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.13 #1Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I personally wouldn't pay the premium price of the ZM to get the less than optimal performance on a Sony body. By all accounts it is nothing short of stellar on the M240, and that's how I intend to use it. Luckily there is the ZA version coming soon and I think/hope it will be on the 55/1.8 level.
Feb 05, 2015 at 01:37 PM
p.13 #2Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
There's always the option of doing the Kolari mod to an a7/R/S... Early results indicate it 'resolves' most of the obvious RF lens edge smearing problems. But I agree, from what little first hand experience I've had with it on the M240, it looked great. BTW, B&H, which had earlier this week showed Feb. 5 availability, now shows 'coming soon.'
Feb 05, 2015 at 01:51 PM
p.13 #3Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Edward, the FE 35 lens will be a totally different one, designed and made by Sony, from the ZM. The size alone shows the lenses are totally different. On the rendering side also, the difference is striking. The ZM offers subtlety, elegance, character, whereas the FE 55 you refer to is primarily a sharpness fiend. If indeed the 35 resembles its 55 sibling, I will take the ZM any day over the FE on my A7R.
Feb 05, 2015 at 01:57 PM
p.13 #4Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
I personally wouldn't pay the premium price of the ZM to get the less than optimal performance on a Sony body. By all accounts it is nothing short of stellar on the M240, and that's how I intend to use it. Luckily there is the ZA version coming soon and I think/hope it will be on the 55/1.8 level.
It does look like it might be worth the premium if you also want to pay for the cover-glass mod, and for a truly flat-field fast 35mm, it's probably worth it to some. If I wanted the lens, I'd go that route before resorting to a rangefinder.
I personally wouldn't pay the premium price of the ZM to get the less than optimal performance on a Sony body. By all accounts it is nothing short of stellar on the M240, and that's how I intend to use it. Luckily there is the ZA version coming soon and I think/hope it will be on the 55/1.8 level.
It does look like it might be worth the premium if you also want to pay for the cover-glass mod, and for a truly flat-field fast 35mm, it's probably worth it to some. If I wanted the lens, I'd go that route before resorting to a rangefinder.
Feb 05, 2015 at 02:32 PM
p.13 #5Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Agreed that with the sensor cover surgery the ZM suddenly becomes very appealing. Without that surgery I wouldn't be remotely interested. But of course I have the M and that's obviously the ideal option.
Philippe, I am aware that ZA lenses are designed by Sony, but to be fair, they have done a good job so far. The 55 is a stellar lens in my experience. There are some aspects of the bokeh that I didn't like but generally I really liked it. Anyhow the ZA is still an unknown entity, so it would be wise to wait and see how it performs, who knows, it might be a good surprise
Philippe, I am aware that ZA lenses are designed by Sony, but to be fair, they have done a good job so far. The 55 is a stellar lens in my experience. There are some aspects of the bokeh that I didn't like but generally I really liked it. Anyhow the ZA is still an unknown entity, so it would be wise to wait and see how it performs, who knows, it might be a good surprise
Feb 05, 2015 at 08:24 PM
p.13 #6Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Viktor finished his ZM 35mm 1.4 review w/ some real life samples & comparisons:
5) Real Life Images - Portrait
6) Conclusion and Sample Images
5) Real Life Images - Portrait
6) Conclusion and Sample Images
Feb 11, 2015 at 07:24 PM
p.13 #7Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Strange, it appears to have quite severe coma in the corners at some distances. Look at the mall shots.
Feb 12, 2015 at 04:36 PM
p.13 #8Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philber wrote:
Edward, the FE 35 lens will be a totally different one, designed and made by Sony, from the ZM. The size alone shows the lenses are totally different. On the rendering side also, the difference is striking. The ZM offers subtlety, elegance, character, whereas the FE 55 you refer to is primarily a sharpness fiend. If indeed the 35 resembles its 55 sibling, I will take the ZM any day over the FE on my A7R.
I guess character is a matter of taste, but the FE 55 is indeed very sharp, but it's principal benefit for me is the glorious smooth bokeh, which is nicer than any standard lens I know except the Otus (which I haven't used but have seen samples)
Edward, the FE 35 lens will be a totally different one, designed and made by Sony, from the ZM. The size alone shows the lenses are totally different. On the rendering side also, the difference is striking. The ZM offers subtlety, elegance, character, whereas the FE 55 you refer to is primarily a sharpness fiend. If indeed the 35 resembles its 55 sibling, I will take the ZM any day over the FE on my A7R.
I guess character is a matter of taste, but the FE 55 is indeed very sharp, but it's principal benefit for me is the glorious smooth bokeh, which is nicer than any standard lens I know except the Otus (which I haven't used but have seen samples)
Feb 12, 2015 at 04:44 PM
p.13 #9Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Interesting you say that David. I agree entirely, the designer went to great lengths to produce the sophisticated OOF look of the FE55, and you get excellent separation from the focal plane, front and back. I find myself using the EVF to dial in the exact look using variations in aperture - f1.8 for soft - well, as soft as you get short of diffraction - f2.2 for standard separation, f2.8 for both sharpness and bokeh. The OOF becomes a key part of the picture, and I am still learning after thousands of images. Slow learner I guess. ;-)
Surely the most versatile normal lens around, and the underlying reason people want the FE85 - because the FE55 looks so much like a longer FL. I occasionally wonder how well the a7 series would have gone if Sony made a cookie cutter f1.4 like the FF opposition does. It is a message they should heed well.
Surely the most versatile normal lens around, and the underlying reason people want the FE85 - because the FE55 looks so much like a longer FL. I occasionally wonder how well the a7 series would have gone if Sony made a cookie cutter f1.4 like the FF opposition does. It is a message they should heed well.
Feb 12, 2015 at 11:07 PM
p.13 #10Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
carstenw wrote:
Strange, it appears to have quite severe coma in the corners at some distances. Look at the mall shots.
I don't know if I would call it severe, especially if it is at f/1.4, but it is definitely there in the corners. I wonder if it is there on a Leica M or if it is a product of the cover glass. I also wonder if it cleans up when stopping down.
Strange, it appears to have quite severe coma in the corners at some distances. Look at the mall shots.
I don't know if I would call it severe, especially if it is at f/1.4, but it is definitely there in the corners. I wonder if it is there on a Leica M or if it is a product of the cover glass. I also wonder if it cleans up when stopping down.
Feb 13, 2015 at 12:54 AM
p.13 #12Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
The review has great examples and comparisons and is also an example of how difficult it is to provide a complete 'picture' encompassing many possible variables.
I believe his examples give an accurate representation of how the lens will perform - on a Sony a7.
There's no way I can argue with his results, but with the question regarding coma and edge performance, having very briefly shot a preproduction lens on the M240, I will present the following crops...
The first three are far left central side image crops. The left side of the crop, is the left edge of the frame. Focus was set about as far as I could, on the distant windows of the expo hall. Hand held and at ISO 1000, so quality will not be at its optimum, but I think we can see that even wide open, the ZM does remarkably well at the edge of the frame. Unfortunately there weren't any specular light sources to get a good feeling of coma, but if I read the purple fringing correctly, there likely is some.
f/1.4:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/ZM35_1-4.jpg
f/2.0:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/ZM35_2-0.jpg
f/2.8:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/ZM35_2-8.jpg
By f/4 the purple fringing is gone, but that exposure in the sequence is marred by camera shake, so I'm not posting it.
This is the overall scene:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005787.jpg
Here are a couple more f/1.4 crops trying to demonstrate specular point light rendering...
This one is a left edge crop with a specular light source in it. The scene is very close to that of the first three crops above, but focus was on the Fujifilm display across the aisle, maybe 20m away (visible in the full scene image above):
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/ZM35_1-4B.jpg
This one is also a left edge crop, but of a different scene where focus was on a row of display prints, which just become visible at the right side of the crop:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/ZM35_1-4C.jpg
There seems to be a bit of coma, or something, in the slightly OOF specular light points under the lomography sign.
From a technical perspective, I'm very excited about this lens, on a digital Leica M. By f/2.8 it will probably offer excellent across-frame performance at far distances. Based on early Kolari a7 modification results posted by others in the relevant thread, with a variety of challenging M mount lenses, it's likely this lens will also perform very well on a modded camera.
Re: FE55 bokeh. The 50 Lux ASPH is slightly smoother/more gaussian, at least centrally. The FE is probably more consistent across the frame.
I believe his examples give an accurate representation of how the lens will perform - on a Sony a7.
There's no way I can argue with his results, but with the question regarding coma and edge performance, having very briefly shot a preproduction lens on the M240, I will present the following crops...
The first three are far left central side image crops. The left side of the crop, is the left edge of the frame. Focus was set about as far as I could, on the distant windows of the expo hall. Hand held and at ISO 1000, so quality will not be at its optimum, but I think we can see that even wide open, the ZM does remarkably well at the edge of the frame. Unfortunately there weren't any specular light sources to get a good feeling of coma, but if I read the purple fringing correctly, there likely is some.
f/1.4:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/ZM35_1-4.jpg
f/2.0:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/ZM35_2-0.jpg
f/2.8:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/ZM35_2-8.jpg
By f/4 the purple fringing is gone, but that exposure in the sequence is marred by camera shake, so I'm not posting it.
This is the overall scene:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/L1005787.jpg
Here are a couple more f/1.4 crops trying to demonstrate specular point light rendering...
This one is a left edge crop with a specular light source in it. The scene is very close to that of the first three crops above, but focus was on the Fujifilm display across the aisle, maybe 20m away (visible in the full scene image above):
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/ZM35_1-4B.jpg
This one is also a left edge crop, but of a different scene where focus was on a row of display prints, which just become visible at the right side of the crop:
http://ronscheffler.com/samples/fmm9-2/20141031/ZM35_1-4C.jpg
There seems to be a bit of coma, or something, in the slightly OOF specular light points under the lomography sign.
From a technical perspective, I'm very excited about this lens, on a digital Leica M. By f/2.8 it will probably offer excellent across-frame performance at far distances. Based on early Kolari a7 modification results posted by others in the relevant thread, with a variety of challenging M mount lenses, it's likely this lens will also perform very well on a modded camera.
Re: FE55 bokeh. The 50 Lux ASPH is slightly smoother/more gaussian, at least centrally. The FE is probably more consistent across the frame.
Feb 13, 2015 at 12:19 PM
p.13 #13Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
As it wasn't designed for the A7, but the thinner cover glassed M8/M9/M240, I'm not surprised the thick cover glass would degrade the image, especially away from the center. It will probably perform much better on Leica bodies and modified A7 series cameras compared to the factory A7 series. The Diglloyd tests look very promising.
Purple fringing is likely do to some small amount of longitudinal chromatic aberration, rather than coma.
Apparently, production lenses are finally starting to arrive at retailers, but mine is still on backorder at B&H. It's been almost 5 months, now a very slow production. I'll be disappointed if I don't get it before I go on a trip in March.
Purple fringing is likely do to some small amount of longitudinal chromatic aberration, rather than coma.
Apparently, production lenses are finally starting to arrive at retailers, but mine is still on backorder at B&H. It's been almost 5 months, now a very slow production. I'll be disappointed if I don't get it before I go on a trip in March.
Feb 13, 2015 at 01:51 PM
p.13 #14Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I am in New York this weekend and I am planning to go to B & H on Sunday. I will see if they have it in stock. If they do, I will try to take a few shots with my A7II.
Feb 13, 2015 at 04:10 PM
p.13 #15Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
My past experience is A7 will make both Bokeh and coma worse compare to M9.
Per Ron's image, it is nowhere that bad as Jochenb's link show.
One thing for sure 35 Loxia's bokeh make me dizzy.
Per Ron's image, it is nowhere that bad as Jochenb's link show.
One thing for sure 35 Loxia's bokeh make me dizzy.
Feb 13, 2015 at 04:45 PM
p.13 #16Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
zhangyue wrote:My past experience is A7 will make both Bokeh and coma worse compare to M9.
Per Ron's image, it is nowhere that bad as Jochenb's link show.
Agree. Not much of a comfort though as we are discussing using the lens with Sony cameras. Maybe if we modify the sensor glass stack but I would like to see samples before even considering such an operation.
zhangyue further wrote:
One thing for sure 35 Loxia's bokeh make me dizzy.
Agree. Biglobo's Loxia images hurted my eyes. That may be my bad taste though...
At the moment I pass on the ZM35/1.4. I'm not interested in going back to a rangefinder and it's too much money involved for the resulting image quality. As long as there are RX1 cameras available there are options. Slower but nice options.
Per Ron's image, it is nowhere that bad as Jochenb's link show.
Agree. Not much of a comfort though as we are discussing using the lens with Sony cameras. Maybe if we modify the sensor glass stack but I would like to see samples before even considering such an operation.
zhangyue further wrote:
One thing for sure 35 Loxia's bokeh make me dizzy.
Agree. Biglobo's Loxia images hurted my eyes. That may be my bad taste though...
At the moment I pass on the ZM35/1.4. I'm not interested in going back to a rangefinder and it's too much money involved for the resulting image quality. As long as there are RX1 cameras available there are options. Slower but nice options.
Feb 13, 2015 at 05:35 PM
p.13 #17Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Of course you could have both a modified and an unmodified A7r for less than an M240 costs. Nonetheless, Leica has little incentive to reduce costs to compete. They should come out with a 36-50MP M camera though because 24MP is not going to be a marketable resolution for much longer. I really prefer rangefinders and am still happy with my M9P, but an M360 would complement my D800E nicely.
Feb 13, 2015 at 06:51 PM
p.13 #18Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
The Loxia 35/2 is Zeiss's third go at this old design, updated in the ZM 35/2 from an old Contarex design, an f4 lens. Hands up all those who remember Contarex or have even heard of that range - you'd have to be as old as Methuselah, well maybe a slight exaggeration.
It's fascinating to watch Sony inadvertently reunite the rangefinder lens world with the D/SLR lens world - the Europeans excelled at the former but generally failed in the marketplace with the latter. It's fair to say it's not been a painless exercise thus far - so far apart are these two major pillars of 35mm photography.
I think they want too many dollars for the 35/2 as well.
It's fascinating to watch Sony inadvertently reunite the rangefinder lens world with the D/SLR lens world - the Europeans excelled at the former but generally failed in the marketplace with the latter. It's fair to say it's not been a painless exercise thus far - so far apart are these two major pillars of 35mm photography.
I think they want too many dollars for the 35/2 as well.
Feb 13, 2015 at 07:55 PM
p.13 #19Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I know this lens would perform fantastic on my M240 and that is all that matters to me. I have almost convinced myself to buy one...
Feb 13, 2015 at 08:37 PM
p.13 #20Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philip_pj wrote:
The Loxia 35/2 is Zeiss's third go at this old design, updated in the ZM 35/2 from an old Contarex design, an f4 lens. Hands up all those who remember Contarex or have even heard of that range - you'd have to be as old as Methuselah, well maybe a slight exaggeration
That's an odd origin for the Loxia and ZM, both Biogon's as the Contarex version is a Distagon (and designed for an SLR from the start). I actually suspect the Contarex might be better.
No, I'm not that old but the Contarex lenses are somewhat legendary, supposedly some of the most precisely made lenses ever made.
The Loxia 35/2 is Zeiss's third go at this old design, updated in the ZM 35/2 from an old Contarex design, an f4 lens. Hands up all those who remember Contarex or have even heard of that range - you'd have to be as old as Methuselah, well maybe a slight exaggeration
That's an odd origin for the Loxia and ZM, both Biogon's as the Contarex version is a Distagon (and designed for an SLR from the start). I actually suspect the Contarex might be better.
No, I'm not that old but the Contarex lenses are somewhat legendary, supposedly some of the most precisely made lenses ever made.
Feb 13, 2015 at 09:28 PM