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
p.2 #1Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
The FE Distagon and a few early images are pointers to what will be in the 90mm macro's draw - Minolta romanticism DNA, with an update in performance at the focal plane, a smart move by Sony, in my opinion anyway.
Apr 05, 2015 at 03:36 PM
p.2 #2Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
philber wrote:
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...
The problem with comparing the color in these two shots in particular is not only the set WB but also the color of the light in the actual environment she is photographed in. With one, we have what looks like green and yellow light bouncing around (the one with the grass background) and in the other, cool blue and magenta (notice the very different backgrounds in the two shots). The color of the light appears very different. So, it's not just a matter of WB differences (that might be equalized) at play but also the effect of the color of the light that is reflecting off of what's around her.
The third and fourth images of his second post show his daughter photographed in what appears to be the same setting (and light) using both lenses. Here the WB is closer and equalizing both a little shows the colors to be much closer and differentiated more similarly. Even looking at the shots without making any changes shows the dress and earring to look fairly close.
None of this is to say that the ZM is not able to differentiate colors better (it may or may not) but given all of the other variables at play in the particular shot you mentioned, I don't think we can conclude that. A controlled test under identical light would be necessary.
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...
The problem with comparing the color in these two shots in particular is not only the set WB but also the color of the light in the actual environment she is photographed in. With one, we have what looks like green and yellow light bouncing around (the one with the grass background) and in the other, cool blue and magenta (notice the very different backgrounds in the two shots). The color of the light appears very different. So, it's not just a matter of WB differences (that might be equalized) at play but also the effect of the color of the light that is reflecting off of what's around her.
The third and fourth images of his second post show his daughter photographed in what appears to be the same setting (and light) using both lenses. Here the WB is closer and equalizing both a little shows the colors to be much closer and differentiated more similarly. Even looking at the shots without making any changes shows the dress and earring to look fairly close.
None of this is to say that the ZM is not able to differentiate colors better (it may or may not) but given all of the other variables at play in the particular shot you mentioned, I don't think we can conclude that. A controlled test under identical light would be necessary.
Apr 05, 2015 at 05:35 PM
p.2 #3Sony 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 →
Actually, if you look at Ryan's previous pictures, it seems that his daughter was wearing two different colored earrings (one cyan and one dark blue). And they look to be the clip-on type. So she could have switched them around in between the two shots.
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 →
Actually, if you look at Ryan's previous pictures, it seems that his daughter was wearing two different colored earrings (one cyan and one dark blue). And they look to be the clip-on type. So she could have switched them around in between the two shots.
Apr 05, 2015 at 06:43 PM
p.2 #4Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
hiepphotog wrote:
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...:-)Actually, if you look at Ryan's previous pictures, it seems that his daughter was wearing two different colored earrings (one cyan and one dark blue). And they look to be the clip-on type. So she could have switched them around in between the two shots.
...and yet another variable!
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 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...:-)
...and yet another variable!
Apr 05, 2015 at 07:00 PM
p.2 #5Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The problem with comparing the color in these two shots in particular is not only the set WB but also the color of the light in the actual environment she is photographed in. With one, we have what looks like green and yellow light bouncing around (the one with the grass background) and in the other, cool blue and magenta (notice the very different backgrounds in the two shots). The color of the light appears very different. So, it's not just a matter of WB differences (that might be equalized) at play but also the effect of the color...Show more →
My comments before regarding the blue eyes must be taken in the context of the WB. Though with my few days with this lens I am seeing wonderful rendering and colors from this lens. It is different from other ZE and ZM lenses I have had, in that it has a gentler nature to it for want of a better way to describe it.
The ZM 35/1.4 is great lens and it is different from the FE 35/1.4, which is great as we can choose which lens we prefer. Now having played around with so many M mount lenses, it is wonderful to have excellent E mount lenses with AF, no adapters or deciding whether there are possible smearing issues.
Also with the very recent introduction of the Loxia range, we are beginning to have some excellent choices. The Loxia 50 is truly an excellent lens IMO
philber wrote
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...My comments before regarding the blue eyes must be taken in the context of the WB. Though with my few days with this lens I am seeing wonderful rendering and colors from this lens. It is different from other ZE and ZM lenses I have had, in that it has a gentler nature to it for want of a better way to describe it.
The ZM 35/1.4 is great lens and it is different from the FE 35/1.4, which is great as we can choose which lens we prefer. Now having played around with so many M mount lenses, it is wonderful to have excellent E mount lenses with AF, no adapters or deciding whether there are possible smearing issues.
Also with the very recent introduction of the Loxia range, we are beginning to have some excellent choices. The Loxia 50 is truly an excellent lens IMO
Apr 05, 2015 at 07:00 PM
p.2 #6Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
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...Show more →
Thank you for you information, Tarig.
sphinxx wrote
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.
Thank you for you information, Tarig.
Apr 05, 2015 at 08:22 PM
p.2 #7Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The problem with comparing the color in these two shots in particular is not only the set WB but also the color of the light in the actual environment she is photographed in. With one, we have what looks like green and yellow light bouncing around (the one with the grass background) and in the other, cool blue and magenta (notice the very different backgrounds in the two shots). The color of the light appears very different. So, it's not just a matter of WB differences (that might be equalized) at play but also the effect of the color...Show more →
Exactly, the image of my daughter looking down with the ZM was a much brighter surrounding than the picture taken with the FE 35. I can't tell if there is more range to the color in one lens vs the other, but I do know that so far working with skin tones is FAR easier with the FE lens than the ZM. However, a controlled environment would really be needed to analyze. Take the last two pictures of my boy on the swing, both are 100% unedited photos, look at the color difference from just a slight difference in angle. This tells me I need more time to fully understand the lens and how to get the most out of the files.
philber wrote
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...Exactly, the image of my daughter looking down with the ZM was a much brighter surrounding than the picture taken with the FE 35. I can't tell if there is more range to the color in one lens vs the other, but I do know that so far working with skin tones is FAR easier with the FE lens than the ZM. However, a controlled environment would really be needed to analyze. Take the last two pictures of my boy on the swing, both are 100% unedited photos, look at the color difference from just a slight difference in angle. This tells me I need more time to fully understand the lens and how to get the most out of the files.
Apr 06, 2015 at 07:12 AM
p.2 #8Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
Nice comparison shots; thank you for posting these! Hard for me to decide which lens is my favorite based on the shots. Sometimes the FE seems super-warm and the skin tones of the ZM look better to me. But, I generally like a warm cast, so the FE looks very nice.
The bokeh looks a touch better (smoother/softer) with the FE - the ZM seems to hold more contrast in the oof areas.
Am I seeing just a touch of a magenta cast in the sky @ upper right.
The MFD on the FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA is very pleasing - nice to be able to get that close.
I hadn't even considered the ZM before I ordered my FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA, but it's nice to see it compares quite nicely.
Hard for me to decide which lens is my favorite based on the shots. Sometimes the FE seems super-warm and the skin tones of the ZM look better to me. But, I generally like a warm cast, so the FE looks very nice.The bokeh looks a touch better (smoother/softer) with the FE - the ZM seems to hold more contrast in the oof areas.
Am I seeing just a touch of a magenta cast in the sky @ upper right.
The MFD on the FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA is very pleasing - nice to be able to get that close.
I hadn't even considered the ZM before I ordered my FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA, but it's nice to see it compares quite nicely.
Apr 06, 2015 at 10:29 AM
p.2 #9Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
Thanks so much for the comparison. Both lenses looks excellent and it is good to see shots from both in real world usage and in a similar setting and type of shot. It is also exactly how I would use a fast 35, so for me it was very helpful. Here is my take and I have said this before it reminds me a lot of the choice between the Z* 35 f/1.4 and the C/Y 35 f/1.4. The ZM reminds me of a slightly sharper and better corrected C/Y 35 f/1.4, and the FE reminds me of an autofocus version of the Z* 35 f/1.4 with a bit better sharpness and a bit worse bokeh.
From these shots a couple of new things I noticed: first the ZM 1) I was impressed with how little colour fringing it showed even in the out of focus areas 2) the bokeh may be slightly better on a Leica M or a Sony with the modified sensor stack. It really is pretty good here but not as good as the FE, but the swirly nature I haven't seen with a thinner sensor stack; 3) it seems a bit yellow in WB. I think I would set up a lens profile that turned down yellow just a bit with this lens. For the FE: 1) I am impressed with the saturation of the colours even wide open; 2) I see more colour fringing in the out of focus areas that I expected, and more than than there seems to be with the ZM. In this way it is much like the Z* 35 f/1.4 as well; 3) it should make a wonderful portrait lens for those who want AF.
For me I will still want the ZM for both the size and the MF (I much prefer MF for these types of shots), but the new FE looks to be a very nice lens for just the sort of shots I like to take and will be a great addition to the system.
From these shots a couple of new things I noticed: first the ZM 1) I was impressed with how little colour fringing it showed even in the out of focus areas 2) the bokeh may be slightly better on a Leica M or a Sony with the modified sensor stack. It really is pretty good here but not as good as the FE, but the swirly nature I haven't seen with a thinner sensor stack; 3) it seems a bit yellow in WB. I think I would set up a lens profile that turned down yellow just a bit with this lens. For the FE: 1) I am impressed with the saturation of the colours even wide open; 2) I see more colour fringing in the out of focus areas that I expected, and more than than there seems to be with the ZM. In this way it is much like the Z* 35 f/1.4 as well; 3) it should make a wonderful portrait lens for those who want AF.
For me I will still want the ZM for both the size and the MF (I much prefer MF for these types of shots), but the new FE looks to be a very nice lens for just the sort of shots I like to take and will be a great addition to the system.
Apr 06, 2015 at 12:52 PM
p.2 #10Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
Just found this thread 
Thank you very much Ryan for the great work.
I totally agree with what has been mentioned by others, especially regarding wide open sharpness and bokeh. The ZM has more punch and 3D while the FE is more romantic to echo Philip's words
Regarding the WB, I am a bit surprised by the colors of the ZM. On my M240 the colors are spot on with the standard 5250K daylight setting. Skin tones are also excellent. Maybe the Sony requires a different setting.
Regarding the swirly bokeh, I do notice traces of it sometimes. It is very faint, but perceptible to the trained eye. Probably due to sensor cover differences.
Thank you very much Ryan for the great work.
I totally agree with what has been mentioned by others, especially regarding wide open sharpness and bokeh. The ZM has more punch and 3D while the FE is more romantic to echo Philip's words
Regarding the WB, I am a bit surprised by the colors of the ZM. On my M240 the colors are spot on with the standard 5250K daylight setting. Skin tones are also excellent. Maybe the Sony requires a different setting.
Regarding the swirly bokeh, I do notice traces of it sometimes. It is very faint, but perceptible to the trained eye. Probably due to sensor cover differences.
May 27, 2015 at 10:42 PM
p.2 #11Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
I use the Clear setting with +1 saturation. Greatly helped my skin tones and color cast.
May 27, 2015 at 11:06 PM
p.2 #12Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
edwardkaraa wrote:
Regarding the WB, I am a bit surprised by the colors of the ZM. On my M240 the colors are spot on with the standard 5250K daylight setting. Skin tones are also excellent
I fully agree with this. Colors on M240 are very good with this lens - including skin tones. As I have mentioned before, this lens is superb from wide open to stopped down. Bokeh is typical Zeiss which I happen to like - not boring (aka. blown out smooth) but with a bit of "character". It is also a great landscape lens which I have put to the test quite a few times. Thanks so much for the test Ryan! I think you need to buy another Leica though to really see the ZM35/1.4 shine....
Regarding the WB, I am a bit surprised by the colors of the ZM. On my M240 the colors are spot on with the standard 5250K daylight setting. Skin tones are also excellent
I fully agree with this. Colors on M240 are very good with this lens - including skin tones. As I have mentioned before, this lens is superb from wide open to stopped down. Bokeh is typical Zeiss which I happen to like - not boring (aka. blown out smooth) but with a bit of "character". It is also a great landscape lens which I have put to the test quite a few times. Thanks so much for the test Ryan! I think you need to buy another Leica though to really see the ZM35/1.4 shine....
May 28, 2015 at 09:10 AM
p.2 #13Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
Most interesting and thanks for all the examples. I see little to differentiate between the pair in IQ terms for colour work - both fantastic - but the Zeiss "pop" is very evident with the ZM whereas the FE's rendering is less dimensional. Here in the UK the FE is overpriced massively if you use a main dealer and not that much cheaper than the ZM so relaive pricing is not really a consideration. However, size is important to me, as is the ability to focus manually (and not by wire) so the ZM wins on balance. I think it complements the FE 35/2.8 very nicely, the latter being more of a sharp-shooter for street work. It would be interesting to compare all three for tonality and DR with black and white work, where I think the 35mm focal length shines above all others.
And we shouldn't forget the Loxia 35/2 either.
Edited on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:14 AM · View previous versions
And we shouldn't forget the Loxia 35/2 either.
Edited on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:14 AM · View previous versions
Aug 19, 2015 at 05:06 AM
p.2 #14Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
rsolti13 wrote:
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.
I feel the same way, only in my case it's FE 35 most times because of my kids, Leica 35/1.4 FLE as a travel / walkaround. Love both lenses very much.
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.
I feel the same way, only in my case it's FE 35 most times because of my kids, Leica 35/1.4 FLE as a travel / walkaround. Love both lenses very much.
Aug 19, 2015 at 08:54 AM
p.2 #15Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
Wow, this is the comparison I've been waiting for, thanks to the OP!! Beautiful kids by the way
I prefer the color/rendering/bokeh of the FE 35 but too big. Sharpness is not something I value highly, so the ZM only wins in size/weight but still too big. Neither comes close to replacing the Sonnar on my RX1. The search continues......
I prefer the color/rendering/bokeh of the FE 35 but too big. Sharpness is not something I value highly, so the ZM only wins in size/weight but still too big. Neither comes close to replacing the Sonnar on my RX1. The search continues......
Aug 19, 2015 at 10:00 AM
p.2 #16Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
I have the FE 35/1.4 which is superb but due to it's size, it usually does not come on trips. So I've been looking at the ZM as well to possibly replace it with. One thing that's holding me back is the performance for landscapes. I.e. see comparisons here. Even stopped down it does not look as good as even the FE 35/2.8. Anybody has used this lens for landscapes and such?
Aug 19, 2015 at 11:06 AM
p.2 #17Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
Thorsten wrote:
I have the FE 35/1.4 which is superb but due to it's size, it usually does not come on trips. So I've been looking at the ZM as well to possibly replace it with. One thing that's holding me back is the performance for landscapes. I.e. see comparisons here. Even stopped down it does not look as good as even the FE 35/2.8. Anybody has used this lens for landscapes and such?
Surprising how weak the edges were from the ZM at f/11. The FE 35/2.8 is much sharper for landscape according to his comparison. In my testing, I found the Loxia beat out the FE 35/2.8 for landscape.
I have the FE 35/1.4 which is superb but due to it's size, it usually does not come on trips. So I've been looking at the ZM as well to possibly replace it with. One thing that's holding me back is the performance for landscapes. I.e. see comparisons here. Even stopped down it does not look as good as even the FE 35/2.8. Anybody has used this lens for landscapes and such?
Surprising how weak the edges were from the ZM at f/11. The FE 35/2.8 is much sharper for landscape according to his comparison. In my testing, I found the Loxia beat out the FE 35/2.8 for landscape.
Aug 19, 2015 at 04:22 PM
p.2 #18Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
I think there was a mistake in nailing that WO shot of the ZM 35/1.4; the center is too soft. I have recently looked at the ZM 35/1.4 performance at WO on a modded A7R. And it's sharp to the very corner. I was so surprised that I want the lens in spite of the less than pleasant bokeh at time. Too bad, my other half said no, not until I get rid of my Cron 28 
.
.Aug 19, 2015 at 04:34 PM
p.2 #19Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
asabet wrote:
Surprising how weak the edges were from the ZM at f/11. The FE 35/2.8 is much sharper for landscape according to his comparison. In my testing, I found the Loxia beat out the FE 35/2.8 for landscape.
Thank you so much for sharing this! This was a lot of work and is very informative!
Thorsten wrote
I have the FE 35/1.4 which is superb but due to it's size, it usually does not come on trips. So I've been looking at the ZM as well to possibly replace it with. One thing that's holding me back is the performance for landscapes. I.e. see comparisons here. Even stopped down it does not look as good as even the FE 35/2.8. Anybody has used this lens for landscapes and such?Thank you so much for sharing this! This was a lot of work and is very informative!
Aug 19, 2015 at 07:25 PM
p.2 #20Sony FE 35 1.4 & Zeiss ZM 35 1.4 Pics
hiepphotog wrote:
I think there was a mistake in nailing that WO shot of the ZM 35/1.4; the center is too soft. I have recently looked at the ZM 35/1.4 performance at WO on a modded A7R. And it's sharp to the very corner. I was so surprised that I want the lens in spite of the less than pleasant bokeh at time. Too bad, my other half said no, not until I get rid of my Cron 28.
Could be, also I noticed that even at f/8, the foreground corners are out of focus with the ZM but in focus with the FE, so they were probably focused differently.
I think there was a mistake in nailing that WO shot of the ZM 35/1.4; the center is too soft. I have recently looked at the ZM 35/1.4 performance at WO on a modded A7R. And it's sharp to the very corner. I was so surprised that I want the lens in spite of the less than pleasant bokeh at time. Too bad, my other half said no, not until I get rid of my Cron 28
.Could be, also I noticed that even at f/8, the foreground corners are out of focus with the ZM but in focus with the FE, so they were probably focused differently.
Aug 19, 2015 at 07:28 PM