Fredmiranda.com Mobile Site Buy & Sell Watchlist

This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.

Archive 2015Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

Offline

Activity

p.1 #1Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

I thought I would share my findings on the differences between the two lenses for those that are interested. I have had both lenses for a few days and have tried to use both lenses at the same time to figure out which way I want to go. I primarily shoot my kids and the random stuff around town. A corner to corner lens for landscape I'm not looking for, actually very happy with the FE 35 f/2.8 and 16-35 f/4 for that. Autofocus I really don't care about, prefer manual focus actually and value small size lenses. When the two were announced, without a doubt I was going ZM 35 f/1.4 for my needs, but decided to give the big FE 35 1.4 a chance.

From another post I wrote:

I have both in my possession, along with FE 35 2.8 and FE 16-35

ZM 35 1.4, sharpest of them all dead center. Starting wide open the center sharpness is.....unreal. I don't know if I've ever used a lens so sharp at the widest aperture. Mid zone has a dip to it where I woul be inclined to not use it for landscape over the FE 35 2.8. Vignette is heavy. Build quality is as good as I've felt in a Zeiss lens, very nice. Lens size is great, about the same size as my old Voigt Nokton 35 f/1.2. Size wise right between the FE 35 2.8 and 1.4. The ZM 35 is by far the coolest in color. When I opened the box initially, this was the lens I was keeping without a doubt.

Now, to what I've read is the biggest talking point on here, bokeh. Close up with nothing behind the subject for 20 feet or so it's excellent. When you have something right behind especially foliage, the bokeh gets very nervous. When shooting at distance anything in the background is very distracting to my eyes. Even a shot of my kids about 20 feet away with flowers right behind had a very nervous look to the bokeh.

FE 35 1.4. Personally I think its big, a hair longer than the 16-35. I hear some say its not as big as expected....its still big. Very heavy, well built. It feels like its closer to 32mm or so than 35. Definitely wider than my ZM 35, FE 35 2.8 and 16-35 at 35. The FE 35 1.4 is not as sharp as the ZM and never catches up to the FE 35 2.8. That being said, it still is extremely sharp at f1.4 and up. That being said, this lens has the most beautiful rendering of all lenses I've used on the A7 series. Bokeh is very nice at all distances, everything is perfectly blurred to my taste. The difference in this and the ZM is easily seen. This lens has the warmest color of all 4. At f/2, this lens has a far more pleasant rendering than the ZM 35 1.4. Autofocus is fast and accurate, not a single out of focus shot at f/1.4.

SAMPLES/COMPARISONS

first few comparison shots are 100% unedited raw files with some 100% crops

FE 35

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-k32HZ9Z/0/X2/DSC00790-X2.jpg

100% crop

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-QSQRTss/0/X2/DSC00790-2-X2.jpg

ZM 35

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-zT3R8ZV/0/X2/DSC00797-X2.jpg

100% crop

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-pg8LLjg/0/X2/DSC00797-2-X2.jpg

FE 35

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-TVxx8cb/0/X2/DSC00791-X2.jpg

100% crop

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-8rQ5xN8/0/X2/DSC00791-2-X2.jpg

ZM 35 (notice color difference)

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-nZhVwXh/0/X2/DSC00799-X2.jpg

100% crop

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-tqSV453/0/X2/DSC00799-2-X2.jpg

FE 35

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-RcHhfqZ/0/XL/DSC00803-XL.jpg

ZM 35

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-2X9LGsJ/0/XL/DSC00801-XL.jpg

FE 35

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-PXj2z8h/0/X2/DSC00807-X2.jpg

ZM 35 (notice grass on left side)

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-Dp3Xchk/0/X2/DSC00809-X2.jpg

FE 35 AT f/2

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-5nnfVs7/0/X2/DSC00808-X2.jpg

ZM 35 AT f/2

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-hBz3m9z/0/X2/DSC00810-X2.jpg

ZM 35 at f/5.6

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-f5BZmzF/0/XL/DSC00836-XL.jpg

FE 35 f/2.8 at f/5.6

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-wm6KdRh/0/XL/DSC00838-XL.jpg

FE 35 f/1.4 at f/5.6

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-CCRxwmZ/0/XL/DSC00839-XL.jpg

FE 35 close up at f/1.4

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-ddKJGcv/0/XL/DSC00853-XL.jpg

ZM 35 minimum focus distance without helicoid adapter at f/1.4

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-pR6XTZr/0/XL/DSC00848-XL.jpg

FE 35 f/1.4

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-J2xn8Bx/0/XL/DSC00856-XL.jpg

ZM 35 f/1.4 (not same shot, just an idea)

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-47mJfLV/0/XL/DSC00851-XL.jpg

FE 35 f/1.4 at f/1.4

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-cJ6N65T/0/XL/DSC00703-XL.jpg

100% crop UNEDITED

http://www.soltiphotography.com/Other/Zeiss-vs-zeiss/i-tcXH4wb/0/XL/DSC00703-2-XL.jpg

Edited on Apr 15, 2015 at 07:23 AM · View previous versions

Apr 04, 2015 at 08:18 PM

rsolti13

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: On

Details

p.1 #2Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

Apr 04, 2015 at 08:28 PM

TheEmrys

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #3Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

Interesting. Both are excellent. Looks like the ZM is a bit brighter in some shots. Do you have a preference?

Apr 04, 2015 at 08:36 PM

charles.K

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #4Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

Ryan, great to see you back on FM

Excellent comparisons! The 100% crop comparison is very telling as it shows the depth to the tonality and color that the ZA 35 captures within the eyes. It is like there is a full palette of color with the deep blue in the eyes and the skin tones which is not in the ZM 35.

Edited on Apr 04, 2015 at 08:46 PM · View previous versions

Apr 04, 2015 at 08:40 PM

Tariq Gibran

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #5Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

Nice bokeh examples for these two lenses. The ZM certainly looks like it can give that swirly bokeh effect. I didn't realize it would do that. The "Minolta" ZA looks to have a much softer rendering. Not much about the rendering from that lens screams "Zeiss" to me at all (not that that's a bad thing at all

).

The mid-field dip you note for the ZM is likely due to the incompatibility with the Sony cover glass as it does not show up (to an extent that would be visible) in the MTF's.

Apr 04, 2015 at 08:42 PM

rsolti13

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: On

Details

p.1 #6Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

TheEmrys wrote:
Interesting. Both are excellent. Looks like the ZM is a bit brighter in some shots. Do you have a preference?

For my wants, I prefer the FE 35. If I wasn't shooting my kids so much, the ZM. If it was strictly a travel/walk around lens, I would without a doubt say the ZM. Before comparing the two, I never thought I would say I can see a reason for keeping both.....and the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8.

Edited on Apr 15, 2015 at 07:24 AM · View previous versions

Apr 04, 2015 at 08:46 PM

rsolti13

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: On

Details

p.1 #7Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

charles.K wrote:
Ryan, great to see you back on FM

Excellent comparisons! The 100% crop comparison is very telling as it shows the depth to the tonality and color that the ZA 35 captures within the eyes. It is like there is a full palette of color with the deep blue in the eyes and the skin tones which is not in the ZM 35.

Thanks Charles. I agree, and found that working with the FE files were MUCH easier than the ZM for skin tones

Edited on Apr 15, 2015 at 07:23 AM · View previous versions

Apr 04, 2015 at 08:53 PM

philber

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #8Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

Ryan, thanks for putting in all this work. Very interesting! Though, of course, my conclusion is not the same as yours or Charles'

Apr 04, 2015 at 09:17 PM

philip_pj

Online

Activity

Upload & Sell: On

Details

p.1 #9Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

A satisfying set that cover a lot of ground, so thank you very much. The ZA has impact, color balance and very nice skin tones. In the flat color, more open shots - always hard - the ZA shows better green tone separation, and I think would (for most users) likely be easier to work with, at least on Sony bodies. It's not the main go for either of these, but f2.8-f4 would be very informative too, as the 'transition zone'.

Apr 04, 2015 at 09:23 PM

sphinxx

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #10Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

Tariq Gibran wrote:
Nice bokeh examples for these two lenses. The ZM certainly looks like it can give that swirly bokeh effect. I didn't realize it would do that. The "Minolta" ZA looks to have a much softer rendering. Not much about the rendering from that lens screams "Zeiss" to me at all (not that that's a bad thing at all

).

The mid-field dip you note for the ZM is likely due to the incompatibility with the Sony cover glass as it does not show up (to an extent that would be visible) in the MTF's.

I thought this ZA 35/1.4 follows distagon design from Zeiss, doesn't it ?

Apr 04, 2015 at 09:51 PM

Chris_88

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #11Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

sphinxx wrote:

Tariq Gibran wrote

).

The mid-field dip you note for the ZM is likely due to the incompatibility with the Sony cover glass as it does not show up (to an extent that would be visible) in the MTF's.

I thought this ZA 35/1.4 follows distagon design from Zeiss, doesn't it ?

I think Tariq was referring to the way the lens renders. It shares some traits with the old Minolta 35 1.4G, which Sony re-bagded, but didn't upgrade. That particular lens is renowned for its softer rendition of OOF areas and classic Minolta colors. In that sense, the ZA 35 1.4 is more similar to the old Minolta lens than modern Zeiss glass.

Apr 05, 2015 at 03:11 AM

Jonas B

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #12Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

rsolti13 wrote:
I thought I would share my findings on the differences between the two lenses for those that are interested. (...)

Very interesting and informative. Most of the earlier discussion about these lenses lack direct comparisons. And, most of earlier findings and conclusions can be said to be confirmed thanks to your posts here. A big Thank you! from me.

I like the colours and the rendering from the FE better, I have problems seeing the difference in center "sharpness" wide open but assume the ZM is half a notch better there as you mentioned it, the background bokeh department is won by the FE, and by miles. The crops clearly show the ZM being prone to double line rendering not only at the edges but everywhere.

All this is a pity. I liked my CV35/1.2 with regards to size, weight and handling so I had big hopes for the ZM 35/1.4. I like the FE rendering but I'm not that interested in the size and weight. Oh well. Thanks again!

EDIT: Changed all the instances of ZA to FE...

Edited on Apr 05, 2015 at 06:14 AM · View previous versions

Apr 05, 2015 at 03:58 AM

kape06111

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #13Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

Thank you for sharing this. I much prefer the FE 35 f1.4, the redressing and bokeh are really pleasent.

Apr 05, 2015 at 05:53 AM

Tariq Gibran

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #14Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

Chris_88 wrote:

sphinxx wrote

Tariq Gibran wrote

).

The mid-field dip you note for the ZM is likely due to the incompatibility with the Sony cover glass as it does not show up (to an extent that would be visible) in the MTF's.

I thought this ZA 35/1.4 follows distagon design from Zeiss, doesn't it ?

I think Tariq was referring to the way the lens renders. It shares some traits with the old Minolta 35 1.4G, which Sony re-bagded, but didn't upgrade. That particular lens is renowned for its softer rendition of OOF areas and classic Minolta colors. In that sense, the ZA 35 1.4 is more similar to the old Minolta lens than modern Zeiss glass.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

Apr 05, 2015 at 06:33 AM

Tariq Gibran

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #15Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

sphinxx wrote:

Tariq Gibran wrote

).

The mid-field dip you note for the ZM is likely due to the incompatibility with the Sony cover glass as it does not show up (to an extent that would be visible) in the MTF's.

I thought this ZA 35/1.4 follows distagon design from Zeiss, doesn't it ?

There seems to be a lot of misinformation (or rather confusion) about exactly what the name "Distagon" actually means. It's just a brand name used by Zeiss and simply refers to an inverted telephoto wide angle lens design. This general design principle is used by all manufacturers today. The use of the word "Distagon" has simply been licensed by Sony from Zeiss but it only refers to the branding that Zeiss use for this now generic basic lens design. It's probably a testament to the power of Zeiss branding that some around here think that a "Distagon" design is somehow unique to Zeiss.

Here is exactly what Zeiss state a "Distagon" refers to:

"In 1950, Pierre Angénieux in Paris and
Harry Zoellner at Carl Zeiss Jena applied
almost at the same time for a patent for
the first lens for 35 mm reflex cameras
based on this principle of the inverted
telelens. The Jena lens was given the
brand name “Flektogon”, and Angénieux
named his lens “Retrofocus” to indicate
that the focus was shifted backward.
This term originally introduced as a brand
name ultimately became a generic name
for all these lenses, known better today
than the expression “inverted telelens”.

From the end of 1952, such wide-angle
lenses were also developed at Carl Zeiss
in Oberkochen, initially a 5,6/60mm for the
Hasselblad 1000F. These have borne the
brand name “Distagon” ever since,
derived from “distance” and the previously
mentioned Greek word for “angle”. Thus a
Distagon is a wide-angle lens with a
large distance to the image."

From this Zeiss published paper on Zeiss lens names:

http://www.fotoskoda.cz/images-old/multi/popisobr/ZEISS/Distagon.pdf

Apr 05, 2015 at 06:59 AM

TheEmrys

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #16Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

Wait, I thought a Distagon was a telephoto design reversed with a large negative lens in front of an ordinary one. Is this not the case? It is why Distagon's historically have extremely sharp centers and poorer edges/corners. I have a bookmark somewhere where I had read this.

Apr 05, 2015 at 12:06 PM

hiepphotog

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #17Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

rsolti13 wrote:

TheEmrys wrote

Interesting. Both are excellent. Looks like the ZM is a bit brighter in some shots. Do you have a preference?

For my wants, I prefer the ZA 35. If I wasn't shooting my kids so much, the ZM. If it was strictly a travel/walk around lens, I would without a doubt say the ZM. Before comparing the two, I never thought I would say I can see a reason for keeping both.....and the Sony/Zeiss 35 f/2.8.

Ryan, thank you for the test. I think you nailed it right here. This one is a much more informative test I have seen so far. It helps with your two beautiful kids

. I don't even think of getting this lens seeing that it can't fulfill the role of a landscape lens. But the beautiful portrait rendering coupled with the fast AF should warrant a place in my line-up.

Apr 05, 2015 at 02:31 PM

philber

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #18Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

I'll tell you exactly what bothers me with the FE. If you look at the 2 100% crops of the girl's face, with the FE, the girl has deep blue eyes (which Charles likes), and with the ZM much less so. So far, so good. But where I mind, is that, if you compare the shade of the girl's eyes with that of her ear pendant, with the FE it is the same, or almost, whereas with the ZM it is quite different. Hence my impression that the ZM differentiates colours much more, a criterion to which I am exceedingly sensitive and whic has kept me away from the FE55.
By the way, the Otus 55 which I am testing does it incredibly well, and this is one time when being single has its priviledges...:-)

Apr 05, 2015 at 02:52 PM

Tariq Gibran

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #19Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

philber wrote:
I'll tell you exactly what bothers me with the FE. If you look at the 2 100% crops of the girl's face, with the FE, the girl has deep blue eyes (which Charles likes), and with the ZM much less so. So far, so good. But where I mind, is that, if you compare the shade of the girl's eyes with that of her ear pendant, with the FE it is the same, or almost, whereas with the ZM it is quite different. Hence my impression that the ZM differentiates colours much more, a criterion to which I am exceedingly...Show more →

If you look at other shots which show the girls clothing just above the one you are referencing, it looks like the WB is very different (the ZM image looks far more yellow in that particular shot and the WB is generally all over the place in various shots). I think you would have to do controlled tests to confirm if one lens can differentiate color better than the other.

Edited on Apr 05, 2015 at 06:02 PM · View previous versions

Apr 05, 2015 at 03:18 PM

philber

Offline

Activity

Upload & Sell: Off

Details

p.1 #20Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics

Tariq, I agree that the WB is clearly not the same. But how will a different WB equalize the two tones of blue in once case, and differentiate them in another? That would be very valuable info for me before I plunk down my hard-earned for the Otus...

Apr 05, 2015 at 03:24 PM

FM Forums Sony Forum Join Upload & Sell