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.18 #1Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Gary Clennan wrote:
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.
Hi Gary,
The lens is still relatively expensive and heavy certainly compared with my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens. And to really take advantage of the lens performance I would most definitely need to have the thin sensor stack replaced on my A7r. But, the performance of both the Minolta CLE 40mm lens and the Zeiss ZM 35mm f1.4 would improve with the sensor stack replacement. I am just not sure if the lens would be of sufficient improvement for most of my needs as a landscape lens often stopped down to f8 or even f11 for DOF and the weight and size would most definitely be noticed compared with my Minolta CLE 40mm lens.
Rich
Edited on Mar 16, 2015 at 11:15 AM · View previous versions
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.Hi Gary,
The lens is still relatively expensive and heavy certainly compared with my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens. And to really take advantage of the lens performance I would most definitely need to have the thin sensor stack replaced on my A7r. But, the performance of both the Minolta CLE 40mm lens and the Zeiss ZM 35mm f1.4 would improve with the sensor stack replacement. I am just not sure if the lens would be of sufficient improvement for most of my needs as a landscape lens often stopped down to f8 or even f11 for DOF and the weight and size would most definitely be noticed compared with my Minolta CLE 40mm lens.
Rich
Edited on Mar 16, 2015 at 11:15 AM · View previous versions
Mar 16, 2015 at 08:59 AM
p.18 #2Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
naturephoto1 wrote:
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.Hi Gary,
The lens is still relatively expensive and heavy certainly compared with my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens. And to really take advantage of the lens performance I would most definitely need to have the thin sensor stack replaced on my A7r. But, the performance of both the Minolta CLE 40mm lens and the Zeiss ZM 35mm f1.4 would improve with the sensor stack replacement. I am just not sure if the lens would be of sufficient improvement for most of my needs as a landscape lens often stopped down to f8 or even f11 for DOF and...Show more →
For shooting mostly f/8 to f/11 I certainly would prefer the ZM 35/2 or 2.8 or if the budget is enough the leica 35/2 ASPH.
The extra size and weight of the 35/1.4 ZM is only worth it when using f/1.4.
Gary Clennan wrote
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.The lens is still relatively expensive and heavy certainly compared with my Minolta CLE MC 40mm f2 M-Rokkor lens. And to really take advantage of the lens performance I would most definitely need to have the thin sensor stack replaced on my A7r. But, the performance of both the Minolta CLE 40mm lens and the Zeiss ZM 35mm f1.4 would improve with the sensor stack replacement. I am just not sure if the lens would be of sufficient improvement for most of my needs as a landscape lens often stopped down to f8 or even f11 for DOF and...Show more →
For shooting mostly f/8 to f/11 I certainly would prefer the ZM 35/2 or 2.8 or if the budget is enough the leica 35/2 ASPH.
The extra size and weight of the 35/1.4 ZM is only worth it when using f/1.4.
Mar 16, 2015 at 10:51 AM
p.18 #3Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Gary Clennan wrote:
(...) 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 thought purple fringe should be existant indeed after reading the review at dearsusan; here. (That's the review made by Philippe's friend, no?)
Now, pointing that out has something to do with sour grapes. Lucky me.
(...) 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 thought purple fringe should be existant indeed after reading the review at dearsusan; here. (That's the review made by Philippe's friend, no?)
Now, pointing that out has something to do with sour grapes. Lucky me.
Mar 16, 2015 at 12:00 PM
p.18 #4Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Jonas B wrote:
Gary Clennan wrote:
I thought purple fringe should be existant indeed after reading the review at dearsusan; here. (That's the review made by Philippe's friend, no?)
Now, pointing that out has something to do with sour grapes. Lucky me.
I remember seeing that mentioned as well. I suppose in the right conditions, you could induce it as with any fast lens. However, I will say that the ZM35D has it more controlled than a few other fast lenses I have owned. For my shooting, it is a non-issue.
Gary Clennan wrote:
Earlier quote
(...) 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.Now, pointing that out has something to do with sour grapes. Lucky me.
I remember seeing that mentioned as well. I suppose in the right conditions, you could induce it as with any fast lens. However, I will say that the ZM35D has it more controlled than a few other fast lenses I have owned. For my shooting, it is a non-issue.
Mar 16, 2015 at 12:38 PM
p.18 #5Zeiss 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!
Finding a copy (silver, in my case) may slow us down
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!
Finding a copy (silver, in my case) may slow us down
Mar 16, 2015 at 01:05 PM
p.18 #6Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
JaKo wrote:
Finding a copy (silver, in my case) may slow us down
I have always had a preference for the less noticeable black (often called professional) cameras and lenses than those that were silver in color.
Rich
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!I have always had a preference for the less noticeable black (often called professional) cameras and lenses than those that were silver in color.
Rich
Mar 16, 2015 at 01:11 PM
p.18 #7Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Gary Clennan wrote:
I remember seeing that mentioned as well. I suppose in the right conditions, you could induce it as with any fast lens. However, I will say that the ZM35D has it more controlled than a few other fast lenses I have owned. For my shooting, it is a non-issue.
(About fringe)
Yes, I suppose most of us stop down when shooting tree branches against the sky, for example.
Judging by the images you posted I think purple fringe would be a non-issue to me as well. The lens seem to handle most of the situations very well. I have noticed a few combinations of focus distance and distance to background highlights causing "nervous" bokeh. But that is also the only negative I've found, at least when the lens is used with a Leica.
One can't blame the lens for not delivering the same results when used on a Sony.
I remember seeing that mentioned as well. I suppose in the right conditions, you could induce it as with any fast lens. However, I will say that the ZM35D has it more controlled than a few other fast lenses I have owned. For my shooting, it is a non-issue.
(About fringe)
Yes, I suppose most of us stop down when shooting tree branches against the sky, for example.
Judging by the images you posted I think purple fringe would be a non-issue to me as well. The lens seem to handle most of the situations very well. I have noticed a few combinations of focus distance and distance to background highlights causing "nervous" bokeh. But that is also the only negative I've found, at least when the lens is used with a Leica.
One can't blame the lens for not delivering the same results when used on a Sony.
Mar 16, 2015 at 01:17 PM
p.18 #8Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
naturephoto1 wrote:
Finding a copy (silver, in my case) may slow us down I have always had a preference for the less noticeable black (often called professional) cameras and lenses than those that were silver in color.
Rich
Most of my lenses are black, so last few (Biogon and Lux) I got were in silver for a change. That, and I am only an amateur photographer
Seriously, the lens looks fabulous regardless of its finish.
JaKo wrote
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! Rich
Most of my lenses are black, so last few (Biogon and Lux) I got were in silver for a change. That, and I am only an amateur photographer
Seriously, the lens looks fabulous regardless of its finish.
Mar 16, 2015 at 01:26 PM
p.18 #9Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Jack - I know where you can get one (in black) today if you like....
Mar 16, 2015 at 01:31 PM
p.18 #10Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Gary Clennan wrote:
Jack - I know where you can get one (in black) today if you like....
Gary, from the Montreal store you mentioned?
Just PM-ed you
Jack - I know where you can get one (in black) today if you like....
Gary, from the Montreal store you mentioned?
Just PM-ed you
Mar 16, 2015 at 01:42 PM
p.18 #11Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
JaKo wrote:
Finding a copy (silver, in my case) may slow us down
Actually, PopFlash has silver versions in stock...
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!Actually, PopFlash has silver versions in stock...
Mar 16, 2015 at 03:04 PM
p.18 #12Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
 |
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
|
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
|
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
|
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
|
||
 |
||
|
ZM35 Distagon
Mar 16, 2015 at 10:14 PM
p.18 #13Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I will get mine (silver chrome) at the end of this month. Will join the club soon . Please keep sharing images, everyone.
. Please keep sharing images, everyone.Mar 17, 2015 at 11:48 PM
p.18 #14Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
It seems writing reviews is a no-win. If you don't see a weakness, you are called a fanboi, and if you do call it, it is called sour grapes. I am not an optical perfection ayatollah, else I would have kept my FE55 for example. Yes, fast lenses have some CA, including the 'Lux 50 and 'Cron 75 APO (!), or the ZE 35 f:1.4, all of which I have owned and shot. The ZM 35 has, and I can prove it easily, more CA than I thought a modern-day lens of that price range should have. The same is true with flare, BTW.
That said, I bought one and I love it, so it is defintely not sour grapes. Maybe I am just trying to be very mindful in my reviews of not overpromising and getting other guys to spend their hard-earned and then be disappointed.
That said, I bought one and I love it, so it is defintely not sour grapes. Maybe I am just trying to be very mindful in my reviews of not overpromising and getting other guys to spend their hard-earned and then be disappointed.
Mar 18, 2015 at 12:39 AM
p.18 #15Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
i gotta say with the pictures ive seen on this thread and online, this lens has amazing contrast. very unique 3d look and a very very smooth out of focus transition. although zeiss lenses are pretty bad at holding value (look at otus auctions on ebay!!!) i think im gonna have to buy one...
Mar 18, 2015 at 01:47 AM
p.18 #16Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philber wrote:
It seems writing reviews is a no-win. If you don't see a weakness (...)
Yes and no. I've done a couple of very serious lens tests and written about my experience. I got a bunch of weird comments. OTOH I got some kind comments and Thank you-mails as well. The most common reaction was silence though. My experience is that honest reviews are appreciated but not many tell you - or they don't acknowledge the work done but ask for more instead.
My respect goes to those writing honest reviews! Thank you.
It seems writing reviews is a no-win. If you don't see a weakness (...)
Yes and no. I've done a couple of very serious lens tests and written about my experience. I got a bunch of weird comments. OTOH I got some kind comments and Thank you-mails as well. The most common reaction was silence though. My experience is that honest reviews are appreciated but not many tell you - or they don't acknowledge the work done but ask for more instead.
My respect goes to those writing honest reviews! Thank you.
Mar 18, 2015 at 01:18 PM
p.18 #17Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philber wrote:
It seems writing reviews is a no-win. If you don't see a weakness, you are called a fanboi, and if you do call it, it is called sour grapes. I am not an optical perfection ayatollah, else I would have kept my FE55 for example. Yes, fast lenses have some CA, including the 'Lux 50 and 'Cron 75 APO (!), or the ZE 35 f:1.4, all of which I have owned and shot. The ZM 35 has, and I can prove it easily, more CA than I thought a modern-day lens of that price range should have. The same is...Show more →
Yep - being honest and accurate is the best policy. The CA and flare may very well be issues and I am only saying I have yet to see any with the shooting I have done. I need to go out now and find some tree branches with bright backlighting and shoot wide open. All joking aside, I think I will do a bit of controlled testing this weekend if it is sunny. I will be sure to report back what I find....
It seems writing reviews is a no-win. If you don't see a weakness, you are called a fanboi, and if you do call it, it is called sour grapes. I am not an optical perfection ayatollah, else I would have kept my FE55 for example. Yes, fast lenses have some CA, including the 'Lux 50 and 'Cron 75 APO (!), or the ZE 35 f:1.4, all of which I have owned and shot. The ZM 35 has, and I can prove it easily, more CA than I thought a modern-day lens of that price range should have. The same is...Show more →
Yep - being honest and accurate is the best policy. The CA and flare may very well be issues and I am only saying I have yet to see any with the shooting I have done. I need to go out now and find some tree branches with bright backlighting and shoot wide open.
All joking aside, I think I will do a bit of controlled testing this weekend if it is sunny. I will be sure to report back what I find....Mar 18, 2015 at 01:27 PM
p.18 #18Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I got some time yesterday. It is a 20 mins short walk. M9's sensor is decent with some push here, the DR is too much for her. I feel it may too vivid but seems serve my memory right under those magic harsh lighting hour, very intensive blue, green and Yellow I should not even take picture under this kind of lighting 
Anyway, the lens is technical great. I don't feel passionate about it just because it is too perfect I guess. Neutral here, Neutral there... no much flaw. It is also build a step above any other Zeiss zm I used. If I have to pick, I't say even slightly better than ZF.2.
I agree with Philip about CA. And Gary, you have put lots of great examples here : )
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8614/16668114300_5e100ca4be_b.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7604/16669358389_d35b013906_b.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7597/16669351049_ba526b8ed7_b.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7281/16669348539_7fd42c7f1e_b.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7636/16667900398_cb3a3f12f1_b.jpg
I should not even take picture under this kind of lighting Anyway, the lens is technical great. I don't feel passionate about it just because it is too perfect I guess. Neutral here, Neutral there... no much flaw. It is also build a step above any other Zeiss zm I used. If I have to pick, I't say even slightly better than ZF.2.
I agree with Philip about CA. And Gary, you have put lots of great examples here : )
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8614/16668114300_5e100ca4be_b.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7604/16669358389_d35b013906_b.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7597/16669351049_ba526b8ed7_b.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7281/16669348539_7fd42c7f1e_b.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7636/16667900398_cb3a3f12f1_b.jpg
Mar 18, 2015 at 05:40 PM
p.18 #19Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
So the $2,000 question: how do you guys feel this lens compares to the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH FLE? In terms of performance/rendering.
I'm leaning towards selling the 28 Cron and CV 35/1.2 and replacing them with one of the above 35s. 28mm is too close to 21mm, though I may also re-buy an Elmarit 28 ASPH if I follow the above plan. (which I could afford to do with the $ saved getting the Distagon vs. the FLE. . .)
I'm leaning towards selling the 28 Cron and CV 35/1.2 and replacing them with one of the above 35s. 28mm is too close to 21mm, though I may also re-buy an Elmarit 28 ASPH if I follow the above plan. (which I could afford to do with the $ saved getting the Distagon vs. the FLE. . .)
Mar 18, 2015 at 06:14 PM
p.18 #20Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Taylor Sherman wrote:
So the $2,000 question: how do you guys feel this lens compares to the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH FLE? In terms of performance/rendering.
I'm leaning towards selling the 28 Cron and CV 35/1.2 and replacing them with one of the above 35s. 28mm is too close to 21mm, though I may also re-buy an Elmarit 28 ASPH if I follow the above plan. (which I could afford to do with the $ saved getting the Distagon vs. the FLE. . .)
If price is not concern, for Leica M, I might get summilux just for the size. I believe distagon optically might be better than summilux. Rendering? I haven't seen enough for both. Pre-fle might be better than both
Having said that, price is a concern for me, so I get this one
Mar 18, 2015 at 06:49 PM