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.5 #1Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sector99 wrote:
@ sebboh (On close focus M lenses)
there are many M lenses that focus closer than .7 meters ... thus negating your argument that .7 is the close limit due to rangefinder mechanics.
here's the Zeiss 15 f/2.8 as an exampl ehttps://interventional.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/screen-shot-2014-09-16-at-2-39-42-pm.png
you can focus an ultra wide much easier without rangefinder coupling than a 35/1.4. my understanding is that the coupling ends at .7m.
there are some rangefinder ultra wides that don't even have a rangefinder coupling, you just use the distance scale since dof is so huge at those focal lengths.
edit: also given the size of the lens you probably wouldn't see much of anything in the frame focused at say .3m through the m viewfinder.
@ sebboh (On close focus M lenses)
there are many M lenses that focus closer than .7 meters ... thus negating your argument that .7 is the close limit due to rangefinder mechanics.
here's the Zeiss 15 f/2.8 as an exampl ehttps://interventional.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/screen-shot-2014-09-16-at-2-39-42-pm.png
you can focus an ultra wide much easier without rangefinder coupling than a 35/1.4. my understanding is that the coupling ends at .7m.
there are some rangefinder ultra wides that don't even have a rangefinder coupling, you just use the distance scale since dof is so huge at those focal lengths.
edit: also given the size of the lens you probably wouldn't see much of anything in the frame focused at say .3m through the m viewfinder.
Sep 16, 2014 at 12:55 PM
p.5 #2Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Tbh 0.7 is very ease to live with. I used a 40mm lens that went down to 0.9 for many, many years and it bugged me occasionally but no big deal.
Sep 16, 2014 at 01:02 PM
p.5 #3Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
rscheffler wrote:
For Leica, the only price comparison/relevance is against their own lenses, and in this respect, the Summarit is still the 'bargain' option.
I'm curious if Leica revised the optics at all, or if it's only cosmetic? I didn't see any technical data available for the new Summarits yet.
The 35 got an ASPH element, and they're all 2.4 instead of 2.5. Beyond that, I don't know.
freaklikeme wrote
I wonder how confident Leica is on the pricing of their new Summarit 35/2.4 ASPH now, since it's roughly the same price as this little potential bad boy.I'm curious if Leica revised the optics at all, or if it's only cosmetic? I didn't see any technical data available for the new Summarits yet.
The 35 got an ASPH element, and they're all 2.4 instead of 2.5. Beyond that, I don't know.
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:15 PM
p.5 #4Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
freaklikeme wrote:
For Leica, the only price comparison/relevance is against their own lenses, and in this respect, the Summarit is still the 'bargain' option.
I'm curious if Leica revised the optics at all, or if it's only cosmetic? I didn't see any technical data available for the new Summarits yet.The 35 got an ASPH element, and they're all 2.4 instead of 2.5. Beyond that, I don't know.
In the other thread (about these lenses), it is claimed that the 35 always had the ASPH element and was 2.4 but simply was not labeled as such.
rscheffler wrote
freaklikeme wrote
I wonder how confident Leica is on the pricing of their new Summarit 35/2.4 ASPH now, since it's roughly the same price as this little potential bad boy.I'm curious if Leica revised the optics at all, or if it's only cosmetic? I didn't see any technical data available for the new Summarits yet.
In the other thread (about these lenses), it is claimed that the 35 always had the ASPH element and was 2.4 but simply was not labeled as such.
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:25 PM
p.5 #5Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
hiepphotog wrote:
Edward, it has floating elements design. Sat and Tang are very close to each other at WO (similar to the bigger ZF/ZE D35/1.4), shaping up to have among the best bokeh in 35.
what's the source for this image? i find it quite annoying that zeiss doesn't show the actual diagram in it's data sheet pdf – it only shows lens groups, not individual elements within them that this diagram shows.
edwardkaraa wrote
Looks great but no mention of floating elements. I wonder if focus shift would be an issue. |
||
| http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_9JduPP4LZA/VBgs90AvQGI/AAAAAAAAK9w/DIHqeLP0Jsw/w982-h446-no/d35.JPG | ||
|
what's the source for this image? i find it quite annoying that zeiss doesn't show the actual diagram in it's data sheet pdf – it only shows lens groups, not individual elements within them that this diagram shows.
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:26 PM
p.5 #6Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Lloyd Chambers (in his paid section) has a really cool graphic where he shows the MTF and field curvature for this lens on both an M series Leica and Sony A7() based on different sensor glass thicknesses.
It really bring to light just how much the thick glass on the Sony ruins the image for a lens designed for thinner sensor glass.
Lloyd says its the best 35mm lens for a Leica RF camera but from reviewing the graphs for the lens on the Sony, other lenses (Loxia and the new Zony 35/1.4) may be strong competitors (we'll all have to wait and see) bc to my untrained eye, the calculated charts do not look that good, certainly by comparison to the thinner sensor glass cameras.
Edited on Sep 16, 2014 at 02:29 PM · View previous versions
It really bring to light just how much the thick glass on the Sony ruins the image for a lens designed for thinner sensor glass.
Lloyd says its the best 35mm lens for a Leica RF camera but from reviewing the graphs for the lens on the Sony, other lenses (Loxia and the new Zony 35/1.4) may be strong competitors (we'll all have to wait and see) bc to my untrained eye, the calculated charts do not look that good, certainly by comparison to the thinner sensor glass cameras.
Edited on Sep 16, 2014 at 02:29 PM · View previous versions
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:28 PM
p.5 #8Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Steve Spencer wrote:
Its from the the Zeiss brochure.
ah, didn't realize that had been updated. still seems silly they didn't include it in the data sheet.
Its from the the Zeiss brochure.
ah, didn't realize that had been updated. still seems silly they didn't include it in the data sheet.
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:34 PM
p.5 #9Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
ecarlino wrote:
Lloyd Chambers (in his paid section) has a really cool graphic where he shows the MTF and field curvature for this lens on both an M series Leica and Sony A7() based on different sensor glass thicknesses.
It really bring to light just how much the thick glass on the Sony ruins the image for a lens designed for thinner sensor glass.
Lloyd says its the best 35mm lens for a Leica RF camera but from reviewing the graphs for the lens on the Sony, other lenses (Loxia and the new Zony 35/1.4) may be strong competitors (we'll all have to wait...Show more →
So these MTF's with the Sony A7* + ZM 35/1.4 are calculated and not measured using the actual sensor glass? Do you know if these were provided to Lloyd by Zeiss or are they his own calculation/ guess?
Lloyd Chambers (in his paid section) has a really cool graphic where he shows the MTF and field curvature for this lens on both an M series Leica and Sony A7() based on different sensor glass thicknesses.
It really bring to light just how much the thick glass on the Sony ruins the image for a lens designed for thinner sensor glass.
Lloyd says its the best 35mm lens for a Leica RF camera but from reviewing the graphs for the lens on the Sony, other lenses (Loxia and the new Zony 35/1.4) may be strong competitors (we'll all have to wait...Show more →
So these MTF's with the Sony A7* + ZM 35/1.4 are calculated and not measured using the actual sensor glass? Do you know if these were provided to Lloyd by Zeiss or are they his own calculation/ guess?
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:37 PM
p.5 #10Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Tariq Gibran wrote:
For Leica, the only price comparison/relevance is against their own lenses, and in this respect, the Summarit is still the 'bargain' option.
I'm curious if Leica revised the optics at all, or if it's only cosmetic? I didn't see any technical data available for the new Summarits yet.The 35 got an ASPH element, and they're all 2.4 instead of 2.5. Beyond that, I don't know.In the other thread (about these lenses), it is claimed that the 35 always had the ASPH element and was 2.4 but simply was not labeled as such.
Interesting. It wouldn't be the first time they didn't label a lens with aspherical elements ASPH, if true. The Vario-Elmar 35-70/4 had one that went unlabeled. However, I do remember the Summarit's big claim to fame being they were the best lenses Leica felt they could produce without using aspherical surfaces.
Edited on Sep 16, 2014 at 02:39 PM · View previous versions
freaklikeme wrote
rscheffler wrote
freaklikeme wrote
I wonder how confident Leica is on the pricing of their new Summarit 35/2.4 ASPH now, since it's roughly the same price as this little potential bad boy.I'm curious if Leica revised the optics at all, or if it's only cosmetic? I didn't see any technical data available for the new Summarits yet.
Interesting. It wouldn't be the first time they didn't label a lens with aspherical elements ASPH, if true. The Vario-Elmar 35-70/4 had one that went unlabeled. However, I do remember the Summarit's big claim to fame being they were the best lenses Leica felt they could produce without using aspherical surfaces.
Edited on Sep 16, 2014 at 02:39 PM · View previous versions
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:37 PM
p.5 #11Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I think it is a mistake. Zeiss insists there are no floating elements.
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:38 PM
p.5 #12Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Tariq Gibran wrote:
ecarlino wrote
Lloyd Chambers (in his paid section) has a really cool graphic where he shows the MTF and field curvature for this lens on both an M series Leica and Sony A7() based on different sensor glass thicknesses.It really bring to light just how much the thick glass on the Sony ruins the image for a lens designed for thinner sensor glass.
Lloyd says its the best 35mm lens for a Leica RF camera but from reviewing the graphs for the lens on the Sony, other lenses (Loxia and the new Zony 35/1.4) may be strong competitors (we'll all have to wait and see) bc to my untrained eye, the calculated charts do not look that good, certainly by comparison to the thinner sensor glass cameras.
They are measured by zeiss, not calculated. They just place a piece of glass of the correspondent thickness and refractive index in their optical bench.
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:41 PM
p.5 #13Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think it is a mistake. Zeiss insists there are no floating elements.
their own marketing material says otherwise, i would find it surprising to accidentally manufacture such a bullet point. i seem to remember zeiss being confused about whether the ZE 35/2 had a floating element as well (it does).
i suspect there must be some difficult german/english translation issue with "floating element". also, zeiss marketing seems less than spectacularly competent...
I think it is a mistake. Zeiss insists there are no floating elements.
their own marketing material says otherwise, i would find it surprising to accidentally manufacture such a bullet point. i seem to remember zeiss being confused about whether the ZE 35/2 had a floating element as well (it does).
i suspect there must be some difficult german/english translation issue with "floating element". also, zeiss marketing seems less than spectacularly competent...
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:42 PM
p.5 #14Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote
I think it is a mistake. Zeiss insists there are no floating elements.i suspect there must be some difficult german/english translation issue with "floating element". also, zeiss marketing seems less than spectacularly competent...
I know, that's why they had to ask the "experts" and get back to me on this matter, and they were quite clear there are no FLE because this lens doesn't need them. The reason they gave is that it has very little focus shift and the the MFD of 0.7 m doesn't require correction.
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:45 PM
p.5 #15Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
It really bring to light just how much the thick glass on the Sony ruins the image for a lens designed for thinner sensor glass.
Lloyd says its the best 35mm lens for a Leica RF camera but from reviewing the graphs for the lens on the Sony, other lenses (Loxia and the new Zony 35/1.4) may be strong competitors (we'll all have to wait and see) bc to my untrained eye, the calculated charts do not look that good, certainly by comparison to the thinner sensor glass cameras.So these MTF's with the Sony A7* + ZM 35/1.4 are calculated and not measured using the actual sensor glass? Do you know if these were provided to Lloyd by Zeiss or are they his own calculation/ guess?They are measured by zeiss, not calculated. They just place a piece of glass of the correspondent thickness and refractive index in their optical bench.
That's what I would think but the other poster used the word "calculated" MTF's. So they are from Zeiss then.
Tariq Gibran wrote
ecarlino wrote
Lloyd Chambers (in his paid section) has a really cool graphic where he shows the MTF and field curvature for this lens on both an M series Leica and Sony A7() based on different sensor glass thicknesses.It really bring to light just how much the thick glass on the Sony ruins the image for a lens designed for thinner sensor glass.
Lloyd says its the best 35mm lens for a Leica RF camera but from reviewing the graphs for the lens on the Sony, other lenses (Loxia and the new Zony 35/1.4) may be strong competitors (we'll all have to wait and see) bc to my untrained eye, the calculated charts do not look that good, certainly by comparison to the thinner sensor glass cameras.
That's what I would think but the other poster used the word "calculated" MTF's. So they are from Zeiss then.
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:47 PM
p.5 #16Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I think that there are a few filters between engineering and marketing communication lines and that would easily filter out and distort technicalities along the way. Happens all the time. I once worked as a proof reader and remember questioning a steak/cooking thermometer which range was 10 to 30 Celsius. They said that it had passed through two subsequent proof readings prior to going to print in a cooking magazine and they "were not sure it was incorrect" even though I pointed out the futility of probing a steak / oven roast with a thermometer that did not go beyond 30 Celsius. 
EDIT: spelling...
Edited on Sep 16, 2014 at 02:52 PM · View previous versions
EDIT: spelling...
Edited on Sep 16, 2014 at 02:52 PM · View previous versions
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:50 PM
p.5 #17Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
their own marketing material says otherwise, i would find it surprising to accidentally manufacture such a bullet point. i seem to remember zeiss being confused about whether the ZE 35/2 had a floating element as well (it does).
i suspect there must be some difficult german/english translation issue with "floating element". also, zeiss marketing seems less than spectacularly competent...I know, that's why they had to ask the "experts" and get back to me on this matter, and they were quite clear there are no FLE because this lens doesn't need them. The reason they gave is that it has very little focus shift and the the MFD of 0.7 m doesn't require correction.
huh, weird. are you at photokina or just communicating with reps in thailand?
sebboh wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
I think it is a mistake. Zeiss insists there are no floating elements.i suspect there must be some difficult german/english translation issue with "floating element". also, zeiss marketing seems less than spectacularly competent...
huh, weird. are you at photokina or just communicating with reps in thailand?
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:50 PM
p.5 #18Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote
sebboh wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
I think it is a mistake. Zeiss insists there are no floating elements.i suspect there must be some difficult german/english translation issue with "floating element". also, zeiss marketing seems less than spectacularly competent...
No I'm on facebook!
In fact I just checked my FB messages and indeed they apologized for the previous mistake, and this lens has indeed floating elements!!!! I should have checked earlier 
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:53 PM
p.5 #19Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
their own marketing material says otherwise, i would find it surprising to accidentally manufacture such a bullet point. i seem to remember zeiss being confused about whether the ZE 35/2 had a floating element as well (it does).
i suspect there must be some difficult german/english translation issue with "floating element". also, zeiss marketing seems less than spectacularly competent...I know, that's why they had to ask the "experts" and get back to me on this matter, and they were quite clear there are no FLE because this lens doesn't need them. The reason they gave is that it has very little focus shift and the the MFD of 0.7 m doesn't require correction.huh, weird. are you at photokina or just communicating with reps in thailand?No I'm on facebook! In fact I just checked my FB messages and indeed they apologized for the previous mistake, and this lens has indeed floating elements!!!! I should have checked earlier
ah, no wonder. no reliable information can ever be transmitted through FB, it's a natural law that computer scientists and philosophers are currently trying to understand.
sebboh wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
sebboh wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
I think it is a mistake. Zeiss insists there are no floating elements.i suspect there must be some difficult german/english translation issue with "floating element". also, zeiss marketing seems less than spectacularly competent...
In fact I just checked my FB messages and indeed they apologized for the previous mistake, and this lens has indeed floating elements!!!! I should have checked earlier ah, no wonder. no reliable information can ever be transmitted through FB, it's a natural law that computer scientists and philosophers are currently trying to understand.
Sep 16, 2014 at 02:57 PM
p.5 #20Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote
sebboh wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
sebboh wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
I think it is a mistake. Zeiss insists there are no floating elements.i suspect there must be some difficult german/english translation issue with "floating element". also, zeiss marketing seems less than spectacularly competent...
In fact I just checked my FB messages and indeed they apologized for the previous mistake, and this lens has indeed floating elements!!!! I should have checked earlier Effectively they tend to push the enter button too fast before checking the accuracy of their messages
By the way, you can check out the Carl Zeiss Lenses group on FB, it is the official group and you can actually chat with Zeiss staff.
Edited on Sep 16, 2014 at 03:05 PM · View previous versions
Sep 16, 2014 at 03:03 PM