpful in defining my expectations) .
Zeiss 35 1.4 will be 1) slightly better iq 2) easier to focus in the dark with more gearing and a hard stop near infinity vs my experience with my 85/1.2 being really sensitive to focus without a hard stop, 3) heavier.
Canon 35 1.4 is going to be 1) close but not far in iq from Zeiss 2) with autofocus, and 3) lighter
If you need the 35 for indoors or kids on the stage, get the Canon 35 1.4. I shot some birthday shots with my 25/2 and had lots of oof because of moving kids and manual focus. You can do manual but if they are moving toward and away, expect oof. My conclusion was to use my 24-70 2.8 if I do it again.
If you need the 35 for landscape or night shots, get the zeiss 35 1.4. My experience with the 85 1.2L is that it is so hard to focus at infinity that its hard to do wide open.
If you need both equally, get the Canon 35L.
In my case I am buying with nightscape as primary and people as secondary, and I can't decide because the 35L/1.4 is so close to the zeiss.
I have owned both CZ and the Canon. The CZ 1.4 is outstanding, however, if af is important to you, the L is the answer. If you can live with the mf, the zeiss 1.4 wins.
I really believe that you will have to live with each to make the final decision. For me, I kept the Canon.
I voted other, Been using Leica 35F2 Summicron, e55 filter version for several years. Prices are almost 1000$ for this lens now. It was a bargain at the mid 500$ level a few years back. I use it with a chipped adapter, but the focus confirm is really a minor gain.
Very little distortion, great color, sharp lens.
You can find a lot of samples using the lens on the net.
I'm waiting patiently for the Sigma 35 f/1.4; their 50 and 85 are superb, so this should be a beauty and it'll be the first of their new Art series, so hopefully that means better QC, not that I've had any issues with any Sigma lens I own.
Own both the 35L and the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4. Strongly prefer both. The Canon for moving targets, like stage photography. The Zeiss for landscape and still people, particularly wide open portraits. The Zeiss is bigger and heavier than the Canon.
badlydrawnboy wrote:
Just curious... what is it that makes the 40/2.8 so fun? Is it a particular character of the lens? It's portability? Something else?
It's super sharp wide open, very accurate focusing, and tiny. OH, and great for closeup work. Kind of makes 5D bodies or even 1D series bodies into slightly unwieldy high end point and shoots.
badlydrawnboy wrote:
Just curious... what is it that makes the 40/2.8 so fun? Is it a particular character of the lens? It's portability? Something else?
As many have said, it's very sharp wide open and has fast and precise focusing. On a 5D it makes a perfect walkaround and because of its small size and weight it's a pleasure to carry around. Great for panos as well
I have 5d mkiii and zeiss 1.4. Iq is very good, but it is useless as I cannot focus. I do not say that I am very good at photography, but I more or less know what I am doing (www.dylikowski.com) and zeiss is just not for me. It is big, heavy, doesn't have AF. If this is your social lens, street lens....or a portrait lens- go for 35L.
Oct 24, 2012 at 08:18 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Light_pilgrim wrote:
I have 5d mkiii and zeiss 1.4. Iq is very good, but it is useless as I cannot focus. I do not say that I am very good at photography, but I more or less know what I am doing (www.dylikowski.com) and zeiss is just not for me. It is big, heavy, doesn't have AF. If this is your social lens, street lens....or a portrait lens- go for 35L.
So why did you buy the Zeiss lens Don't tell me you didn't know it was a big, heavy manual focus lens before you bought it
Lars Johnsson wrote:
So why did you buy the Zeiss lens Don't tell me you didn't know it was a big, heavy manual focus lens before you bought it
1. I purchased it for the price of 35L, so it was a good deal
2. I did not know that it will be so difficult to use it for people on the street
3. I purchased it for 5D mkii and I used to have a matte screen, which is not the case anymore with mkiii
4. I made a mistake by ignoring some of the important things because I always wanted to have Zeiss (especially the AF)
Most of the photograph I see with zeiss 35 1.4 are rather static, where you can control things.
I think I made an emotional and not rational decision. You learn. Also today I have a phenomenal AF on 5D MKIII and I think that I will simply have lenses that can get advantage from this.
I love my 35L. I looked and wished for a wider version of my 85L2 for years. I tried the 24L2 (people described it as a wide 85L) but had lots of focus issues so I sent it back. My Sigma 50/1.4 has some similarities, but it's not wide enough and sometimes I still question the AF accuracy even though it's usually great.
I finally got a 35L and I should have bought one sooner. Mine is super-sharp from 1.4, has perfect AF, and does remind me of my 85L2 at times. I'm very very satisfied.
I also have a 40/2.8 and I agree that it's a joy to use. Very accurate and stable AF that I NEVER have doubts about. Good build, smooth focus ring--even though it's electronic focus and some people might not like that, I got used to it on my 85L. It's super sharp from wide open, and basically has no CA. I can put it on my 5d3 and it takes up VERY little room in a bag/backpack, and makes for a very compact and light setup to take on day trips.
Don't tell me you didn't know it was a big, heavy manual focus lens before you bought it