Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

3 4 5 end

Archive 2013 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

ytwong
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

edwardkaraa wrote:
My experience with the 35/2 in addition to what has been said by others is the somewhat strong CA even stopped down.

Yes, I was surprised to see that CA at f11, but overall I quite like the ZF 35/2. I shot raw so the CA isn't really an issue, but still I want to give the Sigma a try.

The following test by lenstip virtually killed my lust for ZF 35/1.4, since one of the applications I contemplated to use the 35 is night images with stars. The 35/2 is better in this area.
http://www.lenstip.com/307.7-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Distagon_T*_35_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

Sep 17, 2013 at 03:14 AM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Krosavcheg wrote:
Haven't tried Ze/Zf/Zm 35/1.4

There is no ZM version of the 35/1.4, and the ZM versions are all different designs than the ZF/ZF.2/ZE/ZK lenses.

Sep 17, 2013 at 05:07 AM

Krosavcheg
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

carstenw wrote:
There is no ZM version of the 35/1.4, and the ZM versions are all different designs than the ZF/ZF.2/ZE/ZK lenses.

It was a generalisation. Kind of proves my incompetence outside of CY

Sep 17, 2013 at 05:19 AM

akul
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

I own both 1.4 and 2. 1.4's focus transition seems more rapid from focused to blur, and within the same aperture stop, 1.4's focus zone is thinner, hence achieving critical focus is much more sensitive on 1.4. On my D700, 1.4 tends to over expose, but color from 1.4 is more natural. 2.0 has more 'in your face' zeiss-ness, which I still love. Focusing on 1.4 is much more sensitive than 2.0. I take 1.4 when I have more time, and space ( for tripod ) , and am willing to take less lenses with me especially for hiking. Recently, I have found myself enjoying 2.0 quite a bit, hence not posting much of 1.4 shots on the other thread, but I am not selling 1.4 I did some comparison a while ago, and posted on the ZE ZF ZM thread, but no idea which page that was. Sigma looks pretty good from what I have seen on FM especially with the low cost, but their shots gives me the impression of a bit on the clinical side. Which I tend not gravitate toward. However, if Sigma 1.4 was around when I got 1.4, it would have made my decision making a lot harder

Sep 17, 2013 at 05:26 AM

akul
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Ah, and I meant to say 'Which is better' question in this context is rather meaningless. Better gear for one person could be worse for the other. 1.4 is not better or worse than 2.0. They are different.

Sep 17, 2013 at 05:29 AM

Almass
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

I own a ZF2 35/2 and tried the 35/1.4. The main differential for my style of shooting is evening/night shots where the 35/2 has a beautiful color rendering of the range yellow to browns.

The 35/1.4 is brighter at f2 and looses the yellow/brown glow which is the most important for my evening shots.

As for Sigma, frankly i cannot be bothered by trying few lenses to find the good one or getting the new sigma calibration thingy and wasting my time fine tuning.

I consider the 35/2 an evening low light lens and probably the 35/1.4 as a landscape lens which is a subject i rarely shoot.

Neither lenses are studio lens material.

Sep 17, 2013 at 05:50 AM

Rodluvan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Almass wrote:
Neither lenses are studio lens material.

I don't do studio work so I have no idea what this means. Care to elaborate?

Sep 17, 2013 at 08:42 AM

philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

I owned and shot both for months. There are significant differences in rendering between the two lenses. The f:2.0 produces spectacular pictures with lots of "pop", but the f:1.4 has more fine detail, giving pictures with more subtle variations in colours and contrast. Bokeh is also quite different, wthe the f:1.4 generally smoother, especially close up. OTOH, the f:1.4 has field curvature, which should not be ignored.

Sep 17, 2013 at 09:51 AM

dcjs
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

We need a stickied thread with the title "If you're asking 'Which lens is better?', you wouldn't understand the answer."

Sep 17, 2013 at 01:15 PM

CanonGuy4Life
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Lol!!!!

Sep 17, 2013 at 03:22 PM

alwang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Almass wrote:
I own a ZF2 35/2 and tried the 35/1.4. The main differential for my style of shooting is evening/night shots where the 35/2 has a beautiful color rendering of the range yellow to browns.

The 35/1.4 is brighter at f2 and looses the yellow/brown glow which is the most important for my evening shots.

As for Sigma, frankly i cannot be bothered by trying few lenses to find the good one or getting the new sigma calibration thingy and wasting my time fine tuning.

Most of the issue of sample variation or calibration with Sigma lenses has been about AF calibration. Of course, you could say that autofocus on the two Zeiss lenses is permanently miscalibrated.

Sep 17, 2013 at 03:59 PM

Rodluvan
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

alwang wrote:
Most of the issue of sample variation or calibration with Sigma lenses has been about AF calibration. Of course, you could say that autofocus on the two Zeiss lenses is permanently miscalibrated.

Even a stopped clock shows the right time, twice a day.

Sep 18, 2013 at 03:22 AM

wuxiekeji
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Haha. Although have you ever tried to shoot MF on a broken AF lens? Not only is the focus throw too short, uneven or nonexistent damping, and has tons of backlash, but also the crappy plastic parts wobble internally and won't make the focus stay where you put it if you bump the camera, which sucks when you are shooting things like landscapes and other things at infinity. Broken AF lenses are seriously hard to use for anything.

I gave up on AF a long time ago after they kept breaking on me, I now own only MF lenses, couldn't be happier with that decision.

Sep 18, 2013 at 09:21 AM

f.hayek
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

There have also been forward-compatibility issues with newer bodies in the case of past Sigma AF lenses but with this docking module, firmware updates can presumably be made (anyone know for sure?)

I owned the f/2 for a long while and traded up for the f/1.4. Very different and purposed for different applications. The color saturation and pop of the f/2 was something special and I miss it, having sold it in anticipation of the 1.4. The latter lens has charms of its own, gentler on skin tones and in most practical application, sharp as hell but with lower contrast until f/2.8. Also sharper stopped down than the f/2. Colors are more subtly rendered and the bokeh is just sumptuous. Only the CV 125 seems to do it better. And perhaps the NOCT.

Edited on Sep 18, 2013 at 01:59 PM · View previous versions

Sep 18, 2013 at 11:43 AM

michael49
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

I've never owned the 1.4, but I do own the f/2 and its one of my favorite lenses, I prefer it to the 35L that I owned previously.

f/2 wide open on a 6D.....


	http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/Other/Summer-13/i-gw7CJ3p/0/XL/IMG_7254-12-XL.jpg

f/2.2....


	http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/Other/Summer-13/i-WBFhBPP/0/XL/IMG_7344-12-XL.jpg

http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/Other/Summer-13/i-Gq4kqsj/0/XL/IMG_7349-12-XL.jpg

http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/Other/Summer-13/i-tvKMFqs/0/XL/IMG_7377-12-XL.jpg

Sep 18, 2013 at 11:56 AM

AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Great shots, Michael! They show the lens' character very well.

Sep 18, 2013 at 01:13 PM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

I have the Zeiss ZE f/1.4 and I love the lens for people pictures indoors and up close. Here is my favourite picture of my son. The f/2 couldn't have got this picture both because it gathers less light and it wouldn't have blurred the background as well. Autofocus would have been useless too, as he was playing peekaboo (hiding his face and lifting it quickly) and I had to focus for the point where I knew he would appear. It was also shot in a very dark hotel room (just one 60 watt bulb on in the room). There are a lot of very good 35mm lenses these days, but for shots like this and other indoor low light people shots. I really like the ZE f/1.4.

Sep 18, 2013 at 10:57 PM

f.hayek
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

These last two photos really highlight the difference between these two lenses. The dog has a 3-D rendering (wow!) while the charming baby's skin tones are gently conveyed. The bokeh on the 1.4, when shot wide-open or nearly so, melts away. If I could do it over again, I would have kept the f/2 as well. They are very different.

Sep 19, 2013 at 08:39 AM

wiseguy010
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

edwardkaraa wrote:
My experience with the 35/2 in addition to what has been said by others is the somewhat strong CA even stopped down.

Yes, I never saw it with my DX-camera (D200), but with my new D800 it shows some CA in the corners at higher contrast areas at all apertures. With one push on a button it is removed in postprocessing however, so it is not a real problem for me. But it would be better if it didn't show the CA of course.

As far as I can remember the tests that Lloyd Chambers did, the 35/1.4 has quite some CA up to f4, but not at higher apertures.

Sep 19, 2013 at 06:46 PM

twoeye
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · ZEISS 35 f/1.4 vs 35 f/2, WHICH BETTER?

Two old favorites of mine from the 2/35 and 1,4/35. The 1,4/35 is used wide open while the 2/35 is at f/2,5 so there is an obvious difference in DOF between the shots. Both obviously very capable lenses, and my experience is in line with most of the previous comments. The 2/35 is more in your face with great contrast and pop, while the 1,4/35 has a more subtle rendering of details, also when closed down a bit.

http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41926915/WEB%20versjoner%20EXIF/IMG_7791-1200%20EXIF.jpg
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41926915/WEB%20versjoner%20EXIF/IMG_1278-1200%20EXIF.jpg

At the moment I have only the 1,4/35 and find myself missing the 2/35 from time to time: It is smaller/ lighter, I find it easier to focus, and the 1,4/35 has in my experience more LoCA at the wider apertures. The 1,4/35 is in many ways a more demanding lens.

Sep 20, 2013 at 02:33 AM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.