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.23 #1Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
rscheffler wrote:
Jack - killer set!
Tariq - thanks for the CV35/1.7 sample. I've only briefly used it and it was in an urban landscape setting where I found it lacked snap/punch. But for people photos, it looks very nice. I'm also curious about the new version. Cosina's latest truly revised or new Voigtlander lenses have been consistently really good...
You're welcome Ron. The copy of the CV35/1.7 I owned (long gone), while not Zeiss punchy, was not as flat as I expected it to be. Like I suppose many of the older CV lenses, sample variation with that lens likely plays a role. Also like a few of the older CV's I have owned - such as the 28/1.9 - CA was a bit high. I also get the impression that Cosina has made great strides over the past few years with both quality control and the overall design of their newer lenses.
Jack - killer set!
Tariq - thanks for the CV35/1.7 sample. I've only briefly used it and it was in an urban landscape setting where I found it lacked snap/punch. But for people photos, it looks very nice. I'm also curious about the new version. Cosina's latest truly revised or new Voigtlander lenses have been consistently really good...
You're welcome Ron. The copy of the CV35/1.7 I owned (long gone), while not Zeiss punchy, was not as flat as I expected it to be. Like I suppose many of the older CV lenses, sample variation with that lens likely plays a role. Also like a few of the older CV's I have owned - such as the 28/1.9 - CA was a bit high. I also get the impression that Cosina has made great strides over the past few years with both quality control and the overall design of their newer lenses.
Mar 26, 2015 at 08:45 PM
p.23 #2Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
uhoh7 wrote:
I don't expect anyone to agree nor to I want to convince anybody the camera can make some boring bokeh
That's just my take on some shots. Just like the biogon can get jaggy.
Derek rarely posts bad bokeh from any lens except as an example. The same is true of many RX1 owners. But somewhere in their trash may lie some examples of what I mean.
sorry to give offense.
any lens can create boring bokeh or bad bokeh if you try hard enough to evoke it. i've never had a lens that required so much effort to create busy bad bokeh as the rx1.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I wonder, however, given sebboh's recent modification of the FLE in the C/Y 35 f/1.4 in which moving the FLE away from the sensor very noticeably improves the bokeh, (and it seems to do so by increasing SA to me) if the ZM 35 f/1.4 might not produce better bokeh if you had a helicoid adapter and moved it a bit away from the sensor. This might really improve its performance. It would be cool if someone would give it a try and perhaps Derek (sebboh) can comment on whether he has moved the FLE closer or further from...Show more →
my modification of the c/y 35/1.4 does not seem to increase SA directly – in focus portions show no additional SA versus unmodified. it does increase field curvature and astigmatism towards the corners pulling focus inward. this increases the size of blur discs and probably increases SA a little by virtue of the fact that the lens is designed to have greater SA at closer focus distances...
the FLE on the c/y 35/1.4 (like all wide angle lenses with floating elements that i've looked at) does not have a stationary rear element with a moving front element, rather it has front and rear moving groups that move different distances for a given turn of the focus ring. central focus distance depends on the location of the rear group, so i kept the rear group stationary and adjusted the front group as desired. i don't remember whether the result was closer to the rear group or farther from them than factory settings. having said all that, i'm pretty sure if you break mfd with the hawks adapter on the new zm it will increase SA (as it does on pretty much every lens with or without FLEs), just not sure what effect offsetting the helicoid at normal distances will have. possibly could be determined from the block diagram?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think the ZM 35/1.4 looks like an amazing lens. There are other M-mount 35's that are noticeably smoother with regard to bokeh though. Of the ones I have used, the Voigtlander 35/1.7 jumps out as obviously smoother. Hopefully the forthcoming updated version carries on this characteristic.
that shot is on aps-c, from what i've seen of the cv 35/1.7 on FF (m and a7) it has particularly quirky corner bokeh, much worse than the zm 35/1.4.
it strikes me that the new zm has better bokeh than any of the 35mm rangefinder lenses i'm familiar with including the lux asph pre-FLE (maybe not summarit, haven't seen enough from it).
it reminds me very much of a better corrected c/y in drawing style. it seems to have a similar pop and focus fall off as well as similar loCA patterns and corner bokeh weirdness.
I don't expect anyone to agree nor to I want to convince anybody the camera can make some boring bokeh
That's just my take on some shots. Just like the biogon can get jaggy.Derek rarely posts bad bokeh from any lens except as an example. The same is true of many RX1 owners. But somewhere in their trash may lie some examples of what I mean.
sorry to give offense.
any lens can create boring bokeh or bad bokeh if you try hard enough to evoke it. i've never had a lens that required so much effort to create busy bad bokeh as the rx1.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I wonder, however, given sebboh's recent modification of the FLE in the C/Y 35 f/1.4 in which moving the FLE away from the sensor very noticeably improves the bokeh, (and it seems to do so by increasing SA to me) if the ZM 35 f/1.4 might not produce better bokeh if you had a helicoid adapter and moved it a bit away from the sensor. This might really improve its performance. It would be cool if someone would give it a try and perhaps Derek (sebboh) can comment on whether he has moved the FLE closer or further from...Show more →
my modification of the c/y 35/1.4 does not seem to increase SA directly – in focus portions show no additional SA versus unmodified. it does increase field curvature and astigmatism towards the corners pulling focus inward. this increases the size of blur discs and probably increases SA a little by virtue of the fact that the lens is designed to have greater SA at closer focus distances...
the FLE on the c/y 35/1.4 (like all wide angle lenses with floating elements that i've looked at) does not have a stationary rear element with a moving front element, rather it has front and rear moving groups that move different distances for a given turn of the focus ring. central focus distance depends on the location of the rear group, so i kept the rear group stationary and adjusted the front group as desired. i don't remember whether the result was closer to the rear group or farther from them than factory settings. having said all that, i'm pretty sure if you break mfd with the hawks adapter on the new zm it will increase SA (as it does on pretty much every lens with or without FLEs), just not sure what effect offsetting the helicoid at normal distances will have. possibly could be determined from the block diagram?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
SteveDK wrote
It's certainly smoother than any of the current M-mount 35mm lenses except perhaps the Leica Summarit 35mm/2.5, though I don't have that lens to compare anymore.that shot is on aps-c, from what i've seen of the cv 35/1.7 on FF (m and a7) it has particularly quirky corner bokeh, much worse than the zm 35/1.4.
it strikes me that the new zm has better bokeh than any of the 35mm rangefinder lenses i'm familiar with including the lux asph pre-FLE (maybe not summarit, haven't seen enough from it).
it reminds me very much of a better corrected c/y in drawing style. it seems to have a similar pop and focus fall off as well as similar loCA patterns and corner bokeh weirdness.
Mar 26, 2015 at 11:48 PM
p.23 #3Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
rscheffler wrote:
Jack - killer set!
+1. You da man, Jack!
More bad bokeh... 'cause I love shooting this lens wide open, and I just have bad taste...
Jack - killer set!
+1. You da man, Jack!
More bad bokeh... 'cause I love shooting this lens wide open, and I just have bad taste...
Mar 27, 2015 at 12:54 AM
p.23 #4Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh wrote:
That's just my take on some shots. Just like the biogon can get jaggy.
Derek rarely posts bad bokeh from any lens except as an example. The same is true of many RX1 owners. But somewhere in their trash may lie some examples of what I mean.
sorry to give offense.any lens can create boring bokeh or bad bokeh if you try hard enough to evoke it. i've never had a lens that required so much effort to create busy bad bokeh as the rx1.
my modification of the c/y 35/1.4 does not seem to increase SA directly – in focus portions show no additional SA versus unmodified. it does increase field curvature and astigmatism towards the corners pulling focus inward. this increases the size of blur discs and probably increases SA a little by virtue of the fact that the lens is designed to have greater SA at closer focus...Show more →I think the ZM 35/1.4 looks like an amazing lens. There are other M-mount 35's that are noticeably smoother with regard to bokeh though. Of the ones I have used, the Voigtlander 35/1.7 jumps out as obviously smoother. Hopefully the forthcoming updated version carries on this characteristic.
Thanks for clarifying what you did with the C/Y 35 f/1.4 modification. I still would like to see what offsetting a helicoid adapter at portrait distances would do to the bokeh. I could see it helping in some situations, but that is an inference (offsetting the helicoid increases SA, increasing SA often improves bokeh) that could easily be wrong or might prove to create other problems that might not make it useful. With regard to drawing style of the ZM, I do share your view that it looks like a better corrected version of the C/Y.
uhoh7 wrote
I don't expect anyone to agree nor to I want to convince anybody the camera can make some boring bokeh That's just my take on some shots. Just like the biogon can get jaggy.Derek rarely posts bad bokeh from any lens except as an example. The same is true of many RX1 owners. But somewhere in their trash may lie some examples of what I mean.
sorry to give offense.
Steve Spencer wrote
I wonder, however, given sebboh's recent modification of the FLE in the C/Y 35 f/1.4 in which moving the FLE away from the sensor very noticeably improves the bokeh, (and it seems to do so by increasing SA to me) if the ZM 35 f/1.4 might not produce better bokeh if you had a helicoid adapter and moved it a bit away from the sensor. This might really improve its performance. It would be cool if someone would give it a try and perhaps Derek (sebboh) can comment on whether he has moved the FLE closer or further from the sensor, but I thought it was further. I would be very handy if we could improve the bokeh just by changing the extension with a helicoid adapter.Tariq Gibran wrote
SteveDK wrote
It's certainly smoother than any of the current M-mount 35mm lenses except perhaps the Leica Summarit 35mm/2.5, though I don't have that lens to compare anymore.Thanks for clarifying what you did with the C/Y 35 f/1.4 modification. I still would like to see what offsetting a helicoid adapter at portrait distances would do to the bokeh. I could see it helping in some situations, but that is an inference (offsetting the helicoid increases SA, increasing SA often improves bokeh) that could easily be wrong or might prove to create other problems that might not make it useful. With regard to drawing style of the ZM, I do share your view that it looks like a better corrected version of the C/Y.
Mar 27, 2015 at 05:31 AM
p.23 #5Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh wrote:
that shot is on aps-c, from what i've seen of the cv 35/1.7 on FF (m and a7) it has particularly quirky corner bokeh, much worse than the zm 35/1.4.
it strikes me that the new zm has better bokeh than any of the 35mm rangefinder lenses i'm familiar with including the lux asph pre-FLE (maybe not summarit, haven't seen enough from it).
it reminds me very much of a better corrected c/y in drawing style. it seems to have a similar pop and focus fall off as well as similar loCA patterns and corner bokeh weirdness.
That's true, probably not an entirely fair comparison. I have not used the CV on FF but even in the cropped area, the bokeh looks noticeably smoother to me with busy backgrounds compared to what I'm seeing posted from the ZM 35/1.4 even in the central area. The corners could certainly be worse...and, of course, overall I have no doubt the ZM 35/1.4 is a better lens otherwise.
that shot is on aps-c, from what i've seen of the cv 35/1.7 on FF (m and a7) it has particularly quirky corner bokeh, much worse than the zm 35/1.4.
it strikes me that the new zm has better bokeh than any of the 35mm rangefinder lenses i'm familiar with including the lux asph pre-FLE (maybe not summarit, haven't seen enough from it).
it reminds me very much of a better corrected c/y in drawing style. it seems to have a similar pop and focus fall off as well as similar loCA patterns and corner bokeh weirdness.
That's true, probably not an entirely fair comparison. I have not used the CV on FF but even in the cropped area, the bokeh looks noticeably smoother to me with busy backgrounds compared to what I'm seeing posted from the ZM 35/1.4 even in the central area. The corners could certainly be worse...and, of course, overall I have no doubt the ZM 35/1.4 is a better lens otherwise.
Mar 27, 2015 at 07:29 AM
p.23 #6Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philber wrote:
Congratualtions on your new lens, Jochen! I look forward to seeing your images, even though, for once, we have taken separate paths. That shouldn't worry you, as I am crazy enough not to be in love with the RX-1's lens...
Thanks Philippe. The ZM might have a bit harsh bokeh, but the clarity is amazing (as can be seen in your, Jako's and Edward's examples).
Congratualtions on your new lens, Jochen! I look forward to seeing your images, even though, for once, we have taken separate paths. That shouldn't worry you, as I am crazy enough not to be in love with the RX-1's lens...
Thanks Philippe. The ZM might have a bit harsh bokeh, but the clarity is amazing (as can be seen in your, Jako's and Edward's examples).
Mar 27, 2015 at 10:33 AM
p.23 #7Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philber wrote:
More bad bokeh... 'cause I love shooting this lens wide open, and I just have bad taste...
exact the bokeh shown here make me decide sell/return the lens. That is why we need different lens path for different people
More bad bokeh... 'cause I love shooting this lens wide open, and I just have bad taste...
exact the bokeh shown here make me decide sell/return the lens. That is why we need different lens path for different people
Mar 27, 2015 at 10:48 AM
p.23 #8Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
F/8 close performance is excellent with the ZM 35mm/1.4 on M9-P, and I had to use the LR5 moire brush to control some of the fine detail color errors in the ice crystals in this shot. Perhaps I should have gone for f/11 instead for more DOF and less moire.
Ice, Christian Science Church Park, Boston, MA 2015 by Steven Keirstead, on Flickr
Ice, Christian Science Church Park, Boston, MA 2015 by Steven Keirstead, on FlickrMar 28, 2015 at 09:15 AM
p.23 #9Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Cross posting from the Leica thread. If this is somehow against the forum rules, please let me know, so that I only post links. Please note that most shots are stopped down to various apertures, only the last two in the 2nd set are wide open:
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
Edited on Mar 28, 2015 at 10:20 AM · View previous versions
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on FlickrM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on FlickrM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on FlickrM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on FlickrM240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on FlickrEdited on Mar 28, 2015 at 10:20 AM · View previous versions
Mar 28, 2015 at 10:18 AM
p.23 #10Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on FlickrMar 28, 2015 at 10:19 AM
p.23 #11Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on FlickrMar 28, 2015 at 12:12 PM
p.23 #12Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on FlickrMar 28, 2015 at 12:13 PM
p.23 #13Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Very fine work Edward (not that you need me to tell you that)!
The bokeh in some of these shots reminds me somewhat of what I used to get with my old Carl Zeiss chrome pre-T* 80 planar on the 500cm, but maybe a little more strong. I miss that look (sort of a breaking down of background objects into geometric shapes with an emphasis on edges/contrast rather than just a blur of softness).
This one of yours in particular -
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on Flickr
Here is a shot from my old 80 Planar which sort of has that look (not to mention the other similarities such as body angle/posture).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/%20ClydeBeattyCircus1.jpg
)! The bokeh in some of these shots reminds me somewhat of what I used to get with my old Carl Zeiss chrome pre-T* 80 planar on the 500cm, but maybe a little more strong. I miss that look (sort of a breaking down of background objects into geometric shapes with an emphasis on edges/contrast rather than just a blur of softness).
This one of yours in particular -
M240 ZM 35/1.4 by edward karaa, on FlickrHere is a shot from my old 80 Planar which sort of has that look (not to mention the other similarities such as body angle/posture).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/%20ClydeBeattyCircus1.jpg
Mar 28, 2015 at 01:50 PM
p.23 #14Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Thank you for the kind words Tariq. Indeed, with such a company as Zeiss, it would be difficult not to find similarities in drawing styles between lenses made years apart, especially that all these lenses have a common design philosophy behind them. However, I do find the ZM very close on rendering to the c/y version as mentioned by Derek.
Mar 28, 2015 at 09:17 PM
p.23 #15Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think the ZM 35/1.4 looks like an amazing lens. There are other M-mount 35's that are noticeably smoother with regard to bokeh though. Of the ones I have used, the Voigtlander 35/1.7 jumps out as obviously smoother. Hopefully the forthcoming updated version carries on this characteristic.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/CAPTJACK.jpg
The CV 35/1.7 certainly looks nice in that shot.
As to M 35mm bokeh machines or any 35mm, my mind jumps to the CV 35/1.2
Mike by unoh7, on Flickr
Killy, Schranz 1965 by unoh7, on Flickr
Milagros by unoh7, on Flickr
L1004398 by unoh7, on Flickr
Edward shows the ZM35/1.4 as a true technical marvel, with perhaps a busy bokeh at times, and the diamond light thingy. I take consolation in my two favorite 35s, the ZM35/2 and the utterly unique CV 35/1.2, which does many things, but is simply the most useful low light lens I own for the M9.
But I love to see the 1.4 in action
SteveDK wrote
It's certainly smoother than any of the current M-mount 35mm lenses except perhaps the Leica Summarit 35mm/2.5, though I don't have that lens to compare anymore.https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/CAPTJACK.jpg
The CV 35/1.7 certainly looks nice in that shot.
As to M 35mm bokeh machines or any 35mm, my mind jumps to the CV 35/1.2
Mike by unoh7, on Flickr
Killy, Schranz 1965 by unoh7, on Flickr
Milagros by unoh7, on Flickr
L1004398 by unoh7, on Flickr
Edward shows the ZM35/1.4 as a true technical marvel, with perhaps a busy bokeh at times, and the diamond light thingy. I take consolation in my two favorite 35s, the ZM35/2 and the utterly unique CV 35/1.2, which does many things, but is simply the most useful low light lens I own for the M9.
But I love to see the 1.4 in action
Mar 30, 2015 at 12:14 AM
p.23 #16Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
An awesome set, Edward, though that hardly qualifies as a scoop. But one Mike-Tysoned my jaw: the third one in the first set.
Two of mine, f:2.8, then wide open.
Two of mine, f:2.8, then wide open.
Mar 30, 2015 at 01:26 AM
p.23 #17Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Thank you very much Charlie, Philippe!
It's really interesting how the color rendition is different between Sony and Leica with the same lens. The old door knob shot is really wonderful by the way.
I added a few sets from Sunday shooting session to the Leica thread. All with the distagon. It's about 22 photos I think, so I didn't want to spam this thread with too many shots. If interested, you can easily find them on the last page (1166).
It's really interesting how the color rendition is different between Sony and Leica with the same lens. The old door knob shot is really wonderful by the way.
I added a few sets from Sunday shooting session to the Leica thread. All with the distagon. It's about 22 photos I think, so I didn't want to spam this thread with too many shots. If interested, you can easily find them on the last page (1166).
Mar 30, 2015 at 10:53 AM
p.23 #19Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
It's really interesting how the color rendition is different between Sony and Leica with the same lens.
This is something I am also noticing with the sample images being posted... Much different color output. Nice images Edward & Phillipe.
It's really interesting how the color rendition is different between Sony and Leica with the same lens.
This is something I am also noticing with the sample images being posted... Much different color output. Nice images Edward & Phillipe.
Mar 30, 2015 at 11:32 AM