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.8 #1Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
sebboh wrote:
If I remember correctly, they don't have one specific way, but they choose the most suitable method according to design and price point. Also, as far as I know, it's not the molding that causes the onion rings, it's the milling/polishing of the surface. Non molded aspherical elements can also cause onion rings.Thanks, my limited searches had thrown up precision grinding/maching of glass, pressure moulding, and numerous fora discussions/speculations of glass and/or polymer materials etc.
I'm surprised it isn't disclosed though, as other manufacturers seem willing to disclose how their aspheric lenses are manufactured.zeiss uses molded aspherics, hand ground aspherics are easy to spot by price. the leica 35/1.4 with hand ground aspherics sells for over $10k and the one with molded sells for $3k. the nikon 58/1.2 with hand ground aspherics sells for $3.5k while the brand new 58/1.4 with molded aspherics sells for $1.6k.
hand ground aspherics cannot really be mass produced, which means the lenses they go in are collectors items.
If I'm not mistaken, most top quality aspherics are machine milled/ground by computer controlled platforms. They are much better quality than both molding and hand grinding, and much more economical to produce than hand grinding. In fact, hand grinding is a marketing gimmick, most elements are machine ground, and finished by hand in the last step.
Jon Tainton wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
AhamB wrote
^Probably just pressed into a mold (which is why you see the "onion ring" artifacts sometimes).I'm surprised it isn't disclosed though, as other manufacturers seem willing to disclose how their aspheric lenses are manufactured.
hand ground aspherics cannot really be mass produced, which means the lenses they go in are collectors items.
If I'm not mistaken, most top quality aspherics are machine milled/ground by computer controlled platforms. They are much better quality than both molding and hand grinding, and much more economical to produce than hand grinding. In fact, hand grinding is a marketing gimmick, most elements are machine ground, and finished by hand in the last step.
Sep 17, 2014 at 04:24 AM
p.8 #2Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
Also, as far as I know, it's not the molding that causes the onion rings, it's the milling/polishing of the surface. Non molded aspherical elements can also cause onion rings.
Maybe I should have said pressed. They're pressed into an aspherical mold which has milling traces that are then also pressed into the glass element. I suppose those can't be polished off the element unless perhaps it's done by hand or with prohibitively expensive/slow machines.
Leica has unique custom made grinding machines that can make bigger asphericals than usual: link
Edit: better info here, from Oskar Barnack from Leica Solms: http://www.opticsinfobase.org/viewmedia.cfm?URI=OFT-2002-OMB6&seq=0
Edited on Sep 17, 2014 at 05:42 AM · View previous versions
Also, as far as I know, it's not the molding that causes the onion rings, it's the milling/polishing of the surface. Non molded aspherical elements can also cause onion rings.
Maybe I should have said pressed. They're pressed into an aspherical mold which has milling traces that are then also pressed into the glass element. I suppose those can't be polished off the element unless perhaps it's done by hand or with prohibitively expensive/slow machines.
Leica has unique custom made grinding machines that can make bigger asphericals than usual: link
Edit: better info here, from Oskar Barnack from Leica Solms: http://www.opticsinfobase.org/viewmedia.cfm?URI=OFT-2002-OMB6&seq=0
Edited on Sep 17, 2014 at 05:42 AM · View previous versions
Sep 17, 2014 at 05:00 AM
p.8 #3Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philber wrote:
I am a bit puzzled here. Considering that the Ikon is no longer produced, it seems to me that there are mainly 2 camera bodies on which one can be tempted to use a ZM 35 f:1.4: the Leica M and the A7. If the lens body induced viewfinder blockage, the th Leica users won't be too happy. And if the ZM is not designed for the specifics of the A7, even though they are well known to Zeiss what could they be thinking when they released this lens?
My guess is that we will find that the ZM 35 f:1.4...Show more →
Perhaps Zeiss consider it a lens that will only get better (and find increasing buyers) with age as sensor tech and platform options increase.
I am a bit puzzled here. Considering that the Ikon is no longer produced, it seems to me that there are mainly 2 camera bodies on which one can be tempted to use a ZM 35 f:1.4: the Leica M and the A7. If the lens body induced viewfinder blockage, the th Leica users won't be too happy. And if the ZM is not designed for the specifics of the A7, even though they are well known to Zeiss what could they be thinking when they released this lens?
My guess is that we will find that the ZM 35 f:1.4...Show more →
Perhaps Zeiss consider it a lens that will only get better (and find increasing buyers) with age as sensor tech and platform options increase.
Sep 17, 2014 at 05:10 AM
p.8 #4Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Tariq Gibran wrote:
My guess is that we will find that the ZM 35 f:1.4 works very well with the A7R, and is a step up from the Loxia 35 f:2.0. As well it should price-wise.Perhaps Zeiss consider it a lens that will only get better (and find increasing buyers) with age as sensor tech and platform options increase.
To be honest, from what I've seen so far on diglloyd, this lens might very well be the best 35mm lens ever made, not only for the M mount, but also for DSLR. It might only be bettered by the Otus 35/1.4 which will come in 2016 (speculation)
Of course, its adaptability is very limited though.
philber wrote
I am a bit puzzled here. Considering that the Ikon is no longer produced, it seems to me that there are mainly 2 camera bodies on which one can be tempted to use a ZM 35 f:1.4: the Leica M and the A7. If the lens body induced viewfinder blockage, the th Leica users won't be too happy. And if the ZM is not designed for the specifics of the A7, even though they are well known to Zeiss what could they be thinking when they released this lens?My guess is that we will find that the ZM 35 f:1.4 works very well with the A7R, and is a step up from the Loxia 35 f:2.0. As well it should price-wise.
To be honest, from what I've seen so far on diglloyd, this lens might very well be the best 35mm lens ever made, not only for the M mount, but also for DSLR. It might only be bettered by the Otus 35/1.4 which will come in 2016 (speculation)
Of course, its adaptability is very limited though.
Sep 17, 2014 at 05:16 AM
p.8 #5Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
edwardkaraa wrote:
My guess is that we will find that the ZM 35 f:1.4 works very well with the A7R, and is a step up from the Loxia 35 f:2.0. As well it should price-wise.Perhaps Zeiss consider it a lens that will only get better (and find increasing buyers) with age as sensor tech and platform options increase.To be honest, from what I've seen so far on diglloyd, this lens might very well be the best 35mm lens ever made, not only for the M mount, but also for DSLR. It might only be bettered by the Otus 35/1.4 which will come in 2016 (speculation)
Of course, its adaptability is very limited though.
Yeah, that's basically my point. If/ when Ricoh/ Fuji or CaNikon jump on the short flange, FF bandwagon and as sensors become better tweaked for these platforms, lenses such as this will see increasing demand I suspect. Adaptability will improve/ increase with time.
Tariq Gibran wrote
philber wrote
I am a bit puzzled here. Considering that the Ikon is no longer produced, it seems to me that there are mainly 2 camera bodies on which one can be tempted to use a ZM 35 f:1.4: the Leica M and the A7. If the lens body induced viewfinder blockage, the th Leica users won't be too happy. And if the ZM is not designed for the specifics of the A7, even though they are well known to Zeiss what could they be thinking when they released this lens?My guess is that we will find that the ZM 35 f:1.4 works very well with the A7R, and is a step up from the Loxia 35 f:2.0. As well it should price-wise.
Of course, its adaptability is very limited though.
Yeah, that's basically my point. If/ when Ricoh/ Fuji or CaNikon jump on the short flange, FF bandwagon and as sensors become better tweaked for these platforms, lenses such as this will see increasing demand I suspect. Adaptability will improve/ increase with time.
Sep 17, 2014 at 05:45 AM
p.8 #6Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Wow, that's a lens I would like ... but will there be a version with goggles for my M3?
.... No, unfortunately this is not my price bracket. But here's hoping that between this, the FE 53 1.4, the 35 mm Loxia, and not least the Sigma 35 1.4 Art some people will "upgrade" and put their C/Y and Rollei mount 35 /1.4 on the used market and make those a bit more affordable.
.... No, unfortunately this is not my price bracket. But here's hoping that between this, the FE 53 1.4, the 35 mm Loxia, and not least the Sigma 35 1.4 Art some people will "upgrade" and put their C/Y and Rollei mount 35 /1.4 on the used market and make those a bit more affordable.
Sep 17, 2014 at 10:47 AM
p.8 #7Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
philber wrote:
I am a bit puzzled here. Considering that the Ikon is no longer produced, it seems to me that there are mainly 2 camera bodies on which one can be tempted to use a ZM 35 f:1.4: the Leica M and the A7. If the lens body induced viewfinder blockage, the th Leica users won't be too happy. And if the ZM is not designed for the specifics of the A7, even though they are well known to Zeiss what could they be thinking when they released this lens?
My guess is that we will find that the ZM 35 f:1.4...Show more →
It's clearly aimed at Leica users and directly at the 35 Lux ASPH as a technical improvement on it. It will appeal to many on technical grounds, for whom its size is an acceptable tradeoff for sheer performance. Considering the EVF option on the M and viewfinder blockage may be less of a concern for some. TBH, many of Leica's own lenses have VF blockage, including some I use, and in use, I don't find it to be a major impediment to getting the images I'm after.
I'm very interested in the ZM as the work I've been doing lately may benefit more from 35mm vs. 28. I've been using the CV35/1.2, which is a very good lens, but some minor factors with it have slightly irked me, such as its field curvature that results in a fairly small central sweet spot before focus starts to move away from the camera. It's not so conducive to fuller length people photos or where more than one person is in the image and both are on about the same plane. I've toyed with the thought of getting an FLE, but have been a bit turned off by its MTF and my experience with the wavy focus of the 21 and 50 Luxes. The ZM should be a more predictable lens in-use for a variety of applications
Next up a ZM50/1.4?
While I have yet to use the FLE, I must admit to being quite attracted to the 21 & 50 Lux rendering wide open. They're not clinically sharp, as they are when stopped down a couple stops. I wonder how the ZM will compare in this respect?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Perhaps Zeiss consider it a lens that will only get better (and find increasing buyers) with age as sensor tech and platform options increase.
edwardkaraa wrote:
To be honest, from what I've seen so far on diglloyd, this lens might very well be the best 35mm lens ever made, not only for the M mount, but also for DSLR. It might only be bettered by the Otus 35/1.4 which will come in 2016 (speculation)
Of course, its adaptability is very limited though.
Edward, what is your opinion is of it vs. the Sonnar of the RX1?
Has anyone found new sample images from it anywhere online?
I am a bit puzzled here. Considering that the Ikon is no longer produced, it seems to me that there are mainly 2 camera bodies on which one can be tempted to use a ZM 35 f:1.4: the Leica M and the A7. If the lens body induced viewfinder blockage, the th Leica users won't be too happy. And if the ZM is not designed for the specifics of the A7, even though they are well known to Zeiss what could they be thinking when they released this lens?
My guess is that we will find that the ZM 35 f:1.4...Show more →
It's clearly aimed at Leica users and directly at the 35 Lux ASPH as a technical improvement on it. It will appeal to many on technical grounds, for whom its size is an acceptable tradeoff for sheer performance. Considering the EVF option on the M and viewfinder blockage may be less of a concern for some. TBH, many of Leica's own lenses have VF blockage, including some I use, and in use, I don't find it to be a major impediment to getting the images I'm after.
I'm very interested in the ZM as the work I've been doing lately may benefit more from 35mm vs. 28. I've been using the CV35/1.2, which is a very good lens, but some minor factors with it have slightly irked me, such as its field curvature that results in a fairly small central sweet spot before focus starts to move away from the camera. It's not so conducive to fuller length people photos or where more than one person is in the image and both are on about the same plane. I've toyed with the thought of getting an FLE, but have been a bit turned off by its MTF and my experience with the wavy focus of the 21 and 50 Luxes. The ZM should be a more predictable lens in-use for a variety of applications
Next up a ZM50/1.4?
While I have yet to use the FLE, I must admit to being quite attracted to the 21 & 50 Lux rendering wide open. They're not clinically sharp, as they are when stopped down a couple stops. I wonder how the ZM will compare in this respect?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Perhaps Zeiss consider it a lens that will only get better (and find increasing buyers) with age as sensor tech and platform options increase.
edwardkaraa wrote:
To be honest, from what I've seen so far on diglloyd, this lens might very well be the best 35mm lens ever made, not only for the M mount, but also for DSLR. It might only be bettered by the Otus 35/1.4 which will come in 2016 (speculation)
Of course, its adaptability is very limited though.
Edward, what is your opinion is of it vs. the Sonnar of the RX1?
Has anyone found new sample images from it anywhere online?
Sep 17, 2014 at 03:15 PM
p.8 #8Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Yeah, I've been lost and confused in all the various lens threads, none of which caused me to salivate in the least, but a $2300 FLE beater is another matter. 
381 Grams def on the heavy side for day to day--that's more than the 90 summarit, but the FLE, to my surprise, is not a light lens at 320 grams.
The CV 35/1.2 is just over 500 grams with hood and caps.
Anyway it looks fantastic, and I'd bet there will be a serious M option within a few years--body wise.
Could this be a segue to the digital ikon?
It should be.
I'd better annoy zeiss to that effect on facebook
the zm 35s:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/leica-m-lenses/457806d1410959548-zeiss-has-new-35mm-1-4-bxuysiwicaam3vh.jpg-large.jpeg
Photo courtesy Zeiss on Facebook
OK, it's pretty big Won't be carting that one into the backcountry 
For the MTF aficionados, how do the charts compare with the biogon say f/4 to f/8?
381 Grams def on the heavy side for day to day--that's more than the 90 summarit, but the FLE, to my surprise, is not a light lens at 320 grams.
The CV 35/1.2 is just over 500 grams with hood and caps.
Anyway it looks fantastic, and I'd bet there will be a serious M option within a few years--body wise.
Could this be a segue to the digital ikon?
It should be.
I'd better annoy zeiss to that effect on facebook
the zm 35s:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/attachments/leica-m-lenses/457806d1410959548-zeiss-has-new-35mm-1-4-bxuysiwicaam3vh.jpg-large.jpeg
Photo courtesy Zeiss on Facebook
OK, it's pretty big
Won't be carting that one into the backcountry For the MTF aficionados, how do the charts compare with the biogon say f/4 to f/8?
Sep 17, 2014 at 08:33 PM
p.8 #9Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Charlie, I think they'll be pretty close at f/4 and higher. According to the MTFs, the Distagon is better at the very center resolving around 80lp/mm vs. ~70 for the Biogon. In the mid zone area, the two trade places, with the Distagon dipping a bit while the Biogon peaks and then heads back down a touch. For infinity landscape, I don't think there is much compelling reason to give up the Biogon, at least on paper. The Distagon might replace your CV as it may have a bit more pop wide open (difficult to know because Cosina never publishes MTFs). It looks to be a good all-rounder lens.
Sep 17, 2014 at 10:02 PM
p.8 #10Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
uhoh7 wrote:
OK, it's pretty big Won't be carting that one into the backcountry
For the MTF aficionados, how do the charts compare with the biogon say f/4 to f/8?
Superimposing the f/4 MTF of the 35mm/2 Biogon, on the 35mm/1.4 graph, the new lens seems to have better corner quality, centers are very close. F5.6 or f/8 MTF info is not available anywhere I can find for the older 35mm/2.
Comparing MTFs with the 35mm/2.8 C-Biogon, the 35mm/1.4 is much better at f/2.8 from center to corner, but by f/5.6 the differences diminish, though the 35mm/1.4 is a bit ahead on the edges and in the corners, not too far ahead, but it would be noticeable in large prints.
I love the C-Biogon, but I’ll add the new lens to my kit, and might even take the f/1.4 on day hikes. With my M9-P the 35mm/1.4 should still be lighter than my D800E and any ZF.2 or Nikkor lens I have, and much less bulky than my Pentax 645nII film camera.
OK, it's pretty big
Won't be carting that one into the backcountry For the MTF aficionados, how do the charts compare with the biogon say f/4 to f/8?
Superimposing the f/4 MTF of the 35mm/2 Biogon, on the 35mm/1.4 graph, the new lens seems to have better corner quality, centers are very close. F5.6 or f/8 MTF info is not available anywhere I can find for the older 35mm/2.
Comparing MTFs with the 35mm/2.8 C-Biogon, the 35mm/1.4 is much better at f/2.8 from center to corner, but by f/5.6 the differences diminish, though the 35mm/1.4 is a bit ahead on the edges and in the corners, not too far ahead, but it would be noticeable in large prints.
I love the C-Biogon, but I’ll add the new lens to my kit, and might even take the f/1.4 on day hikes. With my M9-P the 35mm/1.4 should still be lighter than my D800E and any ZF.2 or Nikkor lens I have, and much less bulky than my Pentax 645nII film camera.
Sep 17, 2014 at 10:09 PM
p.8 #11Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Ron, I think the sonnar RX1 is very similar to the 35/2 biogon in resolution terms just that the bokeh is much nicer. So whatever applies to the biogon, applies somewhat to the sonar.
The biogon is really an excellent lens like you said above, and the MTF at f/4 are quite comparable with the the 1.4 having more center resolution but a slight dip in zone B. However, the importance of the 1.4 is that it is almost perfectly corrected for SA. It doesn't show any veiling haze wide open, and the coma is insignificant. This is a lens at the Otus level.
The biogon is really an excellent lens like you said above, and the MTF at f/4 are quite comparable with the the 1.4 having more center resolution but a slight dip in zone B. However, the importance of the 1.4 is that it is almost perfectly corrected for SA. It doesn't show any veiling haze wide open, and the coma is insignificant. This is a lens at the Otus level.
Sep 17, 2014 at 10:28 PM
p.8 #12Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Looks like an amazing lens, but I think that size kills it for me.
Not just saying that because my FLE resale just took a nosedive
Not just saying that because my FLE resale just took a nosedive
Sep 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM
p.8 #13Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
TY Ron and Steve for great info 
A wonderful choice to have.
I have a feeling it won't be quite so dense as the CV 35/1.2 which is built like tank.
I can't really throw out the 1.2 because, for me, it's the easiest low light lens on the M9. and there's a big difference up to 1.4 when it's very dim.
Forgive me, but again, what exactly are the graph features which hint at smooth OOF rendering?
A wonderful choice to have.
I have a feeling it won't be quite so dense as the CV 35/1.2 which is built like tank.
I can't really throw out the 1.2 because, for me, it's the easiest low light lens on the M9. and there's a big difference up to 1.4 when it's very dim.
Forgive me, but again, what exactly are the graph features which hint at smooth OOF rendering?
Sep 18, 2014 at 09:50 AM
p.8 #14Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
uhoh7 wrote:
Forgive me, but again, what exactly are the graph features which hint at smooth OOF rendering?
there really isn't one. you might be able to tell something if you knew a bunch of other things about the design of the lens as well.
a perfectly corrected lens won't have really bad bokeh, but it won't have really good bokeh either, so there is that...
Edited on Sep 18, 2014 at 10:57 AM · View previous versions
Forgive me, but again, what exactly are the graph features which hint at smooth OOF rendering?
there really isn't one. you might be able to tell something if you knew a bunch of other things about the design of the lens as well.
a perfectly corrected lens won't have really bad bokeh, but it won't have really good bokeh either, so there is that...
Edited on Sep 18, 2014 at 10:57 AM · View previous versions
Sep 18, 2014 at 10:30 AM
p.8 #15Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
However, the importance of the 1.4 is that it is almost perfectly corrected for SA. It doesn't show any veiling haze wide open, and the coma is insignificant. This is a lens at the Otus level.
Edward, are you reading all this just from the mtf graph? If so, how?
Edward, are you reading all this just from the mtf graph? If so, how?
Sep 18, 2014 at 10:40 AM
p.8 #16Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
wolfloid wrote:
Edward, are you reading all this just from the mtf graph? If so, how?
No actually it's from scrutinizing sample images at all apertures at diglloyd. I'm glad I renewed my subscribtion this year
Next week, there will be comparisons with the M 35/2 asph and 35/1.4 FLE as well as the ZM 35/2.8 and 35/2, oh, and the VM 35/1.2 II. It's going to be very very interesting.
Edited on Sep 18, 2014 at 11:13 AM · View previous versions
Earlier quote
However, the importance of the 1.4 is that it is almost perfectly corrected for SA. It doesn't show any veiling haze wide open, and the coma is insignificant. This is a lens at the Otus level.No actually it's from scrutinizing sample images at all apertures at diglloyd. I'm glad I renewed my subscribtion this year
Next week, there will be comparisons with the M 35/2 asph and 35/1.4 FLE as well as the ZM 35/2.8 and 35/2, oh, and the VM 35/1.2 II. It's going to be very very interesting.
Edited on Sep 18, 2014 at 11:13 AM · View previous versions
Sep 18, 2014 at 11:07 AM
p.8 #17Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
rscheffler wrote:
Charlie, I think they'll be pretty close at f/4 and higher. According to the MTFs, the Distagon is better at the very center resolving around 80lp/mm vs. ~70 for the Biogon. In the mid zone area, the two trade places, with the Distagon dipping a bit while the Biogon peaks and then heads back down a touch. For infinity landscape, I don't think there is much compelling reason to give up the Biogon, at least on paper. The Distagon might replace your CV as it may have a bit more pop wide open (difficult to know because Cosina never publishes...Show more →
Looking at the MTFs, I think at f/4 the new lens is stronger across the whole frame at both 20 lp/mm and 40 lp/mm. The differences aren't huge in Zone A (the centre rough 0 to 10mm image height) about 5 to 10% MTF for 20 lp/mm and 20% MTF for 40 lp/mm. The f/1.4 outperforms the f/2 in Zone B (roughly 10-15mm image height), but there is a different pattern. The f/1.4 has a very small advantage 1-2% for 20 lp/mm and 3 to 10% for 40 lp/mm in the sagital direction, but a fairly large advantage in the tangential direction of about 25% for 20 lp/mm and 25-35% for 40 lp/mm. The f/1.4 outperforms the f/2 for Zone C (roughly 15mm-21mm) as well, but again we see a slightly different pattern. With only a very small advantage an only at the very edge for 20 lp/mm, but about 10-15% better performance for the f/1.4 in the sag direction and a fairly large 30% difference on average in the tan direction for 40 lp/mm. IMO, even without a lot of pixel peeping these difference would be noticeable.
Charlie, I think they'll be pretty close at f/4 and higher. According to the MTFs, the Distagon is better at the very center resolving around 80lp/mm vs. ~70 for the Biogon. In the mid zone area, the two trade places, with the Distagon dipping a bit while the Biogon peaks and then heads back down a touch. For infinity landscape, I don't think there is much compelling reason to give up the Biogon, at least on paper. The Distagon might replace your CV as it may have a bit more pop wide open (difficult to know because Cosina never publishes...Show more →
Looking at the MTFs, I think at f/4 the new lens is stronger across the whole frame at both 20 lp/mm and 40 lp/mm. The differences aren't huge in Zone A (the centre rough 0 to 10mm image height) about 5 to 10% MTF for 20 lp/mm and 20% MTF for 40 lp/mm. The f/1.4 outperforms the f/2 in Zone B (roughly 10-15mm image height), but there is a different pattern. The f/1.4 has a very small advantage 1-2% for 20 lp/mm and 3 to 10% for 40 lp/mm in the sagital direction, but a fairly large advantage in the tangential direction of about 25% for 20 lp/mm and 25-35% for 40 lp/mm. The f/1.4 outperforms the f/2 for Zone C (roughly 15mm-21mm) as well, but again we see a slightly different pattern. With only a very small advantage an only at the very edge for 20 lp/mm, but about 10-15% better performance for the f/1.4 in the sag direction and a fairly large 30% difference on average in the tan direction for 40 lp/mm. IMO, even without a lot of pixel peeping these difference would be noticeable.
Sep 18, 2014 at 11:12 AM
p.8 #18Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
I have to agree about its size and weight, hopefully, its performance compensate it though it is only 50g heavier than 50lux ASPH.
As for Bokeh and coma and SA, we can first order see it from sagittal and tangential line are close each other for BOkeh and coma. and 10,20,40lp/mm performance can tall about SA. This usually will work. Like Derek point out with well corrected lens, the Bokeh is usually at least neutral, could be beautiful as well but lack character (mostly associate with SA), for example, Leica 100APO R, Zeiss MP100, Otus55 and Leica 90APO etc...and most macro lens usually, they are all well corrected and have good bokeh generally.
though it is only 50g heavier than 50lux ASPH. As for Bokeh and coma and SA, we can first order see it from sagittal and tangential line are close each other for BOkeh and coma. and 10,20,40lp/mm performance can tall about SA. This usually will work. Like Derek point out with well corrected lens, the Bokeh is usually at least neutral, could be beautiful as well but lack character (mostly associate with SA), for example, Leica 100APO R, Zeiss MP100, Otus55 and Leica 90APO etc...and most macro lens usually, they are all well corrected and have good bokeh generally.
Sep 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM
p.8 #19Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
Steve Spencer wrote:
Looking at the MTFs, I think at f/4 the new lens is stronger across the whole frame at both 20 lp/mm and 40 lp/mm. The differences aren't huge in Zone A (the centre rough 0 to 10mm image height) about 5 to 10% MTF for 20 lp/mm and 20% MTF for 40 lp/mm. The f/1.4 outperforms the f/2 in Zone B (roughly 10-15mm image height), but there is a different pattern. The f/1.4 has a very small advantage 1-2% for 20 lp/mm and 3 to 10% for 40 lp/mm in the sagital direction, but a fairly large advantage in...Show more →
TY for that Steve--very clear description.
Well, at F/4....we should give this new beast a name: Zeiss "M"odzilla!!!!....looks like the zilla smokes the biogon T on a very close look.
@derek I was starting to get the impression that sag and tang divergence in some way predicted OOF rendering......funny, the bokeh I struggle the most with is my CV35/1.2 on the M9 (was killer on nex-5n and A7), but it may just be situational. In this case, maybe the increased default contrast of the M9 you mentioned in another thread is rendering the woman's face in a distracting way.
L1004554 by unoh7, CV 35/1.2 v1 @F/1.2
one more:
L1004558 by unoh7, same as above
Can we bring the other titantic dynosuperspeed M 35 into the picture? I asume there must be charts of both versions around somewhere, and one guy at RFF was thinking the CV was actually close "on paper".
In short, how do the CV 35/1.2 (specify version) graphs compare to zm35/1.4?
I guess the other one we might add is the new updated CV 35/1.7, another lens which I hope might be better than RF average on the A7.
@Edward
Please, would you sum up 35/1.4 perfomance on A7x according to digilloyd?
uhoh maybe Voigtlander does not do charts......
rscheffler wrote
Charlie, I think they'll be pretty close at f/4 and higher. According to the MTFs, the Distagon is better at the very center resolving around 80lp/mm vs. ~70 for the Biogon. In the mid zone area, the two trade places, with the Distagon dipping a bit while the Biogon peaks and then heads back down a touch. For infinity landscape, I don't think there is much compelling reason to give up the Biogon, at least on paper. The Distagon might replace your CV as it may have a bit more pop wide open (difficult to know because Cosina never publishes MTFs). It looks to be a good all-rounder lens.TY for that Steve--very clear description.
Well, at F/4....we should give this new beast a name: Zeiss "M"odzilla!!!!....looks like the zilla smokes the biogon T on a very close look.
@derek I was starting to get the impression that sag and tang divergence in some way predicted OOF rendering......funny, the bokeh I struggle the most with is my CV35/1.2 on the M9 (was killer on nex-5n and A7), but it may just be situational. In this case, maybe the increased default contrast of the M9 you mentioned in another thread is rendering the woman's face in a distracting way.
L1004554 by unoh7, CV 35/1.2 v1 @F/1.2
one more:
L1004558 by unoh7, same as above
Can we bring the other titantic dynosuperspeed M 35 into the picture? I asume there must be charts of both versions around somewhere, and one guy at RFF was thinking the CV was actually close "on paper".
In short, how do the CV 35/1.2 (specify version) graphs compare to zm35/1.4?
I guess the other one we might add is the new updated CV 35/1.7, another lens which I hope might be better than RF average on the A7.
@Edward
Please, would you sum up 35/1.4 perfomance on A7x according to digilloyd?
uhoh maybe Voigtlander does not do charts......
Sep 18, 2014 at 11:52 AM
p.8 #20Zeiss ZM 35 1.4
uhoh7 wrote:
@derek I was starting to get the impression that sag and tang divergence in some way predicted OOF rendering......
if they diverge a lot it's a sign of something you'll be able to see in the bokeh. if they stay together it doesn't really mean anything good about bokeh, just low astigmatism.
as far as the cv 35/1.2 goes, i've never shot with it so i can't contribute much. it seems like it might be better than the FLE for landscapes at least in the midzone at mid aperture. it certainly doesn't have as much large aperture microcontrast as the FLE/new zm, particularly at infinity. you should try a landscape comparison through the aperture range against your zm 35/2 (which i'm sure will out perform it). as far as bokeh goes it's a mixed bag. it has a distinctive look and isn't too contrasty the way the zm 35/2 is, but i'm not usually terribly impressed by what i see either. it probably has smoother bokeh than the c/y 35/1.4, but the contax just makes the bokeh look better despite being less smooth.
@derek I was starting to get the impression that sag and tang divergence in some way predicted OOF rendering......
if they diverge a lot it's a sign of something you'll be able to see in the bokeh. if they stay together it doesn't really mean anything good about bokeh, just low astigmatism.
as far as the cv 35/1.2 goes, i've never shot with it so i can't contribute much. it seems like it might be better than the FLE for landscapes at least in the midzone at mid aperture. it certainly doesn't have as much large aperture microcontrast as the FLE/new zm, particularly at infinity. you should try a landscape comparison through the aperture range against your zm 35/2 (which i'm sure will out perform it).
as far as bokeh goes it's a mixed bag. it has a distinctive look and isn't too contrasty the way the zm 35/2 is, but i'm not usually terribly impressed by what i see either. it probably has smoother bokeh than the c/y 35/1.4, but the contax just makes the bokeh look better despite being less smooth.Sep 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM