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.6 #1Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Tariq Gibran 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?
sorry, I wasn't clear:
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
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.
sorry, I wasn't clear:
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
Sep 16, 2014 at 03:05 PM
p.6 #2Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
........
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.
...........
Edward, that might be the single most compelling reason ever for me to join FB!
Edit: fixed quote.
........
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.
...........
Edward, that might be the single most compelling reason ever for me to join FB!
Edit: fixed quote.
Sep 16, 2014 at 03:50 PM
p.6 #3Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
ecarlino 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?sorry, I wasn't clear:
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
Drat! This all suggests that the lens won't be as good as I had hoped for the Sony cameras. Please, please Zeiss make a Loxia version for those of us who can't afford even a Leica M9.
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.
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
Drat! This all suggests that the lens won't be as good as I had hoped for the Sony cameras. Please, please Zeiss make a Loxia version for those of us who can't afford even a Leica M9.
Sep 16, 2014 at 03:54 PM
p.6 #4Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
ecarlino 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?sorry, I wasn't clear:
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
I appreciate that, though it's not good news.
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.
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
I appreciate that, though it's not good news.
Sep 16, 2014 at 04:17 PM
p.6 #5Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I wonder how much viewfinder blockage will it have on the Ms.
The Zeiss 35/2 is already obstructing part of the lower right finder, and the 1.4 is even longer so to speak.
The MTF chart looks great though, even better than the 35/2.
I might get one if the real world performance is better than the 35 Lux
The Zeiss 35/2 is already obstructing part of the lower right finder, and the 1.4 is even longer so to speak.
The MTF chart looks great though, even better than the 35/2.
I might get one if the real world performance is better than the 35 Lux
Sep 16, 2014 at 04:24 PM
p.6 #6Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Tariq Gibran 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?sorry, I wasn't clear:
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"I appreciate that, though it's not good news.
is there anywhere other than beyond lloyd's paywall to view these charts and assess how much damage the cover glass causes?
ecarlino wrote
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.
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
is there anywhere other than beyond lloyd's paywall to view these charts and assess how much damage the cover glass causes?
Sep 16, 2014 at 04:58 PM
p.6 #7Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh 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?sorry, I wasn't clear:
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"I appreciate that, though it's not good news.is there anywhere other than beyond lloyd's paywall to view these charts and assess how much damage the cover glass causes?
Not that I'm aware of. Since they are from Zeiss, perhaps they will show up somewhere freely accessible. Maybe Edward can get Zeiss to post them on FB!
Tariq Gibran wrote
ecarlino wrote
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.
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
Not that I'm aware of. Since they are from Zeiss, perhaps they will show up somewhere freely accessible. Maybe Edward can get Zeiss to post them on FB!
Sep 16, 2014 at 05:11 PM
p.6 #8Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh 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?sorry, I wasn't clear:
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"I appreciate that, though it's not good news.is there anywhere other than beyond lloyd's paywall to view these charts and assess how much damage the cover glass causes?
For some reasons, Lloyd is the only one with the exclusive full set of MTF charts (WO to f/16) and the FC and blur off-set charts for this lens. He has the same deal (full set of MTF charts) with the Otus 55 and 135 APO, but not with the Otus 85 (strange).
What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a Sony is still no where close to the native M.
Tariq Gibran wrote
ecarlino wrote
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.
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
For some reasons, Lloyd is the only one with the exclusive full set of MTF charts (WO to f/16) and the FC and blur off-set charts for this lens. He has the same deal (full set of MTF charts) with the Otus 55 and 135 APO, but not with the Otus 85 (strange).
What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a Sony is still no where close to the native M.
Sep 16, 2014 at 05:26 PM
p.6 #9Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Steve Spencer 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?sorry, I wasn't clear:
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"Drat! This all suggests that the lens won't be as good as I had hoped for the Sony cameras. Please, please Zeiss make a Loxia version for those of us who can't afford even a Leica M9.
Steve.
Unfortunately, with the release of the soon to be available FF Zeiss 35mm f2 Loxia, I doubt very much that Zeiss will release a 35mm f1.4 Loxia for the E-mount anytime soon. They have many many other FF Loxia lenses in the E-mount on their list to bring to market well before that.
Rich
ecarlino wrote
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.
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
Steve.
Unfortunately, with the release of the soon to be available FF Zeiss 35mm f2 Loxia, I doubt very much that Zeiss will release a 35mm f1.4 Loxia for the E-mount anytime soon. They have many many other FF Loxia lenses in the E-mount on their list to bring to market well before that.
Rich
Sep 16, 2014 at 05:35 PM
p.6 #10Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
hiepphotog 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?sorry, I wasn't clear:
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"I appreciate that, though it's not good news.is there anywhere other than beyond lloyd's paywall to view these charts and assess how much damage the cover glass causes?For some reasons, Lloyd is the only one with the exclusive full set of MTF charts (WO to f/16) and the FC and blur off-set charts for this lens. He has the same deal (full set of MTF charts) with the Otus 55 and 135 APO, but not with the Otus 85 (strange).
What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a...Show more →
i know it's not going to be as good, i want to know if it'll be usable. is it worse on than the normal c/y 35/1.4 curves look?
sebboh wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
ecarlino wrote
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.
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a...Show more →
i know it's not going to be as good, i want to know if it'll be usable. is it worse on than the normal c/y 35/1.4 curves look?
Sep 16, 2014 at 05:45 PM
p.6 #11Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Is there a situation where you get the same or better performance out of an adapted lens versus the same lens on its native mount? I don't believe so.
Adaptation is convenience. You have to be willing to sacrifice some performance, because you're going to. Whether or not you notice it is another story.
Adaptation is convenience. You have to be willing to sacrifice some performance, because you're going to. Whether or not you notice it is another story.
Sep 16, 2014 at 06:16 PM
p.6 #12Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
freaklikeme wrote:
Is there a situation where you get the same or better performance out of an adapted lens versus the same lens on its native mount? I don't believe so.
Adaptation is convenience. You have to be willing to sacrifice some performance, because you're going to. Whether or not you notice it is another story.
sure there is there are a few lenses that will perform better the a7r than on any canon camera.
there are even a few leica lenses that perform better on the a7r with a good adapter versus the m240, especially since there are helicoid adapters.
in any event, this lens will certainly have higher performance than my c/y 35/1.4 on the a7 for what i shoot with c/y 35/1.4 (not landscape). the question remains as to whether i will like it's look better, since raw performance is not my primary method of judging a lens.
Is there a situation where you get the same or better performance out of an adapted lens versus the same lens on its native mount? I don't believe so.
Adaptation is convenience. You have to be willing to sacrifice some performance, because you're going to. Whether or not you notice it is another story.
sure there is there are a few lenses that will perform better the a7r than on any canon camera.
there are even a few leica lenses that perform better on the a7r with a good adapter versus the m240, especially since there are helicoid adapters.
in any event, this lens will certainly have higher performance than my c/y 35/1.4 on the a7 for what i shoot with c/y 35/1.4 (not landscape). the question remains as to whether i will like it's look better, since raw performance is not my primary method of judging a lens.
Sep 16, 2014 at 06:23 PM
p.6 #13Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
freaklikeme wrote:
Is there a situation where you get the same or better performance out of an adapted lens versus the same lens on its native mount? I don't believe so.
Adaptation is convenience. You have to be willing to sacrifice some performance, because you're going to. Whether or not you notice it is another story.
Unfortunately in the case of Leica R lenses, Leica only offered the 10 mega pixel DMR for the R8 and R9. No other option has been available since then and the system is now out of production. For usage on a digital camera, R lenses need to adapted even on the Leica M240. However, with the new technology these lenses can prove higher performance for sharpness on the higher resolving new sensors of the newer available cameras such as the Sony A7/A7r, Nikon 800/800e/810, and the Leica M240.
Rich
Is there a situation where you get the same or better performance out of an adapted lens versus the same lens on its native mount? I don't believe so.
Adaptation is convenience. You have to be willing to sacrifice some performance, because you're going to. Whether or not you notice it is another story.
Unfortunately in the case of Leica R lenses, Leica only offered the 10 mega pixel DMR for the R8 and R9. No other option has been available since then and the system is now out of production. For usage on a digital camera, R lenses need to adapted even on the Leica M240. However, with the new technology these lenses can prove higher performance for sharpness on the higher resolving new sensors of the newer available cameras such as the Sony A7/A7r, Nikon 800/800e/810, and the Leica M240.
Rich
Sep 16, 2014 at 06:31 PM
p.6 #14Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
naturephoto1 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?sorry, I wasn't clear:
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"Drat! This all suggests that the lens won't be as good as I had hoped for the Sony cameras. Please, please Zeiss make a Loxia version for those of us who can't afford even a Leica M9.Steve.
Unfortunately, with the release of the soon to be available FF Zeiss 35mm f2 Loxia, I doubt very much that Zeiss will release a 35mm f1.4 Loxia for the E-mount anytime soon. They have many many other FF Loxia lenses in the E-mount on their list to bring to market well before that.
Rich
I can actually be pretty patient. It is not as if I can afford the Loxia version right away anyways. In the meantime I will keep my ZE 35 f/1.4, when I am not bothered by a big lens and I will pick up either a Leica 35 lux pre-Asph if I want a really small alternative or a Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 if I can live with a fairly small option. Then if they make the Loxia in four or five year I will upgrade to it. Even given the disappointing news about the ZM on the Sony cameras I still might upgrade to the ZM if it is great for portraits and I suspect it might be. At 35mm I do shoot mostly portraits, but it would be a bummer that such a nice lens couldn't do longer shots well even if I didn't use it for that very often. I might supplement it with a Leica R 35 f/2.8, which is a very nice and under appreciated lens and would handle distance shooting very nicely.
Steve Spencer wrote
ecarlino wrote
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.
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
Unfortunately, with the release of the soon to be available FF Zeiss 35mm f2 Loxia, I doubt very much that Zeiss will release a 35mm f1.4 Loxia for the E-mount anytime soon. They have many many other FF Loxia lenses in the E-mount on their list to bring to market well before that.
Rich
I can actually be pretty patient. It is not as if I can afford the Loxia version right away anyways. In the meantime I will keep my ZE 35 f/1.4, when I am not bothered by a big lens and I will pick up either a Leica 35 lux pre-Asph if I want a really small alternative or a Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 if I can live with a fairly small option. Then if they make the Loxia in four or five year I will upgrade to it. Even given the disappointing news about the ZM on the Sony cameras I still might upgrade to the ZM if it is great for portraits and I suspect it might be. At 35mm I do shoot mostly portraits, but it would be a bummer that such a nice lens couldn't do longer shots well even if I didn't use it for that very often. I might supplement it with a Leica R 35 f/2.8, which is a very nice and under appreciated lens and would handle distance shooting very nicely.
Sep 16, 2014 at 08:02 PM
p.6 #15Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh wrote:
sorry, I wasn't clear:
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"I appreciate that, though it's not good news.is there anywhere other than beyond lloyd's paywall to view these charts and assess how much damage the cover glass causes?For some reasons, Lloyd is the only one with the exclusive full set of MTF charts (WO to f/16) and the FC and blur off-set charts for this lens. He has the same deal (full set of MTF charts) with the Otus 55 and 135 APO, but not with the Otus 85 (strange).
What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a Sony is still no where close to the native M.i know it's not going to be as good, i want to know if it'll be usable. is it worse on than the normal c/y 35/1.4 curves look?
so i did get a look at those mtfs. turns out the zm measures better than c/y even with the 2.5mm cover glass included out to 18mm at f/5.6, where the tan line might fall a little faster on the zm. obviously the sag line is higher throughout.
i suspect the lens will be perfectly useable for me, but it's possible the astigmatism will give a weird look i don't like.
hiepphotog wrote
sebboh wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
ecarlino wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
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?the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a Sony is still no where close to the native M.
so i did get a look at those mtfs. turns out the zm measures better than c/y even with the 2.5mm cover glass included out to 18mm at f/5.6, where the tan line might fall a little faster on the zm. obviously the sag line is higher throughout.
i suspect the lens will be perfectly useable for me, but it's possible the astigmatism will give a weird look i don't like.
Sep 16, 2014 at 08:24 PM
p.6 #16Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh wrote:
the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"I appreciate that, though it's not good news.is there anywhere other than beyond lloyd's paywall to view these charts and assess how much damage the cover glass causes?For some reasons, Lloyd is the only one with the exclusive full set of MTF charts (WO to f/16) and the FC and blur off-set charts for this lens. He has the same deal (full set of MTF charts) with the Otus 55 and 135 APO, but not with the Otus 85 (strange).
What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a Sony is still no where close to the native M.i know it's not going to be as good, i want to know if it'll be usable. is it worse on than the normal c/y 35/1.4 curves look?so i did get a look at those mtfs. turns out the zm measures better than c/y even with the 2.5mm cover glass included out to 18mm at f/5.6, where the tan line might fall a little faster on the zm. obviously the sag line is higher throughout.
i suspect the lens will be perfectly useable for me, but it's possible the astigmatism will give a weird look i don't like.
The CY appears to show a huge drop off in the corners anyway so that makes sense.
sebboh wrote
hiepphotog wrote
sebboh wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
ecarlino wrote
sorry, I wasn't clear:the MTF charts (for both Leica M and a 'mirrorless system with 2.5mm glass') both show "courtesy of Zeiss" on his website.
the field curvature graphs state "measured results from an actual lens"
What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a Sony is still no where close to the native M.
i suspect the lens will be perfectly useable for me, but it's possible the astigmatism will give a weird look i don't like.
The CY appears to show a huge drop off in the corners anyway so that makes sense.
Sep 16, 2014 at 08:32 PM
p.6 #17Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sge998 wrote:
I wonder how much viewfinder blockage will it have on the Ms.
The Zeiss 35/2 is already obstructing part of the lower right finder, and the 1.4 is even longer so to speak.
The MTF chart looks great though, even better than the 35/2.
I might get one if the real world performance is better than the 35 Lux
Hmmmm, the 35/2 Biogon is already better than the Lux. Some might argue the bokeh is ugly, but with the Distagon, even this excuse is gone.
Sep 16, 2014 at 08:36 PM
p.6 #18Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh wrote:
so i did get a look at those mtfs. turns out the zm measures better than c/y even with the 2.5mm cover glass included out to 18mm at f/5.6, where the tan line might fall a little faster on the zm. obviously the sag line is higher throughout.
d look i don't like.
Looking at the MTF for the Loxia Biogon 35 again, it's tan line also takes a major dive after around 18mm out. hmm.
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/loxiamtf.jpg
so i did get a look at those mtfs. turns out the zm measures better than c/y even with the 2.5mm cover glass included out to 18mm at f/5.6, where the tan line might fall a little faster on the zm. obviously the sag line is higher throughout.
d look i don't like.
Looking at the MTF for the Loxia Biogon 35 again, it's tan line also takes a major dive after around 18mm out. hmm.
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/loxiamtf.jpg
Sep 16, 2014 at 08:43 PM
p.6 #19Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Tariq Gibran wrote:
is there anywhere other than beyond lloyd's paywall to view these charts and assess how much damage the cover glass causes?For some reasons, Lloyd is the only one with the exclusive full set of MTF charts (WO to f/16) and the FC and blur off-set charts for this lens. He has the same deal (full set of MTF charts) with the Otus 55 and 135 APO, but not with the Otus 85 (strange).
What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a Sony is still no where close to the native M.i know it's not going to be as good, i want to know if it'll be usable. is it worse on than the normal c/y 35/1.4 curves look?so i did get a look at those mtfs. turns out the zm measures better than c/y even with the 2.5mm cover glass included out to 18mm at f/5.6, where the tan line might fall a little faster on the zm. obviously the sag line is higher throughout.
i suspect the lens will be perfectly useable for me, but it's possible the astigmatism will give a weird look i don't like.The CY appears to show a huge drop off in the corners anyway so that makes sense.
the c/y actually has a a midzone dip (still visible at f/11) that keeps that tan line well below the zm till then. actual corners on the c/y are pretty ok on my a7.
sebboh wrote
sebboh wrote
hiepphotog wrote
sebboh wrote
Tariq Gibran wrote
I appreciate that, though it's not good news.What I can say is that you get the same result as Roger had shown before in his blog. You got a very slight pump in the center but huge drop of the tangential line. Zeiss gave him up to f/8 and even then, the performance on a Sony is still no where close to the native M.
i suspect the lens will be perfectly useable for me, but it's possible the astigmatism will give a weird look i don't like.
the c/y actually has a a midzone dip (still visible at f/11) that keeps that tan line well below the zm till then. actual corners on the c/y are pretty ok on my a7.
Sep 16, 2014 at 08:49 PM
p.6 #20Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Tariq Gibran wrote:
d look i don't like.Looking at the MTF for the Loxia Biogon 35 again, it's tan line also takes a major dive after around 18mm out. hmm.
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/loxiamtf.jpg
it starts out higher than the zm with cover glass though.
sebboh wrote
so i did get a look at those mtfs. turns out the zm measures better than c/y even with the 2.5mm cover glass included out to 18mm at f/5.6, where the tan line might fall a little faster on the zm. obviously the sag line is higher throughout.d look i don't like.
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5540407/loxiamtf.jpg
it starts out higher than the zm with cover glass though.
Sep 16, 2014 at 08:54 PM