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.17 #1Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Jonas B wrote:
I agree about the relationsship between the helicoid, the focal length and MFD. Old school stuff really - like tubes between the lens and the camera.
But the floating lens element... as expressed by Steve:Most floating rear element(s) are parts of designs where the rear element is supposed not to move (they are at a fixed distance from the film/sensor). Some, but move back and forth but I think most don't. Anyway, one great FLE lens is the Zuiko OM100/2.0. I have tried two copies of that lens, together with three different cheap adapters. The adapters all worked very...Show more →
it's true that using the helicoid throws off the floating element, not sure about the idea that most FLE are fixed rear lenses – most of the ones i've used have two moving groups rather than one that stays still while the other moves.
the possible advantage of the FLE with helicoid is that it implies the lens designer tried to optimize the lens to some extent for closer focusing. how much of that is helpful or harmful when the mfd is broken probably varies depending on the design.
I agree about the relationsship between the helicoid, the focal length and MFD. Old school stuff really - like tubes between the lens and the camera.
But the floating lens element... as expressed by Steve:
Earlier quote
The ZM 35 f/1.4 does have a floating element which should help with the close focusing on the helicoid adapter. I'm not sure anyone with a modified camera has the ZM yet, but I would love to see the results if someone has.
it's true that using the helicoid throws off the floating element, not sure about the idea that most FLE are fixed rear lenses – most of the ones i've used have two moving groups rather than one that stays still while the other moves.
the possible advantage of the FLE with helicoid is that it implies the lens designer tried to optimize the lens to some extent for closer focusing. how much of that is helpful or harmful when the mfd is broken probably varies depending on the design.
Mar 13, 2015 at 12:29 PM
p.17 #2Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh wrote:
it's true that using the helicoid throws off the floating element, not sure about the idea that most FLE are fixed rear lenses – most of the ones i've used have two moving groups rather than one that stays still while the other moves.
the possible advantage of the FLE with helicoid is that it implies the lens designer tried to optimize the lens to some extent for closer focusing. how much of that is helpful or harmful when the mfd is broken probably varies depending on the design.
I have no numbers when it comes to comparing "two free floating groups" to "fixed rear elements" sort of FLE lenses. My impression is be based on coincidence only.
Your last sentence says, in a few short words what I tried to say.
Despite the price I'm still very interested in the ZM 35/1.4. I'm a sucker for fast primes. The ZM has to be freak'n good though to make me consider a change from my RX1 to an expensive A7(x) and ZM combo. What am I readyto sacrifice for an extra stop, also considering the good thing with a good manual focusing ring?
it's true that using the helicoid throws off the floating element, not sure about the idea that most FLE are fixed rear lenses – most of the ones i've used have two moving groups rather than one that stays still while the other moves.
the possible advantage of the FLE with helicoid is that it implies the lens designer tried to optimize the lens to some extent for closer focusing. how much of that is helpful or harmful when the mfd is broken probably varies depending on the design.
I have no numbers when it comes to comparing "two free floating groups" to "fixed rear elements" sort of FLE lenses. My impression is be based on coincidence only.
Your last sentence says, in a few short words what I tried to say.
Despite the price I'm still very interested in the ZM 35/1.4. I'm a sucker for fast primes. The ZM has to be freak'n good though to make me consider a change from my RX1 to an expensive A7(x) and ZM combo. What am I readyto sacrifice for an extra stop, also considering the good thing with a good manual focusing ring?
Mar 13, 2015 at 12:45 PM
p.17 #3Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Jonas B wrote:
I agree about the relationsship between the helicoid, the focal length and MFD. Old school stuff really - like tubes between the lens and the camera.
But the floating lens element... as expressed by Steve:Most floating rear element(s) are parts of designs where the rear element is supposed not to move (they are at a fixed distance from the film/sensor). Some, but move back and forth but I think most don't. Anyway, one great FLE lens is the Zuiko OM100/2.0. I have tried two copies of that lens, together with three different cheap adapters. The adapters all worked very...Show more →
My impression is that with FLE lenses it is very bad to get the elements too close to the sensor. This adds CA and degrades performance, but moving the elements away from the sensor does cause nearly the same problems. Look how well macro lenses with floating elements (e.g., the Z* 100 MP) do with tubes. I think Derek's original logic was correct--most FLE lenses are designed to do well close up--so adding the helicoid adapter or a tube should not hurt their performance as much as a lens optimized solely for infinity focus.
I think this reasoning is actually consistent, Jonas, with your experience with adapters and the OM 100 f/2. Adapters are not equally likely to be too thin and to be to thick. They are almost all too thin (to ensure the possibility of getting infinity focus) and that is not a good thing for FLE lenses. If you OM adapters were all too thin (which is actually pretty likely) then your results would be expected from the reasoning above. One of the nice things about the helicoid adapters for FLE lenses is that they allow you to get the lens a bit further from the sensor even if the adapter is too thin and should allow nice tuning of the adapter.
I agree about the relationsship between the helicoid, the focal length and MFD. Old school stuff really - like tubes between the lens and the camera.
But the floating lens element... as expressed by Steve:
Earlier quote
The ZM 35 f/1.4 does have a floating element which should help with the close focusing on the helicoid adapter. I'm not sure anyone with a modified camera has the ZM yet, but I would love to see the results if someone has.My impression is that with FLE lenses it is very bad to get the elements too close to the sensor. This adds CA and degrades performance, but moving the elements away from the sensor does cause nearly the same problems. Look how well macro lenses with floating elements (e.g., the Z* 100 MP) do with tubes. I think Derek's original logic was correct--most FLE lenses are designed to do well close up--so adding the helicoid adapter or a tube should not hurt their performance as much as a lens optimized solely for infinity focus.
I think this reasoning is actually consistent, Jonas, with your experience with adapters and the OM 100 f/2. Adapters are not equally likely to be too thin and to be to thick. They are almost all too thin (to ensure the possibility of getting infinity focus) and that is not a good thing for FLE lenses. If you OM adapters were all too thin (which is actually pretty likely) then your results would be expected from the reasoning above. One of the nice things about the helicoid adapters for FLE lenses is that they allow you to get the lens a bit further from the sensor even if the adapter is too thin and should allow nice tuning of the adapter.
Mar 13, 2015 at 01:53 PM
p.17 #4Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
OK, Steve, I understand how you think about the matter. You may very well be right, in general, but I had to express my doubts. I don't think all FLE lenses reacts the same way with a tube. There is a not very small possibility things go wrong.
Your point about the Z* 100/2 Macro is interesting. It's a lens I never have been interested in due to all the LoCA so I haven't looked close at it.
Judging from Philippe's close-up of the declarations of eternal love the ZM may do very well with the helicoid adapter. I'm still interested in more samples; I like my lenses to ve versatile (RX1 again...) and wonder what the focal plane looks like. I have however started to save up for my own ZM35/1.4, and I guess you have as well...
Your point about the Z* 100/2 Macro is interesting. It's a lens I never have been interested in due to all the LoCA so I haven't looked close at it.
Judging from Philippe's close-up of the declarations of eternal love the ZM may do very well with the helicoid adapter. I'm still interested in more samples; I like my lenses to ve versatile (RX1 again...) and wonder what the focal plane looks like. I have however started to save up for my own ZM35/1.4, and I guess you have as well...
Mar 13, 2015 at 02:07 PM
p.17 #5Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
A bit more ZM goodness. Not that the shots are outstanding, but I have shot the Louvre with many fine lenses, from both Leica and Zeiss. Let me tell you, this ZM is something special, and it has nothing to do with sharpness. It has to do with what it does across 100% of the frame of each of 100% of the shots. Sheer beauty, but also one that is not "added", because the ZM can do opposites just as well.
Mar 13, 2015 at 04:00 PM
p.17 #6Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Very nice Phillipe. Here is my first shot yesterday with this incredible lens...
ZM35 Distagon
 |
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
Mar 13, 2015 at 07:35 PM
p.17 #8Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Hey Gary, good to see more ZM35 images coming! If I'm not mistaken that image is taken with a Leica, no?
Mar 14, 2015 at 03:02 AM
p.17 #9Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Jonas B wrote:
Hey Gary, good to see more ZM35 images coming! If I'm not mistaken that image is taken with a Leica, no?
Yep - M240. Here's another couple snaps....
ZM35 Distagon
ZM35 Distagon
Hey Gary, good to see more ZM35 images coming! If I'm not mistaken that image is taken with a Leica, no?
Yep - M240. Here's another couple snaps....
|
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
|
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
Mar 14, 2015 at 10:21 AM
p.17 #10Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
It didn't take you long to make that ZM really sing, Gary! Great 3D on the Brink's truck.
Mar 14, 2015 at 01:33 PM
p.17 #12Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
That's some clear and nice images Gary. Thank you, and congrats!
The lens seems to need a Leica, not a Sony.
The lens seems to need a Leica, not a Sony.
Mar 14, 2015 at 04:16 PM
p.17 #13Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
^^^ Will let you know soon how it looks on sensor stack modified 36MP A7R
Mar 14, 2015 at 07:59 PM
p.17 #15Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Missed focus a bit on the first one....
ZM35 Distagon
ZM35 Distagon
|
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
|
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
Mar 15, 2015 at 11:47 AM
p.17 #16Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Out again today testing the ZM35D at closer range, WO.
ZM35 Distagon
ZM35 Distagon
ZM35 Distagon
ZM35 Distagon
ZM35 Distagon
|
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
|
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
|
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
|
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
|
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
Mar 15, 2015 at 09:40 PM
p.17 #17Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Nice set, Gary!! But there is one case where the Sony A7R lets one do things with that lens that can't be done with the Leica M, and that is close up, thanks to a helicoid adapter...
Mar 16, 2015 at 12:31 AM
p.17 #18Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Leica now makes a close focus helicoid for M lenses, but it's expensive, of course. And naturally it's only going to work in live view with the M240.
Mar 16, 2015 at 06:50 AM
p.17 #19Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I keep telling myself reasons for not getting this lens: the busy bokeh, the strange diamond highlight, the purple fringing, etc. (minor points really). But in the end, there is no other way to deny that this is an excellent optics. The pictures presented here by Gary and Philipe have more than proven the point (definitely not helping my case). I could see myself going back to the 35 focal length just because of this lens, and I blame you guys! 
Mar 16, 2015 at 08:28 AM
p.17 #20Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
hiepphotog wrote:
I keep telling myself reasons for not getting this lens: the busy bokeh, the strange diamond highlight, the purple fringing, etc. (minor points really). But in the end, there is no other way to deny that this is an excellent optics. The pictures presented here by Gary and Philipe have more than proven the point (definitely not helping my case). I could see myself going back to the 35 focal length just because of this lens, and I blame you guys!
Wait until you see this lens in the hands of a really good photographer! All joking aside, this lens really is as good as you hear/see. I have not seen any purple fringing yet with this lens but I would expect it to be almost non-existant. Also, the "diamond" highlights is such a minor issue and I have not seen it yet in my photo's. It would be dependent on a number of factors/conditions and I wouldn't worry about it at all. It is a top level optic IMO.
I keep telling myself reasons for not getting this lens: the busy bokeh, the strange diamond highlight, the purple fringing, etc. (minor points really). But in the end, there is no other way to deny that this is an excellent optics. The pictures presented here by Gary and Philipe have more than proven the point (definitely not helping my case). I could see myself going back to the 35 focal length just because of this lens, and I blame you guys!
Wait until you see this lens in the hands of a really good photographer! All joking aside, this lens really is as good as you hear/see. I have not seen any purple fringing yet with this lens but I would expect it to be almost non-existant. Also, the "diamond" highlights is such a minor issue and I have not seen it yet in my photo's. It would be dependent on a number of factors/conditions and I wouldn't worry about it at all. It is a top level optic IMO.Mar 16, 2015 at 08:52 AM