This topic is in the 2014 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2014Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
p.11 #1Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
great thanks Edward, just ordered a Voigtlander Leica M to Emount waiting for it 
.
.Sep 21, 2014 at 08:28 AM
p.11 #2Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
My Swedish dealer says March 2015. So, very long wait!
Sep 21, 2014 at 09:17 AM
p.11 #3Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
rscheffler wrote:
I also agree with Derek that it's a lens fairly characteristic of Voigtlander rendering, erring on the side of somewhat lower contrast without micro contrast oomph.
I assume you're referring to the CV 35/1.2 here?
On my A7R (and briefly Fuji XE10) I tried 3 copies of v2, and was disappointed each time. On my A7R it struck me as overly macro-contrasty and lacking microcontrast, compared to my Contax 35/1.4 and Leica R 35/1.4. It also generated some very, very strange chemical colors. The primary colors always seemed to be emphasized. On the other hand If I reduced saturation in post, the images would look emaciated and untrue. Neither Contax or Leica R 35/1.4 does this.
From f/1.4 to f/1.2 light gain was insignificant (shutter would go from 1/50 to 1/40, for example), and then only in the central region.
I liked its ergonomics and didn't mind its bulk (of course not coming from SLR lenses). Actually I rather prefer its ergonomics to most M lenses, which are just too small. But the images struck me as rather brassy. I'm always surprised by positive reviews of it.
Hopefully this ZM will finally make it possible to retire my Contax and Lux R.
I also agree with Derek that it's a lens fairly characteristic of Voigtlander rendering, erring on the side of somewhat lower contrast without micro contrast oomph.
I assume you're referring to the CV 35/1.2 here?
On my A7R (and briefly Fuji XE10) I tried 3 copies of v2, and was disappointed each time. On my A7R it struck me as overly macro-contrasty and lacking microcontrast, compared to my Contax 35/1.4 and Leica R 35/1.4. It also generated some very, very strange chemical colors. The primary colors always seemed to be emphasized. On the other hand If I reduced saturation in post, the images would look emaciated and untrue. Neither Contax or Leica R 35/1.4 does this.
From f/1.4 to f/1.2 light gain was insignificant (shutter would go from 1/50 to 1/40, for example), and then only in the central region.
I liked its ergonomics and didn't mind its bulk (of course not coming from SLR lenses). Actually I rather prefer its ergonomics to most M lenses, which are just too small. But the images struck me as rather brassy. I'm always surprised by positive reviews of it.
Hopefully this ZM will finally make it possible to retire my Contax and Lux R.
Sep 21, 2014 at 08:37 PM
p.11 #4Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I agree that the colors from the CV35/1.2 are distinctive and, to my eye, not accurate. Sometimes it works for me, sometimes it drives me nuts.
The size of the new ZM35 is only large by rangefinder standards, and then it's still not too bad. A tad fatter but shorter than the CV35, and quite a bit lighter.
However, this just makes me even more impressed when I look at the size of the 35 FLE. It's shorter even with the hood, and the hood is really great IMO (it's essentially the same as the 21 Super-Elmar hood and cap).
The size of the new ZM35 is only large by rangefinder standards, and then it's still not too bad. A tad fatter but shorter than the CV35, and quite a bit lighter.
However, this just makes me even more impressed when I look at the size of the 35 FLE. It's shorter even with the hood, and the hood is really great IMO (it's essentially the same as the 21 Super-Elmar hood and cap).
Sep 21, 2014 at 08:49 PM
p.11 #5Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
It's all about the light, in my opinion, with the palette of the CV 35/1.2 v1:
DSC00955 by unoh7, CV 35/1.2v1 + A7r WO
Because it's a super speed it gets shot in all sorts of dim and half light, and the WB can go bizarre. I just shoot in Raw and adjust if it looks weird.
In broad daylight I don't find the wierd color casts at all-- and in many dim situations it's OK, then all of a sudden it goes "greenish"
Ah I found one
:
DSC06468 by unoh7, on Flickr
I didn't bother to touch the auto WB in post here, but I'd say it's a bit off
Anyway you can't lug that thing every where
I'm loving the ZM35/2
Today:
L1020758 by unoh7, Biogon @ f/4
At f/4 focus is very reliable. F/2 is dicey for me
But I do shoot the 1.2 WO often:
Just the other night:
L1020085 by unoh7, 35/1.2 WO
I'm lucky and the calibration is perfect
DSC00955 by unoh7, CV 35/1.2v1 + A7r WO
Because it's a super speed it gets shot in all sorts of dim and half light, and the WB can go bizarre. I just shoot in Raw and adjust if it looks weird.
In broad daylight I don't find the wierd color casts at all-- and in many dim situations it's OK, then all of a sudden it goes "greenish"
Ah I found one
:DSC06468 by unoh7, on Flickr
I didn't bother to touch the auto WB in post here, but I'd say it's a bit off
Anyway you can't lug that thing every where
I'm loving the ZM35/2
Today:
L1020758 by unoh7, Biogon @ f/4
At f/4 focus is very reliable. F/2 is dicey for me
But I do shoot the 1.2 WO often:
Just the other night:
L1020085 by unoh7, 35/1.2 WO
I'm lucky and the calibration is perfect
Sep 22, 2014 at 08:20 PM
p.11 #6Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I forgot there was a thread for this lens.
Below is a cross post from the Leica image and ZE/ZF/ZM threads in case this interests anyone here and who doesn't normally visit those threads... so some (many) may have already seen these images
I happened to be in NYC during PhotoPlus Expo and dropped by for a look around. There were a few things I wanted to see, but the number one priority was to have a look at the new Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM. Zeiss had a couple on display for actual hands-on use and I spent a few minutes running it through a few tests on my M240. Unfortunately I didn't have access to a Sony a7/R/S body to also try it on...
Initial impression is that it is somewhat large, but it's not gigantic, IMO. And it's lighter than its size implies, just as the spec sheet indicates that it's lighter than the CV35/1.2.
Focus feel was excellent - extremely smooth. And the throw seemed decent. Viewfinder blockage is there... it's creeping into the bottom right quarter of the frame, but should be manageable.
I managed to knock my M240's rangefinder out of alignment a few days ago, so had to rely on the EVF for critical focus. But in that respect, the Distagon seems to deliver very nicely. It's very sharp near or far wide open, with a hint of SA that cleans up a stop down. It also seems to be very sharp across the frame with a flat field of focus already from near wide open. Couldn't see any wavy field curvature typical of Leica glass. I could sometimes make out faint onion rings in the out of focus specular highlights... we'll see how bad this is in real life, but I suspect it probably won't be a major concern.
Difficult to judge rendering character with the limited time and location, but it seemed quite neutral. Double edged blur can appear in some situations and the blur balls towards the very edge of the frame sometimes take on odd, squarish shapes.
But so far, I'm very enthusiastic about the lens and plan to get one. The Zeiss rep I spoke to indicated it should be available already in December at around USD 2,300. But, according to my closest thing to a "Zeiss contact" now tells me the lens is delayed until January.
Here are a few web-rez snaps from the ZM... I believe these were all wide open.
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005737.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005739.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005753.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005754.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005757.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005776.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005777.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005779.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005785.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005790.jpg
Here's a smartphone snap of the ZM on my M240 with the 21 Lux for a size comparison. That's the 28 Cron behind the camera (with non-standard $5 vented hood):
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/IMG_20141031_105647.jpg
Also, the above ZM sample images were all shot uncoded and couldn't make out any obvious color shift/tinge along the edges. Looks promising in this respect, too.
Below is a cross post from the Leica image and ZE/ZF/ZM threads in case this interests anyone here and who doesn't normally visit those threads... so some (many) may have already seen these images
I happened to be in NYC during PhotoPlus Expo and dropped by for a look around. There were a few things I wanted to see, but the number one priority was to have a look at the new Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM. Zeiss had a couple on display for actual hands-on use and I spent a few minutes running it through a few tests on my M240. Unfortunately I didn't have access to a Sony a7/R/S body to also try it on...
Initial impression is that it is somewhat large, but it's not gigantic, IMO. And it's lighter than its size implies, just as the spec sheet indicates that it's lighter than the CV35/1.2.
Focus feel was excellent - extremely smooth. And the throw seemed decent. Viewfinder blockage is there... it's creeping into the bottom right quarter of the frame, but should be manageable.
I managed to knock my M240's rangefinder out of alignment a few days ago, so had to rely on the EVF for critical focus. But in that respect, the Distagon seems to deliver very nicely. It's very sharp near or far wide open, with a hint of SA that cleans up a stop down. It also seems to be very sharp across the frame with a flat field of focus already from near wide open. Couldn't see any wavy field curvature typical of Leica glass. I could sometimes make out faint onion rings in the out of focus specular highlights... we'll see how bad this is in real life, but I suspect it probably won't be a major concern.
Difficult to judge rendering character with the limited time and location, but it seemed quite neutral. Double edged blur can appear in some situations and the blur balls towards the very edge of the frame sometimes take on odd, squarish shapes.
But so far, I'm very enthusiastic about the lens and plan to get one. The Zeiss rep I spoke to indicated it should be available already in December at around USD 2,300. But, according to my closest thing to a "Zeiss contact" now tells me the lens is delayed until January.
Here are a few web-rez snaps from the ZM... I believe these were all wide open.
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005737.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005739.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005753.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005754.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005757.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005776.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005777.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005779.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005785.jpg
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005790.jpg
Here's a smartphone snap of the ZM on my M240 with the 21 Lux for a size comparison. That's the 28 Cron behind the camera (with non-standard $5 vented hood):
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/IMG_20141031_105647.jpg
Also, the above ZM sample images were all shot uncoded and couldn't make out any obvious color shift/tinge along the edges. Looks promising in this respect, too.
Nov 20, 2014 at 07:34 PM
p.11 #7Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
thanks ron! that looks pretty nice. rendering seems like it might actually be similar to the c/y 35/1.4 (i sure hope so), just better corrected. the c/y version gets a little squared off in the corners too.
Nov 21, 2014 at 01:02 AM
p.11 #9Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
The lens is available on Adorama store, has any body tried it yet ?
Feb 02, 2015 at 06:57 AM
p.11 #10Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
PCmagazine review, tested on M240 & Editors' Choice:
Zeiss Distagon T* 1,4/35 ZM
I used Imatest to check and see how the Distagon performs when paired with the 24-megapixel Leica M (Typ 240). A center-weighted sharpness test netted a score of 2,432 lines per picture height at f/1.4. Most impressive is that the lens delivers very even performance across the entirety of the frame, even at f/1.4 it shows 2,364 lines. You'll have no issues capturing extremely crisp images with a shallow depth of field, no matter where in the frame your subject sits.
Detail improves as the aperture is narrowed. At f/2 the lens scores 2,913 lines, it improves to 3,521 lines at f/2.8, and it peaks around f/4 (3,837 lines) and f/5.6 (3,861 lines). Diffraction sets in at f/8 (3,429 lines), but you can feel comfortable shooting at f/11 (2,990 lines) and f/16 (2,400 lines) when the shot calls for it. Distortion is a complete nonissue—there is none.
Zeiss Distagon T* 1,4/35 ZM
I used Imatest to check and see how the Distagon performs when paired with the 24-megapixel Leica M (Typ 240). A center-weighted sharpness test netted a score of 2,432 lines per picture height at f/1.4. Most impressive is that the lens delivers very even performance across the entirety of the frame, even at f/1.4 it shows 2,364 lines. You'll have no issues capturing extremely crisp images with a shallow depth of field, no matter where in the frame your subject sits.
Detail improves as the aperture is narrowed. At f/2 the lens scores 2,913 lines, it improves to 3,521 lines at f/2.8, and it peaks around f/4 (3,837 lines) and f/5.6 (3,861 lines). Diffraction sets in at f/8 (3,429 lines), but you can feel comfortable shooting at f/11 (2,990 lines) and f/16 (2,400 lines) when the shot calls for it. Distortion is a complete nonissue—there is none.
Feb 02, 2015 at 08:34 PM
p.11 #11Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Haven't seen a bad review yet. I will wait until I see some real world pics on the M digital camera's before I pass judgement. Seems to look pretty awesome though....
Feb 02, 2015 at 08:44 PM
p.11 #12Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
serhan_ wrote:
PCmagazine review, tested on M240 & Editors' Choice:
Zeiss Distagon T* 1,4/35 ZM
Seems like a bit of jittery/ nervous bokeh in the third shot of that review (girl sitting at table). Looking at it further, it may be the result of camera shake (slight double exposure from a flash used with a slow shutter speed).
PCmagazine review, tested on M240 & Editors' Choice:
Zeiss Distagon T* 1,4/35 ZM
Earlier quote
I used Imatest to check and see how the Distagon performs when paired with the 24-megapixel Leica M (Typ 240). A center-weighted sharpness test netted a score of 2,432 lines per picture height at f/1.4. Most impressive is that the lens delivers very even performance across the entirety of the frame, even at f/1.4 it shows 2,364 lines. You'll have no issues capturing extremely crisp images with a shallow depth of field, no matter where in the frame your subject sits.Earlier quote
Detail improves as the aperture is narrowed. At f/2 the lens scores 2,913 lines, it improves to 3,521 lines at f/2.8, and it peaks around f/4 (3,837 lines) and f/5.6 (3,861 lines). Diffraction sets in at f/8 (3,429 lines), but you can feel comfortable shooting at f/11 (2,990 lines) and f/16 (2,400 lines) when the shot calls for it. Distortion is a complete nonissue—there is none.Seems like a bit of jittery/ nervous bokeh in the third shot of that review (girl sitting at table). Looking at it further, it may be the result of camera shake (slight double exposure from a flash used with a slow shutter speed).
Feb 02, 2015 at 08:58 PM
p.11 #13Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Here's one the might be of some interest...
http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-distagon-35mm-f1-4-zm-review/
Viktor shoots mostly on an a7, but there are some comparison shots between it and the ME in there that are interesting. The crops look good on the a7, stunning on the ME.
http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-distagon-35mm-f1-4-zm-review/
Viktor shoots mostly on an a7, but there are some comparison shots between it and the ME in there that are interesting. The crops look good on the a7, stunning on the ME.
Feb 02, 2015 at 09:23 PM
p.11 #14Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Here is a crop comparison between a Loxia 50 f:2.0 and a ZM 35 f:1.4. Unfortunately the light changed at the wrong time, so they are not quite the same, and, due to this being a church, shutter-speed was marginal for a hand-held shot. That said, the difference, to me, is quite explicit.
Feb 03, 2015 at 02:00 AM
p.11 #15Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Philippe - the ZM seems to pop more.
I also haven't yet seen a bad review for it. I think its most telling optical flaw, that I noticed, is some purple fringing until about f/2.8 in high contrast/backlit edges.
ltruong8 wrote:
The lens is available on Adorama store, has any body tried it yet ?
I can't find it on their site.... My source tells me it's now February-March delivery.
I also haven't yet seen a bad review for it. I think its most telling optical flaw, that I noticed, is some purple fringing until about f/2.8 in high contrast/backlit edges.
ltruong8 wrote:
The lens is available on Adorama store, has any body tried it yet ?
I can't find it on their site.... My source tells me it's now February-March delivery.
Feb 03, 2015 at 02:31 AM
p.11 #16Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
rscheffler wrote:
Philippe - the ZM seems to pop more.
I also haven't yet seen a bad review for it. I think its most telling optical flaw, that I noticed, is some purple fringing until about f/2.8 in high contrast/backlit edges.
I can't find it on their site.... My source tells me it's now February-March delivery.
Here it is: http://www.adorama.com/ZI3514DTZMB.html
It is showing as "Add To Cart" instead of Pre-Order as previously.
Philippe, the ZM seems quite amazing to me. The top of the pillar has much more detail than the Loxia. Perhaps it is because the first image was taken wide-openly whereas the ZM has stopped down to 2.0 ?
Philippe - the ZM seems to pop more.
I also haven't yet seen a bad review for it. I think its most telling optical flaw, that I noticed, is some purple fringing until about f/2.8 in high contrast/backlit edges.
ltruong8 wrote
The lens is available on Adorama store, has any body tried it yet ?Here it is: http://www.adorama.com/ZI3514DTZMB.html
It is showing as "Add To Cart" instead of Pre-Order as previously.
Philippe, the ZM seems quite amazing to me. The top of the pillar has much more detail than the Loxia. Perhaps it is because the first image was taken wide-openly whereas the ZM has stopped down to 2.0 ?
Feb 03, 2015 at 02:52 AM
p.11 #17Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Did anyone find a review of the zm 35 1.4 with the Monochrom?
Feb 03, 2015 at 03:13 AM
p.11 #18Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
ltruong8 wrote:
Philippe - the ZM seems to pop more.
Philippe, the ZM seems quite amazing to me. The top of the pillar has much more detail than the Loxia. Perhaps it is because the first image was taken wide-openly whereas the ZM has stopped down to 2.0 ?
The Loxia was f:4.0 (2 stops down from wide open), and I think the ZM was f:2.8 (also 2 stops) To me the circular garland around the outside of the staircase tells the story, by revealing tte significantly higher local contrast in the ZM 35. The Loxia, like its ZM 50 forefather has lowish local contrast, while the ZM 35 has more. But it is wonderful in that this does not "harden" its images the way it happens with a Contax G45, but they remain wonderfully elegant and painterly like the better Leica. To me, and I could be wrong, that is due to the huge amount of infinitely small detail which makes for subtle colour changes and transitions, volumes and shapes.
Philippe - the ZM seems to pop more.
Philippe, the ZM seems quite amazing to me. The top of the pillar has much more detail than the Loxia. Perhaps it is because the first image was taken wide-openly whereas the ZM has stopped down to 2.0 ?
The Loxia was f:4.0 (2 stops down from wide open), and I think the ZM was f:2.8 (also 2 stops) To me the circular garland around the outside of the staircase tells the story, by revealing tte significantly higher local contrast in the ZM 35. The Loxia, like its ZM 50 forefather has lowish local contrast, while the ZM 35 has more. But it is wonderful in that this does not "harden" its images the way it happens with a Contax G45, but they remain wonderfully elegant and painterly like the better Leica. To me, and I could be wrong, that is due to the huge amount of infinitely small detail which makes for subtle colour changes and transitions, volumes and shapes.
Feb 03, 2015 at 03:27 AM
p.11 #19Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philber wrote:
To me, and I could be wrong, that is due to the huge amount of infinitely small detail which makes for subtle colour changes and transitions, volumes and shapes.
"huge amount of infinitely small detail" hmm...Maybe it's just "pixie dust"
To me, and I could be wrong, that is due to the huge amount of infinitely small detail which makes for subtle colour changes and transitions, volumes and shapes.
"huge amount of infinitely small detail" hmm...Maybe it's just "pixie dust"
Feb 03, 2015 at 05:59 AM
p.11 #20Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
ltruong8 wrote:
Here it is: http://www.adorama.com/ZI3514DTZMB.html
It is showing as "Add To Cart" instead of Pre-Order as previously.
Thanks. Strangely, I was unable to find the lens by searching ZM or Distagon. Seeing the link, there's no ZM reference. Not sure why Distagon didn't work. While the photo and general description of the lens appears to be the ZM, and the price is right, the description includes 'for SLR system'...
Does 'add to cart' with Adorama truly mean in stock? I generally don't trust that nearly as much compared to B&H's actual stock indicator, based on out of stock experience with other websites that allowed me to process transactions, then later informed me of the item being backordered...
B&H is showing Feb. 5 availability, so perhaps Adorama could have stock...
Feb 03, 2015 at 09:40 AM