Gunzorro wrote:
There must have been some real dogs of this lens sent to reviewers. I can't explain the difference between what I'm getting and about 40% of what I read before buying.
I have theory for this; people assume some qualities from Zeiss lenses, which causes them to have too high expectations of some aspects of the lens performance - then they get disappointed by wide open boke and corners - as they don't have patience, knowledge and skills they don't learn and everything about the lens seems awful => then they go to forum/review/whatever to complain about it. I would have assumed high price and manual focus would have scared these users, and they would buy some other lenses, but it seems that my assumption was wrong.
I don't have Loxia 35, but I have the ZM-series 2/35 and lens requires knowing it's behavior well e.g. majority of urban boke scenes need stopping down to f/3.2-f/3.5 for boke optimization, but background detail at certain frequency may require even closing down to f/4.5. On nature boke scenes it's safer bet to use f/4-4.5 as "default" maximum aperture on boke scenarios, at least on Nordic evergreen forest, which tend to have horrible backgrounds from boke point of view. Naturally quantity of boke has big effect, if shooting at minimum focus distance and background is far away the quantity of boke hides most of the boke quality issues and it's likely that f/2.5 becomes usable aperture. Sometimes boke contrast makes big difference, e.g. using polarizer on backlight forest scene can cut the highlights (=rough reflections from undergrowth etc.) and this makes it possible to use larger aperture without distracting subject with busy boke. And when boke gets ugly with ZM2/35 it tends to be really ugly. I would assume Loxia 35 behavior is similar.
Samuli