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.15 #1Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Jonas B wrote:
The Loxia 35/2.0 has an eye-hurting bokeh so no deal there, at least not for me.
I recently bought the Loxia 35/2 and I'm very pleased with it. It's sort of a sibling to the Planar 50/1.4. A bit of spherical aberration wide open, but mostly present at short focusing distances. Bokeh is harsh close up, but very, very smooth when focusing a few meters away, especially from f/2.5 and on. I even like the rendering better than the Sonnar 35/2 of the RX cameras. The Biogon gives a low contrast bokeh, while the Sonnar gives high contrast bokeh.
You could say it's the complete opposite of the CV 35/1.2, which is dreadful at distance but great close up.
Oh, did I mention 3D-ness?
This is at f/2.5 and DOF is not enough to cover the whole bike, hence some blur at the edges.
The weapon by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
The Loxia 35/2.0 has an eye-hurting bokeh so no deal there, at least not for me.
I recently bought the Loxia 35/2 and I'm very pleased with it. It's sort of a sibling to the Planar 50/1.4. A bit of spherical aberration wide open, but mostly present at short focusing distances. Bokeh is harsh close up, but very, very smooth when focusing a few meters away, especially from f/2.5 and on. I even like the rendering better than the Sonnar 35/2 of the RX cameras. The Biogon gives a low contrast bokeh, while the Sonnar gives high contrast bokeh.
You could say it's the complete opposite of the CV 35/1.2, which is dreadful at distance but great close up.
Oh, did I mention 3D-ness?
This is at f/2.5 and DOF is not enough to cover the whole bike, hence some blur at the edges.The weapon by Martin Hertsius, on Flickr
Feb 20, 2015 at 02:11 PM
p.15 #2Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I wonder how much of the 35/2's reputation was born of images like Luka's (denoir) shot wide open at near distance with 50-100 points of clarity and significant contrast and saturation boosts?
There's no denying it can be busy/harsh at some distances, or that the Loxia might not have edge to edge sharpness at times, but it's also great to see this kind of example, Martin, to show it does indeed have redeeming qualities. And that's quite a statement about it vs. the RX1's Sonnar.
Cool set of wheels!
Hmm... 3-4 more weeks. I wonder if it is delayed coming through LA? I asked a friend who used to be a Zeiss dealer if he knew where Zeiss US got the ZM lenses from - whether via Germany or directly from Japan. He didn't know.
Any other reports of the lens shipping outside of the Americas?
Edit: apparently it is available in the EU too...
There's no denying it can be busy/harsh at some distances, or that the Loxia might not have edge to edge sharpness at times, but it's also great to see this kind of example, Martin, to show it does indeed have redeeming qualities. And that's quite a statement about it vs. the RX1's Sonnar.
Cool set of wheels!
Hmm... 3-4 more weeks. I wonder if it is delayed coming through LA? I asked a friend who used to be a Zeiss dealer if he knew where Zeiss US got the ZM lenses from - whether via Germany or directly from Japan. He didn't know.
Any other reports of the lens shipping outside of the Americas?
Edit: apparently it is available in the EU too...
Feb 20, 2015 at 03:59 PM
p.15 #3Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Jonas B wrote:
The Loxia 35/2.0 has an eye-hurting bokeh so no deal there, at least not for me.
Makten replied:
I recently bought the Loxia 35/2 and I'm very pleased with it (...)(image)
Martin, I would have guessed the Loxia 35/2.0 renders to your liking. You have tougher eyes. There is nothing in your text I object against (no personal experience from the Loxia). We can agree about having different taste (and about the CV35/1.2 which is a lens I dislike for even more reasons than those you usually mention).
That's a nice image. You probably picked the right background, on the edge only to be too harsh.
The Loxia 35/2.0 has an eye-hurting bokeh so no deal there, at least not for me.
Makten replied:
I recently bought the Loxia 35/2 and I'm very pleased with it (...)(image)
Martin, I would have guessed the Loxia 35/2.0 renders to your liking. You have tougher eyes. There is nothing in your text I object against (no personal experience from the Loxia). We can agree about having different taste (and about the CV35/1.2 which is a lens I dislike for even more reasons than those you usually mention).
That's a nice image. You probably picked the right background, on the edge only to be too harsh.
Feb 20, 2015 at 04:27 PM
p.15 #4Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Jonas B wrote:
Jonas B wrote:
Makten replied:
Martin, I would have guessed the Loxia 35/2.0 renders to your liking. You have tougher eyes. There is nothing in your text I object against (no personal experience from the Loxia). We can agree about having different taste (and about the CV35/1.2 which is a lens I dislike for even more reasons than those you usually mention).
That's a nice image. You probably picked the right background, on the edge only to be too harsh.
Jonas you must've written about this before, but why do you dislike the CV35/1.2?
I ask because I also disliked it very much, and I tried about 3 copies. For me (using an A7R, it must be noted) its colors were just very strange--by turns dull and flat (in low contrast situations) or unnaturally loud (in high contrast situations). I was comparing to my beloved Contax 35/1.4 and Leica R 35/1.4, as well as the Leica M 35/1.4 ASPH pre-FLE.
Those three are all very different among themselves, but are all appealing in their own way, unlike the CV, which was however ergonomically agreeable to me (unlike the pre-FLE, which is, strange to say, just too small).
I am hoping the ZM will turn out to be that one package (happy medium size + pleasing rendition + f/1.4) that I've been waiting for.
Jonas B wrote:
Earlier quote
The Loxia 35/2.0 has an eye-hurting bokeh so no deal there, at least not for me.Earlier quote
I recently bought the Loxia 35/2 and I'm very pleased with it (...)(image)That's a nice image. You probably picked the right background, on the edge only to be too harsh.
Jonas you must've written about this before, but why do you dislike the CV35/1.2?
I ask because I also disliked it very much, and I tried about 3 copies. For me (using an A7R, it must be noted) its colors were just very strange--by turns dull and flat (in low contrast situations) or unnaturally loud (in high contrast situations). I was comparing to my beloved Contax 35/1.4 and Leica R 35/1.4, as well as the Leica M 35/1.4 ASPH pre-FLE.
Those three are all very different among themselves, but are all appealing in their own way, unlike the CV, which was however ergonomically agreeable to me (unlike the pre-FLE, which is, strange to say, just too small).
I am hoping the ZM will turn out to be that one package (happy medium size + pleasing rendition + f/1.4) that I've been waiting for.
Feb 20, 2015 at 09:29 PM
p.15 #5Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
From the blog posts over at Dear Susan, I think it will live up to that, though you may want to have the camera modded to take full advantage of what the lens can provide, if that is important to you. From what little I shot with it at PPE in New York last October, at ISO 1000 in an exhibition hall, I thought it looked really promising, in respect to rendering and character (if a bit on the clean/neutral/modern side).
Feb 20, 2015 at 11:05 PM
p.15 #6Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Jonas B wrote:
I'd say the bottom line is, if you want them to put more focus and resources on developing designs specifically for the a7's, then buy a Loxia and show them there's a market for it.Well, yes. But it has to be a good lens. The Loxia 35/2.0 has an eye-hurting bokeh so no deal there, at least not for me. Not buying means Zeiss understands _something_ with the lens is wrong. Every lens, be it a Zeiss or not bought by Sony A7(x) owners show all manufacturers that there is a market.
The ZM Biogon 35/2 has always had controversial bokeh, but it sells well enough for them to continue to make it. And there's_something_wrong with every lens. Liking one just means it's flawed in a tolerable way. And I don't believe that a lens sold for the a7x means there's a market for all lenses because not every a7x owner is in the market for high-end manual focus lenses. Not every 35/2.8 or 55/1.8 sold was a sale that could've gone to Zeiss if they had vastly better glass because, on the whole, people like AF... for whatever reason.
I'm with you. I didn't bother with Biogon. Too much funk to be worth it to me. But I did pick up the Planar 50 and it's a sweetheart, both optically and ergonomically.
freaklikeme wrote
(...)I'd say the bottom line is, if you want them to put more focus and resources on developing designs specifically for the a7's, then buy a Loxia and show them there's a market for it.
The ZM Biogon 35/2 has always had controversial bokeh, but it sells well enough for them to continue to make it. And there's_something_wrong with every lens. Liking one just means it's flawed in a tolerable way. And I don't believe that a lens sold for the a7x means there's a market for all lenses because not every a7x owner is in the market for high-end manual focus lenses. Not every 35/2.8 or 55/1.8 sold was a sale that could've gone to Zeiss if they had vastly better glass because, on the whole, people like AF... for whatever reason.
I'm with you. I didn't bother with Biogon. Too much funk to be worth it to me. But I did pick up the Planar 50 and it's a sweetheart, both optically and ergonomically.
Feb 20, 2015 at 11:50 PM
p.15 #7Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philip_pj wrote:
Am I the only one a little curious about the Loxias? - not to be critical of CZ whom I pretty much thank every shooting day, but when you look at the later ZE/Fs and Otuses - all brilliant, at high but fair prices, then the ZM 35/1.4, they appear to be at a different level to the ex-ZM Loxias. It looks like a play for the traditional look for M users now with a Sony body, at the cost of recent developments in design. Maybe to get more differentiation from FE lenses too..we have not seen much from them...Show more →
I now own one of the Loxias and have played with the other one. While I think they are quite a competitive offering in their own right, they are definitely not the best Zeiss can make. Not only compared to the brilliant Oti and ZM 35 f:1.4, but also the newer Z* (35 f:1.4 and subsequent). I think even my Touit 12 is a "better lens".
That comes from the Loxia DNA so far: adapted film-era ZM. The reason why no more Loxia were announced is that they require new designs, and that apparently takes time; It also offers hope...:-)
Am I the only one a little curious about the Loxias? - not to be critical of CZ whom I pretty much thank every shooting day, but when you look at the later ZE/Fs and Otuses - all brilliant, at high but fair prices, then the ZM 35/1.4, they appear to be at a different level to the ex-ZM Loxias. It looks like a play for the traditional look for M users now with a Sony body, at the cost of recent developments in design. Maybe to get more differentiation from FE lenses too..we have not seen much from them...Show more →
I now own one of the Loxias and have played with the other one. While I think they are quite a competitive offering in their own right, they are definitely not the best Zeiss can make. Not only compared to the brilliant Oti and ZM 35 f:1.4, but also the newer Z* (35 f:1.4 and subsequent). I think even my Touit 12 is a "better lens".
That comes from the Loxia DNA so far: adapted film-era ZM. The reason why no more Loxia were announced is that they require new designs, and that apparently takes time; It also offers hope...:-)
Feb 21, 2015 at 12:44 AM
p.15 #8Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philber wrote:
I now own one of the Loxias and have played with the other one. While I think they are quite a competitive offering in their own right, they are definitely not the best Zeiss can make. Not only compared to the brilliant Oti and ZM 35 f:1.4, but also the newer Z* (35 f:1.4 and subsequent). I think even my Touit 12 is a "better lens".
That comes from the Loxia DNA so far: adapted film-era ZM. The reason why no more Loxia were announced is that they require new designs, and that apparently takes time; It also offers hope...:-)
If we look at what Zeiss did with the ZF line I think it can help us see what might happen with the Loxia line. With the ZF the first two lenses they brought out were the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 planers and these were pretty similar to the Zeiss C/Y mount versions of these lenses. The next two lenses required more revision. There was the 25 f/2.8 for which there was a C/Y mount version but the ZF is changed quite a bit, and the 35 f/2 which was a whole new design and the first ZF with a floating element and the first with an aspherical element. Every lens after this one would have a floating element design, and every lens except the 50 MP would have special glass (either aspherical or anomalous partial dispersion or both). Then came the two makro-planars that were pretty new designs too, and even the 28 f/2 and 21 f/2.8 which paid homage to the stellar C/Y mount lenses they were based on had significant revisions as well.
So, what I see is they started with two lenses they basically ported from the C/Y mount and then started making lenses that they either significantly revised or totally redesigned. I expect the same with the Loxia line. It is also interesting that their first four lenses were a 25, 35, 50, and 85. I expect those to be the first four lenses for the Loxia line as well. So, I totally agree with Phillipe. I think the next Loixa that are made will be significantly more redesigned. The 25 f/2.8 will require quite a lot of revision and it may look nothing like the ZM biogon. I wouldn't even be surprised if it was a distagon rather than a biogon. I would expect it to have some distagon features at least. The 85 will be interesting. The could port the 85 f/2 sonnar, but I expect more revision in this case to keep the price competitive. Will there be further lenses, I think there will be an 18 f/4; a 21 f/2.8, and a 28 f/2.8 eventually but they will all be redesigns. I would love to see a 35 f/1.4 based on the ZM, but I am less optimistic about that and I'm not sure the line will sell well enough for a 15 or a 135 or even a macro lens to be developed. I hope it does, but I have my doubts. I do expect the basic 7 lens, however, 18 f/4, 21 f/2.8, 25 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8, 35 f/2, 50 f/2, and 85 f/2. With those apertures the lenses will stay small and be a good fit for the Sony A7 series cameras.
philip_pj wrote
Am I the only one a little curious about the Loxias? - not to be critical of CZ whom I pretty much thank every shooting day, but when you look at the later ZE/Fs and Otuses - all brilliant, at high but fair prices, then the ZM 35/1.4, they appear to be at a different level to the ex-ZM Loxias. It looks like a play for the traditional look for M users now with a Sony body, at the cost of recent developments in design. Maybe to get more differentiation from FE lenses too..we have not seen much from them yet. It seems many folks prefer the new ZM Distagon on the modded sensor, if they are prepared to pay for it.That comes from the Loxia DNA so far: adapted film-era ZM. The reason why no more Loxia were announced is that they require new designs, and that apparently takes time; It also offers hope...:-)
If we look at what Zeiss did with the ZF line I think it can help us see what might happen with the Loxia line. With the ZF the first two lenses they brought out were the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 planers and these were pretty similar to the Zeiss C/Y mount versions of these lenses. The next two lenses required more revision. There was the 25 f/2.8 for which there was a C/Y mount version but the ZF is changed quite a bit, and the 35 f/2 which was a whole new design and the first ZF with a floating element and the first with an aspherical element. Every lens after this one would have a floating element design, and every lens except the 50 MP would have special glass (either aspherical or anomalous partial dispersion or both). Then came the two makro-planars that were pretty new designs too, and even the 28 f/2 and 21 f/2.8 which paid homage to the stellar C/Y mount lenses they were based on had significant revisions as well.
So, what I see is they started with two lenses they basically ported from the C/Y mount and then started making lenses that they either significantly revised or totally redesigned. I expect the same with the Loxia line. It is also interesting that their first four lenses were a 25, 35, 50, and 85. I expect those to be the first four lenses for the Loxia line as well. So, I totally agree with Phillipe. I think the next Loixa that are made will be significantly more redesigned. The 25 f/2.8 will require quite a lot of revision and it may look nothing like the ZM biogon. I wouldn't even be surprised if it was a distagon rather than a biogon. I would expect it to have some distagon features at least. The 85 will be interesting. The could port the 85 f/2 sonnar, but I expect more revision in this case to keep the price competitive. Will there be further lenses, I think there will be an 18 f/4; a 21 f/2.8, and a 28 f/2.8 eventually but they will all be redesigns. I would love to see a 35 f/1.4 based on the ZM, but I am less optimistic about that and I'm not sure the line will sell well enough for a 15 or a 135 or even a macro lens to be developed. I hope it does, but I have my doubts. I do expect the basic 7 lens, however, 18 f/4, 21 f/2.8, 25 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8, 35 f/2, 50 f/2, and 85 f/2. With those apertures the lenses will stay small and be a good fit for the Sony A7 series cameras.
Feb 21, 2015 at 10:56 PM
p.15 #9Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philber wroteI think even my Touit 12 is a "better lens"
Fuji did a good job
Fuji did a good job
Feb 22, 2015 at 12:05 AM
p.15 #10Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
For those interested, I posted a few photos with the 35/1.4 on Leica M240 in the Leica image thread. All street shots, what I normally shoot, with minimal PP (almost none, as usual).
Feb 22, 2015 at 07:56 AM
p.15 #11Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
For those interested, I posted a few photos with the 35/1.4 on Leica M240 in the Leica image thread. All street shots, what I normally shoot, with minimal PP (almost none, as usual).
Edward, the color and contrast in those shots really stand out. The bokeh can look a bit harsh here and there maybe if being really critical... to my eyes at least. It's definitely a "wow" lens. I'm curious to hear if you end up keeping it or not.
For those interested, I posted a few photos with the 35/1.4 on Leica M240 in the Leica image thread. All street shots, what I normally shoot, with minimal PP (almost none, as usual).
Edward, the color and contrast in those shots really stand out. The bokeh can look a bit harsh here and there maybe if being really critical... to my eyes at least. It's definitely a "wow" lens. I'm curious to hear if you end up keeping it or not.
Feb 22, 2015 at 08:13 AM
p.15 #12Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Edward, the color and contrast in those shots really stand out. The bokeh can look a bit harsh here and there maybe if being really critical... to my eyes at least. It's definitely a "wow" lens. I'm curious to hear if you end up keeping it or not.
Thanks Tariq! I'm definitely keeping it!
What really strikes me most is the "brilliance" or "sparkle" of the images. I'm not sure of the choice of words but that's as close as I can describe it. I agree about the bokeh but that's not a big issue for my style of shooting. The VF blockage was not a problem in actual use though I can notice in my photos some details in the lower right corners that I would have cropped out if saw them while shooting.
edwardkaraa wrote
For those interested, I posted a few photos with the 35/1.4 on Leica M240 in the Leica image thread. All street shots, what I normally shoot, with minimal PP (almost none, as usual).Thanks Tariq! I'm definitely keeping it!
What really strikes me most is the "brilliance" or "sparkle" of the images. I'm not sure of the choice of words but that's as close as I can describe it. I agree about the bokeh but that's not a big issue for my style of shooting. The VF blockage was not a problem in actual use though I can notice in my photos some details in the lower right corners that I would have cropped out if saw them while shooting.
Feb 22, 2015 at 08:31 AM
p.15 #13Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
Edward, the color and contrast in those shots really stand out. The bokeh can look a bit harsh here and there maybe if being really critical... to my eyes at least. It's definitely a "wow" lens. I'm curious to hear if you end up keeping it or not.Thanks Tariq! I'm definitely keeping it!
What really strikes me most is the "brilliance" or "sparkle" of the images. I'm not sure of the choice of words but that's as close as I can describe it. I agree about the bokeh but that's not a big issue for my style of shooting. The VF blockage was not a problem in actual use though I can notice in my photos some details in the lower right corners that I would have cropped out if saw them while shooting.
Yeah, that brilliance and sparkle really come through. It's something the best Zeiss lenses exhibit imo. Congrats on your new lens!
Tariq Gibran wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
For those interested, I posted a few photos with the 35/1.4 on Leica M240 in the Leica image thread. All street shots, what I normally shoot, with minimal PP (almost none, as usual).What really strikes me most is the "brilliance" or "sparkle" of the images. I'm not sure of the choice of words but that's as close as I can describe it. I agree about the bokeh but that's not a big issue for my style of shooting. The VF blockage was not a problem in actual use though I can notice in my photos some details in the lower right corners that I would have cropped out if saw them while shooting.
Yeah, that brilliance and sparkle really come through. It's something the best Zeiss lenses exhibit imo. Congrats on your new lens!
Feb 22, 2015 at 08:54 AM
p.15 #14Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
Edward, the color and contrast in those shots really stand out. The bokeh can look a bit harsh here and there maybe if being really critical... to my eyes at least. It's definitely a "wow" lens. I'm curious to hear if you end up keeping it or not.Thanks Tariq! I'm definitely keeping it!
What really strikes me most is the "brilliance" or "sparkle" of the images. I'm not sure of the choice of words but that's as close as I can describe it. I agree about the bokeh but that's not a big issue for my style of shooting. The VF blockage was not a problem in actual use though I can notice in my photos some details in the lower right corners that I would have cropped out if saw them while shooting.
Hi Edward,
There is some advantage of shooting this lens on a modified A7 Series camera.
Rich
Edited on Feb 22, 2015 at 09:00 AM · View previous versions
Tariq Gibran wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
For those interested, I posted a few photos with the 35/1.4 on Leica M240 in the Leica image thread. All street shots, what I normally shoot, with minimal PP (almost none, as usual).What really strikes me most is the "brilliance" or "sparkle" of the images. I'm not sure of the choice of words but that's as close as I can describe it. I agree about the bokeh but that's not a big issue for my style of shooting. The VF blockage was not a problem in actual use though I can notice in my photos some details in the lower right corners that I would have cropped out if saw them while shooting.
Hi Edward,
There is some advantage of shooting this lens on a modified A7 Series camera.
Rich
Edited on Feb 22, 2015 at 09:00 AM · View previous versions
Feb 22, 2015 at 08:57 AM
p.15 #16Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
rscheffler wrote:
I wonder how much of the 35/2's reputation was born of images like Luka's (denoir) shot wide open at near distance with 50-100 points of clarity and significant contrast and saturation boosts?
I seem to remember that denoir never used clarity because he thought it destroyed the Zeiss microcontrast.
I wonder how much of the 35/2's reputation was born of images like Luka's (denoir) shot wide open at near distance with 50-100 points of clarity and significant contrast and saturation boosts?
I seem to remember that denoir never used clarity because he thought it destroyed the Zeiss microcontrast.
Feb 22, 2015 at 09:47 AM
p.15 #17Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Congratulations on your fine lens, Edward! Your shots definitely remind me of the all-too-brief experience I had. Wonderful colours and contrast, great detail and 3D.
Edited on Feb 22, 2015 at 12:06 PM · View previous versions
Edited on Feb 22, 2015 at 12:06 PM · View previous versions
Feb 22, 2015 at 10:51 AM
p.15 #18Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philber wrote:
Congratulations on your fine lens, Edward! Your shots definitely remind me of the all-to-brief experience I had. Wonderful colours and contrast, great detail and 3D.
Much appreciated, Philippe.
Feb 22, 2015 at 11:36 AM
p.15 #19Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Congrats from me as well Edward. Judging by your images it plays well together with your Leica. Maybe I shouöd become an Rf-shooter!? What's up with the man in front of the ATMs - he didn't like you taking an image of him?
Feb 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM
p.15 #20Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Jonas B wrote:
Congrats from me as well Edward. Judging by your images it plays well together with your Leica. Maybe I shouöd become an Rf-shooter!? What's up with the man in front of the ATMs - he didn't like you taking an image of him?
Thank you Jonas! Indeed there is none of the corner smear even at wide apertures. The old man showed his displeasure but didn't say anything. I rarely get such reaction in Thailand. Most people are happy to be photographed but luckily the ones who aren't don't go beyond a disapproving look.
Feb 22, 2015 at 12:12 PM